Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Henri Wilson - 03 Jul 2005 01:26 GMT Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source".
If a remote light source emits a pulse of light towards a target observer moving relatively at v1, then, from the point of view of a third observer O3, the 'closing speed' of that pulse towards the first observer is c+v1.
For another target observer moving at v2, the closing speed is seen as c+v2. Here is the experimental setup:
S_._._._._._._.>p_._._._._._._.v1<T1_._._ v2<T2
O3
O3 sets up a line of equally separated clocks which measure the speed of a light pulse emitted by S towards T1 and T2. O3 also measures the speed of T1 and T2 towards S. The readings enable him to calculate the different 'closing speeds' between the pulse and T1 and the pulse and T2.
I understand that SRians agree on this. The principle of relativity says it matters not whether the source or target is considered as moving. Therefore, the above considerations hold just as well for differently moving sources.
Thus, for a particular target, the 'closing speed' of light from relatively moving sources is c+v3, c+v4, etc., as seen by O3.
Consider a star of constant brightness moving in some kind of orbit. From O3's POV, light emitted at different times of (its) year will have different 'closing speeds' towards any particular target (unless the orbit plane is normal). For illustration purposes, let the star emit equally spaced and identical pulses of light as it orbits. Thus, from O3's POV, some pulses will tend to catch up with others. Some will tend to move further away. The O3 will detect bunching and separation at certain points along the light path. Fast pulses will eventually overtake slow ones if no target intervenes.
Armed with this knowledge, O3 will reason that any target observer will receive pulses from the star at different rates. This can only mean that OT will, in reality, perceive the observed brightness of any (intrinsically stable) star in orbit to be varying cyclically over the star's year, by an amount that will depend on the distance to the star.
There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very regular brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by my variable star simulation program: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe Note: Einstein's unproven claim that the target observer will always MEASURE the speed of the incoming pulses as being c is completely irrelevant to this argument.
The BaT acknowleges the existence of extinction and that 'local aether frames' may exist in the vicinity of matter. These may determine local light speeds.
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.
Uncle Al - 03 Jul 2005 02:06 GMT > Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source". [snip crap]
Lightspeed is identical for all inertial frames of reference.
 Signature Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Henri Wilson - 03 Jul 2005 02:24 GMT >> Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source". >[snip crap] > >Lightspeed is identical for all inertial frames of reference. f.ck off cretin!
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.
The Ghost In The Machine - 03 Jul 2005 04:00 GMT In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Sun, 03 Jul 2005 01:24:24 GMT <qhfec11glgpela3sqsoh87934rg01r07vv@4ax.com>:
>>> Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source". >>[snip crap] >> >>Lightspeed is identical for all inertial frames of reference. > > f.ck off cretin! Got any performed experiments that show lightspeed is other than c in vacuo?
The only ones I'm aware of measure lightspeed at c plus or minus about a few parts per billion -- in fact, that's why in 1983 the standards bodies decided to throw in the towel and *define* the meter in terms of the length of the second, and lightspeed; the old Kr-86 definition just wasn't accurate enough, apparently.
Of course, you can claim that all of the scientists on that body were deluded, if you like.
BTW: 1 part per billion would be about 38.5 cm, relative to the Moon's distance of 3.85 * 10^8 m.
[.sigsnip]
 Signature #191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
Bill Hobba - 03 Jul 2005 04:48 GMT > >> Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source". > >[snip crap] > > > >Lightspeed is identical for all inertial frames of reference. > > f.ck off cretin! Translation - Henri does not like inconvienent facts - so much for the facts. Three guesses who is the real cretin.
Bill
> 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. Henri Wilson - 03 Jul 2005 10:30 GMT >> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 18:06:53 -0700, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Bill If I want Al Schwartz to contribute usefully to my posts I will ask him. You too Hobba. You are no better.
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.
T Wake - 03 Jul 2005 12:31 GMT > If I want Al Schwartz to contribute usefully to my posts I will ask him. > You too Hobba. You are no better. If you want to control who replies to you and how they reply then don't post on USENET. Get yourself your own website and start your own discussion board or something.
If you can post crap here then why cant anyone else post the same?
By the way, Al was correct - there are flaws in your theory. Feel free to respond in any manner you wish. I don't mind.
Henri Wilson - 03 Jul 2005 13:12 GMT >> If I want Al Schwartz to contribute usefully to my posts I will ask him. >> You too Hobba. You are no better. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >By the way, Al was correct - there are flaws in your theory. Feel free to >respond in any manner you wish. I don't mind. Wake up, Wake!
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.
T Wake - 03 Jul 2005 18:47 GMT > Wake up, Wake! Very original. (Well it would be if Nick hadn't beaten you to it a while back).
Schoenfeld - 05 Jul 2005 03:28 GMT > > Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source". > [snip crap] > > Lightspeed is identical for all inertial frames of reference. Actually it fluctuates about a mean.
> -- > Uncle Al > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf Henri Wilson - 05 Jul 2005 22:01 GMT >> > Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source". >> [snip crap] >> >> Lightspeed is identical for all inertial frames of reference. > >Actually it fluctuates about a mean. ....and there ain't nothin much meaner than Al ...
>> -- >> Uncle Al >> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ >> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) >> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf 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.
Sue... - 03 Jul 2005 05:18 GMT "Light moves at c wrt interacting matter"
Here is the experimental setup: e+ e- e+e-
Sue...
Henri Wilson - 03 Jul 2005 10:31 GMT >"Light moves at c wrt interacting matter" > >Here is the experimental setup: >e+ > e- >e+e- How about hee, hee+ Hee,hee,heehee,hee. eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
>Sue... 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.
Sue... - 03 Jul 2005 10:46 GMT > >"Light moves at c wrt interacting matter" > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Hee,hee,heehee,hee. > eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ElectricDipoleRadiation.html http://www.snopes.com/weddings/graphics/shocked.jpg
> >Sue... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. Henri Wilson - 03 Jul 2005 13:18 GMT >> >"Light moves at c wrt interacting matter" >> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ElectricDipoleRadiation.html Sure...but there has to be an easier way.. .
>http://www.snopes.com/weddings/graphics/shocked.jpg Now that's more like it.
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.
Sue... - 03 Jul 2005 14:00 GMT > >> >"Light moves at c wrt interacting matter" > >> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Sure...but there has to be an easier way.. Yes... there was an easier way but the ole gal did'nt want just every kind of riff-raff knowing how she had things put together so she threw a few extra curves in the plan. I notice the web page is "under construction" so that probably means she is still exercising her right as a woman to change her mind.
:o) Sue...
> . > >http://www.snopes.com/weddings/graphics/shocked.jpg [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. Henri Wilson - 03 Jul 2005 23:21 GMT >> >> >"Light moves at c wrt interacting matter" >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >Sue... .. anyway, she left out the decimal point.
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.
George Dishman - 03 Jul 2005 07:57 GMT > Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source". A claim that is known to be disproven by the Sagnac effect.
> The BaT acknowleges the existence of extinction and that 'local aether > frames' > may exist in the vicinity of matter. These may determine local light > speeds. Snell's Law requires that any such "extinction" (not the usual meaning of the term) must occur over a short distance (consider a quarter-wave plate) depending on the refractive index.
I suggest the speed of the light leaving a distant star is therefore changed to be c almost immediately and Henri's simulation results are therefore spurious.
Do you understand what I'm saying Henri, unless you have the equations for extinction and the behaviour relative to your aether, you cannot make a prediction. Your above definition does not constitute a theory since the unknown parts prevent you making any predictions.
Also as you have the word "may" in your text, you don't have a theory. Replace it by "will" and give the equations.
George
Jerry - 03 Jul 2005 15:07 GMT > Consider a star of constant brightness moving in some kind of orbit. > From O3's POV, light emitted at different times of (its) year will have [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > variable star simulation program: > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe Except for a number of huge problems. Try "extinction". You claim that -all- measurements of k in c'=c+kv from DeSitter on which have consistently yielded k~0 are flawed because of extinction.
If extinction effects prevented DeSitter etc. from measuring k, extinction must work equally well to predict that BaT cannot explain variable star light curves. Light being emitted adjusts its speed to that imposed by the interstellar medium almost instantly, and faster and slower light cannot add up as you say it does.
YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, HENRI! You can't have extinction invalidating DeSitter's results and not invalidating yours.
Jerry
Henri Wilson - 03 Jul 2005 23:32 GMT >> Consider a star of constant brightness moving in some kind of orbit. >> From O3's POV, light emitted at different times of (its) year will have [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >on which have consistently yielded k~0 are flawed because of >extinction. The extincr\tion argument was put forward by a gentleman called Fox, who subsequently showed that DeSitter's argument against the BaT was wrong.
>If extinction effects prevented DeSitter etc. from measuring >k, extinction must work equally well to predict that BaT cannot [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, HENRI! You can't have extinction >invalidating DeSitter's results and not invalidating yours. Yes we can. In remote space, extinction takes place over very large distances....but small enough to prevent multiple images from being observed.
I have a figure of about 10LYs for one cepheid, AT Aur. Beyond that distance, the light from the star light is moving at about the same speed and its observed brightness pattern doesn't change.
>Jerry 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.
Jerry - 04 Jul 2005 09:29 GMT > >> Consider a star of constant brightness moving in some kind of orbit. > >> From O3's POV, light emitted at different times of (its) year will have [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > The extincr\tion argument was put forward by a gentleman called Fox, who > subsequently showed that DeSitter's argument against the BaT was wrong. ...and this very same Fox conducted an experiment specifically designed to counter extinction arguments, the result of which was ihnconsistent with BaT.
> >If extinction effects prevented DeSitter etc. from measuring > >k, extinction must work equally well to predict that BaT cannot [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the light from the star light is moving at about the same speed and its > observed brightness pattern doesn't change. You turn on extinction only when you want to, and turn it off when you don't.
Jerry
Henri Wilson - 05 Jul 2005 01:21 GMT >> >> Consider a star of constant brightness moving in some kind of orbit. >> >> From O3's POV, light emitted at different times of (its) year will have [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >designed to counter extinction arguments, the result of which >was ihnconsistent with BaT. Different Fox.
>> >If extinction effects prevented DeSitter etc. from measuring >> >k, extinction must work equally well to predict that BaT cannot [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >You turn on extinction only when you want to, and turn it off >when you don't. No. It happens naturally.
>Jerry 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.
Jerry - 06 Jul 2005 05:27 GMT > >> The extincr\tion argument was put forward by a gentleman called Fox, who > >> subsequently showed that DeSitter's argument against the BaT was wrong. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Different Fox. Can't you get even THIS simple matter right?
The same John G. Fox wrote Fox, J.G., Amer. J. Phys. 30, 297(1962) Fox, J.G., Amer. J. Phys. 33, 1(1964) (critiqued DeSitter)
and also wrote Filipas, T.A. and Fox, J.G. Phys. Rev. 135, B1071(1964) (conducted experiment designed to counter extinction arguments, obtained results inconsistent with BaT.)
Jerry
Henri Wilson - 06 Jul 2005 08:20 GMT >> >> The extincr\tion argument was put forward by a gentleman called Fox, who >> >> subsequently showed that DeSitter's argument against the BaT was wrong. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >Jerry I know a fellow called Arnold Fox who reckoned DeSitter was wrong, too.
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.
Jerry - 06 Jul 2005 15:38 GMT > >> Different Fox. > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I know a fellow called Arnold Fox who reckoned DeSitter was wrong, too. You are attempting to muddy the waters.
The plain fact of the matter is that you are hopelessly ignorant of the literature, and are likely to remain so for eternity.
Jerry
Henri Wilson - 07 Jul 2005 23:08 GMT >> >> Different Fox. >> > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >ignorant of the literature, and are likely to remain so for >eternity. Just read MY literature and you will learn considerably more than you will from DeSitter.
>Jerry 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.
jgreenfield@seol.net.au - 29 Mar 2006 10:05 GMT Henri Wilson wrote
> On 27 Mar 2006 18:58:04 -0800, "jgreenfield@seol.net.au <jgreen@seol.net.a
> wrote > > Henri Wilson wrote > On 26 Mar 2006 23:58:04 -0800, "George Dishman <george@briar.demon.co.u
> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Wilson agrees with Ritz..... who effectively said that in any on frame, TWLS
> OWLS = c > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I have made it quite clear before that by 'any one frame' I mea everything i
> the experiment is in the one frame. That naturally implies source mirror an
> detector are mutually at rest > > Even Androcles should be able to understand that > > Incidentally, this is only true in flat gravity. If for instance th experimen
> were carries out vertically, average OWLS would still equals averag TWLS bu
> would have a value less than the constant c > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Well, this is interesting Jim. What are you assuming to be the spee of th
> reflected beam > Is it c wrt Venus... or does the planet behave like a mirror an reflect th
> beam at double the incident speed to (c + 2v) wrt Earth, where v i Venus'
> speed towards earth > > Gravity could make a considerable difference. Light slows whil escaping Eart
> then speeds up as it approaches Venus. It does the opposite on th return trip
> If the travel times for each leg are significantly different - an they coul
> be - then so might be the effect due to gravity. I doubt if thi would b
> anything like 500 kms though > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That wont open. Check the address, please Jim Sorry: My ballsu http://surf.de.uu.net/bbokland/sci/farce/farce_6.htm
> Jim > c'=c+ > > HW > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.ht kenseto - 03 Jul 2005 21:46 GMT > Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source". > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > The BaT acknowleges the existence of extinction and that 'local aether frames' > may exist in the vicinity of matter. These may determine local light speeds. The Ballistic Theory is refuted by the double slit experiment.
Henri Wilson - 04 Jul 2005 01:20 GMT >> Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source". >> [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > >The Ballistic Theory is refuted by the double slit experiment. Why? photons have cross-sections.
The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure. If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between wavecrests change or not?
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.
kenseto - 04 Jul 2005 14:46 GMT > >> Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source". > >> [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between wavecrests change > or not? You missed the point. If BaT is true then we should not have observed the interfference fringes with the double slit-experiment. We should have just saw the images of the two slits.
Ken Seto
Henri Wilson - 05 Jul 2005 01:24 GMT >> >The Ballistic Theory is refuted by the double slit experiment. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >interfference fringes with the double slit-experiment. We should have just >saw the images of the two slits. I cannot see why light speed should affect the proincile of the double slit experiment. How could it?
>Ken Seto 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.
kenseto - 05 Jul 2005 03:42 GMT > >> >The Ballistic Theory is refuted by the double slit experiment. > >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > experiment. > How could it? Sigh.....light speed got nothing to do with the experiment. If light is bullet (according to BaT) then there should not be any interference fringes.
yt56erd - 05 Jul 2005 15:26 GMT kenseto is the runt of cranks. henri wilson is a crank. this thread could implode.
Henri Wilson - 05 Jul 2005 22:13 GMT >> >> >The Ballistic Theory is refuted by the double slit experiment. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Sigh.....light speed got nothing to do with the experiment. If light is >bullet (according to BaT) then there should not be any interference fringes. Ken, a photon is not like an ordinary bullet... Let me try to explain. Have you ever illustrated magnetic lines of force around a bar magnet with iron filings? It you move the magnet, you can imagine those force lines moving along with it. Now throw a way the magnet and consider that these field lines remain and are stretched out in a long cigar shape. They are rapidly oscilating from front to back and all the time, perpendicular to them is an associated E- field that oscillates in synchrony. The two fields mutually reinforce each other and will oscillate virtually forever in completely empty space.
Can you now imagine something like that coming up against a double slit?
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.
kenseto - 05 Jul 2005 22:54 GMT > >> >> >The Ballistic Theory is refuted by the double slit experiment. > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > > Ken, a photon is not like an ordinary bullet... So now you admitted that BaT is dead. The rest of your bull sh.t is trying to use the fact that light is a wave phenomenon.
Ken Seto
> Let me try to explain. > Have you ever illustrated magnetic lines of force around a bar magnet with iron [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. Henri Wilson - 06 Jul 2005 00:35 GMT >> >> >> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 20:46:49 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >The rest of your bull sh.t is trying to use the fact that light is a wave >phenomenon. You know Ken, I DO have a sneaking suspicion that some kind of periodicity IS involved in light...be it spatially or time based.
>Ken Seto 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.
George Dishman - 06 Jul 2005 20:07 GMT ...
>> >You missed the point. If BaT is true then we should not have observed >> >the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > bullet (according to BaT) then there should not be any interference > fringes. The suggestion is that is it wave-like but that the speed of the waves depends on the speed of the source that emits them. I don't agree (for many reasons, the most obvious being the Sagnac effect) but you should try to understand his suggestion if you want to offer valid criticisms.
George
George Dishman - 06 Jul 2005 20:04 GMT ...
> The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure. Not really, it's the distance between points of equal phase measured in the directon of propagation.
> If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between wavecrests > change > or not? Unless wavelength = speed / frequency, you need your "tick fairies" at every change of refractive index. Think of light passing through a sheet of glass, there must be the same number of wavefronts passing a point within the glass as points outside in any given time.
George
Henri Wilson - 07 Jul 2005 23:12 GMT >... >> The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure. > >Not really, it's the distance between points >of equal phase measured in the directon of >propagation. You can say that about generated radio waves but not individual photons.
>> If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between wavecrests >> change [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >within the glass as points outside in any >given time. No doubt about that one, George.
Now, if light speed relative to a particular observer changes due to the observer's motion, what would you expect happens to the 'wavelength' in his frame?
>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.
George Dishman - 10 Jul 2005 16:33 GMT > On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:04:37 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You can say that about generated radio waves > but not individual photons. Another interesting subject.
Consider Young's slits illuminated by a laser. If the setup is symmetrical you get a bright line in the centre with fringes either side. Conventionally the high brightness at a location ten fringes to one side is due to the signal interfering such that the peak through one slit coincides with a peak ten wavelengths later that has travelled a longer path having come through the other slit.
If you reduce the brightness of the laser and add a shutter, you can allow single photons into the setup. At the same location as above, you still get a peak of probability of photons arriving while half a fringe either side, the probability is zero because a peak through one slit interferes with a trough 9.5 or 10.5 wavelengths later. That must apply to each photon individually.
>>> If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between >>> wavecrests change or not? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > his > frame? In Ritzian theory I would expect the wavelength to change according to the classical formula for a moving observer while if SR is right, it should change according to the relativistic formula.
George
sue jahn - 10 Jul 2005 16:56 GMT > > On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:04:37 +0100, "George Dishman" > > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > add a shutter, you can allow single photons > into the setup. If you do this by reducing the brigtness of the laser you allow a single *absorbed* photons to eject a photoelectron.
Quantum dot emitters that will measure out a single photon are now available. <<The experiment and Results This experiment proved that the following two things were possible in an open photonic network environment such as the Internet.
1. A single photon can interfere...>> http://www.physorg.com/news4536.html
IOW a single *emitted* photon goes through both slits.
That doens't look favorable for BaT or particle propagation models.
Sue...
At the same location as above,
> you still get a peak of probability of photons > arriving while half a fringe either side, the [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > George Henri Wilson - 11 Jul 2005 02:17 GMT >> > On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:04:37 +0100, "George Dishman" >> > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >That doens't look favorable for BaT or >particle propagation models. Why not? Photons have an effective cross section that stretches to infinity. It does off very rapidly with distance from the central axis, though.
>Sue... > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >> >> 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.
Henri Wilson - 11 Jul 2005 02:15 GMT >> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:04:37 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >add a shutter, you can allow single photons >into the setup. That is a pretty tricky operation.
>At the same location as above, >you still get a peak of probability of photons [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >wavelengths later. That must apply to each >photon individually. How about using parallel light from a very dim star instead of a laser. If single photons reach the slits, the spacing should give an indication of photon cross section.
>>>> If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between >>>> wavecrests change or not? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >should change according to the relativistic >formula. I would not expect the wavelength to change at all.
>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.
george@briar.demon.co.uk - 12 Jul 2005 13:10 GMT > >> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:04:37 +0100, "George Dishman" > >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > That is a pretty tricky operation. True but it is done.
> >At the same location as above, > >you still get a peak of probability of photons [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > How about using parallel light from a very dim star instead of a laser. A laser is monochromatic, a star isn't. The linewidth is important in this case. A laser will show interference with single photons even if the difference in the path length is many wavelengths. This abstract mentions a choerence length of 50m for one laser and is nothing special, just the first that came out of Google:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/tmop/1998/00000045/00000008/art00003
> If single photons reach the slits, the spacing should give an indication of > photon cross section. That's a different subject, I was responding to your comment on the applicability of wavelength to single photons.
> >>>> If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between > >>>> wavecrests change or not? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > I would not expect the wavelength to change at all. You are right, I was thinking it would be reduced by the distance the observer had moved but that is not correct. There is still a difference between the two theories.
George
Henri Wilson - 12 Jul 2005 23:52 GMT >> >If you reduce the brightness of the laser and >> >add a shutter, you can allow single photons [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >A laser is monochromatic, a star isn't. The >linewidth is important in this case. Single photons should be monochromatic, should they not? A filter could be used anyway.
>A laser >will show interference with single photons [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >your comment on the applicability of wavelength >to single photons. You know my 'sawblade model' of a photon. It has a spatial regularity that shows up as 'frequency' when it passes an observer. The wavelength is fixed. It is the nature of this 'spatial pattern' that is of interest. One explanation is that the 'wave package' itself features a standing oscillation from back to front as it travels along.
>> >>>> If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between >> >>>> wavecrests change or not? [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >not correct. There is still a difference between >the two theories. Under BaT, diffraction is explained in terms of frequency, not wavelength.
>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.
George Dishman - 13 Jul 2005 08:05 GMT >>> >If you reduce the brightness of the laser and >>> >add a shutter, you can allow single photons [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Single photons should be monochromatic, should they not? Frequency is a measure of momentum so an accurately known momentum implies a single frequency, but the bandwidth of a tone burst is inversely proportional to the duration. The uncertainty of the value of the momentum therefore relates inversely to the 'length' of the photon but it is hard to say where a 'long' burst of sine wave is located. This is basically another way of looking at the uncertainty principle, dx * dp has a minimum value.
> A filter could be used anyway. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > You know my 'sawblade model' of a photon. No, I haven't seen you post that that.
> It has a spatial regularity that > shows up as 'frequency' when it passes an observer. The wavelength is > fixed. > It is the nature of this 'spatial pattern' that is of interest. > One explanation is that the 'wave package' itself features a standing > oscillation from back to front as it travels along. What is it reflecting off at the ends?
>>You are right, I was thinking it would be reduced >>by the distance the observer had moved but that is >>not correct. There is still a difference between >>the two theories. > > Under BaT, diffraction is explained in terms of frequency, not wavelength. I'm not quite sure what you mean, are you talking of a diffraction grating rather than diffraction itself?
George
Henri Wilson - 13 Jul 2005 09:18 GMT >>>> >At the same location as above, >>>> >you still get a peak of probability of photons [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >uncertainty principle, dx * dp has a minimum >value. What if the intensity of a well filtered beam was so low that only single photons were passing at any time?
>> A filter could be used anyway. >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >What is it reflecting off at the ends? Don't know. The 'spinning +/- charge' model is easier. A bit like Len Gaasenbeek's helical wave idea.
One thing is certain. Photons are not 'point particles with no structure or properties other than 'energy'.. How could they be? What would distinguish them from anything else?
>>>You are right, I was thinking it would be reduced >>>by the distance the observer had moved but that is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >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.
George Dishman - 13 Jul 2005 10:11 GMT > On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 08:05:58 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > What if the intensity of a well filtered beam was so low that only single > photons were passing at any time? Everything I said in that paragraph was meant to refer to a single photon.
>>> You know my 'sawblade model' of a photon. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Don't know. There's the rub - two point particles? ;-)
> The 'spinning +/- charge' model is easier. > A bit like Len Gaasenbeek's helical wave idea. I don't know how that differes from cirular polarisation and to be honest I'm not that interested, QED is entirely adequate.
> One thing is certain. Photons are not 'point particles with no structure > or > properties other than 'energy'.. > How could they be? > What would distinguish them from anything else? You would be better to ask someone more knowledgeable about particle physics but basically the set of properties (charge, mass, spin) is unique. In fact zero mass is probably the main factor.
George
bz - 13 Jul 2005 11:24 GMT "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:db2e6u$f1u$1 @news.freedom2surf.net:
> Frequency is a measure of momentum so an > accurately known momentum implies a single [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > uncertainty principle, dx * dp has a minimum > value. Photons are not tone bursts.
That we might have difficulty accurately measuring the frequency/wavelength/energy of a single photon would not seem to require that those values are broadened by our uncertanty.
Femto and even atto second laser pulses have been produced that are less than two periods of the wavelength involved.
This would seem to set an upper limit on the number of cycles in a photon.
Logic says that a pulse can not be shorter than the time it takes to create a single photon. It would also seem to say that a single photon can not "be longer" than the shortest laser pulse.
This review of techniques will give you a bit of an overview of the field. <http://phys.strath.ac.uk/alpha-x/Assets/articles/Reid-time-resolved- spectroscopy-2003.pdf>
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
George Dishman - 13 Jul 2005 13:27 GMT > "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:db2e6u$f1u$1 > @news.freedom2surf.net: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Photons are not tone bursts. I'm not suggesting they are, AFAIK they are point particles, but those particles seem to be subject to Heisenberg and there appear to be parallels.
> That we might have difficulty accurately measuring the > frequency/wavelength/energy of a single photon would not seem to require > that those values are broadened by our uncertanty. QM seems to differ with that view, or you are getting into 'hidden variable' territory. I'm not sufficiently familiar with QM these days to argue the point though.
> Femto and even atto second laser pulses have been produced that are less > than two periods of the wavelength involved. > > This would seem to set an upper limit on the number of cycles in a photon. Certainly, but from the paper you cite
"The large bandwidth of femtosecond pulses causes experimental difficulties."
Chopping a pure sinewave creates sidebands hence increases the bandwidth. Think of a Fourier analysis of the chopping waveform. Now I would think a single photon cannot have a bandwidth but if you take a single photon from a stream with a wide bandwidth, then that would translate into uncertainty about the energy of the particular photon.
> Logic says that a pulse can not be shorter than the time it takes to > create > a single photon. It would also seem to say that a single photon can not > "be > longer" than the shortest laser pulse. I put length in quotes because IMHO a photon is a particle, but I think this is another aspect of duality.
> This review of techniques will give you a bit of an overview of the field. > <http://phys.strath.ac.uk/alpha-x/Assets/articles/Reid-time-resolved- > spectroscopy-2003.pdf> Excellent stuff, it will take me some time to read that but thanks!
George
bz - 13 Jul 2005 16:26 GMT >> "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:db2e6u$f1u$1 >> @news.freedom2surf.net: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > seem to be subject to Heisenberg and there > appear to be parallels. I agree.
>> That we might have difficulty accurately measuring the >> frequency/wavelength/energy of a single photon would not seem to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'm not sufficiently familiar with QM these > days to argue the point though. likewise.
>> Femto and even atto second laser pulses have been produced that are >> less than two periods of the wavelength involved. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "The large bandwidth of femtosecond pulses > causes experimental difficulties." I am not surprised. Rapidly keying a radio transmitter also creates difficulties. Part of the problem is that a high Q circuit element tends to 'ring'.
> Chopping a pure sinewave creates sidebands > hence increases the bandwidth. Quite true.... especially if the chopping isn't done at the time of zero crossing.
The antenna would also need to be low Q and non reactive so that current and voltage would be in phase.
> Think of a > Fourier analysis of the chopping waveform. > Now I would think a single photon cannot have > a bandwidth I agree.
> but if you take a single photon > from a stream with a wide bandwidth, then > that would translate into uncertainty about > the energy of the particular photon. right.
On the other hand, if you have a narrow bandwidth beam of photons and you 'chop' it, into small slices, mechanically, I am NOT sure that we would generate sidebands, like 'normal' modulation would. [how does one photon know that those ahead of it or behind it have been absorbed?]
If we chopped it fine enough, we should have a single photon, of known energy/wavelength/frequency. We would almost certainly NOT know its exact position, however. I think time would be the expresion of uncertanty.
>> Logic says that a pulse can not be shorter than the time it takes to >> create [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Excellent stuff, it will take me some time > to read that but thanks! Quite welcome.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
George Dishman - 15 Jul 2005 20:50 GMT ...
> I agree. ...
> likewise. ...
>> "The large bandwidth of femtosecond pulses >> causes experimental difficulties." > > I am not surprised. Rapidly keying a radio transmitter also creates > difficulties. Part of the problem is that a high Q circuit element tends > to 'ring'. See below.
>> Chopping a pure sinewave creates sidebands >> hence increases the bandwidth. > > Quite true.... especially if the chopping isn't done at the time of zero > crossing. Chopping is a severe form of ampitude modulation so you can think of the process as if you were multiplying the sine wave with a digital waveform. That is the same as heterodyning the Fourier Transform of the chopping waveform with the sine wave which acts as a carrier.
> The antenna would also need to be low Q and non reactive so that current > and voltage would be in phase. The chopping creates sidebands. The Q of the circuit then acts as a filter which reduces the sidebands. You might think you could get arbitrarily narrow bandwidth and short bursts but the ringing of the circuit will extend the burst and the higher the Q, the longer it rings. In fact you can imagine that the early part of a burst starts the circuit ringing and the interference between that and the latter part of the pulse is what cancels it out and creates the filter action.
>> Think of a >> Fourier analysis of the chopping waveform. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > generate sidebands, like 'normal' modulation would. [how does one photon > know that those ahead of it or behind it have been absorbed?] You were talking of pulse lengths of a couple of cycles. Compared to laser coherence lengths of metres, we are talking of letting through a tiny sample of one photon :-)
OK, since they are particles, the way I expect that to work is that you get a fractional probability that the photon makes it through the shutter.
> If we chopped it fine enough, we should have a single photon, of known > energy/wavelength/frequency. We would almost certainly NOT know its exact > position, however. I think time would be the expresion of uncertanty. The relevant factors are dE*dt or dp*dx of course.
If a shutter is used and is open for a very short time then you know t and x very accurately so dE and dp become poorly defined. Of course both depend on the frequency of the photon so I expect a side effect of the shutter operation would be to scatter the photons that get through in some way that adds a random factor to the energy/momentum and hence broadens the linewidth. However, I haven't used lasers in thirty years and never worked with very short pulses so I'm guessing. Perhaps the paper will clue me in a bit when I get a chance to read it.
George
bz - 15 Jul 2005 22:37 GMT "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:db93ro$ogf$1 @news.freedom2surf.net:
>> On the other hand, if you have a narrow bandwidth beam of photons and you >> 'chop' it, into small slices, mechanically, I am NOT sure that we would [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You were talking of pulse lengths of a couple > of cycles. Of LESS than a couple of cycles.
> Compared to laser coherence lengths > of metres, we are talking of letting through > a tiny sample of one photon :-) I see no reason for a photon to be longer than one cycle.
Coherence length isn't the length of the photons, it tells us how big a chunk of light is 'phase, frequency, polarization, coherent'.
It is in some sense 'the length of the cavity' or at least it is clearly related to the length of the laser cavity. The longer the cavity, the longer the coherence length.
My impression is that it usually represents the stimulated emission from a single pass through the laser cavity.
> OK, since they are particles, the way I expect > that to work is that you get a fractional > probability that the photon makes it through > the shutter. Why do you think that a single photon must be longer than one cycle?
>> If we chopped it fine enough, we should have a single photon, of known >> energy/wavelength/frequency. We would almost certainly NOT know its [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If a shutter is used and is open for a very short > time then you know t and x very accurately If I don't know, within a small fraction of a cycle, when the photon is, then I don't know 't' very accurately.
> so dE > and dp become poorly defined. Of course both depend [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > short pulses so I'm guessing. Perhaps the paper will > clue me in a bit when I get a chance to read it. In the work we did with the optogalvanic effect induced by dye laser pulses in plasma, we were not working with single photons, nor with extremely short pulses. That was in the early 90s. I also worked with YAG and CO2 lasers in the early 70s, using them to cut aluminum oxide and to adjust resistors to value. One CO2 laser was 50 W, CW, the other was 500 W, CW. The yags were much lower average power and pulsed.
There is a paper http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEWWW/Articles/DynaPub/DynaPub.html#ref16 That I disagree with. They appear to believe that photons consist of wavetrains that are millions of cycles long.
I see no reason for Radio Frequency Photons to be any different from light photons as to the number of cycles per photon.
If that is true, *and* IF they were right THEN there would be no way for me to key a 1.8 MHz transmitter at 30 wpm [where keying rate is about 12 dots per second]. I know for a fact that transmitters opperating at much lower frequencies (in the long wave marine band between 200 and 500 kHz) have been operated with keying speed much higher than 30 wpm.
Since transmitters operating at much lower frequencies are regularly keyed at much higher switching rates, their claims of millions of cycles per photon [if RF and Light photons are similar] are clearly false.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
George Dishman - 16 Jul 2005 12:17 GMT > "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:db93ro$ogf$1 > @news.freedom2surf.net: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I see no reason for a photon to be longer than one cycle. That was my original point. Interference effects still exist when the path length is many wavelengths and they affect the probability of a single photon arriving at a location.
> Coherence length isn't the length of the photons, it tells us how big a > chunk > of light is 'phase, frequency, polarization, coherent'. Yes, but it also affects single photons.
> It is in some sense 'the length of the cavity' or at least it is clearly > related to the length of the laser cavity. The longer the cavity, the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > My impression is that it usually represents the stimulated emission from a > single pass through the laser cavity. I don't think lasers with 50m coherence are necessarily 25m long.
> > OK, since they are particles, the way I expect >> that to work is that you get a fractional >> probability that the photon makes it through >> the shutter. > > Why do you think that a single photon must be longer than one cycle? I think it is a 'point' particle (which might be a string at the planck length).
However I also know that a single photon in the double slit experiment has a negligible probability of hitting a point where the path difference is 10.5 wavelengths if the coherence length is 1000 wavelengths.
>>> If we chopped it fine enough, we should have a single photon, of known >>> energy/wavelength/frequency. We would almost certainly NOT know its [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > then > I don't know 't' very accurately. "very accurately" is not well defined ;-) The smaller dt or dx, the larger dE or dp, but Planck's Constant is very small.
>> so dE >> and dp become poorly defined. Of course both depend [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the early 70s, using them to cut aluminum oxide and to adjust resistors to > value. Neat, I used matched pairs of laser trimmed devices in an instrumentation amp design many years ago.
> One CO2 laser was 50 W, CW, the other was 500 W, CW. The yags were > much lower average power and pulsed. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That I disagree with. They appear to believe that photons consist of > wavetrains that are millions of cycles long. Fascinating. It's something I'll have to study a bit though. Thanks again!
> I see no reason for Radio Frequency Photons to be any different from light > photons as to the number of cycles per photon. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to key a 1.8 MHz transmitter at 30 wpm [where keying rate is about 12 dots > per second]. Pardon? Data at 12 dots per second is only 24Hz so could be transmitted on a 30Hz carrier never mind anything in the MHz. Have you lost a factor of 10^6?
> I know for a fact that transmitters opperating at much lower > frequencies (in the long wave marine band between 200 and 500 kHz) have > been > operated with keying speed much higher than 30 wpm. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/scmp/part07.htm
"The ELF frequencies used, in the 40–80 Hz range, were selected for their long range signal propagation (i.e., global) and ability to penetrate seawater to depths several hundred feet below the surface."
It is keyed I believe fairly slowly but the VLF systems are keyed at 50bps and in theory so could the ELF although the BER would be dreadful (25Hz modulation on a 40Hz carrier giving a band from 15Hz to 65Hz).
> Since transmitters operating at much lower frequencies are regularly keyed > at > much higher switching rates, their claims of millions of cycles per photon > [if RF and Light photons are similar] are clearly false. Shannon's Theorem requires a certain bandwidth to convey the data. Bandwidth translates to uncertainty of the energy of any particular photon so knowing 't' to the accuracy of a bit duration (the photon is transmitted when the key is on) limits knowledge of the energy but roughly to the same as the bandwidth.
Basically I am saying Shannon's Theorem in the classical view is related to Heisenberg's Uncertainty in the quantum view, though that sounds rather grandiose.
George
bz - 16 Jul 2005 15:05 GMT >> "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:db93ro$ogf$1 >> @news.freedom2surf.net: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Yes, but it also affects single photons. How?
>> It is in some sense 'the length of the cavity' or at least it is >> clearly related to the length of the laser cavity. The longer the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I don't think lasers with 50m coherence are > necessarily 25m long. Of course not. The cavity with mirrors happens to be [is carefully adjusted to be] the right length so that photons can make several trips. Thermal instability, vibrations, and probably many other effects reduce the coherence length from infinity. I would imagine that whenever a spontainious decay takes place, throwing in a photon that is traveling in the right direction but out of coherence with the current crowd of photons, the odd photon starts picking up 'buddies'.
The probability of this happening will determine the average coherence length.
>> > OK, since they are particles, the way I expect >>> that to work is that you get a fractional [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > path difference is 10.5 wavelengths if the > coherence length is 1000 wavelengths. How do you define coherence length for a photon? Is your statement from experimental data? I would like to read about the experiment.
I think that there may be some effect due to the thermal phonons of the slits interacting with the electron clouds at the edge of the slit and deflecting photons passing close to the edge.
>>>> If we chopped it fine enough, we should have a single photon, of >>>> known energy/wavelength/frequency. We would almost certainly NOT know [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > smaller dt or dx, the larger dE or dp, but > Planck's Constant is very small. Right. :)
>>> so dE >>> and dp become poorly defined. Of course both depend [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Neat, I used matched pairs of laser trimmed devices > in an instrumentation amp design many years ago. We did active trimming of some of the resistors we made at Sprague, trimming until the pulse width or gain or whatever was correct.
>> One CO2 laser was 50 W, CW, the other was 500 W, CW. The yags were >> much lower average power and pulsed. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Pardon? Data at 12 dots per second is only 24Hz so > could be transmitted on a 30Hz carrier Right. But look at the size of a 30 Hz photon!
The idea was to falsify their thesis that photons were 'millions of cycles long'. At 1.8 MHz each dot is 74000 cycles long. Much less than 'millions'.
> never mind anything in the MHz. Have you lost a factor of 10^6? No, just falsifying their thesis. Putting an upper bound on photon size, direct from my own 160 meter transmitter.
>> I know for a fact that transmitters opperating at much lower >> frequencies (in the long wave marine band between 200 and 500 kHz) have [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > dreadful (25Hz modulation on a 40Hz carrier > giving a band from 15Hz to 65Hz). I have heard stories of what can happen when they try to key the ELF transmitter at a high keying rate. The antenna swr goes up rapidly as you get away from its design frequency. When you have millions of watts of power, they have to carefully shape the keying waveform, or all hell breaks loose.
>> Since transmitters operating at much lower frequencies are regularly >> keyed at [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Uncertainty in the quantum view, though that > sounds rather grandiose. That sounds rather reasonable to me. I bet they have been compared before.
We should be able to place a rather specific upper bound on photon length from ELF keying rate information. Of course, ELF communications might be considered as 'nearfield' and thus the creation of actual 3747 km long photons might not be very efficient.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
George Dishman - 17 Jul 2005 11:36 GMT >>> "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:db93ro$ogf$1 >>> @news.freedom2surf.net: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > How? I don't know how, I only know it does for the reason above, interference effects affect the probability of photon distribution even with multi-wavelength path differences.
>>> It is in some sense 'the length of the cavity' or at least it is >>> clearly related to the length of the laser cavity. The longer the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Of course not. Then I misunderstood what you meant when you said coherence length "usually represents the stimulated emission from a single pass through the laser cavity.". Even a two way pass would need a cavity half the coherence length.
> The cavity with mirrors happens to be [is carefully adjusted > to be] the right length so that photons can make several trips. Thermal [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The probability of this happening will determine the average coherence > length. I don't see a problem with that though my knowledge is limited.
>>> > OK, since they are particles, the way I expect >>>> that to work is that you get a fractional [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > How do you define coherence length for a photon? I'm not sure you can, but you can define the average coherence length for a stream. It would suggest be something like the path length difference at which the probability function was reduced by a certain amount. Think of the point in an interference pattern where the contrast ratio between light and dark fringes is half the central value. It takes more than one photon to produce a distribution of course.
> Is your statement from experimental data? I would like to read about the > experiment. Nothing special, this is the first hit I got on Google:
http://tinyurl.com/cknu7
> I think that there may be some effect due to the thermal phonons of the > slits interacting with the electron clouds at the edge of the slit and > deflecting photons passing close to the edge. Could be, I'm not saying I know the mechanism but experiments like that above tell us something about single photons that seems to contradict the idea that it can be a single cycle or something close to that.
>>> I see no reason for Radio Frequency Photons to be any different from >>> light photons as to the number of cycles per photon. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > No, just falsifying their thesis. Putting an upper bound on photon size, > direct from my own 160 meter transmitter. Ah, I get it. For my argument you would need very large slits! However I agree with what you say above, radio photons have to behave the same as light so I think a pure CW signal would give many fringes in the interference pattern but keying it with a PRBS would eliminate the fringes when the path length difference to a receiving antenna via the slits is comparable to the wavelength of the keying rate.
>> Shannon's Theorem requires a certain bandwidth >> to convey the data. Bandwidth translates to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > considered as 'nearfield' and thus the creation of actual 3747 km long > photons might not be very efficient. I still think it's easier with a laser, doing Young's Slits at ELF presents some interesting engineering challenges if we are to observe the contrast ratio from the centre to a million fringes either side :-o
George
bz - 17 Jul 2005 15:58 GMT >>>> "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in >>>> news:db93ro$ogf$1 @news.freedom2surf.net: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > probability of photon distribution even with > multi-wavelength path differences. I thought that the distribution of the double slit pattern depended on the wavelength of the photon, not the coherence length of the laser. One can even get a double slit pattern from an incoherent source, such as a lightbulb with a band pass filter.
I know of one place that coherence length is important: laser holography. I wanted to build a color holographic camera, using 3 laser diodes. During the research I did on that project I found that it would be useless for taking holographic pictures of anything at a distance greater than the coherence length of the diodes. This ruled out a portable color camera.
I still am not sure that the coherence length effects interference patterns for single photon experiments.
>>>> It is in some sense 'the length of the cavity' or at least it is >>>> clearly related to the length of the laser cavity. The longer the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the laser cavity.". Even a two way pass would > need a cavity half the coherence length. http://www.holo.com/holo/book/book6&7.html
>> The cavity with mirrors happens to be [is carefully adjusted >> to be] the right length so that photons can make several trips. Thermal [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I don't see a problem with that though my > knowledge is limited. By the way, did you know that you [anyone] can build a lensless, laser that uses the nitrogen in the air at atmospheric pressure? http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/sam/lasercn2.htm
>>>> > OK, since they are particles, the way I expect >>>>> that to work is that you get a fractional [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I'm not sure you can, but you can define the > average coherence length for a stream. right.
> It would > suggest be something like the path length [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is half the central value. It takes more than > one photon to produce a distribution of course. At least two? :) [quite a few more]
>> Is your statement from experimental data? I would like to read about >> the experiment. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://tinyurl.com/cknu7 a good dual slit, single photon experiment but I see nothing about coherence length having an effect on the pattern.
>> I think that there may be some effect due to the thermal phonons of the >> slits interacting with the electron clouds at the edge of the slit and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > contradict the idea that it can be a single > cycle or something close to that. Unless, in passing through the slit, it influences the various vibrations in the structures of the slits, kind of like seismic waves, passing through the earth, cause measurable effects at a distance.
>>>> I see no reason for Radio Frequency Photons to be any different from >>>> light photons as to the number of cycles per photon. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > slits is comparable to the wavelength of > the keying rate. Single photon RF experiments should produce similar results to single photon light experiments. A single photon, at say 100 GHz, is 0.3 cm in wavelength. It has 6.6e-23 joules of energy (making it hard to detect one, but perhaps in a cryogenic chamber, it could be done).
A 5 mW transmitter puts out 7.5e19 photons per second. In a single cycle, 7.54e8 photons are emitted at that power level.
Assuming we could switch the transmitter on and off (or switch antenna and dummy load) at zero crossing, fast enough to pass only 1 cycle to the antenna, we would need to switch at a 10 ps interval.
That should be possible. At 5 mW, it should give us 7.5e8 photons that are frequency and phase coherent, and, I predict, no keying transients.
In any case, we should be able to determine the maximum length of a photon.
>>> Shannon's Theorem requires a certain bandwidth >>> to convey the data. Bandwidth translates to [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > contrast ratio from the centre to a million > fringes either side :-o Even if we lived on Jupiter, it would be difficult to do.
We need to do that one in interstellar space.
Even at a slightly more manageable size, like 3 millimeter microwaves, it would present some problems. But it would be interesting to try.
:)
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
George Dishman - 20 Jul 2005 21:09 GMT ...
>>>> Yes, but it also affects single photons. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I thought that the distribution of the double slit pattern depended on the > wavelength of the photon, not the coherence length of the laser. The spacing between indiviual fringes depends on the wavelength. The extent of the screen over which the fringes have good contrast ratio depends on the coherence length. I found this:
http://marcus.whitman.edu/~beckmk/QM/inter/inter.html
You might find the link to the presentation interesting, but the red graph on that page illustrates what I mean, the variation from peak to trough reduces as you go further from the zero difference point. Eventually, when the path difference is much more than the coherence length, the two beams are unrelated and you get uniform illumination.
> One can even > get a double slit pattern from an incoherent source, such as a lightbulb > with > a band pass filter. Yes, and the narrower the filter, the wider the region showing fringes.
> I know of one place that coherence length is important: laser holography. > I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > holographic pictures of anything at a distance greater than the coherence > length of the diodes. This ruled out a portable color camera. The key factor is path length difference. If you send the reference beam through a coil of fibre, the coherence length would affect the distance but the depth of field. You will get good contrast if the difference betwen the coil length and twice the distance to the subject is less than the coherence length.
> I still am not sure that the coherence length effects interference > patterns > for single photon experiments. See the link above.
> http://www.holo.com/holo/book/book6&7.html Thanks, another useful link.
> By the way, did you know that you [anyone] can build a lensless, laser > that > uses the nitrogen in the air at atmospheric pressure? > http://repairfaq.ece.drexel.edu/sam/lasercn2.htm I haven't seen it done with N2 but the guys on the next bench to me in my final year were doing the same with CO2. They got the basics working by breathing through a tube into the cavity :-)
[quote restored]
>>>> However I also know that a single photon in >>>> the double slit experiment has a negligible >>>> probability of hitting a point where the >>>> path difference is 10.5 wavelengths if the >>>> coherence length is 1000 wavelengths. ...
>>> Is your statement from experimental data? I would like to read about >>> the experiment. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > coherence > length having an effect on the pattern. No, I was just saying that a photon cannot be considered to be like a small train of waves (e.g. less than a few wavelengths) if it can interfere with itself with a path difference of many wavelengths. Coherence length only creates an upper limit which is specific to the experiemnt.
>>> I think that there may be some effect due to the thermal phonons of the >>> slits interacting with the electron clouds at the edge of the slit and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the > earth, cause measurable effects at a distance. Again, I will decline to speculate. I think QED would provide an answer but I don't know what it is.
> Single photon RF experiments should produce similar results to single > photon [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > In any case, we should be able to determine the maximum length of a > photon. I think I would be tempted to switch a current through a communications laser diode to do this at reasonable cost. The higher energy reduces the number of photons per mW and current can be easily controlled. The harder part would be the detector, PMT's are expensive.
George
bz - 21 Jul 2005 03:14 GMT > ... >>>>> Yes, but it also affects single photons. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > coherence length, the two beams are unrelated > and you get uniform illumination. Interesting, for sure.
>> One can even >> get a double slit pattern from an incoherent source, such as a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yes, and the narrower the filter, the wider > the region showing fringes. Sounds like it should be related to information theory and s/n ratios
Narrower bandwidth, better signal to noise ratio.
>> I know of one place that coherence length is important: laser >> holography. I [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > length and twice the distance to the subject is > less than the coherence length. hmmmm. Path length difference. Interesting.
Still, most laser diodes have rather short coherence lengths (on the order of a few hundred micrometers), giving a rather shallow depth of field. In 1997 'Long coherence length Laser diodes' meant 'several centimeters'. http://omlc.ogi.edu/news/dec97/pclaser.html
>> I still am not sure that the coherence length effects interference >> patterns for single photon experiments. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > same with CO2. They got the basics working by > breathing through a tube into the cavity :-) I was in college in the mid 60's and tried to help a kid with his high school science project, he built a HeNe laser but we never could get it to lase. That was my first experience with lasers.
> [quote restored] >>>>> However I also know that a single photon in [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > creates an upper limit which is specific to > the experiemnt. Minimum pulse lengths of ~ 1 cycle and single photon, dual slot interference patterns present an interesting challenge to the models for photons.
>>>> I think that there may be some effect due to the thermal phonons of >>>> the slits interacting with the electron clouds at the edge of the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > QED would provide an answer but I don't know > what it is. I have reservations about Feynman's multipath theory.
>> Single photon RF experiments should produce similar results to single >> photon [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> In any case, we should be able to determine the maximum length of a >> photon.
> I think I would be tempted to switch a current > through a communications laser diode to do this > at reasonable cost. But up in frequency mean the time resolution/switching speeds need to increase.
> The higher energy reduces > the number of photons per mW and current can be > easily controlled. The harder part would be the > detector, PMT's are expensive. CCD detectors, such as in a video camera, are very sensitive now.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
george@briar.demon.co.uk - 21 Jul 2005 13:23 GMT <much snipped>
> > The key factor is path length difference. If > > you send the reference beam through a coil of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 1997 'Long coherence length Laser diodes' meant 'several centimeters'. > http://omlc.ogi.edu/news/dec97/pclaser.html It doesn't seem to have improved much but it would perhaps allow 3D filming of say insect flight with a depth of field of a few cm at a range of say 1m.
<more snpped>
> > Again, I will decline to speculate. I think > > QED would provide an answer but I don't know > > what it is. > > I have reservations about Feynman's multipath theory. It illustrates well how science need not provide understandable explanations. It works, just turn the handle and get the numbers, but thinking about the philosophical implications can be hazardous!
> > I think I would be tempted to switch a current > > through a communications laser diode to do this > > at reasonable cost. > > But up in frequency mean the time resolution/switching speeds need to > increase. Higher carrier frequency means a lower photon rate for the same power hence lower switching speeds to select a single photon. It would be possible to measure the bandwidth of a laser diode with coherence length in the cm range going through a shutter which was open for say 1 microsecond at a repetition rate of 10 kHz with a photon rate of a few hundred per second. The chances of getting two photons during an opening would be low but the shutter would be open for a time much longer than the "duration" of a single photon.
Then change to a shutter open time around 10ps and see if the bandwidth increases. The photon "length" should be 30ps per cm of coherence so selecting only part of the photon should increase the bandwidth if I am right.
> > The higher energy reduces > > the number of photons per mW and current can be > > easily controlled. The harder part would be the > > detector, PMT's are expensive. > > CCD detectors, such as in a video camera, are very sensitive now. That and a decent diffraction grating would do it but I guess the CCD would need to be cooled.
George
bz - 21 Jul 2005 15:20 GMT > <much snipped> >> > The key factor is path length difference. If [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > flight with a depth of field of a few cm at > a range of say 1m. That would be interesting, especially in color.
> <more snpped> >> > Again, I will decline to speculate. I think [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the handle and get the numbers, but thinking about > the philosophical implications can be hazardous! I have a hard time integrating it into my personality.
>> > I think I would be tempted to switch a current >> > through a communications laser diode to do this [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > rate for the same power hence lower switching > speeds to select a single photon. The way to test the photon 'length' is by switching times on the order of the expected time for the expected number of cycles per photon.
> It would be > possible to measure the bandwidth of a laser > diode with coherence length in the cm range > going through a shutter which was open for say > 1 microsecond at a repetition rate of 10 kHz > with a photon rate of a few hundred per second. That would tell us nothing about the length of the photons. We can already get single photons by attenuating the beam intensity.
Besides, spectrum analysis is done, every day, on fiber optical lasers. We know that for switching speeds used for gigabit data rates, the bandwidths needed are consistent with information theory.
We need to push the envelope, so to speak, and see what happens with VERY narrow pulses, so narrow that they can only contain a single cycle.
> The chances of getting two photons during an > opening would be low but the shutter would be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > selecting only part of the photon should increase > the bandwidth if I am right. Selecting only part of the photon should either (1) produce no output or (2) produce a photon with less energy, since part of its energy has been absorbed.
(1) is consistent with Einstein. (2) would blow all kinds of holes in quantum electro dynamics unless it could be shown to be consistent with the compton effect.
>> > The higher energy reduces >> > the number of photons per mW and current can be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That and a decent diffraction grating would do it > but I guess the CCD would need to be cooled. We used Peltier coolers to cool the PMTubes in our NOx monitors, back when I did instrument repair for a division of Borg Warner.
On the other hand, liquid nitrogen is pretty cheap. Liquid He is a bit pricy. But I could 'borrow a cup' of either as we use both in our building.
[aside: when the new superconductor magnet for our new 700 MHz NMR was being brought up to field, they had a quench incident that boiled off 2000 litres of liquid helium in a few seconds. The fog in the air set off the fire alarms and cleared the building.]
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
George Dishman - 22 Jul 2005 18:07 GMT <snip>
>> It would be >> possible to measure the bandwidth of a laser [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > We know that for switching speeds used for gigabit data rates, the > bandwidths needed are consistent with information theory. Indeed, I was outlining the control experiment.
> We need to push the envelope, so to speak, and see what happens with VERY > narrow pulses, so narrow that they can only contain a single cycle. Single cycle might be beyond the technology but chopping within the coherence length is achievable.
>> The chances of getting two photons during an >> opening would be low but the shutter would be [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > quantum electro dynamics unless it could be shown to be consistent with > the compton effect. (1) A gate of 10ps at 10kHz should allow through 100 photons per billion so the intensity would be reduced by that factor. The laser intensity could be increased to partly compensate as long as the probability of two photons per gate remains negligible.
(2) My expectation is that the mean photon energy would not change but the spread would increase. A coherence length of say 3cm is 100ps or a bandwidth of 20 GHz (both sidebands). Chopping it at 10ps would widen that to 200GHz creating photons with energies farther from the mean if I am right.
> [aside: when the new superconductor magnet for our new 700 MHz NMR was > being brought up to field, they had a quench incident that boiled off 2000 > litres of liquid helium in a few seconds. The fog in the air set off the > fire alarms and cleared the building.] You guys sure have some fun :-)
George
bz - 22 Jul 2005 19:32 GMT "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:dbr8pg$miv$1 @news.freedom2surf.net:
> <snip> >>> It would be [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > but chopping within the coherence length is > achievable. Single cycle is certainly not beyond the technology at lower frequencies.
>>> The chances of getting two photons during an >>> opening would be low but the shutter would be [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> quantum electro dynamics unless it could be shown to be consistent with >> the compton effect. Looks like people are, or think they are, making single photons.
http://ipeqwww.epfl.ch/qd/html/singleqddevices.htm http://www.quiprocone.org/report034.pdf http://www.mqc2.it/MQC204/Stevenson.pdf http://cua.mit.edu/8.422/PHYSICS-vuckovic-fattal-santori-solomon-yamamoto- enhanced-single-photon-emission-from-a-quantum-dot-in-a-micropost- microcavity-apl-v82-p3596-2003-single_photons_APL_May03-1.pdf http://www.iota.u-psud.fr/~S4P/pdf%20files/APL02865.pdf
> (1) A gate of 10ps at 10kHz should allow through > 100 photons per billion so the intensity would [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > George
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
George Dishman - 22 Jul 2005 20:49 GMT > "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:dbr8pg$miv$1 > @news.freedom2surf.net: > >> <snip>
>>> We need to push the envelope, so to speak, and see what happens with >>> VERY [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Single cycle is certainly not beyond the technology at lower frequencies. No but I think measuring single photons becomes harder.
> Looks like people are, or think they are, making single photons. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > microcavity-apl-v82-p3596-2003-single_photons_APL_May03-1.pdf > http://www.iota.u-psud.fr/~S4P/pdf%20files/APL02865.pdf We are certainly on the verge of moving to verge of handling single photons routinely.
Thanks again for the links.
George
bz - 23 Jul 2005 00:02 GMT "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:dbrieo$q9g$1 @news.freedom2surf.net:
> We are certainly on the verge of moving to > verge of handling single photons routinely. Yep
> Thanks again for the links. quite welcome. I looked but I didn't see anything there that would tell me the pulse width [photon length?].
The spectra seem to indicate that the single photons have very narrow bandwidth [as I would expect].
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
George Dishman - 29 Jul 2005 15:37 GMT > "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:dbrieo$q9g$1 > @news.freedom2surf.net: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > The spectra seem to indicate that the single photons have very narrow > bandwidth [as I would expect]. If a photon has a specific energy and that is proportional to frequency, then a single photon has a unique frequency hence zero bandwidth and infinite duration >:-(
At least it does with a semi-classical view.
If you include Heisenberg, then the uncertainty in the measured energy relates to the uncertainty in the frequency which depends on the time over which the frequency is measured, hence the bandwidth is related to the method of measurement, and I don't need to point out the crucial role of measurement methods in QM.
As a result, I don't think a photon has a specific length or duration, but the idea of it as a single cycle with hard ends at the zero crossings can be ruled out as too simplistic.
George
bz - 29 Jul 2005 18:00 GMT >> "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:dbrieo$q9g$1 >> @news.freedom2surf.net: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > cycle with hard ends at the zero crossings can be > ruled out as too simplistic. I suspect that the lil critters don't care about Heisenberg, QM, or information theory. I am not sure if they like rock, classical or semi-classical.
The question is interesting, however.
Bumper sticker: Heisenberg may have slept here.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Jeff Root - 01 Aug 2005 03:10 GMT George replied to Bob:
>> The spectra seem to indicate that the single photons >> have very narrow bandwidth [as I would expect]. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > cycle with hard ends at the zero crossings can be > ruled out as too simplistic. The notion that a single photon can have a bandwidth seems absurd to me. For reasons analogous to the notion that the North Pole can have a longitude. It seems obvious that the property of bandwidth only applies to statistical collections of photons, or waves.
I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about the frequency of a single photon, either. Any photon has a particular, measurable energy which is associated with a particular frequency, but there is no way to measure that frequency. Only by analyzing the behavior of a collection of photons does the property of frequency become evident. The analysis shows that f = E/h, so you can *know* the frequency of a single photon within the limits of uncertainty, but you can't actually measure it.
If you have enough photons to directly measure their frequency, then you have enough photons to detect their bandwidth. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
bz - 01 Aug 2005 15:29 GMT "Jeff Root" <jeff5@freemars.org> wrote in news:1122862205.456748.163740 @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> George replied to Bob: > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > then you have enough photons to detect their bandwidth. > The question is 'how big'[long] is a photon.
I can't see any reason that it should be more than one cycle in length.
There is a paper http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEWWW/Articles/DynaPub/DynaPub.html#ref16 That I disagree with. They appear to believe that each photon consist of a wavetrain that is millions of cycles long.
Their theory seems to be falsified by femtosecond laser pulses. There are some that would be less than 2 cycles at the frequency of the laser. Also, the max keying speed of ELF transmission would seem to preclude any requirement for millions of cycled per photon.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Paul B. Andersen - 01 Aug 2005 21:38 GMT > "Jeff Root" <jeff5@freemars.org> wrote in news:1122862205.456748.163740 > @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > I can't see any reason that it should be more than one cycle in length. It doesn't make much sense to talk about the "length" of a photon. A photon is a point particle.
> There is a paper > http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEWWW/Articles/DynaPub/DynaPub.html#ref16 > That I disagree with. They appear to believe that each photon consist of > a wavetrain that is millions of cycles long. Remember that a "photon" is the particle aspect of the wave-particle duality. It is true that you can make a classical (according to Maxwell) "EM wave packet" which is limited in time and space, and which has the energy of one photon. According to Fourier this "wave packet" must have a certain relationship between the width of the spectrum (spread of frequencies) and the extension in space. The narrower the spectrum, the longer in space, and vice versa. But you cannot equate this wave packet to a photon - a particle. You must consider it to be a probability function. The width of the spectrum is then the uncertainty in the frequency and thus the energy of the photon, and the extension in space is the uncertainty in time (since the wave packet is propagating the spatial extension can be interpreted as an uncertainty in time). The relationship mentioned above is thus in accordance with the uncertainty principle.
> Their theory seems to be falsified by femtosecond laser pulses. > There are some that would be less than 2 cycles at the frequency of the > laser. Also, the max keying speed of ELF transmission would seem to preclude > any requirement for millions of cycled per photon. Quite. If the pulses are very short and determined with high precision in time (very short wave packet), the uncertainty in energy must be high (Wave packet with very wide frequency spectrum.)
But I will repeat: It doesn't make sense to talk about the length of a photon.
Consider this: We observe the H-alpha line from a very weak astronomical source. With modern CCDs, we can literally count the photons as they arrive, maybe only a very few photons per second. If we use a spectrometer, we can see that the spread in frequency/energy is very small (it's a spectral line). But you can say just about nothing about _when_ the next photon will be detected, they will appear to arrive randomly (like radioactive radiation - Poisson distribution). So the "wave packet" of these photons must have a very narrow frequency spectrum and must be very long in space.
Does it make sense to say that these photons are light seconds long? :-) Don't think so. That the wave packet is long only means that we don't know when the photon will be detected. But yet it is detected at an instant - not gradually.
Paul
bz - 01 Aug 2005 22:42 GMT >> "Jeff Root" <jeff5@freemars.org> wrote in news:1122862205.456748.163740 >> @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > It doesn't make much sense to talk about the "length" of a photon. > A photon is a point particle. Something can be a point when seen from one direction and still have duration (length) along another axis.
>> There is a paper >> http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEWWW/Articles/DynaPub/DynaPub.html#ref16 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Remember that a "photon" is the particle aspect of the wave-particle > duality. A photon is the name we have given to the smallest possible 'bundle' of EM energy. In some experiments it looks like a wave, in some, it looks like a particle. Limitiations of our testing equipment.
Some equations treat it like a wave, some like a probability function, some like a particle.
None [that I know of] encompass all the photons observed properties.
> It is true that you can make a classical (according to Maxwell) > "EM wave packet" which is limited in time and space, and which has > the energy of one photon. According to Fourier this "wave packet" > must have a certain relationship between the width of the spectrum > (spread of frequencies) and the extension in space. > The narrower the spectrum, the longer in space, and vice versa. I understand FT and FFT, modulation and what information theory says 'must' happen.
> But you cannot equate this wave packet to a photon - a particle. > You must consider it to be a probability function. > The width of the spectrum is then the uncertainty in the frequency > and thus the energy of the photon, and the extension in space > is the uncertainty in time (since the wave packet is propagating > the spatial extension can be interpreted as an uncertainty in time). I agree. I think there is an uncertainly in time for single photons. A small fraction of the time of one wavelength, a small phase uncertainty, should suffice.
> The relationship mentioned above is thus in accordance > with the uncertainty principle. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > in time (very short wave packet), the uncertainty in energy > must be high (Wave packet with very wide frequency spectrum.) Or there must be some uncertainly in the exact time the photon was emitted by the transmitting antenna.
> But I will repeat: > It doesn't make sense to talk about the length of a photon. It would make an interesting experiment, if I had the equipment to do switching at zero crossing and sent 1 cycle at 160 meters [the 1.8 MHz amateur band], I think I should create a bunch of 160 meter photons. They would probably be spread out a bit in time.
> Consider this: > We observe the H-alpha line from a very weak astronomical > source. With modern CCDs, we can literally count the photons > as they arrive, maybe only a very few photons per second. yes.
> If we use a spectrometer, we can see that the spread in > frequency/energy is very small (it's a spectral line). yes.
> But you can say just about nothing about _when_ the next > photon will be detected, they will appear to arrive randomly > (like radioactive radiation - Poisson distribution). yes.
> So the "wave packet" of these photons must have a very > narrow frequency spectrum and must be very long in space. No. The packets are spread out in space, but each is very short.
> Does it make sense to say that these photons are > light seconds long? :-) No. Only that they are light seconds apart.
> Don't think so. > That the wave packet is long only means that we don't > know when the photon will be detected. We know when it is detected. If it is millions of cycles long, does detection take place at the beginning or the end of the millions of cycles?
If it is millions of cycles long, what happens if a shutter is dropped into the focal plane in the middle of the wave train?
> But yet it is detected at an instant - not gradually. That would indicate that it can NOT be millions of cycles 'long'.
I see no reason for it to be more than 1 cycle 'long'.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson - 01 Aug 2005 23:27 GMT >>> "Jeff Root" <jeff5@freemars.org> wrote in news:1122862205.456748.163740 >>> @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 157 lines] > >I see no reason for it to be more than 1 cycle 'long'. Ah! but what is a 'cycle'? .....a cycle of what?
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.
bz - 02 Aug 2005 11:20 GMT >>>> "Jeff Root" <jeff5@freemars.org> wrote in >>>> news:1122862205.456748.163740 @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 162 lines] > Ah! but what is a 'cycle'? > .....a cycle of what? A cycle of E <---> M energy transfer. Where the E and M fields exchange energy.
A rotation of the energy magnitude vector in EM space.
A cycle of the AC voltage in my transmitting antenna. A cycle of the AC voltage induced by the passing M field in my receiving antenna.
A cycle of the current in my loop transmitting antenna [which produces an M field in space] A cycle of the current induced in my loop receiving antenna by the M field of the passing radio wave. ...
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Sue... - 02 Aug 2005 12:10 GMT > >>>> "Jeff Root" <jeff5@freemars.org> wrote in > >>>> news:1122862205.456748.163740 @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 176 lines] > A cycle of the current induced in my loop receiving antenna by the M field > of the passing radio wave. Nature can do this without taking a maths class: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FourierTransform.html
Sue...
> ... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap Henri Wilson - 03 Aug 2005 01:02 GMT >>>> The relationship mentioned above is thus in accordance >>>> with the uncertainty principle. [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] >A cycle of the AC voltage induced by the passing M field in my receiving >antenna. No that's not the cycle of a single photon. That involves 'group phasing'.
>A cycle of the current in my loop transmitting antenna [which produces an M >field in space] >A cycle of the current induced in my loop receiving antenna by the M field >of the passing radio wave. No bob. Read the question.
>... 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.
bz - 03 Aug 2005 06:16 GMT >>>>That would indicate that it can NOT be millions of cycles 'long'. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > No that's not the cycle of a single photon. That involves 'group > phasing'. Depends on the transmitter's power.
>>A cycle of the current in my loop transmitting antenna [which produces >>an M field in space] >>A cycle of the current induced in my loop receiving antenna by the M >>field of the passing radio wave. > > No bob. Read the question.
>>> Ah! but what is a 'cycle'? >>> .....a cycle of what? I answered the question with respect to the topic under discussion.
I see no reason for a single photon to be longer than one cycle.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
sue jahn - 03 Aug 2005 12:16 GMT > >>>>That would indicate that it can NOT be millions of cycles 'long'. > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > I see no reason for a single photon to be longer than one cycle. Since the rules of Quantum Mechanics are already written, and you AFAIK are not being consulted on a rewrite, the point is rather moot. Eh ?
Sue...
> -- > bz [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap Henri Wilson - 03 Aug 2005 13:41 GMT >> >>>>That would indicate that it can NOT be millions of cycles 'long'. >> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >Since the rules of Quantum Mechanics are already written, and you >AFAIK are not being consulted on a rewrite, the point is rather moot. Eh ? QM is a statistical theory...and stats don't work too well with a sample size of ONE.
>Sue... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap 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.
Sue... - 03 Aug 2005 14:45 GMT > >> >>>>That would indicate that it can NOT be millions of cycles 'long'. > >> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > QM is a statistical theory...and stats don't work too well with a sample size > of ONE. Did someone say the *sample* size was one ?
Santa can deliver 2.3 toys to *ONE* house with a high degree of certainty that each child in the house will get a toy.
Sue...
> >Sue... > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. bz - 03 Aug 2005 15:19 GMT >> QM is a statistical theory...and stats don't work too well with a >> sample size of ONE. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with a high degree of certainty that each > child in the house will get a toy. Only if Santa restricts his deliveries to a small portion of the globe.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Sue... - 03 Aug 2005 19:02 GMT > >> QM is a statistical theory...and stats don't work too well with a > >> sample size of ONE. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > with a high degree of certainty that each > > child in the house will get a toy. BZ: Only if Santa restricts his deliveries to a small portion of the globe. << I see no reason for a single photon to be longer than one cycle.>>
Sue: Well maybe it has to be at least four cycles in case some astromnomer wants to cut it into four pieces. http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2000/phot-26-00.html GAWD! you don't suppose Santa elves cut up the toys do you?
Sue...
> -- > bz [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap bz - 03 Aug 2005 19:55 GMT "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:1123091999.580984.298710 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>> >> QM is a statistical theory...and stats don't work too well with a >> >> sample size of ONE. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > some astromnomer wants to cut it into four pieces. > http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2000/phot-26-00.html Naw, they just need for 4 photons to arrive from the same source at the same time.
> GAWD! you don't suppose Santa elves cut up the toys do you? Naw, they just stretch them out over millions of cycles.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
sue jahn - 03 Aug 2005 20:29 GMT > "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:1123091999.580984.298710 > @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Naw, they just need for 4 photons to arrive from the same source at the > same time. Ya care to show us where that feller is on the periodic table?
Sue...
> > GAWD! you don't suppose Santa elves cut up the toys do you? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap bz - 03 Aug 2005 20:54 GMT >> "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in >> news:1123091999.580984.298710 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Ya care to show us where that feller is on the periodic table? Photon on the periodic table? Two rows up from hydrogen, and one row to the left.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Sue... - 03 Aug 2005 21:08 GMT BS
Sue: What are the assumtions of the formalism called quantum mechanics?
Sue...
jgreen@seol.net.au - 04 Aug 2005 12:58 GMT > >> "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in > >> news:1123091999.580984.298710 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Photon on the periodic table? > Two rows up from hydrogen, and one row to the left. Maybe higher still? The little fellas are pretty small compared to the mass a H (but we're on the right track)
Jim G c'=c+v
bz - 03 Aug 2005 14:07 GMT >> >>>>That would indicate that it can NOT be millions of cycles 'long'. >> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Since the rules of Quantum Mechanics are already written, and you > AFAIK are not being consulted on a rewrite, the point is rather moot. Eh AFAIK, the rules of quantum mechanics are rather silent upon the 'length' of a photon.
Last time I looked, the emission and absorbtion process was considered to be practically 'instantanious', with the half life of the excited state being the parameter under study.
The paper http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEWWW/Articles/DynaPub/DynaPub.html#ref16 seems to confuse the half life of the excited state with the time required to actually emit a photon and to equate that with the photon length.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson - 01 Aug 2005 23:23 GMT >> "Jeff Root" <jeff5@freemars.org> wrote in news:1122862205.456748.163740 >> @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > >Paul Load of crap.
Why don't you just accept that neither you nor anyone else has much of a clue about light.
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.
bz - 02 Aug 2005 11:14 GMT > Why don't you just accept that neither you nor anyone else has much of a > clue about light. Agreed.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
George Dishman - 07 Aug 2005 14:48 GMT > "Jeff Root" <jeff5@freemars.org> wrote in news:1122862205.456748.163740 > @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> energy which is associated with a particular frequency, but >> there is no way to measure that frequency. I disagree Jeff, we can take a single photon and fire it at a diffraction grating and measure the wavelength hence the frequency. (I'm not sure if single photons have had their frequency measured by the heterodyne method yet.) If you measure many photons, you can determine the bandwidth or the uncertainty of the energy.
>> Only by analyzing >> the behavior of a collection of photons does the property of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I can't see any reason that it should be more than one cycle in length. The reason I have offered several times is that interference effects occur with path length differences of many wavelengths even in single photon experiments. If you don't want to treat a photon as a point particle, you have to address that aspect in some way.
> There is a paper > http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEWWW/Articles/DynaPub/DynaPub.html#ref16 > That I disagree with. They appear to believe that each photon consist of > a wavetrain that is millions of cycles long. > > Their theory seems to be falsified by femtosecond laser pulses. They weren't using femtosecond pulses. Your argument doesn't stand, because if they were using femtosecond pulses, the pulse envelope bandwidth multiplies the carrier producing sidebands. The 'length' is inversely related to the bandwidth.
George
> There are some that would be less than 2 cycles at the frequency of the > laser. Also, the max keying speed of ELF transmission would seem to > preclude > any requirement for millions of cycled per photon. bz - 07 Aug 2005 17:39 GMT "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:dd53au$k6p$1 @news.freedom2surf.net:
>> "Jeff Root" <jeff5@freemars.org> wrote in news:1122862205.456748.163740 >> @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > carrier producing sidebands. The 'length' is inversely > related to the bandwidth. That is true, by information theory. But, I doubt that information theory was designed to handle quanta of energy.
If we look at femto second pulses, they must consist of bunches of photons at different frequencies [the frequencies of the side bands].
If we filtered those out, and attenuated the carrier so as to just allow one photon on the main frequency, would the photons suddenly get longer?
I don't yet have any reason to think so.
>> There are some that would be less than 2 cycles at the frequency of the >> laser. Also, the max keying speed of ELF transmission would seem to >> preclude >> any requirement for millions of cycled per photon.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
George Dishman - 07 Aug 2005 18:29 GMT ...
> If we look at femto second pulses, they must consist of bunches of photons > at different frequencies [the frequencies of the side bands]. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I don't yet have any reason to think so. If you hit a narrow-band filter with an impulse, how long does it ring ;-)
George
bz - 07 Aug 2005 19:42 GMT "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:dd5g3h$out$1 @news.freedom2surf.net:
> ... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If you hit a narrow-band filter with an > impulse, how long does it ring ;-) That depends upon the Q.
Since we only want one photon, we can tolerate a rather low Q.
Aye?
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
George Dishman - 07 Aug 2005 23:21 GMT > "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:dd5g3h$out$1 > @news.freedom2surf.net: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Aye? No, you can get single photons just by reducing the intensity to a low rate and using quite a wide (long duration) gate.
You said "one photon on the main frequency". The question is how close to that frequency is "on"? Low Q means wide band. The duration of the ringing is of the order of 1 / bandwidth. Again we come back to the argument from duality, that the bandwidth is a measure of the uncertainty of the energy of a particular photon while the "length" is related to the uncertainty of location and the product is of the order of Planck's constant. Try to constrain the energy using a filter and ringing increases the uncertainty in location.
George
bz - 08 Aug 2005 00:54 GMT "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:dd616e$v9m$1 @news.freedom2surf.net:
>> "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:dd5g3h$out$1 >> @news.freedom2surf.net: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > No, you can get single photons just by reducing the intensity > to a low rate and using quite a wide (long duration) gate. I could, but I don't want to.
I want to run through a low pass filter with a fairly shar put off, right above the 'carrier' [the characteristic frequency for the laser in question] and then through a high pass filter with a cut off just below the 'carrier'. I don't mind if I lose most of the carrier also, just as long as I have a few photons left there and have eliminated the 'modulation sidebands'.
> You said "one photon on the main frequency". The question is > how close to that frequency is "on"? Low Q means wide band. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Planck's constant. Try to constrain the energy using a filter > and ringing increases the uncertainty in location. High Q filters ring. Low Q filters don't.
I know that what I am talking about doing could not work in the electronic signal world because the signals are not quantitized.
But light energy is, so I am not convinced it is impossible.
The different domain is important.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
George Dishman - 09 Aug 2005 19:28 GMT > "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:dd616e$v9m$1 > @news.freedom2surf.net: ...
> I want to run through a low pass filter with a fairly shar put off, right > above the 'carrier' [the characteristic frequency for the laser in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > High Q filters ring. Low Q filters don't. Anything narrower than critical damping rings.
> I know that what I am talking about doing could not work in the electronic > signal world because the signals are not quantitized. Yes they are, the quanta are just too small to detect.
> But light energy is, so I am not convinced it is impossible. > > The different domain is important. I'll be interested to see what you get if you ever have the chance to try it.
Thanks for a thought-provoking discussion.
Best regards George
Jeff Root - 09 Aug 2005 23:21 GMT George replied to Jeff via Bob:
> >> I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about the frequency of a > >> single photon, either. Any photon has a particular, measurable [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > many photons, you can determine the bandwidth or > the uncertainty of the energy. Okay, I missed something extremely basic and obvious.
Can it be done with a prism?
Suppose I measure the wavelengths of a thousand photons, one at a time, and they are all the same, within my ability to measure. What would that say about the bandwidth or uncertainty of the energy?
>> The question is 'how big'[long] is a photon. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > a photon as a point particle, you have to address > that aspect in some way. Interference occurs as if the light consisted of waves something like surface waves on a liquid, even though only a single photon is in the apparatus at any given time. QM doesn't provide any "explanation" of that, does it? Only a way to calculate the effects? Is the length of a photon involved in the calculation? Does the result of the calculation depend on photon length? Can the length be calculated from other givens? -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
George Dishman - 09 Aug 2005 23:49 GMT > George replied to Jeff via Bob: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Can it be done with a prism? Sure, fire a stream of individual photons at a prism and then on to a photomultiplier.
> Suppose I measure the wavelengths of a thousand photons, > one at a time, and they are all the same, within my ability > to measure. What would that say about the bandwidth or > uncertainty of the energy? Simply that the bandwidth of thesource is less than the resolution of your instrument.
>>> The question is 'how big'[long] is a photon. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > something like surface waves on a liquid, even though only > a single photon is in the apparatus at any given time. Correct, and importantly even if the difference between the path lengths is many wavelengths.
> QM doesn't provide any "explanation" of that, does it? > Only a way to calculate the effects? Scientifically speaking, what is the difference between an "explanation" and "a way to calculate the effects"?
> Is the length of a > photon involved in the calculation? Does the result of > the calculation depend on photon length? Can the length > be calculated from other givens? The most accurate theory is QED although a simpler classical analysis can give similar results in many cases. QED treats photons as point particles of exactly zero size so photons don't have a length at all. That's why I usually put it in quotes in this context, it isn't really a length as we normally consider the word but a measure of the maximum path difference over which interference effects can be detected. To do that, you need to fire several photons at say a pair of slits and see if there is a fringe pattern, you cannot get a pattern from one photon. But as soon as you do that, you are not measuring a single photon but rather the spread of the group, i.e. the uncertainty in the energies.
Another consideration is more hand-waving, the proper time experienced by a photon is always zero so both paths are of zero length to the particle and the difference we see doesn't exist as far as it is concerned.
IMHO, this question really shows how closely related the particle and wave views are, photons aren't really one or the other, they are somewhere between and it is our limited imaginations that try to insist on choosing.
best regards George
Jeff Root - 10 Aug 2005 19:17 GMT George replied to Jeff:
>> Interference occurs as if the light consisted of waves >> something like surface waves on a liquid, even though only [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > between an "explanation" and "a way to calculate > the effects"? Understanding.
A computer can calculate the appearance of an interference pattern without understanding it. A human can understand what an interference pattern is, how it is caused, and what it implies, without being able to calculate what it would look like.
A good explanation enables me to understand whatever is being explained. You and I are both good at explaining things. Of course, one needs to understand what one is explaining (even if only at the time the explanation is expressed-- I believe that explaining a thing to others is a good way to learn about and understand the thing). Since you understand more things than I do, you can explain more things than I can. So your services are in greater demand than mine, and you get paid better than I do.
Also, you understand many calculations which I do not, so you are better equipped to determine whether your own understanding or someone else's explanation of things is correct or not.
I do not know what "understanding" is. It can be quantified (at least crudely) by knowledge tests and intelligence tests. I wonder whether it is amenable to explanation.
QED doesn't provide any "explanation" of interference, does it?
>> Is the length of a photon involved in the calculation? >> Does the result of the calculation depend on photon length? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > cases. QED treats photons as point particles of exactly > zero size so photons don't have a length at all. An explanation of why QED treats photons as point particles might provide some of the understanding I desire.
Although I would think that any action takes some amount of time. It is natural for me to assume, for example, that emission of a photon by an atom or charged particle takes a time equal to one period of the resulting photon's wave.
(I had a hard time choosing the last word of that sentence. I finally decided that if a photon can have a wavelength, it can have a wave!)
> IMHO, this question really shows how closely > related the particle and wave views are, photons > aren't really one or the other, they are somewhere > between and it is our limited imaginations that try > to insist on choosing. I think of light as having both wave and particle properties simultaneousy, but I had long been under the impression that they cannot be observed simultaneously. I'm not yet totally convinced that they can. Maybe I need to see it done. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
sue jahn - 10 Aug 2005 20:35 GMT > George replied to Jeff: > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > QED doesn't provide any "explanation" of interference, > does it? Indeed it does. It is fundamental to QED. All possible paths are evaluated, those whose lengths differ by 1/2 wavelength are discarded as null paths.
> >> Is the length of a photon involved in the calculation? > >> Does the result of the calculation depend on photon length? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > An explanation of why QED treats photons as point particles > might provide some of the understanding I desire. QM treats the emissions of atomic oscillators as chunks of energy to avoid the ultraviolet catastrophe. QED treats the chunks "as tho" they were moving from *point* to *point* because the integration of all possible paths is done the way surveyors have done it for thousands of years. Ya don't measure from the oak tree, ya drive a nail in the oak tree and measure from that.
> Although I would think that any action takes some amount > of time. It is natural for me to assume, for example, that [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > they cannot be observed simultaneously. I'm not yet totally > convinced that they can. Maybe I need to see it done. QED's photons carry watches or odometers or sumsuch to contribute to the final integraton of phases, probabilities and distances. Pictures of clocks and arrows are really helpful. If you can not get Feynman's book "QED" this might scare up some diagrams. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=feynman+path+integral&btnG=Google+Search http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman
Sue...
> -- Jeff, in Minneapolis George Dishman - 12 Aug 2005 20:21 GMT > ... If you can not get Feynman's book "QED" this might > scare up some diagrams. Jeff, if you aren't already aware of Sue's reference:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691024170/102-9393346-0488961
George
jgreen@seol.net.au - 12 Aug 2005 11:19 GMT > George replied to Jeff: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > it implies, without being able to calculate what it would > look like. If two photons are emitted from set positions at set times, and approach each other, they interdict ie cause an interference, at point A, due to distance covered at both velocities being "c". But if one or the other is travelling +/- c due to its source velocity, then the POINT of interdiction alters. Voila'.......Sagnac machine works by identifying a change in the interdiction position caused be c'=c+v
Jim G c'=c+v
George Dishman - 12 Aug 2005 16:30 GMT ...
> If two photons are emitted from set positions at set times, and > approach each other, they interdict ie cause an interference, at point > A, due to distance covered at both velocities being "c". OK so far though "interdict" is an odd term to use for constructive interference.
> But if one or the other is travelling +/- c due to its source velocity, > then the POINT of interdiction alters. Correct, though in the Sagnac experiemnt Ritz would say one was moving at c+v while the other moved at c-v. If you do the sums, you will find point A moves a distance v*T where T is the time of flight of each photon.
> Voila'.......Sagnac machine works by identifying a change in the > interdiction position caused be c'=c+v Oops, you forgot that during the time of flight, the detector also moves a distance of v*T. The detector output should therefore be unaffected by the motion of the equipment if Ritz were right.
In fact the output is proportional to the distance between the detector and point A, and the result tells us that point A doesn't move regardless of the speed v. How are you going to explain that Jim?
George
jgreen@seol.net.au - 13 Aug 2005 09:16 GMT > ... > > If two photons are emitted from set positions at set times, and [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > tells us that point A doesn't move regardless of > the speed v. How are you going to explain that Jim? Depends whether you measure from the airframe to which the sag is fixed, or the earth to who's view the entire machine rotates (as the plane circles)
Cheers Jim G c'=c+v
George Dishman - 13 Aug 2005 09:38 GMT >> ... >> > If two photons are emitted from set positions at set times, and [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > fixed, or the earth to who's view the entire machine rotates (as the > plane circles) The source and detector are both fixed within the instrument.
George
Jeff Root - 13 Aug 2005 09:51 GMT Jim Greenfield wrote:
> If two photons are emitted from set positions at set times, and > approach each other, they interdict ie cause an interference, at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Voila'.......Sagnac machine works by identifying a change in the > interdiction position caused be c'=c+v You have no idea what the word "interdict" means. Use your dictionary to find out. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
George Dishman - 12 Aug 2005 17:36 GMT > George replied to Jeff: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Understanding.
> A computer can calculate the appearance of an interference > pattern without understanding it. A human can understand > what an interference pattern is, how it is caused, and what > it implies, without being able to calculate what it would > look like. The gas laws were initially empirical. Kinetic theory then "explained" them by providing a lower-level model. However, scientifically speaking, that explanation consists of the mathematical analysis of aggregates of particles which shows that the simpler laws can be derived statistically within certain constraints (an "ideal gas"). Our understanding of one level is then merely calculation at the next. Similarly why molecules of a gas behave as they do is explained by Coulomb or Van der Waals forces, so the explananation is "Qq/r^2". Then that is explained as a product of the interchange of virtual particles and again that is mathematical. At each level, a scientific explanation is a set of equations, the measurable quantities to which the parameters correspond and the rules for applying them.
We might think that gives us an understanding, which I consider to be a consistent mental image, but of course that could be quite wrong even if the maths is correct. IMHO, understanding is associated philosophy rather than the scientific content.
<snip>
> I do not know what "understanding" is. It can be quantified > (at least crudely) by knowledge tests and intelligence tests. I'm not sure those test understanding rather than ones level of education and ability to learn. Many people know of black holes and many of those would be considered intelligent, yet I doubt more than a small fraction truly _understand_ their nature. I certainly don't.
> I wonder whether it is amenable to explanation. > > QED doesn't provide any "explanation" of interference, > does it? The same as the classical understanding, interference occurs when two copies of a wave-like phenomenon with some relative phase displacement can reinforce or cancel (or anything in between) when recombined depending on whether a positive peak coincides with another positive peak or a negative one or some other part of the waveform.
>>> Is the length of a photon involved in the calculation? >>> Does the result of the calculation depend on photon length? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > An explanation of why QED treats photons as point particles > might provide some of the understanding I desire. I'll pass on that. You really need to talk to someone with knowledge of the subject.
> Although I would think that any action takes some amount > of time. It is natural for me to assume, for example, that > emission of a photon by an atom or charged particle takes > a time equal to one period of the resulting photon's wave. Consider again the fact that single photons can show interference effects when the difference in path lengths is many wavelengths.
> (I had a hard time choosing the last word of that sentence. > I finally decided that if a photon can have a wavelength, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > they cannot be observed simultaneously. I'm not yet totally > convinced that they can. Maybe I need to see it done. A single photon has the maximum probability of hitting a point on a screen where the path difference is a multiple of the wavelength. Is that not exhibiting both properties?
George
Androcles - 22 Jul 2005 20:50 GMT | "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:dbr8pg$miv$1 | @news.freedom2surf.net: Watch our for bz. He'll calculate 76.6c for the speed of an electron in an accelerator and blame YOU for it. Androcles.
Paul B. Andersen - 17 Jul 2005 20:44 GMT > Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source". > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > variable star simulation program: > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe We both know that you have tested your program only once, namely on HD80715. What was the result, Henri?
Everybody, notice his answer. :-)
> Note: Einstein's unproven claim that the target observer will always MEASURE > the speed of the incoming pulses as being c is completely irrelevant to this [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. No progress, then.
Paul
Henri Wilson - 18 Jul 2005 01:33 GMT >> Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source". >> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > >Everybody, notice his answer. :-) The program relies on the concept of 'closing speed of light', as defined by SR. How COULD it be wrong?
>> Note: Einstein's unproven claim that the target observer will always MEASURE >> the speed of the incoming pulses as being c is completely irrelevant to this [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >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.
Paul B. Andersen - 18 Jul 2005 18:35 GMT >>>There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very regular >>>brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by my [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > SR. > How COULD it be wrong? See? :-)
Henri Wilson won't tell us what the result was the one time he tested his program with measured data of a known binary.
Paul
Henri Wilson - 18 Jul 2005 23:11 GMT >>>>There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very regular >>>>brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by my [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >the one time he tested his program with measured data >of a known binary. All that beer hasn't cured your tendency to rave.
>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.
Aristotle - 20 Jul 2005 15:10 GMT >>> The program relies on the concept of 'closing speed of light', as defined by >>> SR. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >All that beer hasn't cured your tendency to rave. And you still REFUSE to answer the question. Are you a politician? You sure duck questions like one.
Henri Wilson - 22 Jul 2005 00:46 GMT >>>> The program relies on the concept of 'closing speed of light', as defined by >>>> SR. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >And you still REFUSE to answer the question. Are you a politician? >You sure duck questions like one. I have answered Andersen's question so many times that he has even forgotten what the question was.
Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the mythical 'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish.
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.
Aristotle - 23 Jul 2005 01:00 GMT >>And you still REFUSE to answer the question. Are you a politician? >>You sure duck questions like one. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the mythical >'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish. Consistent and a pair of cajones. No only do you still duck the questions you accuse others of doing it as well.
George Dishman - 23 Jul 2005 09:41 GMT >>>And you still REFUSE to answer the question. Are you a politician? >>>You sure duck questions like one. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > No only do you still duck the questions you accuse others of doing it > as well. Nor is it even true, I am still pointing out the obvious error in his post and will continue to do so. On the other hand, Henri said:
...
> George, I am not interested in discucssing > the sagna c any more. George
Aristotle - 23 Jul 2005 23:13 GMT >>>Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the >>>mythical [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >George I have long given up any hope of hearing Henri speak the truth.
Henri Wilson - 24 Jul 2005 11:54 GMT >>>>Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the >>>>mythical [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >>George >I have long given up any hope of hearing Henri speak the truth. Go away!
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.
Aristotle - 25 Jul 2005 13:30 GMT >>>George >>I have long given up any hope of hearing Henri speak the truth. > >Go away! Answer questions instead of obfuscating the issue then running away.
Paul B. Andersen - 24 Jul 2005 21:22 GMT >>>>>The program relies on the concept of 'closing speed of light', as defined by >>>>>SR. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I have answered Andersen's question so many times that he has even forgotten > what the question was. Quite. And here is your answer to the forgotten question.
Paul B. Andersen wrote in June 2004:
| I think we now can sum up what the ballistic theory | predicts HD80715 should look like. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] | the light curve for both stars by translating | the above half a period and adding. Henri Wilson responded:
| I can get these figures from my program. | [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | Just click your mouse a | few times and...there is your curve. But HD80715 is no variable.
So just by clicking his mouse a few times, Henri Wilson falsified the ballistic theory.
> Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the mythical > 'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish. Indeed. There is no way we can refute your world shattering proof. "The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave exactly as predicted by GR, prove that the mythical 'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish." That's why we all have ran for cover.
Paul
Henri Wilson - 24 Jul 2005 23:24 GMT >>>>>>The program relies on the concept of 'closing speed of light', as defined by >>>>>>SR. [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] >So just by clicking his mouse a few times, >Henri Wilson falsified the ballistic theory. After clicking my mouse a few times I can come up with RAW figures for a single star or a binary pair. My RAW figures for a single star, agree with yours.
When I include thermal source speeds and extinction effects, my adjucted figures for the binary pair known as HD80715 show an almost constant brightness. Each contributes a small sinelike variation in brightness. The curves are 180 out of phase.
>> Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the mythical >> 'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > from start to finish." >That's why we all have ran for cover. The clocks rate change has never ben accurately measured. GPS clocks are empirically software adjusted after being placed in orbit.
Why don't you give up Paul. The GR correction has been proven to be a myth.
>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.
Paul B. Andersen - 26 Jul 2005 11:22 GMT >>>>>>>The program relies on the concept of 'closing speed of light', as defined by >>>>>>>SR. [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > brightness. Each contributes a small sinelike variation in brightness. The > curves are 180 out of phase.
| There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very regular | brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by my | variable star simulation program: | www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe Did you include thermal source speeds and extinction effects in these cases, Henri? :-)
Maybe you can pick a concrete example an show us your inferred parameters for your alleged binary?
>>>Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the mythical >>>'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The clocks rate change has never ben accurately measured. GPS clocks are > empirically software adjusted after being placed in orbit. Sure, Henri. Nothing is accurately measured. The GPS clocks are only proven to run as predicted by GR to within the precision of the clocks, which is a thousand times better than the size of the "GR-correction".
So let me rephrase your proof: "The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave as predicted by GR within the precision of the clocks, prove that the mythical 'GR correction' of GPS clocks is plain nonsense from start to finish."
Satisfied now?
> Why don't you give up Paul. The GR correction has been proven to be a myth. Of course Henri. That was what I said, wasn't it? Nobody can refute your genial proof.
Paul
Henri Wilson - 26 Jul 2005 23:41 GMT >>>>I have answered Andersen's question so many times that he has even forgotten >>>>what the question was. [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] >Maybe you can pick a concrete example an show us your inferred >parameters for your alleged binary? Give up Paul. You are starting to sound like a troll who is desperate to use any tactic to prop up his faith, The GR correction of GPS clocks is a myth and the BaT can produce observed brightness variation curves for most stars.
Looks like you are running out of 'supporting evidence', eh?
>>>>Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the mythical >>>>'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >to within the precision of the clocks, which is a thousand >times better than the size of the "GR-correction". Nonsense. You are making it up. No experiment has ever verified this.
>So let me rephrase your proof: >"The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Satisfied now? You are dreaming again.
>> Why don't you give up Paul. The GR correction has been proven to be a myth. > >Of course Henri. >That was what I said, wasn't it? >Nobody can refute your genial proof. Clocks change when placed in orbit. Time doesn't. The GR explanation is nonsensical anyway. Plesae tell me again how GR explains the free fall clock rate change. I feel like a good laugh.
>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.
Paul B. Andersen - 27 Jul 2005 08:51 GMT >>>>>I have answered Andersen's question so many times that he has even forgotten >>>>>what the question was. [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > Looks like you are running out of 'supporting evidence', eh? You don't like to be asked for concrete examples, do you? The reason is obvious, of course. You once gave one, and have regretted it ever since.
>>>>>Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the mythical >>>>>'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Nonsense. You are making it up. > No experiment has ever verified this. Of course not, Henri. As we all know, the GPS does not work.
>>So let me rephrase your proof: >>"The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave as [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You are dreaming again.
| There is an observer on the ground and another in the | proposed GPS orbit. Both observers will use the same clock to measure the time [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | When the clock is in orbit, both observers agree that the orbit duration is N+n | ticks of the clock. This is exactly as predicted by GR, and it is verified by the GPS within the precision of the clocks.
From this, you conclude:
| GR is therefore plain nonsense.....!!!! So your proof boils down to: "The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave as predicted by GR within the precision of the clocks, prove that the mythical 'GR correction' of GPS clocks is plain nonsense from start to finish."
Are you now saying that this beautiful proof is but a dream?
>>>Why don't you give up Paul. The GR correction has been proven to be a myth. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Clocks change when placed in orbit. Time doesn't. Keep asserting, Henri. Maybe Nature eventually will change one day.
> The GR explanation is nonsensical anyway. The ultimate argument! Henri finds GR nonsensical. It must be wrong, then.
> Plesae tell me again how GR explains the free fall clock rate change. I feel > like a good laugh. Keep laughing at what you don't understand, Henri. It make you look so intelligent.
Paul
Henri Wilson - 28 Jul 2005 06:12 GMT >>>>After clicking my mouse a few times I can come up with RAW figures for a single >>>>star or a binary pair. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >The reason is obvious, of course. >You once gave one, and have regretted it ever since. HAVE YOU GONE RAVING MAD?
>>>>The clocks rate change has never ben accurately measured. GPS clocks are >>>>empirically software adjusted after being placed in orbit. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Of course not, Henri. >As we all know, the GPS does not work. That's correct.
>>>So let me rephrase your proof: >>>"The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave as [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >This is exactly as predicted by GR, and it is verified by the GPS >within the precision of the clocks. No it isn't. GR says the clock doesn't physically change, Time does. GR says an observer traveling with the clock would see no change. GR make so many ridiculous claims that only a fool would even consider them.
My experiment clearly shows that it is the clock which changes PHYSICALLY....due to reasons unknown but certainly not related to GR in any way.
> From this, you conclude: >| GR is therefore plain nonsense.....!!!! Of course! Where did you get the impression that my 'n' has the same value as the GR prediction?
>So your proof boils down to: >"The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave as > predicted by GR within the precision of the clocks, > prove that the mythical 'GR correction' of GPS clocks > is plain nonsense from start to finish." If clocks behaved as GR predicts, both the OO and te TO would not count N+n ticks per orbit. In fact the OO would count N-n ticks before the clock was launched. .....Yes Paul, I know it sounds nonsensical...but that's GR for you....
>Are you now saying that this beautiful proof is but a dream? I think you will need to call your fairies to get out of this one....
>>>>Why don't you give up Paul. The GR correction has been proven to be a myth. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Keep asserting, Henri. >Maybe Nature eventually will change one day. If TIME changed, the OO wouldn't count N+n ticks per orbit, WOULD HE PAUL?
>> The GR explanation is nonsensical anyway. > >The ultimate argument! >Henri finds GR nonsensical. >It must be wrong, then. It certainly must be.
>> Plesae tell me again how GR explains the free fall clock rate change. I feel >> like a good laugh. > >Keep laughing at what you don't understand, Henri. >It make you look so intelligent. How exactly DOES GR explain it Paul? Does the clock physically change or doesn't it?
>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.
Paul B. Andersen - 28 Jul 2005 10:54 GMT >>So your proof boils down to: >>"The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If clocks behaved as GR predicts, both the OO and te TO would not count N+n > ticks per orbit. Your confusion never cease to amaze. :-)
> In fact the OO would count N-n ticks before the clock was launched. Oh, my dear, Henri. :-)
The ground clock ticks out N ticks per orbit. The orbiting clock ticks out N+n per orbit. Facts. No observer in the universe can disagree about that.
> .....Yes Paul, I know it sounds nonsensical...but that's GR for you.... It IS nonsensical. That you really think "that's GR" demonstrates that you have no clue whatsoever. How is it possible to be THIS confused, Henri? :-)
>>Are you now saying that this beautiful proof is but a dream? > > I think you will need to call your fairies to get out of this one.... Your tick fairies again, Henri? :-)
See this conversation from October 2004
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| Consider the following scenario. | We have two identical clocks on the ground, both running [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] | | I expect another miserable failure by Henri Wilson.
| No Paul you are actually learning and have eliminated the fairies.... Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| This is the very same scenario as always. | I never saw any fairies in it. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] | Fine. It's settled then. Henri Wilson have given up. | There never was any need for 'tick fairies.'
| I never DID believe in fairies. Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| The point is that you have claimed that the scenario above | is impossible without those fairies. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] | | Otherwise I will have to remind you about this scenario again.
| OK Paul, I will never refer to PAUL ANDERSEN'S FAMOUS TICK FAIRIES again....... | | ....unless I have a justifiable reason. You are hereby reminded about the scenario which that made you crawl away with your tail between your legs.
And this scenario is exactly the same as your scenario, the one you think show GR to be nonsense.
The fact is that I showed this scenario in 2003.
Paul B. Andersen wrote in June 2003:
| Let's make a thought experiment. | In a GPS satellite, and on the ground we have clocks running at [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] | Notice that the ground clock observe the blue shifted | frequency (N+19)/N MHz from the satellite clock. So where ARE your tick fairies, Henri? :-)
BTW, Henri. How did your dream go? How does the scenario above - which is predicted by GR and is experimentally verified - prove GR to be wrong? :-)
Paul
Henri Wilson - 28 Jul 2005 23:06 GMT >>>So your proof boils down to: >>>"The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave as [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Facts. >No observer in the universe can disagree about that. That's not what you assured me last year. You said the clock would NOT physically change. You said it would continue at its proper rate but would appear to be running faster to the GO. An observer traveling with the clock would not detect any difference in the clock.
Now you are apparently agreeing that the clock DOES physically change.
Are you having dificulty making up your mind?
> > .....Yes Paul, I know it sounds nonsensical...but that's GR for you.... > >It IS nonsensical. >That you really think "that's GR" demonstrates >that you have no clue whatsoever. >How is it possible to be THIS confused, Henri? :-) I am only repeating what you told me Paul.
>>>Are you now saying that this beautiful proof is but a dream? >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >| Can you please point out what your 'tick fairies' are >| supposed to do in this scenario? Not there...because you are accepting that the clock physically changes.
>| Are there any missing ticks? >| Are there any ticks to many? >| >| I expect another miserable failure by Henri Wilson. No Pau. I just want to be informed of the actual GR reason for the clock rate increase. I don't think you want to tell me...because you know it is nonsense.
You have now acepted that the reason for the rate change is an intrinsic REAL alteration in the clock itself. It has nothing to do with gravity fieds at all.
>| No Paul you are actually learning and have eliminated the fairies.... > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > >So where ARE your tick fairies, Henri? :-) They went when you accepted my then proof that the clock changed PHYSICALLY when placed in free fall. Before that, you and others assured me that the clock did not change at all but it appeared to run fast from the ground in line with the GR blueshift principle.
So what actually IS the GR connection with the rate change?
I don't think there is any, do you?
>BTW, Henri. >How did your dream go? >How does the scenario above - which is predicted by GR >and is experimentally verified - prove GR to be wrong? :-) When you finally tell me how GR 'causes' the clock to change rates, I will put the lid on GRs coffin.
Come on Paul, Please provide the GR explanation of it all.
>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.
Paul B. Andersen - 29 Jul 2005 10:58 GMT >>>>So your proof boils down to: >>>>"The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave as [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Are you having dificulty making up your mind? You ARE confused, no? :-)
Below you will find "what I assured your last year" and the year before.
>>>.....Yes Paul, I know it sounds nonsensical...but that's GR for you.... >> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Not there...because you are accepting that the clock physically changes. The physical change is your unfounded assertion.
The clocks do NOT physically change, both keep running at the same intrinsic, proper rate.
>>| Are there any missing ticks? >>| Are there any ticks to many? [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > They went when you accepted my then proof that the clock changed PHYSICALLY > when placed in free fall. Your unfounded assertion.
> Before that, you and others assured me that the clock did not change at all Quite. The clocks do not change their intrinsic rate at all. But: - The ground clock will measure one orbit to last N us. - The orbiting clock will measure one orbit to last N+19 us.
The two clocks measure different proper times because the two proper times are different, not because they have changed their rate. Time is not absolute.
But this is beyond you, and you will never get it.
> but it appeared to run fast from the ground in line with the GR blueshift > principle. Quite. - The ground clock will measure the average frequency of the orbiting clock to be (N+19)/N MHz. - The orbiting clock will measure the average frequency of the ground clock to be N/(N+19) MHz.
> So what actually IS the GR connection with the rate change? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Come on Paul, Please provide the GR explanation of it all. Nobody, not I, not you, not Einstein, can explain WHY nature behaves as it does. But GR can correctly predict HOW clocks will behave in the gravitational field around the Earth.
The above scenario is what GR predicts. It is experimentally proven to be correct by the GPS. The GPS confirms GR.
Paul
sue jahn - 28 Jul 2005 11:30 GMT snip
> The physical change is your unfounded assertion. > > The clocks do NOT physically change, both keep running > at the same intrinsic, proper rate. Paul, Then you need to address the post of jgreen
<1122608884.622908.253480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
and I believe that will clarify what you mean.
Sue... snip
Henri Wilson - 30 Jul 2005 00:45 GMT >>>>>So your proof boils down to: >>>>>"The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave as [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] >The clocks do NOT physically change, both keep running >at the same intrinsic, proper rate. There you go again.....
What is its proper rate? Is it constant?
>>>The fact is that I showed this scenario in 2003. >>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >- The ground clock will measure one orbit to last N us. >- The orbiting clock will measure one orbit to last N+19 us. The experiment DOES not measure the orbit duration.
The orbit duration (constant) is used to count ticks from the clock in its differnet positions.
You wouldn't use a roll-up tape to accurately measure the length of that iridium bar in Paris, would you?
>The two clocks measure different proper times because >the two proper times are different, not because they have >changed their rate. Time is not absolute. Wot's this, "two clocks"? There is only one clock involved in this experiment.
(I will assume you means the the same clock in its two positions).
Are you refering to the proper time of the orbit?.... or of the clock?
The orbit duration has only one value........ONE (orbit duration)....dimensions (T).
>But this is beyond you, and you will never get it. I am waiting to have it explained. What exactly defines 'proper time'.
>> but it appeared to run fast from the ground in line with the GR blueshift >> principle. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > - The orbiting clock will measure the average frequency > of the ground clock to be N/(N+19) MHz. No Paul, that is not the experiment. Don't diverge and procrastinate.
There is only one clock and the number of ticks it emits between the start and finish of a standard and unchanging time duration is compared in the two situations.
>> So what actually IS the GR connection with the rate change? >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Nobody, not I, not you, not Einstein, can explain WHY >nature behaves as it does. But my experiment can determine whether or not a clock changes PHYSICALLY.
>But GR can correctly predict HOW clocks will behave >in the gravitational field around the Earth. In your dreams Paul. GR can predict how much a photon will accelerate of hence blue shift when it falls down a gravity well. So can Newton.
>The above scenario is what GR predicts. >It is experimentally proven to be correct by the GPS. >The GPS confirms GR. In your dreams Paul.
>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.
Paul B. Andersen - 31 Jul 2005 21:07 GMT >>>>>>So your proof boils down to: >>>>>>"The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave as [quoted text clipped - 192 lines] > > In your dreams Paul. Facts are facts, Henri.
Paul
Jeff Root - 01 Aug 2005 03:24 GMT > I am waiting to have it explained. > What exactly defines 'proper time'. My understanding is that 'proper time' is the time experienced where the observer is, as opposed to the time somewhere else. My proper time is the time I experience where I am, and your proper time is the time you experience where you are.
That's a very simple explanation, but 'proper time' seems to be a very simple thing.
On the other hand, if you want to know what 'time' in general is, I can't explain it. That is something a person can only learn through experience. Virtually everyone learns what time is before they learn to talk, anyway, so it isn't a problem.
As Aurelius Augustinus wrote (1,600 years ago), "What is time? If someone asks me, I know. If I wish to explain it to someone who asks, I know not." -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Henri Wilson - 01 Aug 2005 23:34 GMT >> I am waiting to have it explained. >> What exactly defines 'proper time'. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >If someone asks me, I know. If I wish to explain it to someone >who asks, I know not." Jeff you have come in late on these threads. You will have to read about my experiment detailed in the thread "GPS GR Correction myth"
As for TIME. It is a fundamental dimension like space. Time also has three subdimesnions.
Time "instant" is a point on the absolute time axis (t2) Time "interval" is a length on a time axis. Time 'flow' is the ratio of one to another (dt1/dt2)
Time normally flows at 1 second(t1) per second(t2) That is equivalent to defining the slope of a hill as "10 metres/metre"
I'm not sure what t3 does yet but I think it might be associated with consciousness.
> -- Jeff, in Minneapolis 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.
Kim B - 27 Jul 2005 18:43 GMT >Clocks change when placed in orbit. Time doesn't. Right. All clocks do. Radioactive decays, biological, chemical, mechanical clocks all change the same way. Too bad it wasnt time that changed instead, that would have made everything much simpler
Kim
Henri Wilson - 28 Jul 2005 06:14 GMT >>Clocks change when placed in orbit. Time doesn't. > >Right. All clocks do. Radioactive decays, biological, chemical, >mechanical clocks all change the same way. Idiot! Where is your evidence? Did you find it written in a book about relativity ?
>Too bad it wasnt time that >changed instead, that would have made everything much simpler GR says it IS time which changes, idiot. Don't you even know the theory you worship?
>Kim 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.
sue jahn - 24 Jul 2005 23:29 GMT > >>>>>The program relies on the concept of 'closing speed of light', as defined by > >>>>>SR. [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > from start to finish." > That's why we all have ran for cover. Newton would not have tho't it nonsense. He would have tho't it plagarism.
<< The big difference between a standard clock in your home and an atomic clock is that the oscillation in an atomic clock is between the nucleus of an atom and the surrounding electrons. This oscillation is not exactly a parallel to the balance wheel and hairspring of a clockwork watch, but the fact is that both use oscillations to keep track of passing time. The oscillation frequencies within the atom are determined by the mass of the nucleus and the gravity and electrostatic "spring" between the positive charge on the nucleus and the electron cloud surrounding it.>> http://www.atomic-clock.galleon.eu.com/atomic-clock/atomic-clock.htm
<<Tuning fork watches are inherently far less affected by these problems. The fork has no bearings. It is far easier to "build in" temperature compensation into a Tuning Fork than into a circular balance wheel and it's hairspring. Gravity affects Bulova tuning forks in only 2 orientations (tines up and tines down) compared with the usual 5 positions of good quality balance wheel watches.>> http://members.iinet.net.au/~fotoplot/accspec.htm
<< Example: Problem 87P
A damped harmonic oscillator involves a block (m = 2 kg), a spring (k = 10 N/m), and a damping force F = - b v. Initially it oscillates with an amplitude of 0.25 m; because of the damping, the amplitude falls to three-fourths of its initial value after four complete cycles. (a) What is the value of b ? (b). How much energy is lost during these four cycles ?
The time dependence of the amplitude of the oscillation is given by: The period of one oscillation is given by: The amplitude after 4 oscillations is therefore given by: The angular frequency [omega] is related to the spring constant k and mass m in the following manner: Using this expression we obtain for b The mechanical energy lost during these 4 oscillation can also be easily calculated. >>
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy121/LectureNotes/Chapter16/Chapter16.html http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/231.sc2k.fall00/chap13/chap13.html
Sue...
> Paul Henri Wilson - 25 Jul 2005 08:00 GMT >> >>>>>The program relies on the concept of 'closing speed of light', as defined by >> >>>>>SR. [quoted text clipped - 114 lines] >Using this expression we obtain for b >The mechanical energy lost during these 4 oscillation can also be easily calculated. >> I'm not going to do your homework for you.
>http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy121/LectureNotes/Chapter16/Chapter16.html >http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/231.sc2k.fall00/chap13/chap13.html > >Sue... > >> 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.
Aristotle - 25 Jul 2005 13:29 GMT >>The time dependence of the amplitude of the oscillation is given by: >>The period of one oscillation is given by: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >I'm not going to do your homework for you. Afraid of the challenge Henri?
Paul B. Andersen - 26 Jul 2005 12:14 GMT >>>Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the mythical >>>'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > nucleus and the electron cloud surrounding it.>> > http://www.atomic-clock.galleon.eu.com/atomic-clock/atomic-clock.htm You shouldn't believe everything you find on the net, Sue. :-) Those who wrote that page have obviously no idea of how an atomic clock works.
Statements like: "The oscillation frequencies within the atom are determined by the mass of the nucleus and the gravity and electrostatic "spring" between the positive charge on the nucleus and the electron cloud surrounding it." and: "The single electron of a Caesium atom is known to vibrate at a standard 9,162,613,770 times a second." and: "The second is defined as 9,192,631,770 periods of the caesium-133 atom." are indeed very revealing.
If you don't understand why, the SI-definition of a second should give you a hint: The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.
But don't be too sad. Newton didn't have a clue about this either. So you are in good company. :-)
Paul
Henri Wilson - 26 Jul 2005 23:51 GMT >>>>Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the mythical >>>>'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > the radiation corresponding to the transition between > the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. Cesium clocks represent man's best attempt to measure time accurately. However their rates DO deviate slightly when subject to different physical conditions. This is borne out by GPS clocks which are observed to increase rates by around 1 in 10^10 when relieved of gravitational self-compression.
>But don't be too sad. >Newton didn't have a clue about this either. >So you are in good company. :-) Newton predicts the gravitational blue shift perfectly. Photons accelerate when they fall like anything else.
>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.
bz - 27 Jul 2005 02:06 GMT > Cesium clocks represent man's best attempt to measure time accurately. > However their rates DO deviate slightly when subject to different > physical conditions. > This is borne out by GPS clocks which are observed to increase rates by > around 1 in 10^10 when relieved of gravitational self-compression. It is pure coincidence that the amount of relief happens [for the GPS orbital clocks] to equal the change predictable through the use of SR/GR/EEP. Right?
What will you do when presented with the evidence that when a clock is sent around the earth in a different altitude orbit, it STILL performs as SR/GR/EEP predicts?
Will you will say that the gravitaional self-compression is different? Or will you give SR/GR/EEP fair consideration?
Think about this: for satellites in free fall, how can different degrees of gravitational self compression exist?
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Sue... - 27 Jul 2005 06:48 GMT > > Cesium clocks represent man's best attempt to measure time accurately. > > However their rates DO deviate slightly when subject to different [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > orbital clocks] to equal the change predictable through the use of > SR/GR/EEP. Right? Bz, I trust you and Henri are keeping NPL and NIST apprised of all these discoveries about atomic clocks. http://www.npl.co.uk/quantum/qtm/freq.html http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/h/hy/hyperfine_structure.htm http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/newtlaws/u2l3a.html
:-) Sue...
> What will you do when presented with the evidence that when a clock is sent > around the earth in a different altitude orbit, it STILL performs as [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap bz - 27 Jul 2005 13:28 GMT >> > Cesium clocks represent man's best attempt to measure time >> > accurately. However their rates DO deviate slightly when subject to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >:-) > Sue... They check my primary standard every time they want to 'sync' their kitchen clocks.
They say 'check with bz, he has everything, even the kitchen sync'.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson - 27 Jul 2005 07:46 GMT >> Cesium clocks represent man's best attempt to measure time accurately. >> However their rates DO deviate slightly when subject to different [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >orbital clocks] to equal the change predictable through the use of >SR/GR/EEP. Right? Nobody has bothered to make an accurate comparison. After launch, the GPS clocks are software synched with the ground clock reading and rate anyway.
>What will you do when presented with the evidence that when a clock is sent >around the earth in a different altitude orbit, it STILL performs as >SR/GR/EEP predicts? It will never happen. It proves GR wrong...so the establishment will never allow such material to be seen by anyone.
>Will you will say that the gravitaional self-compression is different? >Or will you give SR/GR/EEP fair consideration? If it ever DID happen, I would automatically assume that there is a natural 'aether frame' around the Earth. That's the only way 'contractions' can be real.
>Think about this: for satellites in free fall, how can different degrees of >gravitational self compression exist? All similar clocks in free fall should change by the same amount. However in the case of orbiting clocks, other factors are involved, particularly the cutting of the Earth's fields.
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.
Eric Gisse - 27 Jul 2005 08:45 GMT > >> Cesium clocks represent man's best attempt to measure time accurately. > >> However their rates DO deviate slightly when subject to different [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > After launch, the GPS clocks are software synched with the ground clock reading > and rate anyway. [snip]
The adjustment is much smaller than the GR correction.
If you were paying attention the last time this was explained to you, by Minor Crank, you would know this.
Henri Wilson - 28 Jul 2005 06:35 GMT >> >> Cesium clocks represent man's best attempt to measure time accurately. >> >> However their rates DO deviate slightly when subject to different [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >If you were paying attention the last time this was explained to you, >by Minor Crank, you would know this. Geese, if you ever feel like some exercise, why don't you try running around a London railway station with a large rucksack on your back.
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.
Sue... - 27 Jul 2005 08:00 GMT > >>>Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the mythical > >>>'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > You shouldn't believe everything you find on the net, Sue. :-) I am quite careful about that. Especially when writen by the spoonbenders in this news group. :o)
> Those who wrote that page have obviously no idea of how > an atomic clock works. Then these folks must have it wrong too: http://www.npl.co.uk/quantum/qtm/freq.html http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cesium.html http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/5/8 << Greater resolution and accuracy might be more readily achieved using a different type of transition, e.g., the weak hyperfine-induced electric dipole transitions like those between the low-lying 1S0 and 3P0 states of the singly ionized species of the Group IIIA elements of the periodic table [12,24,25], particularly in cases where first-order magnetic-field independent transitions are available (albeit at nonzero field )>> http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq/general/pdf/1385.pdf
> Statements like: > "The oscillation frequencies within the atom are determined [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "The second is defined as 9,192,631,770 periods of the caesium-133 atom." > are indeed very revealing. Oh? Is this what they reveal? http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/h/hy/hyperfine_structure.htm
> If you don't understand why, the SI-definition of a second should > give you a hint: > The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of > the radiation corresponding to the transition between > the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. Your interpretation of the geiod computed by NIST seems a pretty good lesson in interpreting science with hints.
> But don't be too sad. > Newton didn't have a clue about this either. Oh ? http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/newtlaws/u2l3a.html
> So you are in good company. :-) Better his shoulders than yours.
<<The principle of local Lorentz invariance states that the outcome of any local non-gravitational experiment carried out in a freely falling reference frame is independent of the velocity of that frame, while the principle of local position invariance holds that the outcome of any local non-gravitational experiment is also independent of where and when in the universe it is performed. In this context "local" means confined to a suitably small region of space and time, while "freely falling" means falling freely under gravity with no other forces acting.
Although Einstein used it to derive general relativity, his equivalence principle implies only that gravitation must be described by a "metric theory" - a theory in which matter responds to the geometry of space-time and nothing else. >><< --Clifford M Will is in the McDonnell Center for the Space Sciences and the Department of Physics, Washington University in St Louis, Missouri, US.>> http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/1/5/1
So... Cliff knows that the SUMO has to do something really unexpected or the violation of LPI indicated by GPS, will be confirmed. Of course he probably lacks the *faith* that motivates *true believers*. http://www.bassirat.net/newspics/ASIE%20CENTRALE/normal_200309122253madrassa.jpg
Sue...
> Paul Paul B. Andersen - 27 Jul 2005 10:49 GMT >>>>>Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the mythical >>>>>'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > transitions are available (albeit at nonzero field )>> > http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq/general/pdf/1385.pdf Why do you think 'these folks' have got it wrong? Don't you read the references you give? If you do, you will se that in none of the above references are there used expressions like these:
>>Statements like: >> "The oscillation frequencies within the atom are determined [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Oh? Is this what they reveal? > http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/h/hy/hyperfine_structure.htm Right. That is what they reveal the author's ignorance of.
>>If you don't understand why, the SI-definition of a second should >>give you a hint: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Your interpretation of the geiod computed by NIST seems a > pretty good lesson in interpreting science with hints. You didn't get the hint? I will have to spell it out, then, There is nothing in the Cs atom that is oscillating at 9,192,631,770 Hz. It is a spectral line of the atom that has this frequency. When you said: "Newton would not have tho't it nonsense. He would have tho't it plagarism." You actually seem to think that there is a mechanical resonator in the CS atom oscillating at 9,192,631,770 Hz. :-)
>>But don't be too sad. >>Newton didn't have a clue about this either. > > Oh ? > http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/newtlaws/u2l3a.html See? Nothing that can be used to calculate the frequency of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.
>>So you are in good company. :-) > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Washington University in St Louis, Missouri, US.>> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/1/5/1 A fine article. Clifford M Will goes through a lot of experiments testing GR, and refers to a number of experiments which are done and have confirmed GR.
Was your point that GR is well confirmed?
> So... Cliff knows that the SUMO has to do something > really unexpected or the violation of LPI indicated > by GPS, will be confirmed. Of course he probably > lacks the *faith* that motivates *true believers*. > http://www.bassirat.net/newspics/ASIE%20CENTRALE/normal_200309122253madrassa.jpg I haven't got the foggiest idea of what you are babbling about. And I suppose there is no point in asking what the LPI which is violated by the GPS is. You never seem to be able to explain the meaning of your words.
Paul
sue jahn - 27 Jul 2005 11:04 GMT > >>>>>Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the mythical > >>>>>'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish. [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > of the radiation corresponding to the transition between > the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. And how is that calculated?
> >>So you are in good company. :-) > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > and refers to a number of experiments which are done and > have confirmed GR. Does he mention GR?
> Was your point that GR is well confirmed? Did I mention GR?
> > So... Cliff knows that the SUMO has to do something > > really unexpected or the violation of LPI indicated [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > is violated by the GPS is. > You never seem to be able to explain the meaning of your words. Visit NPL and NIST and learn how clocks work. You can google for LPI and relativty if you don't know what it is.
Happy hunting, Sue...
> Paul Paul B. Andersen - 27 Jul 2005 19:36 GMT >>><<The principle of local Lorentz invariance states >>>that the outcome of any local non-gravitational [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Does he mention GR? Does he, indeed. :-)
>>Was your point that GR is well confirmed? > > Did I mention GR? You gave a reference to an article about the testing of GR, an article which refers to a number of experiments confirming GR.
So I suppose your point was to make us aware of that fact.
>>>So... Cliff knows that the SUMO has to do something >>>really unexpected or the violation of LPI indicated [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Visit NPL and NIST and learn how clocks work. When your ignorance about atomic clocks is revealed, pretend that the ignorance is mine and not yours, eh? :-)
> You can google for LPI and relativty if you don't know what it is. > > Happy hunting, > Sue... Why do you claim that the GPS indicates a violation of the Local Position Invariance principle?
I am not expecting an answer, because you are never able to support your claims. I am however expecting an irrelevant reference.
And you will live up to my expectations. Won't you?
Paul
sue jahn - 27 Jul 2005 20:42 GMT > >>><<The principle of local Lorentz invariance states > >>>that the outcome of any local non-gravitational [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > > > Did I mention GR?
> You gave a reference to an article about the testing of GR, > an article which refers to a number of experiments > confirming GR. I have a number of experiment that confirm Smith charts. But a reem of confirmed Smith charts tell you nothing about a particular network. GR can derive Newtons mechanics.
I mentioned LPI not GR. Sorry but you and the popular press aren't going to find any sound bites and one stop shopping on the issue.
> So I suppose your point was to make us aware of that fact. > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Why do you claim that the GPS indicates a violation of > the Local Position Invariance principle? Because the SV clocks are not invariant with position and fixed length paths can't blue shift to explain the need for launch presets.
Since we can't fly fountains or free-fall SVs:
<< This very accurate space clock will be compared continuously to the SUMO oscillator, and these two clocks (being fundamentally different) [no mass] will provide a test of "local position invariance." Comparisons between the space and earth clocks will yield a related, but important measurement of the gravitational [*] frequency[*] shift. [not redshift] http://tf.nist.gov/timefreq/cesium/parcs.htm http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0107028
> I am not expecting an answer, because you are never No you are just hoping I won't.
Sue...
> able to support your claims. > I am however expecting an irrelevant reference. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Paul Paul B. Andersen - 29 Jul 2005 10:25 GMT >>Why do you claim that the GPS indicates a violation of >>the Local Position Invariance principle? > > Because the SV clocks are not invariant with position > and fixed length paths can't blue shift to explain the > need for launch presets. Please explain the statement: "SV clocks are not invariant with position". Do you mean that the intrinsic clock rate is dependent on position? In that case you should explain why you think GPS prove so.
And please explain the statement: "fixed length paths can't blue shift" Does it mean that there was no blue (or red) shift in the Pound-Rebka experiment? Or what does it mean?
> Since we can't fly fountains or free-fall SVs: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of the gravitational [*] frequency[*] shift. [not redshift] > http://tf.nist.gov/timefreq/cesium/parcs.htm Exactly. Two different type of clocks _at the same location_ can test the LPI, which obviously say that the two clocks should stay in sync at any location.
But what did you mean by this comment? Sue wrote:
| So... Cliff knows that the SUMO has to do something | really unexpected or the violation of LPI indicated | by GPS, will be confirmed. The expected result is obviously that the two clocks will stay in sync and thus confirm the LPI. So why did you say that the SUMO clock has to do something really unexpected to confirm the LPI?
Paul
sue jahn - 28 Jul 2005 11:09 GMT > >>Why do you claim that the GPS indicates a violation of > >>the Local Position Invariance principle? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Please explain the statement: > "SV clocks are not invariant with position". You may read about the launch presets in either Ashby or Will's papers. You can find them at living reviews or Will's web page.
> Do you mean that the intrinsic clock rate is > dependent on position? That is what Newton's second law predicts for the proton and electron mass. That is what the launch preset includes.
> In that case you should explain why you think GPS prove so. The launch preset for gravitational *frequency* shift would be unnecessary if that were not true.
> And please explain the statement: > "fixed length paths can't blue shift" A catcher cannot catch 31 balls per minute if the pitcher is only throwing 30 balls per minute. Causality violation.
> Does it mean that there was no blue (or red) shift > in the Pound-Rebka experiment? Correct. The Pound-Snider paper urged caution and defered the interpretation to more accurate clocks. The GPS system IS the more accurate clocks and the launch presets show the correct interpretation of PR and GP-B. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017
> Or what does it mean? > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > So why did you say that the SUMO clock has to do > something really unexpected to confirm the LPI? The SUMO does not have proton and electron masses to couple to the earth's gravity. (hyperfine transition) There is no reason it should change with altitude as atomic clocks do. << In the SCSO measurements, earth tides were easily observable at the 10-14 frequency variation level, in agreement with model calculations. The sensitivity of the cavity frequency to variations in acceleration can be reduced significantly by supporting the cavity from its center, therefore compensating any change in the length of the top half with an opposite change in the bottom half. http://bigben.stanford.edu/sumo/status.htm
A real experiment should close the circle on the LPI issue.
Sue...
> Paul Paul B. Andersen - 29 Jul 2005 13:31 GMT >>>>Why do you claim that the GPS indicates a violation of >>>>the Local Position Invariance principle? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Ashby or Will's papers. You can find them at > living reviews or Will's web page. The patronizing tone again?
You didn't anser the question. But I suppose my interpretation below is correct.
>>Do you mean that the intrinsic clock rate is >>dependent on position? > > That is what Newton's second law predicts for the > proton and electron mass. That is what the launch > preset includes. Nonsense.
>>In that case you should explain why you think GPS prove so. > > The launch preset for gravitational *frequency* shift > would be unnecessary if that were not true. Because time is absolute, eh?
But there is no intrinsic change of the clock rate.
>>And please explain the statement: >>"fixed length paths can't blue shift" > > A catcher cannot catch 31 balls per minute if the > pitcher is only throwing 30 balls per minute. > Causality violation. Because time is absolute? :-)
>>Does it mean that there was no blue (or red) shift >>in the Pound-Rebka experiment? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > of PR and GP-B. > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017 You cannot change experimentally proven facts by a different intepretation.
Do you never read the references you give? There is nothing in that paper saying that the phenomenon measured by Pound Rebca wasn't correct.
Gravitational red/blue shift is an experimentally proven fact.
But I have noticed that you are one of those cranks who has no problem with denying facts if they don't suite them.
When your picture of the world results in experiments violating causality, maybe it is something wrong with your picture of the world?
>>Or what does it mean? >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > There is no reason it should change with altitude as atomic > clocks do. OK. So we will have to wait and see if the result is as expected by most people, but really unexpected by you.
Paul
sue jahn - 28 Jul 2005 14:24 GMT > >>>>Why do you claim that the GPS indicates a violation of > >>>>the Local Position Invariance principle? [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] > > Paul Fair enough on SUMO. Consider all your statements ending in question marks are neither confirmed nor denied.
You are of course welcome to advance an opinion about how an axel should behave if it were repeating a geosynchronous clock to the ground or if it were repeating a ground clock to a geosynchronous satellite. Neither you nor Bz seem able to interpret what Einstein's relativity say's the shaft should do.
Sue...
bz - 29 Jul 2005 15:36 GMT "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:42ea34f2$0$18648 $14726298@news.sunsite.dk:
> Neither you nor Bz seem able to interpret what Einstein's > relativity say's the shaft should do. Einsteins relativity doesn't say anything about a shaft extending from one accelerating FoR to another accelerating FoR, as far as I can tell.
If you can tell me the chapter and verse, I will look it up. The library is still trying to find a copy of "Einsteins Relativity according to Sue and Snoopy too", perhaps someone gave me the wrong title? What is the library of congress number for your book? They need that or your full name.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
sue jahn - 28 Jul 2005 16:30 GMT > "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:42ea34f2$0$18648 > $14726298@news.sunsite.dk: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Einsteins relativity doesn't say anything about a shaft extending from one > accelerating FoR to another accelerating FoR, as far as I can tell. Einstein's relativity says volumes about the remote obeservation of clocks and time so if you have any understanding of it at all this should be a simple problem.
> If you can tell me the chapter and verse, I will look it up. Are you complaing because he did not solve that specific problem for you?
> The library is still trying to find a copy of "Einsteins Relativity > according to Sue and Snoopy too", perhaps someone gave me the wrong title? > What is the library of congress number for your book? They need that or > your full name. I think if you'll browse this news group's archives you'll find neither Sue nor Snoopy can take credit for it. It does have real gravitational solution and a logical interpretaton but as long as you are relying on myths instead of logic, you may not catch on. http://www.satribune.com/archives/feb29_mar6_04/inset_schools.jpg
Real physicsicists can make real predictions. What is your prediction?
Sue...
> -- > bz [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap bz - 29 Jul 2005 18:01 GMT "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:42ea4ba2$0$18643 $14726298@news.sunsite.dk:
> Real physicsicists can make real predictions. > What is your prediction? I predict an explosive situation.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
sue jahn - 28 Jul 2005 19:48 GMT > "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:42ea4ba2$0$18643 > $14726298@news.sunsite.dk: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I predict an explosive situation. Thank you. I will be sure to quote you on that the next time you want to dismiss a clock correction as a path effect.
Sue...
> -- > bz [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap bz - 29 Jul 2005 20:49 GMT >> "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:42ea4ba2$0$18643 >> $14726298@news.sunsite.dk: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Thank you. I will be sure to quote you on that the next time > you want to dismiss a clock correction as a path effect. If you do, you will be quoting me out of context.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
sue jahn - 28 Jul 2005 21:12 GMT > >> "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:42ea4ba2$0$18643 > >> $14726298@news.sunsite.dk: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > If you do, you will be quoting me out of context. Magic and fairys is never out of context with your posts.
:o) Sue...
> -- > bz [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap Paul B. Andersen - 01 Aug 2005 20:21 GMT > You are of course welcome to advance an opinion > about how an axel should behave if it were repeating > a geosynchronous clock to the ground or if it were > repeating a ground clock to a geosynchronous satellite. > Neither you nor Bz seem able to interpret what Einstein's > relativity say's the shaft should do. Why do you think I should have any problem with this? This is yet another old non paradox.
Let there be a clock A on the ground at equator. Let there be a clock B in geostationary orbit. Let both clocks be on the same radius.
Let A measure the proper duration of one Earth rotation to be T. Then, as you now know and have accepted is experimentally verified for clocks in GPS orbit, B will measure the proper duration of one Earth rotation to be longer, T + delta_T.
Let there be an axle between the two clocks. Let this axle rotate in such a way that there is no mechanical stress in the axle. Let the axle rotate N times during one Earth rotation.
A will measure the rotational frequency to be f_g = N/T while B will measure it to be f_s = N/(T + delta_T).
So the ground clock will measure the axle to rotate faster than the satellite clock will, but both will agree that the axle rotates N times per Earth rotation.
frequency * duration = number_of_rotations f_g*T = N f_s*(T + delta_T) = N
Loosly said: "The satellite clock will see the axle rotate slower, but for a longer time."
Paul
sue jahn - 01 Aug 2005 21:38 GMT > > You are of course welcome to advance an opinion > > about how an axel should behave if it were repeating [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Paul <<geosynchronous satellite.>> Neither will see the earth rotate. So your experssion:
<<N times per Earth rotation.>>
Reduces to division by zero.
<< Why do you think I should have any problem with this?>>
Heal thyself. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=gear+ratio+calculator&btnG=Search
Sue...
bz - 01 Aug 2005 22:51 GMT >> > You are of course welcome to advance an opinion >> > about how an axel should behave if it were repeating [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=gear+ratio+calculator&b > tnG=Search They each (satellite and earth) make 1 rotation about their common barycenter per day. N=1, not zero.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Paul B. Andersen - 02 Aug 2005 14:49 GMT sue jahn skrev:
> > > You are of course welcome to advance an opinion > > > about how an axel should behave if it were repeating [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Reduces to division by zero. Wasn't this response a bit too stupid even for you? :-)
Paul, amused
Paul B. Andersen - 03 Aug 2005 13:00 GMT sue jahn skrev:
> > > You are of course welcome to advance an opinion > > > about how an axel should behave if it were repeating [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > "The satellite clock will see the axle rotate slower, > > but for a longer time." Sue, I have responded to your challenge and explained "what Einstein's relativity say's the shaft should do."
Now I challenge you to point out an inconsitency in the above.
This response of yours:
> <<geosynchronous satellite.>> > Neither will see the earth rotate. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Heal thyself. .. is just too silly.
Even you know that the Earth rotates once per sidereal day, even if you don't see it.
Or don't you?
Paul
Sue... - 03 Aug 2005 13:13 GMT > sue jahn skrev: > > > > You are of course welcome to advance an opinion [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > Or don't you? I automatically assume that Andersen believes the earth's rotation affects gravity. Others I credit with greater insight.
Sue...
> Paul Paul B. Andersen - 03 Aug 2005 20:33 GMT Sue... skrev:
> > sue jahn skrev: > > > > > You are of course welcome to advance an opinion [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > > > Now I challenge you to point out an inconsitency in the above. Well, Sue? You are not up to it, are you?
> > This response of yours: > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > > > Or don't you? Of course you know. This stupid remark of yours was obviously made to avoid having to address the issue.
You always make stupid remarks to that end, don't you?
Here is another one:
> I automatically assume that Andersen believes > the earth's rotation affects gravity. > Others I credit with greater insight. Fleeing the challenge, Sue?
You always do, don't you?
Paul
sue jahn - 03 Aug 2005 20:46 GMT > Sue... skrev: > > > sue jahn skrev: [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > Well, Sue? > You are not up to it, are you? I can do it with a bag of marbles and two garden hoses and nobody questions the result. You broke your proof. You can fix your proof.
Sue...
> > > This response of yours: > > > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Paul Paul B. Andersen - 04 Aug 2005 13:38 GMT sue jahn skrev:
> > Sue... skrev: > > > > sue jahn skrev: [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Well, Sue? > > You are not up to it, are you? Thought so.
> I can do it with a bag of marbles and two garden hoses and > nobody questions the result. > You broke your proof. > You can fix your proof. And this is the best you can do? :-) It wasn't even witty.
So we can conclude that you are unable to point out any inconsistencies in "what Einstein's relativity says the shaft should do."
Paul
Henri Wilson - 01 Aug 2005 23:43 GMT >> You are of course welcome to advance an opinion >> about how an axel should behave if it were repeating [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > >Paul Ah! The mind of an SRian works in strange ways.
Why would anyone want to try to measure the rotation of something known to be constant with something that is known to be physically variable....and then try to make out it is the constant quantity that varies?
Your logic is arse up.
The only meaningful experiment is one that counts the number of ticks made by the clocks per rod rotation, which is known to represent a constant duration in time.
If the counts are different, then the clocks do not have the same absolute rates.....but of course, your faith wont allow truth to raise its ugly head.
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.
Paul B. Andersen - 02 Aug 2005 19:31 GMT >>>You are of course welcome to advance an opinion >>>about how an axel should behave if it were repeating [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > If the counts are different, then the clocks do not have the same absolute > rates.....but of course, your faith wont allow truth to raise its ugly head. We all know that this is beyond you, Henri. You don't have to remind us.
Paul
Henri Wilson - 03 Aug 2005 01:04 GMT >>>>You are of course welcome to advance an opinion >>>>about how an axel should behave if it were repeating [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >We all know that this is beyond you, Henri. >You don't have to remind us. Are you the same P. Andersen who invented the rubber micrometer?
>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.
jgreen@seol.net.au - 02 Aug 2005 06:21 GMT > > You are of course welcome to advance an opinion > > about how an axel should behave if it were repeating [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > "The satellite clock will see the axle rotate slower, > but for a longer time." Thanks- I needed a good laugh!
None of your above attends the issue: there are THREE clocks involved, two of which are physically connected to the axle, and one near the top which was synchronised with the ground clock pre experiment. What I, Sue, Henri, and all other thinkers wish to know IIISSSSSSS Relativity claiming the two top clocks will show the same??????? And if so, how is a torque on the axle avoided? (oops! now DHR's have the top two showing the same, but not the top and bottom connected ones.........)
Jim Greenfield c'=c+v
> Paul bz - 02 Aug 2005 13:20 GMT jgreen@seol.net.au wrote in news:1122960081.759862.165870 @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Jim Greenfield > c'=c+v Jim, what about the c'=c-v photons from sources going away from us?
Do you believe in the 'extinction' explanation for lack of evidence for c'=c+/-v photons?
If so, how do the c'=c-v photons gain velocity so as to get up to c?
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
jgreen@seol.net.au - 03 Aug 2005 05:08 GMT > jgreen@seol.net.au wrote in news:1122960081.759862.165870 > @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Jim, what about the c'=c-v photons from sources going away from us? Light is emitted from source at c. It's velocity thereafter is affected by 1) direction of travel of photons ref observer AND source 2) gravity 3) inter-action of photons with intervening matter (eg other photons)
> Do you believe in the 'extinction' explanation for lack of evidence for > c'=c+/-v photons? Where are the experiments, other than arbitrarily preconceived "observations" from pulsars, for ACTUAL light velocity from stationary and moving bodies. Be careful that you are not one who takes it for granted, that they have been done! c+v and c-v photons DO exist; they are seen as blue and red shifted. You will see all sorts of excuses by DHR's not to conduct the defining experiment, which is a good ol' fashioned race between emr emitted from the same distance (roughly) by a stationary and moving source ref the receiver. The reason being, that they fear the result! (I envisage short pulses or "slugs", the redshifting or otherwise of which is only of secondary interest. Arrival times could be logged on a sheet of moving photo paper, with nary a clock to be seen--------just like me adjudicating a footrace without a stopwatch.)
> If so, how do the c'=c-v photons gain velocity so as to get up to c? They don't, and if going too slow, are undetectable/invisable (of course, some may be acellerated by gravity, or vice-versa)
> please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an > infinite set. Mine to, almost. I just sutract 1 (A E Relativity) from infinity.
Jim Greenfield c'=c+v
> bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap Sue... - 03 Aug 2005 05:43 GMT > > jgreen@seol.net.au wrote in news:1122960081.759862.165870 > > @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Light is emitted from source at c. << Light is emitted from source at c. >>
Are you sure of this?
What if light is "dragged" out of the source by all the charges in the universe ? Would that alter the way you visualize light's propagation?
Sue...
snip
jgreen@seol.net.au - 03 Aug 2005 08:54 GMT > > > jgreen@seol.net.au wrote in news:1122960081.759862.165870 > > > @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > by all the charges in the universe ? > Would that alter the way you visualize light's propagation? I take on board, and consider it likely, that field propagation is instantaneous (infinitely fast). On the other hand, given the inverse square (for attraction in this case) for distance/force, two isolated atoms colliding at high speed far from significant gravity inspiring material, are unlikely to be significantly influenced by your proposition. I suspect photons will be emitted from the crash site at c (in whatever direction, which may need further thought), and the debris left at the scene will have reduced mass (be different elements, or changed energies/hotter)
Push is only a pull in the opposite direction.
Bye Jim G c'=c+v
> Sue... > > snip sue jahn - 03 Aug 2005 12:10 GMT > > > > jgreen@seol.net.au wrote in news:1122960081.759862.165870 > > > > @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I take on board, and consider it likely, that field propagation is > instantaneous (infinitely fast). Yes... that is a good notion. Attach a bungee cord to the Sphinx's nose (look near at your feet) Stretch the cord to the Eiffel tower. Then release it so it pops the Sphinx's rump.
What is the delay between the time you release the end of the cord and the time it begin's moving towared the Sphinx? [rhetorical]
> On the other hand, given the inverse > square (for attraction in this case) for distance/force, two isolated > atoms colliding at high speed far from significant gravity inspiring > material, are unlikely to be significantly influenced by your > proposition. You are unlikey to find such a condition.
<< It [ISM] fills interstellar space. This mixture is usually extremely tenuous, with typical gas densities ranging from a few single to a few hundred particles per cubic centimeter. As a result of primordial nucleosynthesis, the gas is roughly 90% hydrogen and 10% helium, with additional elements ("metals" in astronomical parlance) present in trace amounts. >> http://www.answers.com/topic/interstellar-medium-2
Sue...
> I suspect photons will be emitted from the crash site at c (in whatever > direction, which may need further thought), and the debris left at the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > > > snip bz - 03 Aug 2005 06:39 GMT jgreen@seol.net.au wrote in news:1123042102.689589.298920 @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
>> jgreen@seol.net.au wrote in news:1122960081.759862.165870 >> @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > "observations" from pulsars, for ACTUAL light velocity from stationary > and moving bodies. The aberation of starlight from binary stars.
> Be careful that you are not one who takes it for granted, that they > have been done! c+v and c-v photons DO exist; they are seen as blue and > red shifted. There would be a different in stellar position due to aberation. The c+v photon would arrive from a different location in the sky than the c-v photons. c+v photons would come from a location 'closer to the actual location' than c-v photons. The c-v photons are 'older' because it took them longer to get here, so they show up as arriving from where the star used to be.
> You will see all sorts of excuses by DHR's not to conduct the defining > experiment, which is a good ol' fashioned race between emr emitted from > the same distance (roughly) by a stationary and moving source ref the > receiver. I suggested use of a high speed rotating disk with fibre optics conducting light to the edge of the disk and launching the light down a time-of-flight apparatus. With a very good and expensive scope, it should be possible to detect a difference as the speed of the disk and the direction of rotation of the disk is varied....if c'=c+/-v is valid.
> The reason being, that they fear the result! Why fear what can bring a nobel prize? Scientist are constantly testing Einstein [and other] accepted theories in hopes of finding flaws.
> (I envisage short pulses or "slugs", the redshifting or otherwise of > which is only of secondary interest. Arrival times could be logged on a > sheet of moving photo paper, with nary a clock to be seen--------just > like me adjudicating a footrace without a stopwatch.) Google for "streak camera". They exist.
>> If so, how do the c'=c-v photons gain velocity so as to get up to c? > > They don't, and if going too slow, are undetectable/invisable > (of course, some may be acellerated by gravity, or vice-versa) Then you must not be a believer in Henri and Androcles explanation for Cepheid variables because their light curves depend on the c+v and c-v photons experiencing "extinction".
Extinction, in this case, being their tending to reach c after 5 or so extinction lengths. The extinction length being on the order of a light year or so.
Absent extinction, the fast photons from one orbit soon overtake the slow photons from a previous orbit. Once this happens, computer simulations show strange looking light intensity curves.
Even neglecting the evidence or lack of evidence from stellar aberation, the lack of a mechanism for rapidly bringing all photons [c+v and c-v] to c would invalidate c'=c+/-v.
>> please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is >> an infinite set.
> Mine too, almost. I just subtract 1 (A E Relativity) from infinity. That gives us an unlimited opportunity to learn. I enjoy learning. :)
> Jim Greenfield > c'=c+v
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
jgreen@seol.net.au - 04 Aug 2005 12:44 GMT > jgreen@seol.net.au wrote in news:1123042102.689589.298920 > @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >> Do you believe in the 'extinction' explanation for lack of evidence for > >> c'=c+/-v photons? Dunno. There does seem to be a case (strong) that photons travelling in the same direction, reach a "common denominator"- maybe a harmonic association?
> > Where are the experiments, other than arbitrarily preconceived > > "observations" from pulsars, for ACTUAL light velocity from stationary > > and moving bodies. > > The aberation of starlight from binary stars. Based on ASSUMPTIONS! Experiments are supposed to be REPRODUCIBLE, ok? Who is going to make the next binary to test? Easy as, to get two space probes to do it. Cassini and Huygen could have done it easily, with a time of arrival time of the order .5 sec. That was a golden opportunity missed.
> > Be careful that you are not one who takes it for granted, that they > > have been done! c+v and c-v photons DO exist; they are seen as blue and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > them longer to get here, so they show up as arriving from where the star > used to be. Super N's , which were supposed to go off with a bang, are now being seen to last a lllllllloonggggggg time, when viewed at different wavelength. Could it be the light from the explosion is taking different time to get here?
> > You will see all sorts of excuses by DHR's not to conduct the defining > > experiment, which is a good ol' fashioned race between emr emitted from [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > detect a difference as the speed of the disk and the direction of rotation > of the disk is varied....if c'=c+/-v is valid. Stuffed from the get-go! The measurements are rigged (time and distance) by DECREE! Remember now that a meter is not a "meter"; it is "the time taken for a photon to traverse it". And what is this "time taken"? Using THIS TIME interval, and constant c, we get a meter!!!!!!!!!! With this entrenched circular logic, UNTIL a race, devoid of meters and clocks, is performed over a significant course (say to Saturn), DHr's win by default. c=c+v (crap)
> > The reason being, that they fear the result! > > Why fear what can bring a nobel prize? Scientist are constantly testing > Einstein [and other] accepted theories in hopes of finding flaws. Excuse my scepticism, but how does the Nobel Committee tell the world that AE was a fraud (or stupidly confused by his own mathemagics)? (Yes- I know he wasn't awarded his Nobel for GR)
> > (I envisage short pulses or "slugs", the redshifting or otherwise of > > which is only of secondary interest. Arrival times could be logged on a > > sheet of moving photo paper, with nary a clock to be seen--------just > > like me adjudicating a footrace without a stopwatch.) > > Google for "streak camera". They exist. OK
> >> If so, how do the c'=c-v photons gain velocity so as to get up to c? > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the lack of a mechanism for rapidly bringing all photons [c+v and c-v] to c > would invalidate c'=c+/-v. Imagine emr spread from A.........G We can see the band D>E Blue shift, and we see what WAS D>E as E>F (reverse for red) What I am getting at, is that when we look at a body emitting on all wavelengths, light which we think is blue or red shifted, may not be the same light; it just may be another part of the spectrum. I realise that I have to tackle Fraunhoffer Lines on this, but something involving my harmonic mentioned above may be involved. (No one has explained when I asked here why circular logic isn't involved here to- temperatures of suns are derived from their spectrums, right? But last time I looked, elements can give off very different wavelengths according to their temperatures......circular again..........
Seeya Jim G c'=c+v
bz - 04 Aug 2005 13:42 GMT >> jgreen@seol.net.au wrote in news:1123042102.689589.298920 >> @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > the same direction, reach a "common denominator"- maybe a harmonic > association? Harmonic association? How can photons traveling at different speeds, emitted at different time, of different wavelengths [and thus different energies] "associate" with each other.
They would have a hard time waving at each other in passing, much less 'associating'.
It isn't that there is a 'strong case' for them reaching a "common denominator". It is that it is vital for any emission theory that posits c'=c+/-v provide a mechanism for the +/- photons to eventually become c photons. Those are all we have been able to observe here on earth.
>> > Where are the experiments, other than arbitrarily preconceived >> > "observations" from pulsars, for ACTUAL light velocity from [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Based on ASSUMPTIONS! Au Contrare. Our currently accepted theories are based on the observation that aberation occurs.
> Experiments are supposed to be REPRODUCIBLE, ok? Not only 'ok', but science demands 'observable, identifiable, verifiable' phenomina.
> Who is going to make the next binary to test? There at tens of thousands of them. New ones discovered every year.
Then there are the moons of Jupiter, and other planets in our solar system.
> Easy as, to get two space probes to do it. > Cassini and Huygen could have done it easily, with a time of arrival > time of the order .5 sec. That was a golden opportunity missed. We should take advantage of all possible data.
>> > Be careful that you are not one who takes it for granted, that they >> > have been done! c+v and c-v photons DO exist; they are seen as blue [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > wavelength. Could it be the light from the explosion is taking > different time to get here? It could. It could also be that as the star vomit cools, the boltzmann distribution -- black body radiation curve -- shifts to longer wavelengths as would be expected. SN remnant nebula would seem to favor the 'black body' cooling curve.
We need to see a nova that has a large apparent motion so that we can see if there are slow photon images coming, long after the nova has blown itself out, from where the nova was when the slow photons would have had to be emitted.
>> > You will see all sorts of excuses by DHR's not to conduct the >> > defining experiment, which is a good ol' fashioned race between emr [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > that a meter is not a "meter"; it is "the time taken for a photon to > traverse it". We don't care what the distance is defined as, we just keep it constant.
> And what is this "time taken"? Using THIS TIME interval, and constant > c, we get a meter!!!!!!!!!! forget the definition of a meter. We will measure our velocity in furlongs per fortnight, if you like. It doesn't matter.
> With this entrenched circular logic, UNTIL a race, devoid of meters and > clocks, is performed over a significant course (say to Saturn), DHr's > win by default. c=c+v (crap) All that matters is 'do the photons take longer to go between point a and b when they are emitted by a disk spinning so the source is receeding at 1000 m/s than if the disk is spinning the other direction and the source is approaching at 1000 m/s'.
>> > The reason being, that they fear the result! >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that AE was a fraud (or stupidly confused by his own mathemagics)? > (Yes- I know he wasn't awarded his Nobel for GR) Easy. First, they don't need to denegrate Einstein, they just need to say 'his theory has been overthrown by the wonderful new "Green" theory which fills the gap, plugs the holes, resolves the paradoxes and cures cancer, athletes foot and hoof & mouth disease.'
>> > (I envisage short pulses or "slugs", the redshifting or otherwise of >> > which is only of secondary interest. Arrival times could be logged on [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > wavelengths, light which we think is blue or red shifted, may not be > the same light; it just may be another part of the spectrum. The light from stars has built in 'markers'. Emission and Absorbtion lines from elements in the atmosphere of the star. Those lines have recognizable patterns.
Those patterns are recognized even when drastically red or blue shifted.
That is how we know the red/blue shift of distant stars.
> I realise that I have to tackle Fraunhoffer Lines on this, That is what I just said.
> but > something involving my harmonic mentioned above may be involved. You will need more than magic harmonics.
> (No one has explained when I asked here why circular logic isn't > involved here to- temperatures of suns are derived from their > spectrums, right? But last time I looked, elements can give off very > different wavelengths according to their temperatures......circular > again.......... The temperature is determined from the DISTRIBUTION of energy in the spectrum.
http://www.egglescliffe.org.uk/physics/astronomy/blackbody/bbody.html http://www.webchem.net/notes/how_far/kinetics/maxwell_boltzmann.htm http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/disfcn.html
The Fraunhoffer Lines let us adjust the apparent distribution to correct for red/blue shift due to relative motion. Once that is done, the corrected distribution gives us the temperature of the star.
Lets say that the shift of a particular Hydrogen line shows us that the star is moving away from us at .002 c. The entire spectrum is going to be shifted toward the red by corresponding amounts.
It is easy to 'remove' the red shift. Now, we fit the boltzmann distribution curve to the corrected spectrum, and we know the star's temperature.
Does that make sense to you?
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
bz - 04 Aug 2005 14:39 GMT jgreen@seol.net.au wrote in news:1123155872.920713.291420 @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> No one has explained when I asked here why circular logic isn't > involved here to- temperatures of suns are derived from their > spectrums, right? I hope I did that in my last article. We tell the red/blue shift from the spectrum lines and correct for it.
> But last time I looked, elements Black body radiation is independent of the material making up the black body. It can be any element(s).
> can give off very > different wavelengths according to their temperatures......circular > again.......... a neat java program to plot distributions from temperature.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/guidry/java/planck/planck.html
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Paul B. Andersen - 02 Aug 2005 19:51 GMT >>>You are of course welcome to advance an opinion >>>about how an axel should behave if it were repeating [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Thanks- I needed a good laugh! Fools laugh at what they don't understand.
Paul
jgreen@seol.net.au - 03 Aug 2005 04:46 GMT > >>>You are of course welcome to advance an opinion > >>>about how an axel should behave if it were repeating [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Fools laugh at what they don't understand. And how big a fool(or coward), does it take to rabbit on about EARTH rotation, when the issue has NOTHING to do with that? We are discussing the rotation of an axle perpendicular to the earth, and the earth rotation has nothing to do with the scenario; ONLY the difference in gravity.
I don't expect you to answer-----you cannot!
Jim G c'=c+v
> Paul Paul B. Andersen - 03 Aug 2005 12:38 GMT jgreen@seol.net.au skrev:
> > > Thanks- I needed a good laugh! > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and the earth rotation has nothing to do with the scenario; > ONLY the difference in gravity. I don't know what YOU are discussing, but what I was answering in the posting you responded to was this particular challenge defined by Sue:
| You are of course welcome to advance an opinion | about how an axel should behave if it were repeating | a geosynchronous clock to the ground or if it were | repeating a ground clock to a geosynchronous satellite. | Neither you nor Bz seem able to interpret what Einstein's | relativity say's the shaft should do. My answer is what GR "say's the shaft should do". And whether you like it or not, the Earth IS rotating. And the rotation of the Earth IS relevant to GR's prediction of what "the shaft should do".
However, this was not my main point with "one Earth rotation" in my scenario, see below.
The apparent paradox is this: If the top of the axle (or shaft) rotates at a slower rate than the bottom, the axle should be twisted, and "wind up" more and more as time passes. I show that this isn't so. To do that we can compare the number of turns done by the bottom and the top of the axle when it points in two different directions relative to the distant stars. If the number of turns are equal, it will not twist. I have - somewhat arbitrarily - chosen to compare the number of turns of ends of the axle each time the axle points in the same direction, that is after "one Earth rotation".
> I don't expect you to answer-----you cannot! But I did. Below is my answer again. This is what GR say will happen. I challenge you to find and point out an inconsistency. Your opinion of GR is irrelevant. The challenge is to point out an inconsitency in GR, showing that there is a real paradox.
Let there be a clock A on the ground at equator. Let there be a clock B in geostationary orbit. Let both clocks be on the same radius. (on the same line through the center of the Erth)
Let A measure the proper duration of one Earth rotation to be T. Then, according to GR, B will measure the proper duration of one Earth rotation to be longer, T + delta_T.
Let there be an axle between the two clocks. Let this axle rotate in such a way that there is no mechanical stress in the axle. Let the axle rotate N times during one Earth rotation.
A will measure the rotational frequency to be f_g = N/T while B will measure it to be f_s = N/(T + delta_T).
So the ground clock will measure the axle to rotate faster than the satellite clock will, but both will agree that the axle rotates N times per Earth rotation.
frequency * duration = number_of_rotations f_g*T = N f_s*(T + delta_T) = N
Loosly said: "The satellite clock will see the axle rotate slower, but for a longer time."
I do not expect you to point out an inconsistency, because there are none. I do however expect you to laugh at what you don't understands. Fools do.
Paul
sue jahn - 03 Aug 2005 12:47 GMT > jgreen@seol.net.au skrev: > > > > Thanks- I needed a good laugh! [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > was answering in the posting you responded to was > this particular challenge defined by Sue: Take careful notes on all of this. You may be called as a witness when Andersen sues himself for plagiarism. ;-)
Sue... http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=rove+novak+plame&btnG=Se arch+News
> | You are of course welcome to advance an opinion > | about how an axel should behave if it were repeating [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > Paul Paul B. Andersen - 03 Aug 2005 20:45 GMT sue jahn skrev:
> > jgreen@seol.net.au skrev: > > > > > Thanks- I needed a good laugh! [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Take careful notes on all of this. You may be called as > a witness when Andersen sues himself for plagiarism. ;-) I am sure you are a great admirer of your own wittiness, Sue. Do you admire your ability to flee challenges equally much?
> > | You are of course welcome to advance an opinion > > | about how an axel should behave if it were repeating [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > This is what GR say will happen. > > I challenge you to find and point out an inconsistency. This challenge goes for you too, Sue. Now you can demonstrate your ability to flee it yet again.
> > Your opinion of GR is irrelevant. > > The challenge is to point out an inconsitency [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > > > Paul Paul
jgreen@seol.net.au - 04 Aug 2005 12:02 GMT > jgreen@seol.net.au skrev: > > > > Thanks- I needed a good laugh! [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > I do however expect you to laugh at what you don't understands. > Fools do. After all your pathetic attempts to duck the question, it STILL remains!! You claim here that the axle does NOT twist under GR. Since two of the clocks are ATTACHED to the axle, they MUST read the SAME time. But GR says the high unconnected (different gravity) one runs differentlty. This is a CONTRADICTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! of the "theory"
Jim G c'=c+v
> Paul Paul B. Andersen - 04 Aug 2005 13:25 GMT jgreen@seol.net.au skrev:
> > jgreen@seol.net.au skrev: > > > > > Thanks- I needed a good laugh! [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > I do however expect you to laugh at what you don't understands. > > Fools do. Well, Jim? You didn't find any contradictions above, did you?
> After all your pathetic attempts to duck the question, it STILL > remains!! Did you ask me a question? What was it?
> You claim here that the axle does NOT twist under GR. Since two of the > clocks are ATTACHED to the axle, they MUST read the SAME time. But GR > says the high unconnected (different gravity) one runs differentlty. > This is a CONTRADICTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! of the "theory" Say, what are you talking about? There were but two clocks in my scenario above, and why do you think it would make a difference if they were ATTACHED to the axle?
Paul
sue jahn - 04 Aug 2005 13:28 GMT > jgreen@seol.net.au skrev: > > > jgreen@seol.net.au skrev: [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > Well, Jim? > You didn't find any contradictions above, did you? Why on earth would Jim waste time trying to explain division by zero to someone that can't make both ends of a shaft turn at the same rate or keep marbles from vanishing in a garden hose?
Sue...
> > After all your pathetic attempts to duck the question, it STILL > > remains!! [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Paul Paul B. Andersen - 04 Aug 2005 14:13 GMT sue jahn skrev:
> > jgreen@seol.net.au skrev: > > > > jgreen@seol.net.au skrev: [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > > Well, Jim? > > You didn't find any contradictions above, did you? I note with interest that Sue still don't know that the Earth is rotating, and thus believe that division by "one Earth rotation" is division by zero:
> Why on earth would Jim waste time trying to explain division by zero > to someone that can't make both ends of a shaft turn at > the same rate or keep marbles from vanishing in a garden > hose? > > Sue... Why, indeed. Since it was you who challenged me to show "what Einstein's relativity says the shaft should do" one would expect that it was you rather than Jim that would point out the inconsistencies you claim are there.
You have now throughly demonstrated your inability to do so.
Paul
jgreen@seol.net.au - 07 Aug 2005 08:52 GMT > sue jahn skrev:
> Since it was you who challenged me to show > "what Einstein's relativity says the shaft should do" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Paul Sue and I will just have to "make out" on the moon. No rotation as on earth there (or one per month?) Or we'll go to a NON rotating base to erect the axle, with a greater gravity at each end. NOW will you predict what the axle/clocks will do/read?
Jim G c'=c+v
(see reply to Jeff)
the softrat - 07 Aug 2005 11:51 GMT >Jim G >c'=c+v ??? c'=c+v?? Not very likely. Do you believe in a Flat Earth too?
the softrat Sometimes I get so tired of the taste of my own toes. mailto:softrat@pobox.com -- I believe no problem is so large or so difficult that it can't be blamed on somebody else.
Jeff Root - 04 Aug 2005 21:35 GMT Jim Greenfield replied to Paul B. Andersen:
>> > And how big a fool(or coward), does it take to rabbit on about >> > EARTH rotation, when the issue has NOTHING to do with that? [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > says the high unconnected (different gravity) one runs differentlty. > This is a CONTRADICTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! of the "theory" Jim,
How can a prediction made by a theory contradict the theory?
Why do you say that because the two clocks are attached to the axle, they must read the same? -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
jgreen@seol.net.au - 07 Aug 2005 09:05 GMT > Jim Greenfield replied to Paul B. Andersen: > [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > > -- Jeff, in Minneapolis Because of the axle in my car. A clock driven at each end mechanically will read the same for eternity (sans diff slippage). Gr is trying to tell me, that if I lay the old girl on the side, time is passing differently at each end due to gravity disparity. So how are the rotations per time at each end the same, if a clock at a higher altitude reads differently, due to gravity difference? For Paul to maintain the claim of time passing differently due to gravity, he must disconnect! The free (call it a GPS based clock) and the one connected to the (very high) axle, CANNOT read differently, WITHOUT a torque on the axle. THIS is the contradiction. : The "Theory" says they will, and the axle proves they won't.
Jim G c'=c+v
the softrat - 07 Aug 2005 11:55 GMT >Because of the axle in my car. A clock driven at each end mechanically >will read the same for eternity (sans diff slippage). [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >THIS is the contradiction. : The "Theory" says they will, and the axle >proves they won't. That is so far wrong it is ludicrous. Jim doesn't understand relativity at all and he believes in infinitely rigid drive shafts! Back to Police Gazette!
the softrat Sometimes I get so tired of the taste of my own toes. mailto:softrat@pobox.com -- Give your child mental blocks for Christmas.
Androcles - 07 Aug 2005 12:05 GMT | >Because of the axle in my car. A clock driven at each end mechanically | >will read the same for eternity (sans diff slippage). [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] | > | That is so far wrong it is ludicrous. Hey rat brain! You are talking out of your arse, it's the only logical conclusion. Ya gotta be soft in the head if you can't see that. I dunno why Jim is wasting his time on ya.
Jim doesn't understand
| relativity Any idiot can understand what would happen if one clock ran slower than the other, but you don't make it as far up the mental capability ladder as "idiot". Androcles.
Sue... - 07 Aug 2005 12:08 GMT > >Because of the axle in my car. A clock driven at each end mechanically > >will read the same for eternity (sans diff slippage). [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > -- > Give your child mental blocks for Christmas. The shaft is center driven and in uniform motion. Are Jeddi knights providing a "force" that would test the axel's rigidity?
I'll bet Jim doesn't understand snake oil either.
Sue...
Jeff Root - 08 Aug 2005 23:57 GMT Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root:
>> Jim Greenfield replied to Paul B. Andersen: >> [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] >> >> How can a prediction made by a theory contradict the theory? Didn't you want to answer that question?
You claimed that the prediction made by GR contradicts GR. Obviously it is impossible for a prediction of a theory to contradict the theory which made it. Clearly, what you said was not what you meant.
>> Why do you say that because the two clocks are attached to the >> axle, they must read the same? > > Because of the axle in my car. Really?
Your car has only one axle? Assuming that you are referring to the axles on which the wheels turn, a car with four wheels has four axles so each can turn at a different speed. See http://auto.howstuffworks.com/differential.htm
I'd think a simpler example would be better. Though I don't know why you needed an example at all. An axle is an axle, and an axle by itself is an extremely simple thing. All it is in this case is a single, solid rotating body.
> A clock driven at each end mechanically will read the same > for eternity That is what you need to show. You haven't shown it, merely asserted it. It seems obvious that the two clocks would read the same, but what seems obvious isn't always true. GR predicts that in certain circumstances, the two clocks would not read the same. If you think that is wrong, you need to show why.
> (sans diff slippage). Slippage? The thought experiment doesn't permit any slippage. If you are thinking of your car wheels slipping on the pavement, you are thinking of something utterly irrelevant.
> Gr is trying to tell me, that if I lay the old girl on the side, > time is passing differently at each end due to gravity disparity. Yes.
> So how are the rotations per time at each end the same, > if a clock at a higher altitude reads differently, due to > gravity difference? They aren't. GR predicts that the rotational speed of the bottom of the shaft, measured with a clock at the bottom of the shaft, is greater than the rotational speed of the top of the shaft, as measured by a clock at the top of the shaft.
You think that means the shaft must become twisted. Paul showed that it doesn't mean that.
> For Paul to maintain the claim of time passing differently due > to gravity, he must disconnect! > The free (call it a GPS based clock) and the one connected to > the (very high) axle, CANNOT read differently, WITHOUT a torque > on the axle. Paul showed that they do read differently without a torque.
> THIS is the contradiction. : The "Theory" says they will, and > the axle proves they won't. The entire body of the axle is rotating at constant speed. What that speed is measured to be depends on where in the gravity field the measurement is made. That idea is very surprising to almost everyone, including me. To some people, it is incomprehensible. They reject the idea as being absurd, even though the time difference is directly observed every day in careful measurements. Those people sometimes reject the observations because they contradict their own beliefs. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Henri Wilson - 09 Aug 2005 21:58 GMT >Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root:
>Your car has only one axle? Assuming that you are referring >to the axles on which the wheels turn, a car with four wheels [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >that in certain circumstances, the two clocks would not read the >same. If you think that is wrong, you need to show why. There is no need for clocks. The ends of the shaft ARE the clocks.
An observer at the bottom end will count N revs of the shaft per Earth day. One at the top will also count N revs per day.
So one Earth day has a duration of N, irrespective of any gravity difference.
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.
Jeff Root - 09 Aug 2005 23:10 GMT Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root:
>> I'd think a simpler example would be better. Though I don't >> know why you needed an example at all. An axle is an axle, and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > There is no need for clocks. The ends of the shaft ARE the clocks. Jim said that there is a clock at each end, so I responded to that. However, I agree that your description works at least as well, if not better.
I now think Jim just introduced an unnecessary complication in the description. I should have realized that and responded to what he probably meant, rather than to what he actually said.
> An observer at the bottom end will count N revs of the shaft per > Earth day. One at the top will also count N revs per day. > > So one Earth day has a duration of N, irrespective of any gravity > difference. Yes. I agree with that completely. It also agrees with what Paul said. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Henri Wilson - 10 Aug 2005 01:59 GMT >Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >Yes. I agree with that completely. It also agrees with what >Paul said. I'm sure Paul would be flattered to know he finally agreed with me.
> -- Jeff, in Minneapolis 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.
jgreen@seol.net.au - 10 Aug 2005 09:01 GMT > Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: > [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > >> > >> How can a prediction made by a theory contradict the theory? This is the point! The prediction is that the top clock, although CONNECTED to the axle, will read a different elapsed time than the bottom one. Therefore, (which the dumbest rat would understand), the axle twisted. I say it doesn't happen, and I don't give a rat's arse whether Mr Anderson (AWOL?), will chastise you for recognizing the obvious.
> Didn't you want to answer that question? > > You claimed that the prediction made by GR contradicts GR. > Obviously it is impossible for a prediction of a theory to > contradict the theory which made it. Clearly, what you said > was not what you meant. As above. Is English your second language? Comprehension difficulties?
> >> Why do you say that because the two clocks are attached to the > >> axle, they must read the same? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > that in certain circumstances, the two clocks would not read the > same. If you think that is wrong, you need to show why. "A clock driven at each end of a rigid axle, will read the same for eternity!!!!!!!!!"
> > (sans diff slippage). > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the shaft, is greater than the rotational speed of the top > of the shaft, as measured by a clock at the top of the shaft. Go and have a THINK, or is that disalowed in DHR Land? All the "magic" can't make it happen- the clocks are CONNECTED via the axle.
> You think that means the shaft must become twisted. Paul > showed that it doesn't mean that. Rubbish! Paul rabbitted on about the earth's spin; now I've suggested to try the experiment in a non-rotating (moon) situation, he has disappeared down the burrow.
> > For Paul to maintain the claim of time passing differently due > > to gravity, he must disconnect! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Paul showed that they do read differently without a torque. sigh- they are CONNECTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > THIS is the contradiction. : The "Theory" says they will, and > > the axle proves they won't. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > in careful measurements. Those people sometimes reject the > observations because they contradict their own beliefs. Like me looking in a curved mirror, and rejecting the "observation" that I am thin. Observers can be mistaken, and misunderstand what is happening; in this case, the direction of the light has been changed. In the case of "apparent" time and length dilation, the VELOCITY of the light has changed.
> > -- Jeff, in Minneapolis Jim G, in Reality Land c'=c+v
jgreen@seol.net.au - 10 Aug 2005 09:01 GMT > Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: > [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > >> > >> How can a prediction made by a theory contradict the theory? This is the point! The prediction is that the top clock, although CONNECTED to the axle, will read a different elapsed time than the bottom one. Therefore, (which the dumbest rat would understand), the axle twisted. I say it doesn't happen, and I don't give a rat's arse whether Mr Anderson (AWOL?), will chastise you for recognizing the obvious.
> Didn't you want to answer that question? > > You claimed that the prediction made by GR contradicts GR. > Obviously it is impossible for a prediction of a theory to > contradict the theory which made it. Clearly, what you said > was not what you meant. As above. Is English your second language? Comprehension difficulties?
> >> Why do you say that because the two clocks are attached to the > >> axle, they must read the same? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > that in certain circumstances, the two clocks would not read the > same. If you think that is wrong, you need to show why. "A clock driven at each end of a rigid axle, will read the same for eternity!!!!!!!!!"
> > (sans diff slippage). > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the shaft, is greater than the rotational speed of the top > of the shaft, as measured by a clock at the top of the shaft. Go and have a THINK, or is that disalowed in DHR Land? All the "magic" can't make it happen- the clocks are CONNECTED via the axle.
> You think that means the shaft must become twisted. Paul > showed that it doesn't mean that. Rubbish! Paul rabbitted on about the earth's spin; now I've suggested to try the experiment in a non-rotating (moon) situation, he has disappeared down the burrow.
> > For Paul to maintain the claim of time passing differently due > > to gravity, he must disconnect! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Paul showed that they do read differently without a torque. sigh- they are CONNECTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > THIS is the contradiction. : The "Theory" says they will, and > > the axle proves they won't. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > in careful measurements. Those people sometimes reject the > observations because they contradict their own beliefs. Like me looking in a curved mirror, and rejecting the "observation" that I am thin. Observers can be mistaken, and misunderstand what is happening; in this case, the direction of the light has been changed. In the case of "apparent" time and length dilation, the VELOCITY of the light has changed.
> > -- Jeff, in Minneapolis Jim G, in Reality Land c'=c+v
Henri Wilson - 10 Aug 2005 13:20 GMT >> Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root:
>> >> Jim, >> >> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >"A clock driven at each end of a rigid axle, will read the same for >eternity!!!!!!!!!" Jim, they don't understand that your rod actually turns the hands of the two clocks. They want to place a presynched clock next to the two ends of the rod and measure the time it takes to make one turn. They believe that the top clock will say it is rotating more slowly there because TIME itself is slower in weaker gravity. But we know that the rod's rotation rate must be THE SAME at both ends, don't we. It is bloody obvious.
>> > (sans diff slippage). >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >All the "magic" can't make it happen- the clocks are CONNECTED via the >axle. Jim, is there a zoo nearby?
You would do better telling all this to a chimpanzee.
>> You think that means the shaft must become twisted. Paul >> showed that it doesn't mean that. > >Rubbish! Paul rabbitted on about the earth's spin; now I've suggested >to try the experiment in a non-rotating (moon) situation, he has >disappeared down the burrow. He usually does that when he cannot answer.
>> > For Paul to maintain the claim of time passing differently due >> > to gravity, he must disconnect! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >sigh- they are CONNECTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They probably haven't gotten past rubber bands yet.
>> > THIS is the contradiction. : The "Theory" says they will, and >> > the axle proves they won't. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Jim G, in Reality Land >c'=c+v 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.
jgreen@seol.net.au - 12 Aug 2005 12:01 GMT > >> Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > But we know that the rod's rotation rate must be THE SAME at both ends, don't > we. It is bloody obvious. Too obvious?? We are dealing with people who refuse the obvious on 'principal'
> >> > (sans diff slippage). > >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > You would do better telling all this to a chimpanzee. Jeff is slowly coming to the point- What I ask HIM here, now that he accepts the two connected clocks to the axle read the same: If there is another unconnected clock at the top also, which one reads the correct time??????? Or will they show the SAME??
> >> You think that means the shaft must become twisted. Paul > >> showed that it doesn't mean that. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > He usually does that when he cannot answer. Alice through the looking glass! Very similar magic needed
> >> > For Paul to maintain the claim of time passing differently due > >> > to gravity, he must disconnect! [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. The most surprising to me, was to suddenly realise, at age 50 ish, that I had been mislead by this Einstein rot nearly all my life.
Jim Greenfield c'=c+v
Jeff Root - 13 Aug 2005 09:59 GMT Jim Greenfield wrote:
> Jeff is slowly coming to the point- > What I ask HIM here, now that he accepts the two connected > clocks to the axle read the same: > If there is another unconnected clock at the top also, > which one reads the correct time??????? Or will they show > the SAME?? You have changed the scenario too many times for me to keep track of the premises you want to use. State the problem clearly and completely and I will reply to the best of my ability. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Jeff Root - 10 Aug 2005 23:49 GMT Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root:
>> >> Jim Greenfield replied to Paul B. Andersen: >> >> [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > The prediction is that the top clock, although CONNECTED to the axle, > will read a different elapsed time than the bottom one. I now see that you have confused two different scenarios:
1) A rotating axle with a mark on each end (like clock hands) to show its rotation. This is the case which you refer to the clocks as being "connected to the axle".
2) A rotating axle with a clock at each end. This is the case in which the clocks read different elapsed times.
> Therefore, (which the dumbest rat would understand), the > axle twisted. I say it doesn't happen, You are right: The axle does not become twisted. Notice that everyone has agreed all along that the axle does not become twisted.
>> Didn't you want to answer that question? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > As above. Is English your second language? Comprehension > difficulties? You talked about two clocks connected to the axle. That was misleading. What you really meant was the axle itself being used like a clock. I responded to what you said, rather than what you meant.
Since the axle is a single, solid, rotating object, it can serve as a clock. One clock. The fact that it has a "hand" at each end doesn't make it two clocks.
>> >> Why do you say that because the two clocks are attached to the >> >> axle, they must read the same? [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > "A clock driven at each end of a rigid axle, will read the same > for eternity!!!!!!!!!" That is still poorly expressed, but essentially correct. And very obvious, of course.
>> > Gr is trying to tell me, that if I lay the old girl on the side, >> > time is passing differently at each end due to gravity disparity. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > All the "magic" can't make it happen- the clocks are CONNECTED > via the axle. What I think is that you described the setup poorly.
You meant that there is one "clock" and it *is* the axle.
>> You think that means the shaft must become twisted. Paul >> showed that it doesn't mean that. > > Rubbish! Paul rabbitted on about the earth's spin; now I've > suggested to try the experiment in a non-rotating (moon) > situation, he has disappeared down the burrow. Paul simply used the rotation of the Earth-- one day-- as a convenient reference against which to count the rotations of the axle. It makes no difference what reference is used as long as it is accessible at both ends of the axle.
>> > For Paul to maintain the claim of time passing differently due >> > to gravity, he must disconnect! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > sigh- they are CONNECTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Fine. The two ends of the axle rotate together. Over the course of any specified number of rotations of the Earth, the axle rotates some number of times, which observers at both ends of the axle agree on. That is as Paul said.
>> > THIS is the contradiction. : The "Theory" says they will, and >> > the axle proves they won't. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > In the case of "apparent" time and length dilation, the VELOCITY of > the light has changed. What light?? There was no light in your argument.
Since the speed of light is always the same when carefully and accurately measured (done thousands of times every minute, all around the world), your assertion is proven wrong anyway.
Your analogy of looking at yourself in a curved mirror and interpreting what you see as being misleading is apt. When you look at the two ends of the axle, you see it rotating at two different speeds. You know that can't be right, because the axle is rotating as a solid body without becoming twisted. What you see is misleading. You use general relativity to calculate what is really happening-- what you would see if spacetime wasn't curved, distorting your observations.
Which do you think is more likely?
1) Millions of physicists, engineers, technicians, students, and interested laymen have failed to notice glaringly obvious contradictions in relativity over the last 80-some years. You see the contradictions, but even when you explain them to people smarter than you, they still don't see them.
or
2) You don't like relativity because it seems wrong. So you don't want to understand it and don't try to understand it. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
jgreen@seol.net.au - 12 Aug 2005 11:53 GMT > Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: > [quoted text clipped - 125 lines] > used like a clock. I responded to what you said, rather than > what you meant. I will accept that, when YOU accept that two clocks cannot be driven/read by the same light ray......which is when Hell freezes for a DHR, right?
> Since the axle is a single, solid, rotating object, it can > serve as a clock. One clock. The fact that it has a "hand" > at each end doesn't make it two clocks. Is the clock in your computer the SAME ONE as that in mine? they are both physically connected!
> >> >> Why do you say that because the two clocks are attached to the > >> >> axle, they must read the same? [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > You meant that there is one "clock" and it *is* the axle. Nope! Deffinitely two clocks, or as many as you like spread along the diminishing grav field.
> >> You think that means the shaft must become twisted. Paul > >> showed that it doesn't mean that. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > What light?? There was no light in your argument. Exactly- no light required! But in yours, the whole scenario DEPENDS on introducing the unwarranted arguements about c, because therein lies the MAGIC on which SR/GR is based. (A blind man can test my claims by FEELING the top and bottom hand positions)
> Since the speed of light is always the same when carefully > and accurately measured (done thousands of times every minute, > all around the world), your assertion is proven wrong anyway. Save these false claims for school children and "true believers"
> Your analogy of looking at yourself in a curved mirror and > interpreting what you see as being misleading is apt. When [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > calculate what is really happening-- what you would see if > spacetime wasn't curved, distorting your observations. Exactly!!!!!!! If I see something APPARENTLY doing something weird, I apply my brain, and calculate the TRUE situation by applying c'=c+v ....in the same way as I can reach the true situation as to my waist-line, by factoring in the angles and optics of the curved mirror.
Anyway, your above is fallacious. At ground level, I see a delay of when the top moves, but the delay does NOT increase, unless the axle rotation was accellerating. That is not the case under discussion, and GR says the twist must appear to increase. So I see a twisted axle which remains the same.
> Which do you think is more likely? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 2) You don't like relativity because it seems wrong. So you > don't want to understand it and don't try to understand it. Millions of bomb chuckers are prepared to die, their beliefs in the forty virgins awaiting them being so strong. Are you one of these who think the emperor has a lovely cloak, or is he indeed starkers? (Hint: "Starkers" puts you in a small minority)
Jim G c'=c+v
Jeff Root - 13 Aug 2005 09:57 GMT Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root:
>> >> >> Jim Greenfield replied to Paul B. Andersen: >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 127 lines] > driven/read by the same light ray......which is when Hell > freezes for a DHR, right? First, I can't imagine what you are referring to by clocks being "driven by a light ray".
Second, I can't imagine what you are referring to by "two clocks being read by the same light ray".
Neither of those seems to make sense. Perhaps you could explain what you meant.
Third, none of it appears to have anything to do with the "axle" thought experiment.
>> Since the axle is a single, solid, rotating object, it can >> serve as a clock. One clock. The fact that it has a "hand" >> at each end doesn't make it two clocks. > > Is the clock in your computer the SAME ONE as that in mine? > they are both physically connected! Huh?
>> >> >> Why do you say that because the two clocks are attached >> >> >> to the axle, they must read the same? [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > Nope! Deffinitely two clocks, or as many as you like spread along > the diminishing grav field. Then I was right in the first place.
>> >> You think that means the shaft must become twisted. Paul >> >> showed that it doesn't mean that. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Exactly- no light required! So your comment about light was completely irrelevant.
> But in yours, the whole scenario DEPENDS on introducing > the unwarranted arguements about c, because therein lies > the MAGIC on which SR/GR is based. > (A blind man can test my claims by FEELING the top and bottom > hand positions) You haven't made any testable claims, aside from the claim that c'=c+v, which is disproved by dozens of independent experiments and everyday applications, some of them done thousands of times every minute by people all around the world, as I said just below.
>> Since the speed of light is always the same when carefully >> and accurately measured (done thousands of times every minute, >> all around the world), your assertion is proven wrong anyway. > > Save these false claims for school children and "true believers" They are simple facts. Precision measurements which depend on the speed of light have become a commonplace. You could do it yourself if you wanted to.
>> Your analogy of looking at yourself in a curved mirror and >> interpreting what you see as being misleading is apt. When [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > weird, I apply my brain, and calculate the TRUE situation by > applying c'=c+v Applying an incorrect formula won't help you.
> ....in the same way as I can reach the true situation as to > my waist-line, by factoring in the angles and optics of the > curved mirror. You have never in your life factored the angles and optics of a curved mirror. You don't know how.
> Anyway, your above is fallacious. At ground level, I see a > delay of when the top moves, but the delay does NOT increase, > unless the axle rotation was accellerating. That is not the > case under discussion, and GR says the twist must appear to > increase. So I see a twisted axle which remains the same. I hadn't even thought of the fact that that the delay would cause the axle to appear to be slightly twisted. Thank you for pointing that out to me. I agree completely with your description of what you would see, but as everyone has told you, GR does not predict any increase in the apparent twist, and does not predict any actual twist at all.
>> Which do you think is more likely? >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > these who think the emperor has a lovely cloak, or is he indeed > starkers? (Hint: "Starkers" puts you in a small minority) You didn't answer my question. Which do you think is more likely? -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
russell@mdli.com - 13 Aug 2005 15:22 GMT > Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: [snip]
> > The prediction is that the top clock, although CONNECTED to the axle, > > will read a different elapsed time than the bottom one. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > everyone has agreed all along that the axle does not become > twisted. Well, in at least one person's presentation of (2) the clocks were assumed to have unlimited power, and to be regulated by identical atomic clocks. If you tried to connect the top clock's hands to the bottom clock's with an axle, something would have to give. Presumably the axle, since the clocks have sufficient power to turn themselves -- and anything attached to them -- at the local atomic clock rate. So in that specific scenario I *do* say the axle gets twisted.
Greenfield so far seems to be leaving out the unlimited power detail, and that's his mistake. He seems to think that an atomic clock can twist an axle without doing any work that requires extra power to be supplied. It's this extra power that twists his axle, not the clock per se.
[snip]
> > Rubbish! Paul rabbitted on about the earth's spin; now I've > > suggested to try the experiment in a non-rotating (moon) > > situation, he has disappeared down the burrow. Oh dear, does Greenfield really think the moon doesn't rotate? It is worse than I thought.
...
Androcles - 13 Aug 2005 16:03 GMT | > Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: | [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] | clocks were assumed to have unlimited power, and to be | regulated by identical atomic clocks. That was I, Androcles. I used big old fashioned church tower clocks and regulated them with modern clocks.
| If you tried to | connect the top clock's hands to the bottom clock's with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | local atomic clock rate. So in that specific scenario | I *do* say the axle gets twisted. That's ok, you can say whatever you like, but you are not a physicist. You can say the moon is made of green cheese if you like, a 5-year-old might believe you.
| Greenfield so far seems to be leaving out the unlimited | power detail, and that's his mistake. He seems to think | that an atomic clock can twist an axle without doing any | work that requires extra power to be supplied. It's this | extra power that twists his axle, not the clock per se. No extra power is needed for the axle to twist. The advance of perihelion of Mercury is a solely mathematical effect in GR, not a physical one. Because Mercury is moving in the empty space that the speed of light is constant in, "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body", it gets time dilated compared to the time of the empty space around it. Kepler's second law says equal areas are swept in equal times, E = M-e.sin(E). Because the clock on Mercury slows down, it makes the longitude of perihelion in the frame of Mercury slightly behind its stationary position in the empty space, equal areas (the whole ellipse) have to be swept through in equal times. Thus the rotation of longitude of perihelion of Mercury is physically retarded, like all the people that believe Einstein are mentally retarded.
| [snip] | [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | Oh dear, does Greenfield really think the moon doesn't | rotate? It is worse than I thought. It is no worse than I thought. People with no understanding of mathematics will dream up the preposterous and call it fact. That includes Einstein, but in his case he knew enough mathematics to mischieviously perpetrate a hoax, and you don't think at all, you are a phuckwit.
Androcles
jgreen@seol.net.au - 17 Aug 2005 03:01 GMT > | > Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: > | [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > > Androcles Don't you just love it, when the DHR's, with their 'deep' and God-given understanding of GR, cannot even agree on such a simple proposition as to whether the axle will twist or not?? What shall they do with this FREE energy?? Obviously, if the axle is being twisted by a force, one could apply a friction brake to one end, and harnesss the heat!!! I give up on Root; I made it perfectly clear that my referal to the moon was the nearest situation to zero rotation, and that the discussion involves change of gravity sans spin of the environment in which the experiment is performed. Another rabbitter about a once a month spin is obviously pathetically hiding within obfuscation, and has NO intention of addressing the real arguement as to what happens to the clocks/axle operating in an alterring gravitational field.
Jim G c'=c+v
Androcles - 17 Aug 2005 03:44 GMT | > | > Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: | > | [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] | understanding of GR, cannot even agree on such a simple proposition as | to whether the axle will twist or not?? Bunch of little kids, arguing about how many fairies they've seen today, and each one trying to outdo the other. Tell them there are no fairies and they look at you as if you are the one that's mad. Then they'll come back with "What do YOU think makes rainbows, then, if it's not fairies? You just can't talk to some of them. I plonked a couple today.
| What shall they do with this FREE energy?? Obviously, if the axle is | being twisted by a force, one could apply a friction brake to one end, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] | Jim G | c'=c+v They can't understand tidal lock, it's way over their heads. You have to show some of them how to count fingers and toes. Androcles
Jeff Root - 17 Aug 2005 18:18 GMT Jim Greenfield wrote:
> I give up on Root; I thought you didn't like people who give up.
> I made it perfectly clear that my referal to the moon > was the nearest situation to zero rotation, and that > the discussion involves change of gravity sans spin > of the environment in which the experiment is performed. Yes, but that was never an issue. The rotation of the Earth was merely a convenient reference to use in counting rotations of the axle. It has no effect on your argument one way or another. Since the Moon rotates, too, I don't see why you think it is any better. If you want a planet that doesn't rotate, just posit a planet that doesn't rotate. Nothing wrong with that. If you want certain conditions in a thought experiment, then you have to specify what those conditions are, and not change them from one post to the next without stating clearly what you are doing.
The main problems were that you jumped back and forth between describing the rotating axle as a time reference, and using multiple clocks as time references, and you described the clocks as being connected to the axle without saying how they were connected.
You also wrote something which appears to be nonsense about clocks being driven by a light ray. If that actually meant anything, I would appreciate an explanation of it.
You also wrote what appears to be nonsense about your computer clock and mine being the same clock, and that "they are both physically connected". I have no idea what that was supposed to mean. You did not explain it, and I won't try to guess. Again, if it *does* mean something, I'd appreciate an explanation.
Think out your thought experiment, write it out as clearly as possible, then read what you wrote to see whether it says what you intended to say. If it doesn't, re-write it until it does say what you intended.
> Another rabbitter about a once a month spin is obviously > pathetically hiding within obfuscation, and has NO intention > of addressing the real arguement as to what happens to the > clocks/axle operating in an alterring gravitational field. As I said in my last post to you, if you clearly state the conditions of the thought experiment, I will reply to the best of my ability. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Paul B. Andersen - 17 Aug 2005 22:09 GMT > Jim Greenfield wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > -- Jeff, in Minneapolis Androcles clearly state something? :-) You are too optimistic!
Paul
jgreen@seol.net.au - 18 Aug 2005 04:27 GMT (sigh) A vertical axle on a non-rotating planet. Identical mechanical clocks connected at top and bottom by identical mechanisms. The axle rotates (is driven) at constant revs from the base. What do the two clocks read after an elapsed time? What does a nuclear clock at the top, but unconnected physically to the axle, read ref the other two????????? (nuclear clock being synchronised with the base clock before experiment begun). If there IS a discrepency, which is wrong?
(I mentioned light in order to head off the wild goose chase which you were likely to introduce about the two connected clocks appearing to show differring times due to the delay in reading caused by information transfer not being instantaneous due to emr velocity)
Jim Greenfield c'=c+v
George Dishman - 19 Aug 2005 11:49 GMT Hi Jim,
Since nobody else has replied, I'll say a few words. I haven't been following the thread so I'll just respond to what you ask here.
> (sigh) > A vertical axle on a non-rotating planet. > Identical mechanical clocks connected at top and bottom by identical > mechanisms. To start, let's say what would be seen if only one was connected to the shaft and then consider what would happen if we try to connect the other.
> The axle rotates (is driven) at constant revs from the base. > What do the two clocks read after an elapsed time? What you would see at the top would be hands on the axle rotating slightly slower than the hands on the local clock.
If you then try to couple them, several things might happen. The coupling might break, the two sets of hands might rotate at the speed of the higher clock while the lower motor would take less power, the motors might burn out or the shaft might twist, etc..
> What does a nuclear clock at the top, but unconnected physically to the > axle, read ref the other two????????? (nuclear clock being synchronised > with the base clock before experiment begun). I don't know what mean by "a nuclear clock". Assuming the mechanical clocks are properly designed using good quality quartz crystals, atomic clocks would give identical measurements but with less random noise.
> If there IS a discrepency, which is wrong? Neither, our best understanding of nature is that time is not universal.
George
jgreen@seol.net.au - 20 Aug 2005 08:40 GMT > > (sigh) > > A vertical axle on a non-rotating planet. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > less power, the motors might burn out or the > shaft might twist, etc.. G'day George,
You seem to grasp that there is a problem for GR, because the forces/energy involved to produce said breakages/twisting are due to separation by distance ONLY (which causes the gravitational difference at top and bottom. Where and why should such energy "appear", just because the top of the rotating axle is "up there"?? How would the forces "know" what to apply to a STATIONARY axle?? My speedo/odometer is a clock, OK? When I record one mile travelled (odo) while the speedo was reading constant 60mph, I KNOW that one minute has elapsed. That is the sort of clocks/counters I envisage here-- not a quartz crystal in sight!
> > What does a nuclear clock at the top, but unconnected physically to the > > axle, read ref the other two????????? (nuclear clock being synchronised [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > atomic clocks would give identical measurements > but with less random noise. George, but it is loudly claimed that they DON'T! This axle reaches up to the GPS satellite, and ALL DHR's claim that the atomic clocks up there do NOT read the same.
> > If there IS a discrepency, which is wrong? > > Neither, our best understanding of nature is > that time is not universal. Well my belief is, that the axle will not get twisted around and around just because 'time' is passing (and the axle spinning)
Regards Jim c'=c+v (PS: Have you fixed that 'time dilation' graphic yet?)
George Dishman - 20 Aug 2005 10:23 GMT >> > (sigh) >> > A vertical axle on a non-rotating planet. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > You seem to grasp that there is a problem for GR, There isn't the slightest problem.
> because the > forces/energy involved to produce said breakages/twisting are due to > separation by distance ONLY (which causes the gravitational difference > at top and bottom. > Where and why should such energy "appear", The whole point of splitting the explanation into two stages was to try to help you grasp what is to me obvious, the forces are produced solely by the motors driving the shaft. Imagine instead the shaft was horizontal. You attach a motor at each end and drive them at different speeds and the same effect occurs. The energy 'appears' because you have to connect the motors to a source of power if they are to turn the shaft.
> just because the top of the > rotating axle is "up there"?? How would the forces "know" what to apply [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > minute has elapsed. That is the sort of clocks/counters I envisage > here-- not a quartz crystal in sight! Far too inaccurate to show anything.
>> > What does a nuclear clock at the top, but unconnected physically to the >> > axle, read ref the other two????????? (nuclear clock being synchronised [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > George, but it is loudly claimed that they DON'T! You are confused I think, two clocks side-by-side, one a caesium atomic clock and the other a high quality ovened crystal, will run at the same rate. Two identical atomic clocks at different altitudes appear to run at different rates.
> This axle reaches up to the GPS satellite, and ALL DHR's claim that the > atomic clocks up there do NOT read the same. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > around and around just because 'time' is passing > (and the axle spinning) The fact is that it would. There used to be a poster, Chris Franks, who worked for HP and was involved in the calibration of the atomic clocks they made. They had two factories where this was done and one of the problems they had to deal with was that one was somewhat higher than the other. They had to compensate for the effect to ensure accurate calibration. People who work with highly accurate clocks see this happening on a daily basis and your "belief" is known to be wrong. Sorry Jim, you just have to learn to deal with the real world, it doesn't work the way you imagine.
George
Jeff Root - 20 Aug 2005 16:57 GMT George Dishman replied to Jim Greenfield:
> The whole point of splitting the explanation into > two stages was to try to help you grasp what is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you have to connect the motors to a source of > power if they are to turn the shaft. Jim hasn't explained how the "clocks" are supposed to be connected to the axle. If the axle itself is meant to keep time like a clock (say, like the shaft which turns a clock's second hand), then he is definitely talking about a single clock. Yet he insisted that there were two clocks, one at the bottom and one at the top. I suspect that he only meant that there were pointers or "clock hands" at the bottom and top of the axle, and that the only motor driving it is the one at the bottom, but until he says what he has in mind, we can only speculate.
>> Well my belief is, that the axle will not get twisted >> around and around just because 'time' is passing >> (and the axle spinning) > > The fact is that it would. If you think the axle would become twisted, then I'm quite sure that your understanding of the thought experiment setup is different from his. With only one motor connected to the axle, it would not become twisted. Although he has said there are two clocks connected to the axle, he has said only one motor is driving it. He needs to clarify that confused description. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
George Dishman - 20 Aug 2005 20:41 GMT > George Dishman replied to Jim Greenfield: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > clock. Yet he insisted that there were two clocks, one at > the bottom and one at the top. That is reasonable since without two clocks, there is nothing to compare. Specifically he said "Identical mechanical clocks connected at top and bottom ..." so I don't think there is too much doubt about that part. The problem comes when he goes on to say the axle is driven "at constant revs from the base". Since the two clocks will be trying to drive at different rates, he is presupposing the outcome of the mechanical linkage. For example if the linkage was a ratchet in each case, the faster clock wins (or perhaps it runs at the sum of the two rates, a tick at either end turning the hands!).
I separated the description for that reason, before coupling the behaviour is clear and if they are linked, what happens depends only on the linkage.
> I suspect that he only meant > that there were pointers or "clock hands" at the bottom and > top of the axle, and that the only motor driving it is the > one at the bottom, That would not be two clocks, just one clock with two sets of hands, it certainly isn't what he said.
> but until he says what he has in mind, > we can only speculate. I find that sometimes, when people don't give enough information, it is because they aren't aware of what is missing. Rather than ask, I try to work out what they had in mind and fill in the blanks. It is then easier for them to correct any misunderstanding on my part than to add the information themselves. It is a matter of individual approach.
>>> Well my belief is, that the axle will not get twisted >>> around and around just because 'time' is passing [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > there are two clocks connected to the axle, he has said only > one motor is driving it. No, he said there were two clocks, hence two motors or mainsprings or whatever, but he said the lower clock drives the shaft which logically means the linkages are such that the slower rotation takes precedence.
> He needs to clarify that confused > description. It would help.
George
Henri Wilson - 21 Aug 2005 23:51 GMT >George Dishman replied to Jim Greenfield: > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > -- Jeff, in Minneapolis Jim has every right to assume that most contributors to this NG have some kind of intelligence which enables them to occasionally apply their own deductive powers in cases when every minute detail is not spelled out as though for a 2yo kid..
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.
Jeff Root - 22 Aug 2005 04:04 GMT Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root:
>> George Dishman replied to Jim Greenfield: >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > every minute detail is not spelled out as though for a 2yo > kid.. Sure. But it still isn't clear what he meant by "two clocks", or how those two clocks are connected to the axle. George guessed that each of the two clocks has its own motor or other mechanism to make it run, since that is what makes them clocks. I, on the other hand, guess that Jim was talking about clock hands at each end of the axle, being driven by the rotation of the axle, which is, in turn, driven at its bottom end.
George's guess may be right, or mine, or maybe both are wrong and Jim's concept is something else. Only Jim can say. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Henri Wilson - 22 Aug 2005 06:41 GMT >Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >George's guess may be right, or mine, or maybe both are wrong >and Jim's concept is something else. Only Jim can say. If you have been following my discussion with George Dishman, you would know what Jim and I mean.
The rotation of the shaft itself can be used as a fixed time duration reference. Its period doesn't need to be measured by any clocks. It can be assigned the value of ONE time unit. If each of its ends is connected to a rotating 'hand', the two hands must always be rotating at the same angular speed and will both remain in absolute synch.
The shaft's period can be assigned the value ONE at both top and bottom.
If a clock is sent from the bottom to the top and emits a different number of ticks per shaft rotation at each location, then the clock has obviously suffered some kind of physical change as a consequence of being moved. The shaft period certainly didn't change just because a clock was sent from one end to the other.
> -- Jeff, in Minneapolis 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.
Paul B. Andersen - 22 Aug 2005 09:40 GMT > The rotation of the shaft itself can be used as a fixed time duration > reference. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > shaft period certainly didn't change just because a clock was sent from one end > to the other. Why is that obvious, Henri? Why do you find it impossible that the shaft simply IS rotating at a different rotational frequency at different heights? It doesn't help that YOU call one rotation "one time unit", if the lengths of those "time units" are different when measured by local clocks, does it?
The only kind of "time" of interest in physics is the "time" that have physical consequences, and determines the pace of local physical processes such as clocks.
Paul
Henri Wilson - 22 Aug 2005 23:58 GMT >> The rotation of the shaft itself can be used as a fixed time duration >> reference. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >if the lengths of those "time units" are different when >measured by local clocks, does it? It depends on how difficult you want life to be.
You can either take the simple attitude that "the period of Jupiter represents a constant duration of time " or you can become quite absurd and claim that "it changes depending on how it is measured", ....whether you use a cesium clock or an egg timer..
You people seem obsessed with measurement. Don't you inderstand that the universe functioned perfectly well before human eyes even evolved?
Time exists without human life. Jupiter rotated well before the Earth cooled. Its rotation period has occupied a fairly constant length of time ever since. It can be used safely as an 'absolute' time standard.
So let's just define it as ONE TIME UNIT.
>The only kind of "time" of interest in physics is the "time" >that have physical consequences, and determines the pace of >local physical processes such as clocks. The definition of Jupiter's period as ONE TIME UNIT has EXTREME PHYSICAL SIGNIFICANCE.
>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.
Paul B. Andersen - 24 Aug 2005 08:55 GMT >>>The rotation of the shaft itself can be used as a fixed time duration >>>reference. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > The definition of Jupiter's period as ONE TIME UNIT has EXTREME PHYSICAL > SIGNIFICANCE. To Jupiter. But it is of no use if you want to boil your eggs. Then you will have to use a local clock running with the pace governed by the same laws of physics which determine the coagulation of your egg.
Paul
Henri Wilson - 24 Aug 2005 23:43 GMT >>>>The rotation of the shaft itself can be used as a fixed time duration >>>>reference. [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >the pace governed by the same laws of physics which >determine the coagulation of your egg. Do you agree that the ratio of Jupiter's rotation to Earth's rotation is constant and independent of measuring frame?
>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.
Paul B. Andersen - 25 Aug 2005 09:34 GMT >>>>>The rotation of the shaft itself can be used as a fixed time duration >>>>>reference. [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > Do you agree that the ratio of Jupiter's rotation to Earth's rotation is > constant and independent of measuring frame? No.
Paul
Henri Wilson - 25 Aug 2005 23:32 GMT >>>To Jupiter. >>>But it is of no use if you want to boil your eggs. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >No. Therein lies your problem.
>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.
George Dishman - 22 Aug 2005 19:45 GMT >>Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: >> [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > The rotation of the shaft itself can be used as a fixed time duration > reference. ... That's not what Jim said once I clarified the question, he asked where the energy came from to twist the axle:
<jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message news:1124523631.189668.274450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> G'day George, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > rotating axle is "up there"?? How would the forces "know" what to apply > to a STATIONARY axle?? The answer of course is trivial, it comes from whatever powers the clocks.
George
Jeff Root - 23 Aug 2005 00:27 GMT Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root:
> >> Jim has every right to assume that most contributors to this > >> NG have some kind of intelligence which enables them to [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > The rotation of the shaft itself can be used as a fixed time > duration reference. That was my guess of what Jim was trying to say. The rotating shaft, or axle, serves as a clock. However, when I suggested that to him, he replied that there are definitely two clocks: one at the bottom of the axle and one at the top. So it isn't clear what he really meant.
> Its period doesn't need to be measured by any clocks. It can > be assigned the value of ONE time unit. If each of its ends is > connected to a rotating 'hand', the two hands must always be > rotating at the same angular speed and will both remain in > absolute synch. I agree, given certain certain restrictions on exactly what you mean by "angular speed" and "synch". The simplest way to do it would be for the 'hands' to just be marks on the side of the rotating axle-- or just a stripe running up and down the side of the axle. An ideal observer at the bottom would see the stripe twisted slightly by the time delay of the light from more distant parts of the axle taking longer to reach him, as Jim pointed out to me, but of course that twist is constant when the axle is rotating at constant speed, and it is only a simple illusion, not an actual twist in the axle. It isn't the effect you and Jim are interested in.
Given that situation, the stripe will actually always be exactly straight up and down. The top end of the stripe will always be directly above the bottom end. Although an observer at the bottom will see the top end lagging behind slightly, and an observer at the top end will see the bottom lagging behind slightly. An observer at the middle will see both ends lagging behind slightly.
> The shaft's period can be assigned the value ONE at both top > and bottom. Again I agree, with certain restrictions. The restrictions happen to be crucial to understanding what is going on, but I'm going to put off discussing them until we are sure we agree on the more basic aspects.
> If a clock is sent from the bottom to the top and emits a > different number of ticks per shaft rotation at each location, > then the clock has obviously suffered some kind of physical > change as a consequence of being moved. The shaft period > certainly didn't change just because a clock was sent from one > end to the other. Okay. Your version of the thought experiment has two separate 'clocks': one is the huge, rotating axle, turning at a constant rate; the other is portable, ticking at a constant rate.
I agree that moving a clock or an observer from one place to another has no effect on the period of the rotating axle. It seems awfully silly to say that it does. Sometimes when people say things that sound silly, or ridiculous, it is because they are speaking in their own dialect, and not yours. You might both think you are speaking the same language, and not even realize that you are using two different dialects, each with its own set of meanings. So what someone says in his own dialect can make perfect sense in that dialect, and sound like nonsense in the other.
I'm attempting to communicate with you in your dialect.
I agree that moving from place to place has no effect on the axle. That isn't much, but it is something we can agree on.
Moving the portable clock also has no effect on the period of that clock. It continues to keep perfect time. It is an ideal clock, made by Santa Claus under God's direct supervision, so it keeps perfect time nomatter what happens to it or what kind of environment it is in. Heat and cold, electric fields, magnetic fields, high g forces-- nothing affects the perfect accuracy of this clock.
Actually, the best real clocks come very, very close to that ideal. They are tested under all kinds of extreme conditions, and if any variation is detected, the design is changed so the condition no longer causes any variation. The testing never stops, either. The clocks continue to be carefully tested years after they've been made. They are used every day for all kinds of precision measurements, positioning, and finding exact locations of things, often to within a few inches, all around the world. So it is very important that they be both accurate and precise, to do the jobs they're used for.
You suggested above that the portable clock might tick some number of times per shaft rotation when at the bottom of the shaft, and a different number of times per shaft rotation when at the top of the shaft. I'm going to ask you:
What makes you think that the clock might tick a different number of times per shaft rotation depending on where it is? -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Henri Wilson - 23 Aug 2005 22:50 GMT >Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: > [quoted text clipped - 114 lines] >What makes you think that the clock might tick a different >number of times per shaft rotation depending on where it is? A perfect clock should not change its rate no matter what happens to it..
Real clocks as used in the GPS system DO speed up slightly when placed in free fall. I am merely accepting observed facts. I suggest that there are several reasons for the change in GPS clocks ...and none involves GR.
> -- Jeff, in Minneapolis 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.
Eric Gisse - 24 Aug 2005 02:58 GMT [snip]
> A perfect clock should not change its rate no matter what happens to it.. > > Real clocks as used in the GPS system DO speed up slightly when placed in free > fall. Speeding up in proper time? No. Speeding up in observed time? Yes.
> I am merely accepting observed facts. You accept only the facts that support your worldview, the rest get handwaved away or ignored.
Read up on one one of the test sattelites for the GPS system. You have been arguing this for years, you know what I am talking about. I have mentioned it dozens of times, as have others.
> I suggest that there are several reasons for the change in GPS clocks ...and > none involves GR. Just because you say it, doesn't mean it is true. For how many years will you repeat lies?
Remember Henri, you are irrelevant. Nothing you say or do will ever influence any physical theory nor the implementation of one. All you can do is blow hot air.
How are those fabled experiments that you mentioned several months back? Still in the planning phase? Remember, a month in the lab saves a day in the library.
> > -- Jeff, in Minneapolis > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. Henri Wilson - 24 Aug 2005 23:44 GMT >[snip] > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >> Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. >> The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. ignored....
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.
Jeff Root - 24 Aug 2005 06:20 GMT Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root:
>> Moving the portable clock also has no effect on the period of >> that clock. It continues to keep perfect time. It is an ideal [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > A perfect clock should not change its rate no matter what > happens to it.. Right.
> Real clocks as used in the GPS system DO speed up slightly when > placed in free fall. What makes you think that?
> I am merely accepting observed facts. Which are... what? Spell out those "observed facts" for me. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
bz - 24 Aug 2005 07:37 GMT "Jeff Root" <jeff5@freemars.org> wrote in news:1124860833.471978.230810 @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Right. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Which are... what? Spell out those "observed facts" for me. http://groups- beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/381bfc0f1f69748e? dmode=source&hl=en
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+nanae@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu
jgreen@seol.net.au - 24 Aug 2005 07:25 GMT > Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > simple illusion, not an actual twist in the axle. It isn't > the effect you and Jim are interested in.
> Given that situation, the stripe will actually always be > exactly straight up and down. The top end of the stripe will [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > behind slightly. An observer at the middle will see both ends > lagging behind slightly.
> Question: If I asked these observers what was the TRUE nature of the line, should they not ALL use their "knowledge", and agree that the line is straight and vertical? ie, observers can be MISTAKEN in what they see, and draw WRONG conclusions.
Apart from that, you misunderstand; I say if time is passing at a different rate, the twist will INCREASE if GR is correct. ie a constant force must be acting to slow one end.
> > The shaft's period can be assigned the value ONE at both top > > and bottom. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > magnetic fields, high g forces-- nothing affects the perfect > accuracy of this clock. OK; You say two clocks, connected top and bottom are really only ONE, so I will ignore the top one, as it always reads the same as the bottom. Now let's look at the atomic clock floating about near the top one! What will it read after a lapse??
(attn George) Once the axle is spinning, let it rotate on frictionless bearings, with very energy efficient clocks (or one with hands at each end of the axle, if you prefer). No motors now driving- why a twisting?
> Actually, the best real clocks come very, very close to that > ideal. They are tested under all kinds of extreme conditions, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > around the world. So it is very important that they be both > accurate and precise, to do the jobs they're used for. Not worth a pinch of rocking horse manure! If GR is correct, they will even vary with the moon's position, not to mention the sun etc. It follows, that if these clocks are NOT altering their periods, points on the earht's crust must be changing velocity (speed). I doubt that this causes earthquakes.
> You suggested above that the portable clock might tick some > number of times per shaft rotation when at the bottom of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What makes you think that the clock might tick a different > number of times per shaft rotation depending on where it is? Because Henri (devil's advocate) Wilson realises (sigh), that IF real time is passing at a DIFFERENT rate with altitude, THAT is absolutely required.
Jim Greenfield c'=c+v
Jeff Root - 24 Aug 2005 12:42 GMT Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root:
> > Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: > > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > of the line, should they not ALL use their "knowledge", and > agree that the line is straight and vertical? Of course. If they are aware that it takes some time for the light to reach them, they would realize that the curved appearence of the stripe is an illusion, and that it is really straight and vertical. The fact that the appearance of the stripe changes as the axle is brought up to speed, or as they move up and down the axle, would tell them that it takes some time for the light to reach them, if they didn't already know from prior experience.
> ie, observers can be MISTAKEN in what they see, and draw WRONG > conclusions. Actually you just said the exact opposite of that. You suggested that the observers would NOT be mistaken, and I agree. They would certainly NOT be mistaken. It would be quite obvious to them what the reality is, and would NOT draw wrong conclusions.
> Apart from that, you misunderstand; I say if time is passing > at a different rate, the twist will INCREASE if GR is correct. What do you mean by "time is passing at a different rate"? There was no mention of that in the thought experiment you quoted above. (Refined by Henri and myself.)
If you want to introduce a new variable into the thought experiment, you need to say explicitly what it is, and how it relates to the rest of the thought experiment.
If you want to fundamentally change the thought experiment, that is fine-- but you need to say what you have in mind. I can't guess.
> ie a constant force must be acting to slow one end. That might be, but I don't know what you are talking about because you haven't expressed your ideas completely.
> >> The shaft's period can be assigned the value ONE at both top > >> and bottom. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > OK; You say two clocks, connected top and bottom are really only ONE, I did NOT say that!
I said the rotating axle can serve as a clock, and it can be read at both top and bottom. That is one clock. Using more clocks is fine, but I never said two clocks are one!
> so I will ignore the top one, as it always reads the same as the > bottom. Now let's look at the atomic clock floating about near > the top one! What will it read after a lapse?? Later than it did before the lapse. You obviously still left something out of your question. You need to think through what you want to say, write it out carefully, then read it carefully to be sure it conveys what you mean.
I suggest that you start from the beginning and describe the whole thought experiment, ending with the questions you want to pose. that way there will be less chance that you will inadvertantly leave something out or introduce ambiguities.
> (attn George) > Once the axle is spinning, let it rotate on frictionless bearings, > with very energy efficient clocks (or one with hands at each end > of the axle, if you prefer). No motors now driving- why a twisting? There is no need to posit energy efficient clocks if the axle is spinning on frictionless bearings without motors.
A tall, vertical, solid axle, rotating without friction at constant speed, will not become twisted. There is no reason for it to become twisted. Further, there are no forces on it which might tend to twist it.
Also, notice that I didn't need to mention clocks or clock hands in that answer. They were irrelevant to the question.
> > Actually, the best real clocks come very, very close to that > > ideal. They are tested under all kinds of extreme conditions, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Not worth a pinch of rocking horse manure! Atomic clocks keep time as precisely as claimed: to better than one part in 10^15, or less than 0.0000000001 second variation in 12 hours. They are depended on by millions of people every day to keep aircraft from colliding in flight, to measure the movement of tectonic plates at less than a centimeter per year, to observe radio emissions from distant galaxies with resolution far more detailed than the best optical telescopes (by long-baseline interferometry), and many more mundane applications.
Considering that you referred to a "nuclear clock" when you clearly meant an atomic clock, I suspect that you know nothing at all about them or how they work.
Considering that you thought the wheels in your car are connected together by a single axle, I suspect that you don't know how *anything* works.
> If GR is correct, they will even vary with the moon's position, > not to mention the sun etc. It follows, that if these clocks are > NOT altering their periods, points on the earht's crust must be > changing velocity (speed). I doubt that this causes earthquakes. How about if you try to finish one thought experiment before starting another?
> > You suggested above that the portable clock might tick some > > number of times per shaft rotation when at the bottom of the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > IF real time is passing at a DIFFERENT rate with altitude, THAT > is absolutely required. I'll let Henri answer for himself:
| Real clocks as used in the GPS system DO speed up slightly when | placed in free fall. | I am merely accepting observed facts. I hope that he'll say more specifically what "observed facts" he is referring to.
As for your answer, you need to explain what you mean by your phrase, "real time is passing at a DIFFERENT rate". I can't guess at what you mean by it. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Henri Wilson - 25 Aug 2005 00:00 GMT >Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: > >> > Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root:
>> If GR is correct, they will even vary with the moon's position, >> not to mention the sun etc. It follows, that if these clocks are [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >I hope that he'll say more specifically what "observed facts" >he is referring to. Ask Paul Andersen. He will tell you all about it. :)
>As for your answer, you need to explain what you mean by >your phrase, "real time is passing at a DIFFERENT rate". >I can't guess at what you mean by it. Time flow cannot have a 'rate' unless there is another time dimension.
....and there is.
Time normally flows at 1second(t1) per second(t2).
Maybe 'timeflow' COULD BE affected by such things as gravity fields but even if it were, that would not imply that all made made clocks should change rates by the same amounts when moved between similar gravity potentials.
> -- Jeff, in Minneapolis 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.
George Dishman - 25 Aug 2005 09:24 GMT ...
> (attn George) > Once the axle is spinning, let it rotate on frictionless bearings, with > very energy efficient clocks (or one with hands at each end of the > axle, if you prefer). No motors now driving- why a twisting? No motors, no twist.
Jim this is really easy. Think for a moment about a horizontal shaft to take GR out of the picture. If it has frictionless bearings and you start it spinning, it will continue to spin at that rate. Attach one end to a motor that rotates once every second and the shaft will rotate with the motor. Now attach the other end to a second motor that rotates twice per second. The shaft gets twisted and the power must come from the motors. That should be trivial so far.
Now let's consider the vertical shaft. Attach a motor at the bottom and place a perfect clock next to it. Adjust the motor so it that rotates once per second as measured by that motor. Now place a second identical perfect clock at the top. By that clock, the shaft takes a little more than a second to rotate. If you attach a second motor that rotates once per second according to the top clock, the shaft gets twisted and again the power simply comes from the motors.
This is only surprising if you make the assumption that time is universal hence if the bottom clock reads 1s per turn so should the top clock.
George
jgreen@seol.net.au - 25 Aug 2005 11:10 GMT > ... > > (attn George) [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > clock, the shaft gets twisted and again the power > simply comes from the motors. No "If" George! Why introduce a second motor? Actually, NO motors are required unless you wish to introduce the history of what happened BEFORE the axle began its constant rotation (at ground). A clock at ground is ticking away, and at the same time counting the revs (frequency); another at the top is doing the same, and I maintain that for the two results to be the same under GR: 1) The clocks do NOT tick together 2) A twisting must be occuring
(It would be pretty cool, if the earth's internal heat was actually caused by this effect- an energy process driven by the gravitationally induced "time difference" between the surface and core {grav gradient})
> This is only surprising if you make the assumption > that time is universal hence if the bottom clock > reads 1s per turn so should the top clock. .....and if you accept that time can be of any duration which suits (AE), then magic of SR/GR trumps logic. (Book of Prophets 12/55)
Cheers Jim G c'=c+v
PS: Light measured at differring speeds in fibres George! Problems for Sagnac analysis (reason for ot working)
George Dishman - 25 Aug 2005 12:09 GMT >> ... >> > (attn George) [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > No "If" George! > Why introduce a second motor? Because you asked about what would cause a twist - no motors, no twist.
I think Jeff is right, you need to sit quietly for a while and think through what you are trying to ask.
> Actually, NO motors are required > unless you wish to introduce the history of what happened BEFORE the > axle began its constant rotation (at ground). If there are no motors, there is nothing to produce the torque to twist the shaft.
> A clock at ground is ticking away, and at the same time counting the > revs (frequency); another at the top is doing the same, and I maintain > that for the two results to be the same under GR: Bzzzt, error. Under GR, the measured rates will be different and in real life we know they are.
> PS: Light measured at differring speeds in fibres George! Problems for > Sagnac analysis (reason for ot working) The light is sent both ways round the same fibre so refractive index affects the speed of each beam equally. Try again.
George
Jeff Root - 25 Aug 2005 21:34 GMT Jim Greenfield replied to George Dishman:
>> > (attn George) >> > Once the axle is spinning, let it rotate on frictionless [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > No "If" George! > Why introduce a second motor? He obviously introduced it to provide a way to get the twisting effect you're looking for. Without two separate sources of torque, the axle will not twist. He was just showing a situation where the axle *will* twist, even though it doesn't tell us anything about relativity.
> Actually, NO motors are required unless you wish to > introduce the history of what happened BEFORE the > axle began its constant rotation (at ground). I agree completely with that. Either one motor or none works fine for this thought experiment.
> A clock at ground is ticking away, and at the same time > counting the revs (frequency); Those are two separate functions: a clock and a counter, but that isn't a problem. Okay.
> another at the top is doing the same, and I maintain > that for the two results to be the same under GR: > 1) The clocks do NOT tick together That is what GR predicts and measurements show.
> 2) A twisting must be occuring Why? Nobody predicts that but you. GR certainly doesn't. No effects equivalent to such a twisting have been observed. Why do you predict a twisting?
> (It would be pretty cool, if the earth's internal heat was > actually caused by this effect- an energy process driven > by the gravitationally induced "time difference" between > the surface and core {grav gradient}) Since there is no effect, it can't cause anything. :-)
>> This is only surprising if you make the assumption >> that time is universal hence if the bottom clock >> reads 1s per turn so should the top clock. > > .....and if you accept that time can be of any duration What do you mean by the phrase 'time can be of any duration'? -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
George Dishman - 25 Aug 2005 23:49 GMT > Jim Greenfield replied to George Dishman: ...
>> A clock at ground is ticking away, and at the same time >> counting the revs (frequency); ...
>> another at the top is doing the same, and I maintain >> that for the two results to be the same under GR: >> 1) The clocks do NOT tick together > > That is what GR predicts and measurements show. Careful Jeff, the previous line said "for the two [frequencies] to be the same. If that is the case and they are both measuring the same shaft and there is no twist then the clocks must be ticking at the same (coordinate) rate. In other words the clocks have been built differently to compensate for the GR effect like GPS and ground clocks. This is another of Jim's self-contradictory questions.
George
Jeff Root - 26 Aug 2005 02:10 GMT George replied to Jeff:
>> Jim Greenfield replied to George Dishman: >... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Careful Jeff, the previous line said "for the > two [frequencies] to be the same. Arrrgggh. I deleted several lines after I had already clicked "Preview", because I changed my mind at the last moment about what he probably meant by "the two results". I didn't give it enough thought to see that I needed to replace the lines with more info, not just delete them.
Here is my updated description:
The axle is rotating at constant rate. Identical clocks are at the top and bottom. Counters at top and bottom show the number of rotations.
All observers see both ends of the axle turning together as a solid body, not becoming twisted. (After accounting for light travel time lag.)
All observers see the clock at the top gain on the clock at the bottom, due to the difference in gravitational potential.
The bottom makes N rotations per tick of the bottom clock. The top makes N rotations per tick of the bottom clock. The bottom makes N-n rotations per tick of the top clock. The top makes N-n rotations per tick of the top clock.
> If that is the case and they are both measuring the > same shaft and there is no twist then the clocks > must be ticking at the same (coordinate) rate. > In other words the clocks have been built > differently to compensate for the GR effect > like GPS and ground clocks. I took his specification to mean that the clocks are identical, not adjusted in any way. That is the only way the thought experiment can make sense.
I'm ignoring his phrase "for the two results to be the same" since:
1) It doesn't make any sense to prescribe beforehand what the results of an experiment will be, and
2) He hasn't provided any mechanism to cause the measurements by the two clocks to be the same.
> This is another of Jim's self-contradictory questions. Yup. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
jgreen@seol.net.au - 26 Aug 2005 12:04 GMT > George replied to Jeff: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I didn't give it enough thought to see that I needed to > replace the lines with more info, not just delete them. This is bordering on the pathetic! You have accused me of being ambiguous and unclear on a situation which is perfectly clear, and then be this nonchalant.
> Here is my updated description: > > The axle is rotating at constant rate. Identical clocks are > at the top and bottom. Counters at top and bottom show the > number of rotations. Here comes your problem!-- you have admitted/claimed previously that any clock (position) attached to the axle reads the same (no twisting)
> All observers see both ends of the axle turning together > as a solid body, not becoming twisted. (After accounting [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The bottom makes N-n rotations per tick of the top clock. > The top makes N-n rotations per tick of the top clock. REMEMBER!!! N=N+n because the two clocks are the SAME ONE
> > If that is the case and they are both measuring the > > same shaft and there is no twist then the clocks > > must be ticking at the same (coordinate) rate. > > In other words the clocks have been built > > differently to compensate for the GR effect > > like GPS and ground clocks. EXACTLY!! GpS clocks are DELIBERATELY constructed (tweaked) to run differently than ground clocks of identical otherwise construction. Blind Benny can see that this is to compensate for the error in c=c+v caused by the motion of the satellites, and the altered transmission intervals of their signals.
> I took his specification to mean that the clocks are > identical, not adjusted in any way. That is the only [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > > This is another of Jim's self-contradictory questions. Nope! The contradiction is in the difference between the attached top clock to the axle, and the (GPS) one which is at the same altitude.
> > Yup. c'=c+v Jim G
> -- Jeff, in Minneapolis Jeff Root - 26 Aug 2005 16:33 GMT Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root:
>> George replied to Jeff: >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > You have accused me of being ambiguous and unclear on a > situation which is perfectly clear, and then be this nonchalant. I don't know about "nonchalant". I mucked up because your expression "the two results" is ambiguous and unclear. What two results do you mean? Results of what? You still haven't said!
Your descriptions of the thought experiment have been anything but clear. They are *always* incomplete, and usually have conflicting assumptions. You have changed the experimental setup back and forth several times without acknowledging that you are changing anything. It is impossible to know whether I should reply to what you are saying or what you think you are saying.
Even in the post I'm replying to, you introduce yet another change in the experimental setup without explaining what you are doing, and use terms without explaining what they refer to. (Just below.)
Notice, also, that the correction of my error of omission did not change my description of the thought experiment, but merely added to it, to remove an ambiguity.
The thing I had to do to remove the ambiguity was to explain that I was ignoring part of your description of the experiment because it makes no sense.
>> Here is my updated description: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that any clock (position) attached to the axle reads the same > (no twisting) What do you mean "reads the same"? Reads the same as WHAT? It sounds like all you're saying is what I said in the very next sentence:
>> All observers see both ends of the axle turning together >> as a solid body, not becoming twisted. (After accounting [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > REMEMBER!!! N=N+n because the two clocks are the SAME ONE First, saying "two clocks are the SAME ONE" is completely meaningless. There may be one clock, or two, or more, but two clocks are *never* the same clock.
Second, in your previous post you specified a rotating axle and two separate clocks. Here, you appear to have reverted to thinking that the top and bottom of the axle *are* the clock or clocks. That is not the thought experiment you described in your previous post, and it is not the thought experiment I described in my reply. So you appear to be talking about a different situation now.
Third, you meant "N-n", not "N+n". You specified counters at the top and bottom, counting rotations of the axle, so I used that and derived rotations per clock tick. Since "N" is how I arbitrarily labled the value measured by the bottom clock, and "n" is how I arbitrarily labeled the difference between the measured values, the value measured by the top clock is N-n rotations per tick.
Fourth, saying "N=N+n" works fine in some computer languages, when assigning a new value to an existing variable, but it doesn't work at all in physics or mathematics unless at least one of the values is zero. It is meaningless.
>> > If that is the case and they are both measuring the >> > same shaft and there is no twist then the clocks [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to run differently than ground clocks of identical otherwise > construction. Yes. As you quoted me saying just above, clocks high in a gravitational field gain on clocks deeper in the field, due to the difference in gravitational potential. So in order to make the time signal received from GPS clocks in orbit match the time of clocks on the ground, the GPS clocks in orbit are tweaked to run more slowly than they otherwise would.
Since you said nothing about that in setting up the thought experiment in your previous post, I assumed that the two clocks were identical: not different and not adjusted. George made a different assumption, throwing out your earlier requirement that the clocks be identical in order to retain your most recent requirement that the rotational frequency of the axle be the same when measured by the two clocks.
> Blind Benny can see that this is to compensate for the error > in c=c+v caused by the motion of the satellites, and the > altered transmission intervals of their signals. Oh? Tell me how you think that works. Exactly what is the error, and exactly how is that error compensated for?
>> I took his specification to mean that the clocks are >> identical, not adjusted in any way. That is the only [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > attached top clock to the axle, and the (GPS) one which is > at the same altitude. The thought experiment did not have a clock attached to the top of the axle. You specified that the axle was driven at its bottom. that means that the clock is at the bottom. It may have hands at the top, also, so it can easily be read at that remote location, but the clock which drives those hands is at the bottom, because *you* said so.
You set up the thought experiment, but you don't understand it.
The thought experiment boils down to this:
Two identical, accurate clocks: One at ground level, and one high up. The clock high up gains on the one at ground level.
That is essentially all there is to it. What contradiction do you see? The fact that the higher clock gains on the lower one? What do you think that contradicts? Common sense? Of course it contradicts common sense! If general relativity were obvious, it would have been discovered centuries ago. If it had been simple, it wouldn't have required the insight and genius of someone like Einstein to figure it out. Once someone smart figured it out, lots of other smart people quickly learned about it, and more smart people eventually put it to use.
You don't like relativity.
Since you have the emotional maturity of a four-year-old, you attack it rather than trying to understand it.
There is an enormous difference between someone who acts like a four-year-old and someone who acts like an adult.
You still haven't answered my question:
Which do you think is more likely?
1) Millions of physicists, engineers, technicians, students, and interested laymen have failed to notice glaringly obvious contradictions in relativity over the last 80-some years. You see the contradictions, but even when you explain them to people smarter than you, they still don't see them.
or
2) You don't like relativity because it seems wrong. So you don't want to understand it and don't try to understand it. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Henri Wilson - 26 Aug 2005 22:57 GMT >Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: > [quoted text clipped - 199 lines] >You see the contradictions, but even when you explain them to >people smarter than you, they still don't see them. They will be ridiculed ostracised and lose their jobs if they agree. .....such is the power of indoctrination.
>or > >2) You don't like relativity because it seems wrong. So you >don't want to understand it and don't try to understand it. It is obviously wrong.
The whole idea of distorting space to make light speed constant is clearly as stupid as using Earth centricism to describe the universe....yet the latter theory prevailed for many centuries purely through similar religious indoctrination..
> -- Jeff, in Minneapolis 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.
Jeff Root - 27 Aug 2005 05:01 GMT Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root:
>> Which do you think is more likely? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > They will be ridiculed ostracised and lose their jobs if they > agree. Why? For what purpose?
People disagree with their peers and their employers all the time. Every day. All around the world. In every ethnic group and every religion. That's one reason there are thousands of different religions in the world: People disagree with the guff they are being fed, and leave to create something better.
Are you are saying that physicists, engineers, technicians, and students don't have the balls to disagree with their peers and employers? Perhaps tens of millions of them over the last hundred years? Even after they retire?
Or are you saying that they are so extremely stupid that they can't see that they are being indoctrinated, in addition to being unable to see the obvious flaw in relativity that you and Jim so clearly see?
> .....such is the power of indoctrination. An amazingly successful indoctrination program!
I wonder who administers it. The United Nations Relativity Acceptance Control Organization (UNRACO), maybe. Perhaps the UN was established mainly for the purpose of enforcing belief in relativity theory. It would have to be worldwide and extremely powerful. I wonder what they do with people who refuse to comply. They must be kept silent, somehow. Maybe most of the people supposedly in prison for drug crimes are really there because they threatened to tell the truth about relativity, and were drugged to wipe their memories.
Do you think I'm a UNRACO agent?
I wonder if you think that people are indoctrinated to believe that electricity is produced in generators powered by falling water or burning coal or oil or gas or fissioning uranium, rather than simply being pulled out of the ground through wires? There are people who believe that.
>> or >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > universe....yet the latter theory prevailed for many centuries > purely through similar religious indoctrination.. What is stupid about Earth centricism? Earth is obviously at the center of the Universe. The stars and planets, the Moon and the Sun all go around the Earth every day. Look for yourself, you will see. Religious indoctrination has nothing to do with it-- It is pure observation.
I'll pay you $200 US if you can show that the Earth is NOT at the center of the Universe. I realize that $200 isn't much, but if Earth centrism is really as stupid as you say, it should be easy for you to show that Earth is not at the center, and you will enjoy showing me up. This offer is to Henri Wilson only, and must be accomplished by the end of September 30, 2005. You will retain ownership and copyright of any original materials you submit to me for this purpose, but I will have perpetual, non-exclusive rights to use them in any way I choose. Jeff S. Root 48 27th Ave SE #4 Minneapolis, MN 55414 USA
Henri Wilson - 27 Aug 2005 22:22 GMT >Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Why? For what purpose? witness the attitude on this NG towards anyone who speaks out against relativity.
>People disagree with their peers and their employers all the >time. Every day. All around the world. In every ethnic group >and every religion. That's one reason there are thousands of >different religions in the world: People disagree with the >guff they are being fed, and leave to create something better. Nah! Most of them end up dead pretty quickly.
>Are you are saying that physicists, engineers, technicians, >and students don't have the balls to disagree with their peers >and employers? Perhaps tens of millions of them over the >last hundred years? Even after they retire? There wouldn't have been more than about 10000 physicists ever.
>Or are you saying that they are so extremely stupid that they >can't see that they are being indoctrinated, in addition to >being unable to see the obvious flaw in relativity that you >and Jim so clearly see? That is what I am saying. Relativity is wrong from the start...but sti\udents are so overwhelmed by the novelty of it they just accept blindly. If they don't, they fail their exams. Hence they are indoctrinated for life.
Relativity is based on the notion that a vertical light beam in one frame becomes a diagonal light beam in another. This is a simple misconception which came about because Albert noticed that raindrops appeared to move diagonally when viewed through the window of a moving train.
>> .....such is the power of indoctrination. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >uranium, rather than simply being pulled out of the ground >through wires? There are people who believe that. Why not? Most people think milk comes out of a bottle.
>>> or >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >yourself, you will see. Religious indoctrination has nothing >to do with it-- It is pure observation. ..and Earth centrism can be used to describe the motions of other planets,etc....but it gets awfully complicated very quickly...just like GR.
>I'll pay you $200 US if you can show that the Earth is NOT >at the center of the Universe. I realize that $200 isn't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >but I will have perpetual, non-exclusive rights to use them >in any way I choose. How can I prove that little planet Earth is not the centre when relativity insists that all starlight in the universe is designed to travel here at precisely c?
Eistein must be right you know. :)
>Jeff S. Root >48 27th Ave SE #4 >Minneapolis, MN 55414 >USA 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.
Eric Gisse - 28 Aug 2005 00:29 GMT > >Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > witness the attitude on this NG towards anyone who speaks out against > relativity. You say that as if relativity is a cause instead of a theory.
There is no "speaking out" against relativity theory unless there is either physical evidence against it or an internal contradiction. The people who think they are "speaking out" have been shown again and again to be flat out wrong, yet they do not accept it. Like yourself.
> >People disagree with their peers and their employers all the > >time. Every day. All around the world. In every ethnic group [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Nah! Most of them end up dead pretty quickly. You are amazingly paranoid. Is this what it takes to sustain your worldview?
> >Are you are saying that physicists, engineers, technicians, > >and students don't have the balls to disagree with their peers > >and employers? Perhaps tens of millions of them over the > >last hundred years? Even after they retire? > > There wouldn't have been more than about 10000 physicists ever. Off by a few factors of ten.
> >Or are you saying that they are so extremely stupid that they > >can't see that they are being indoctrinated, in addition to > >being unable to see the obvious flaw in relativity that you > >and Jim so clearly see? > > That is what I am saying. ...what? That people like Jim are to be listened to instead of actual scientists? Ask him what he thinks of complex numbers, or the concept of multiplying negative numbers together. The only reason you mention him is because he agrees with you. You are acting with exactly the same traits you assign to the people you deride.
> Relativity is wrong from the start...but sti\udents are so overwhelmed by the > novelty of it they just accept blindly. If they don't, they fail their exams. > Hence they are indoctrinated for life. You said at one time you were an applied mathematician. I still can't believe that, considering the vast amounts of misconceptions you have about education.
I think you failed out of college and have been ever-since bitter about it. You make it sound like people who fail exams are martyrs instead of people who just didn't learn it right the first time.
> Relativity is based on the notion that a vertical light beam in one frame > becomes a diagonal light beam in another. This is a simple misconception which > came about because Albert noticed that raindrops appeared to move diagonally > when viewed through the window of a moving train. Hey look, more misconceptions about relativity. That isn't what relativity is based on, it is based on postulates because it is a mathematical theory. You should know this, considering it has been explained to you literally hundreds of times.
[snip]
Years and years of your whining and you still have nothing to show for it. Incredible.
Henri Wilson - 28 Aug 2005 22:41 GMT >> >Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: >> > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >him is because he agrees with you. You are acting with exactly the same >traits you assign to the people you deride. Ah! I get it. Geese is repeating college maths and has just discovered complex numbers.
>> Relativity is wrong from the start...but sti\udents are so overwhelmed by the >> novelty of it they just accept blindly. If they don't, they fail their exams. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >it. You make it sound like people who fail exams are martyrs instead of >people who just didn't learn it right the first time. Come back when you grow up Geese.....
>> Relativity is based on the notion that a vertical light beam in one frame >> becomes a diagonal light beam in another. This is a simple misconception which [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Years and years of your whining and you still have nothing to show for >it. Incredible. 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.
Jeff Root - 28 Aug 2005 07:38 GMT Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root:
>>>> Which do you think is more likely? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > witness the attitude on this NG towards anyone who speaks out > against relativity. You didn't address my question at all. I asked you why anyone would ridicule, ostracise, or fire someone who agrees that there are glaringly obvious contradictions in relativity. What purpose would such actions serve?
As for your comment:
Anyone who speaks out against a thing is attacking that thing.
Bad things are appropriate targets of attack; good things aren't. Reasonable people can and frequently do disagree about which things are good and which are bad.
Anyone who attacks something because he doesn't understand it looks foolish.
Anyone who is given hundreds of opportunites to learn about the subject he is attacking, but rejects them all, never learning anything, and keeps on attacking, is going to look mentally ill.
Not all mentally ill people are unable to learn.
Not all mentally ill people attack what they don't understand.
The subjects of cosmology and fundamental physics have a particular attraction for people (virtually all male) with certain mental disorders. Some of those people develop obsessions which drive them to attack whatever they obsess about. The more grandiose a topic sounds, the more likely it is to appeal to such a person as the object of obsession. In your case, it is relativity theory.
What you are witnessing is the attitude of people who are being attacked by mentally ill people obsessed about relativity theory.
>> People disagree with their peers and their employers all the >> time. Every day. All around the world. In every ethnic group [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Nah! Most of them end up dead pretty quickly. I've had innumerable disagreements with people. Yet I have never tried to kill anyone, and as far as I know, no-one has ever tried to kill me.
I've seen innumerable disagreements between other people. Yet I have never seen anyone killed by another person.
According to your comment, a majority of them should have been killed.
Martin Luther disagreed with some of the tenets of the Roman Church, and there are now over 1,500 denominations of Protestant religions. Half of all Americans identify themselves as Protestants.
Every part of the Western Hemisphere was once a colony of some European nation. Only a vanishingly tiny fraction has not yet gained complete political independance.
Einstein disagreed with his peers that observers in different situations would measure the same interval between events.
Of course, Einstein managed to survive only because of his skills as a swordsman and the army of bodyguards he hired to protect him from jealous physicists.
It is obviously true that many people have been killed when they disagreed. But "most"? You are a fool.
>> Are you are saying that physicists, engineers, technicians, >> and students don't have the balls to disagree with their peers >> and employers? Perhaps tens of millions of them over the >> last hundred years? Even after they retire? > > There wouldn't have been more than about 10000 physicists ever. The American Physical Society is an organization for American physicists. It currently has over 43,000 members. Many American physicists do not belong to that organization. Some of them belong to other organizations. Other nations have similar organizations.
When you are wrong-- which is often-- you are *very* wrong.
>> Or are you saying that they are so extremely stupid that they >> can't see that they are being indoctrinated, in addition to >> being unable to see the obvious flaw in relativity that you >> and Jim so clearly see? > > That is what I am saying. A clear response! That eliminates a great deal of ambiguity.
> Relativity is wrong from the start...but students are so > overwhelmed by the novelty of it they just accept blindly. How would you know? You've never taken a course in relativity and you don't know anyone who has.
I guarantee that if you ever tried to explain your ideas face-to-face to a college physics student-- even one who hadn't yet seen a textbook on relativity-- he or she would be laughing at you within two minutes. Laughing at your ignorance of physics and your foolishness for thinking you could explain anything about physics to anyone else.
Get this Henri: Physics students question what they are taught EVERY BIT AS MUCH AS YOU DO.
I've never known an advanced physics student who didn't question *EVERYTHING*.
I've met a fair number of physics students, professors, and teaching assistants. Not all of them could express themselves well, either orally or in writing. But every one of them was smarter than you are, and every one of them understood physics better than you do.
"Understanding physics" means knowing how to use physics to do things.
> If they don't, they fail their exams. Hence they are > indoctrinated for life. I guess that's why no new ideas ever catch on that conflict with old, existing ideas. Everyone believes the old ideas, and rejects anything that would conflict with them.
> Relativity is based on the notion that a vertical light > beam in one frame becomes a diagonal light beam in another. > This is a simple misconception which came about because > Albert noticed that raindrops appeared to move diagonally > when viewed through the window of a moving train. I'm not going to argue physics with you in this post. Almost anyone can do it better than I, so I'll leave it to someone else.
>>> .....such is the power of indoctrination. >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Why not? Most people think milk comes out of a bottle. Milk DOES come out of a bottle, unless it freezes or curdles. It also comes out of a carton unless it freezes or curdles. Milk comes out of a cow under just about any conditions. I've never seen a curdled cow; I never hope to see one. All you could get from a frozen cow would be altered steaks.
There are three major groups of people, in particular, who know that milk doesn't always come out of a bottle: Females, males over the age of nine, and babies. I guess you were referring to the remainder of the population.
>>>> or >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > other planets,etc....but it gets awfully complicated very > quickly...just like GR. Anything beyond a certain level of complexity must be wrong?
>> I'll pay you $200 US if you can show that the Earth is NOT >> at the center of the Universe. I realize that $200 isn't [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > when relativity insists that all starlight in the universe > is designed to travel here at precisely c? What makes you think you have to involve relativity theory? Can't you put relativity aside even for a short time?
> Einstein must be right you know. :) As far as I can see, Einstein and relativity theory are both irrelevant to the problem at hand. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Henri Wilson - 28 Aug 2005 22:56 GMT >Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >Anyone who attacks something because he doesn't understand it >looks foolish. This is so typical. The fact is you peope think we don't understand it because in fact there is no real theory to be understood. I don't ever want to claim to be able to understand plain nonsense but I am proud of the fact that I CAN understand that it IS plain nonsense.
>Anyone who is given hundreds of opportunites to learn about >the subject he is attacking, but rejects them all, never [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Not all mentally ill people attack what they don't understand. Root, we have heard all this before. It is the standard SRian reply to anyone who has put forward a credible argument tat proves their religion wrong.
"YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND"....
Well root, it is pretty obc\vious tat you don't understand WHY relativity is nonsense.
>The subjects of cosmology and fundamental physics have a >particular attraction for people (virtually all male) with [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] >How would you know? You've never taken a course in >relativity and you don't know anyone who has. I studied relativity formally...and rejected it from the start. It was obviously just an extension of aether theory. I made out I agreed because I wanted to pass my exams.
>I guarantee that if you ever tried to explain your ideas >face-to-face to a college physics student-- even one who [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Get this Henri: Physics students question what they are >taught EVERY BIT AS MUCH AS YOU DO. Physics students invariably think they know everything.
>I've never known an advanced physics student who didn't >question *EVERYTHING*. advanced physics students are often more self-deluded.
>I've met a fair number of physics students, professors, >and teaching assistants. Not all of them could express >themselves well, either orally or in writing. But every >one of them was smarter than you are, and every one of >them understood physics better than you do. I lectured in physics for several years....
>"Understanding physics" means knowing how to use physics >to do things. Would you like a free copy of my book about physics? The title is "What exactly is Physics?"
I think you could benefit from reading it.
>> If they don't, they fail their exams. Hence they are >> indoctrinated for life. [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > >Anything beyond a certain level of complexity must be wrong? all that tensor crap in GR is totally unnecessary. It is required only to describe how space would have to be distorted to make light speed always c in a gravity gradient. What a lot of trouble for nothing!!!!! ..but of course it impresses fools like you..
....how could such a complicated theory be wrong, eh? :)
I prefer my 'constant density theory' to GR.
"All matter has the same density. Space adjusts to make it so."
Just think of the impressive maths you can concoct to make my theory work.
>>> I'll pay you $200 US if you can show that the Earth is NOT >>> at the center of the Universe. I realize that $200 isn't [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >What makes you think you have to involve relativity theory? >Can't you put relativity aside even for a short time? Answer the question.
>> Einstein must be right you know. :) > >As far as I can see, Einstein and relativity theory are >both irrelevant to the problem at hand. > > -- Jeff, in Minneapolis 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.
Jeff Root - 29 Aug 2005 04:30 GMT Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root:
>>>>>> Which do you think is more likely? >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> that there are glaringly obvious contradictions in relativity. >> What purpose would such actions serve? You *again* failed to even address my question, much less answer it:
Why would anyone ridicule, ostracise, or fire someone who agrees that there are glaringly obvious contradictions in relativity? What purpose would such actions serve?
>> As for your comment: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The fact is you peope think we don't understand it because in > fact there is no real theory to be understood. The theory makes predictions which are checked against observations. How can a theory make predictions which are checked against observations if there is no real theory?
In the last few months, in discussions with George Dishman, you demonstrated many, many times that you do not know what predictions relativity theory makes. Every time you tried to say what relativity theory predicts, you were wrong.
Other people can say what relativity theory predicts. You can't, because you don't know.
If you don't know what relativity theory predicts, you are not able to know whether the predictions are right or wrong.
> I don't ever want to claim to be able to understand plain > nonsense but I am proud of the fact that I CAN understand > that it IS plain nonsense. Henri Wilson, June 19:
> Of course I understand SR.
Henri Wilson, July 2:
> I understand SR perfectly well.
Your descriptions of relativity are always wrong, which shows clearly that you do not understand relativity.
You don't know your enemy.
>> Anyone who is given hundreds of opportunites to learn about >> the subject he is attacking, but rejects them all, never [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Well root, it is pretty obvious tat you don't understand WHY > relativity is nonsense. George and others have gone through your arguments with you in detail, showing you exactly what errors you made and why those errors cause your arguments to fail. I understand your arguments, I see the errors in them, and I understand why your arguments fail.
>> The subjects of cosmology and fundamental physics have a >> particular attraction for people (virtually all male) with [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > I studied relativity formally... No, you did not. You have never studied relativity. You have never taken a course in relativity, and you don't know anyone who has.
> and rejected it from the start. If you rejected it from the start, then you rejected it before you knew anything about it.
> It was obviously just an extension of aether theory. It may have been obvious, but you were wrong.
If you knew anything about relativity, you would know that a foundation of the theory is the rejection of the idea of an aether. SR showed that an aether is not needed to explain the observed behavior of electricity, magnetism, and light.
> I made out I agreed because I wanted to pass my exams. You did not even *take* any exams. You have never taken a course in relativity.
>> I guarantee that if you ever tried to explain your ideas >> face-to-face to a college physics student-- even one who [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Physics students invariably think they know everything. Sounds like you have never even met a physics student.
>> I've never known an advanced physics student who didn't >> question *EVERYTHING*. > > advanced physics students are often more self-deluded. I told you that people with certain mental illnesses are often attracted to the subjects of cosmology and fundamental physics. Your particular obsession is with relativity. You have beliefs about relativity which are obviously based on a superficial exposure to the subject many years ago. Those beliefs are mostly wrong. When you are told that they are wrong, and shown exactly why they are wrong, you invent excuses to continue to believe what you want to believe, and reject reality.
Self-delusion is one of the most characteristic symptoms of your particular mental illness.
>> I've met a fair number of physics students, professors, >> and teaching assistants. Not all of them could express [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I lectured in physics for several years.... No, you did not. You have never lectured in physics.
>> "Understanding physics" means knowing how to use physics >> to do things. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I think you could benefit from reading it. It wouldn't hurt me to look at it. I might even learn something about physics from it. But my main interest would be related to science education. I'll admit that I'm amused by the goofy ideas people have about how the world works. Yours is a rather extreme case, though. I'm more interested in the goofy ideas of normal people.
>>> If they don't, they fail their exams. Hence they are >>> indoctrinated for life. [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > to make light speed always c in a gravity gradient. > What a lot of trouble for nothing!!!!! GR makes specific predictions about the behavior of matter and energy in gravitational fields. Those predictions are tested against observations. You are unable to do either.
> ..but of course it impresses fools like you.. I am impressed when a theory makes specific predictions, and subsequent observations show those predictions to have been exactly right.
You have an excellent track record of being wrong about what has *already* been observed, and being completely unable to make any specific predictions which can be confirmed by observation.
> ....how could such a complicated theory be wrong, eh? :) > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Just think of the impressive maths you can concoct to make my > theory work. Real theories are based on observations. Science begins and ends with observations.
>>>> I'll pay you $200 US if you can show that the Earth is NOT >>>> at the center of the Universe. I realize that $200 isn't [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Answer the question. Relativity is irrelevant.
You claimed that the theory of Earth centricism was clearly stupid, and prevailed for many centuries purely through religious indoctrination. The theory of Earth centricism was toppled well over three hundred years ago, long before Albert Einstein was born. If your claims are true, you should be able to show quite easily that Earth is not at the center of the Universe, without involving relativity.
I have answered your questions. Answer mine.
>>> Einstein must be right you know. :) >> >> As far as I can see, Einstein and relativity theory are >> both irrelevant to the problem at hand. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Henri Wilson - 30 Aug 2005 01:14 GMT >Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: > >>>>>>> Which do you think is more likely?
>>> Anyone who attacks something because he doesn't understand it >>> looks foolish. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >If you don't know what relativity theory predicts, you are >not able to know whether the predictions are right or wrong. Relativity predicts exactly what LET predicts ...and for the same reasons. Relativity is nothing but a disguised aether theory.
->S1_________p->___________O <-S2
If two relatively moving light sources emit a pulse of light when they are adjacent, SR says both pulses travel towards O at the same speed.
What, other than an absolute property of space could unify the two pulses?
Einstein merely replaced the aether with the definition....OWLS = c.
>> Well root, it is pretty obvious tat you don't understand WHY >> relativity is nonsense. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >your arguments, I see the errors in them, and I understand >why your arguments fail. There is absoliutely no evidence that any aspect of SR is correct.
>>> A clear response! That eliminates a great deal of ambiguity. >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >You have never taken a course in relativity, and you >don't know anyone who has. I don't care one iota what you think.
>> and rejected it from the start. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >needed to explain the observed behavior of electricity, >magnetism, and light. Like I said, it replaces the aether with a blank mathematical statement. That is not a physical theory at all. It has no physical significance or connection.
>> I made out I agreed because I wanted to pass my exams. > >You did not even *take* any exams. You have never taken >a course in relativity. I don't want to waste any more time on it. I can tell you a lot about the BaT if you want to know all about it. At least every known experiment supports it...and it IS a physical theory.
>> Physics students invariably think they know everything. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Self-delusion is one of the most characteristic symptoms >of your particular mental illness. It makes no difference to me whether or not you remain self deluded for the rest of your life.
>>> I've met a fair number of physics students, professors, >>> and teaching assistants. Not all of them could express [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >It wouldn't hurt me to look at it. I might even learn >something about physics from it. The first chapter is on my website.
>But my main interest >would be related to science education. I'll admit that >I'm amused by the goofy ideas people have about how the >world works. Yours is a rather extreme case, though. >I'm more interested in the goofy ideas of normal people. Anyone would think I invented the Ballistic theory. Haven't you heard of Walter Ritz? Unfortunately he died prematurely. I and others are merely taking up where he left off. In the meantime, physics was hijacked by the smart talking Einstein.
>> all that tensor crap in GR is totally unnecessary. It is >> required only to describe how space would have to be distorted [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >and energy in gravitational fields. Those predictions are >tested against observations. You are unable to do either. Apart from the redshift of light, they have never been properly substantiated. Redshift is predicted identically by NM.
>> ..but of course it impresses fools like you.. > >I am impressed when a theory makes specific predictions, >and subsequent observations show those predictions to >have been exactly right. I would be too...but were are they in the case of relativity?
>You have an excellent track record of being wrong about >what has *already* been observed, and being completely >unable to make any specific predictions which can be >confirmed by observation. The BaT predicts and explains the majority of variable star light curves. Is that not evidence? The BaT explains the MMX. The BaT say that if all apparatus components are mutually at rest, TWLS = OWLS = c.....backed by experiment. (you cannot even understand why)
There is no evidence against the BaT.
>> ....how could such a complicated theory be wrong, eh? :) >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Real theories are based on observations. Science begins >and ends with observations. Physical theories, yes.
Not one experiment was used in the formulation of SR. It was a mathematical exercise entirely.
>>>> How can I prove that little planet Earth is not the centre >>>> when relativity insists that all starlight in the universe [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >should be able to show quite easily that Earth is not at >the center of the Universe, without involving relativity. ..but you relativists still believe that the Earth as the centre of the universe as far as starlight is concerned.
>I have answered your questions. Answer mine. You cannot answer any hard questions.
>>>> Einstein must be right you know. :) >>> >>> As far as I can see, Einstein and relativity theory are >>> both irrelevant to the problem at hand. > > -- Jeff, in Minneapolis 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.
Eric Gisse - 30 Aug 2005 03:38 GMT How shall you enforce your particular bubble of reality this time?
[snip]
> There is absoliutely no evidence that any aspect of SR is correct. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
We have been over this before. Both myself and many, many, many others have given you references and links to experiments but you refuse to listen. If you want to clamp your hands over your ears and scream "NO IT IS NOT TRUE!", go ahead. Just don't expect us to go along when you do it in public.
> >>> A clear response! That eliminates a great deal of ambiguity. > >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I don't care one iota what you think. *snicker*
> >> and rejected it from the start. > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > That is not a physical theory at all. It has no physical significance or > connection. We have been over this before. Both myself and many, many, many others have given you references and links to experiments but you refuse to listen. If you want to clamp your hands over your ears and scream "NO IT IS NOT TRUE!", go ahead. Just don't expect us to go along when you do it in public.
Henri, your denial is always amusing. Why is it accelerators based on SR's kinematics work while those based on Newtonian kinematics abjectly fail?
> >> I made out I agreed because I wanted to pass my exams. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I can tell you a lot about the BaT if you want to know all about it. > At least every known experiment supports it...and it IS a physical theory. Are you f.cking kidding?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
> >> Physics students invariably think they know everything. > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > It makes no difference to me whether or not you remain self deluded for the > rest of your life. Do you have any idea how delusional you sound?
"NO IT'S NOT TRUE! IT CAN'T BE!"
Imagine if everyone responded to your arguments and questions the same way you did. Nothing would ever get done! Science would be set back a century if not more, along with logical thought and technological progress.
> >>> I've met a fair number of physics students, professors, > >>> and teaching assistants. Not all of them could express [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Anyone would think I invented the Ballistic theory. > Haven't you heard of Walter Ritz? Ritz's theory which both you and Androcles love so much was a toy theory not to be taken seriously.
> Unfortunately he died prematurely. I and others are merely taking up where he > left off. ...was he killed by the eeeevil relativists you fear so much?
> In the meantime, physics was hijacked by the smart talking Einstein. Hah you actually believe that?
Were his contributions to statistical physics and quantum mechanics garbage too? I think the only reason you don't rag on Einstein's other works is because you don't even have the base familiarity to carry on an introductory discussion about them.
> >> all that tensor crap in GR is totally unnecessary. It is > >> required only to describe how space would have to be distorted [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Apart from the redshift of light, they have never been properly substantiated. *sigh*
Gravitational lensing. For example, the deflection of light by the sun. Also, lensing about galaxies.
Black holes. Saggitarius A*, what is there?
Gravitational redshift.
Equivalence principle. While it isn't a prediction, rather a postulate, a large number of things can be culled from GR using equivalences derived from the equivalence principle. Such as redshift.
...GPS? You still won't acknowledge the obvious. Even when someone takes an inordinate amount of time to teach you the details of the system you fundamentally misunderstand.
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
> Redshift is predicted identically by NM. No, it is not. Any identical predictions by Newtonian mechanics is either a low-(velocity,energy) limiting case or is a coincidence. Do not be mistaken by thinking Newtonian mechanics is a competing theory, MOND notwithstanding.
> >> ..but of course it impresses fools like you.. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I would be too...but were are they in the case of relativity? Who knows?! It is a mystery of the ages!
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
> >You have an excellent track record of being wrong about > >what has *already* been observed, and being completely [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The BaT predicts and explains the majority of variable star light curves. Is > that not evidence? No, it doesn't. It may be your pet theory but that doesn't mean it is right.
> The BaT explains the MMX. *snort*.
> The BaT say that if all apparatus components are mutually at rest, TWLS = OWLS > = c.....backed by experiment. (you cannot even understand why) Explain how your theory is different from Newtonian mechanics.
> There is no evidence against the BaT. ...that Henri Wilson will acknowledge.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
> >> ....how could such a complicated theory be wrong, eh? :) > >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Not one experiment was used in the formulation of SR. It was a mathematical > exercise entirely. So? The truth of the statement doesn't matter, it is an even further waste of time to argue history to someone who does not acknowledge it.
All that matters is the results.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
[snip]
Henri Wilson - 01 Sep 2005 00:56 GMT >How shall you enforce your particular bubble of reality this time? > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >SR's kinematics work while those based on Newtonian kinematics abjectly >fail Geese, answer this please:
<-S1________P->___________O ->S2
S1 and S2 are remote light sources that emit simultaneous pulses when tey are adjacent.
SR claims that both pulses travel towards O at the same speed. Does this mean that an absolute property of space determines that common speed?
>> >> I made out I agreed because I wanted to pass my exams. >> > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >century if not more, along with logical thought and technological >progress. Give up physics, Geese. You don't have the aptitude.
>> >>> I've met a fair number of physics students, professors, >> >>> and teaching assistants. Not all of them could express [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >Ritz's theory which both you and Androcles love so much was a toy >theory not to be taken seriously. The relativists probably murdered him.
>> Unfortunately he died prematurely. I and others are merely taking up where he >> left off. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >works is because you don't even have the base familiarity to carry on >an introductory discussion about them. We are discussing Einsteinian relativity Geese.
>> >> all that tensor crap in GR is totally unnecessary. It is >> >> required only to describe how space would have to be distorted [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >not be mistaken by thinking Newtonian mechanics is a competing theory, >MOND notwithstanding. You are a gullible fool who will believe anything.
>> >> ..but of course it impresses fools like you.. >> > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html Give it up Geese.
>[snip] 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.
Eric Gisse - 01 Sep 2005 01:21 GMT > >How shall you enforce your particular bubble of reality this time? > > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > SR claims that both pulses travel towards O at the same speed. > Does this mean that an absolute property of space determines that common speed? It is certaintly an observed property of space, whether or not you agree is irrelevant because you refuse to read literature or do experiments. I don't know why space is that way. You have asked me that at least a half dozen times before and the answer remains the same: I don't know.
Now why don't you explain me why high energy physics can't be predicted with your "c+v theory". Don't bother responding if all you are gonna do is invoke a conspiracy.
[snip]
> Give up physics, Geese. You don't have the aptitude. I asked it before, but oddly enough you never responded. When exactly did you get your degree in physics?
[snip]
> >Ritz's theory which both you and Androcles love so much was a toy > >theory not to be taken seriously. > > The relativists probably murdered him. Yessss...clearly! The eeeevil relativists clearly have it in for you too. Better watch your back! (lol)
Your paranoia is fascinating!
> >> Unfortunately he died prematurely. I and others are merely taking up where he > >> left off. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > We are discussing Einsteinian relativity Geese. Odd. You hate upon Relativity and say things like "physics was hijacked by Einstein", yet you refuse to discuss anything else Einstein has done? Do you insulate yourself from history on purpose or is it just another facet of your disfunction?
> >> >> all that tensor crap in GR is totally unnecessary. It is > >> >> required only to describe how space would have to be distorted [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Gravitational lensing. For example, the deflection of light by the sun. > >Also, lensing about galaxies. Well?
> >Black holes. Saggitarius A*, what is there? Well?
> >Gravitational redshift. Well?
> >Equivalence principle. While it isn't a prediction, rather a postulate, > >a large number of things can be culled from GR using equivalences [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > >http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html Well?
> >> Redshift is predicted identically by NM. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You are a gullible fool who will believe anything. I don't believe you. Why is that?
> >> >> ..but of course it impresses fools like you.. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html You must have a mental block against this page.
> >> >You have an excellent track record of being wrong about > >> >what has *already* been observed, and being completely [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > > >Explain how your theory is different from Newtonian mechanics. I honestly want to see you try to answer this.
> >> There is no evidence against the BaT. > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Give it up Geese. No critique, no comment. Just a non-sequitur.
> >[snip] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. Henri Wilson - 02 Sep 2005 00:46 GMT >> >Henri, your denial is always amusing. Why is it accelerators based on >> >SR's kinematics work while those based on Newtonian kinematics abjectly [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >at least a half dozen times before and the answer remains the same: I >don't know. Thank you Geese, you have proved my point that Einstein's relativity is just a disguised version of aether theory.
>Now why don't you explain me why high energy physics can't be predicted >with your "c+v theory". Don't bother responding if all you are gonna do >is invoke a conspiracy. I have many times.
>[snip] > >> Give up physics, Geese. You don't have the aptitude. > >I asked it before, but oddly enough you never responded. When exactly >did you get your degree in physics? None of your business.
>> The relativists probably murdered him. > >Yessss...clearly! The eeeevil relativists clearly have it in for you >too. Better watch your back! (lol) > >Your paranoia is fascinating!
>> >Hah you actually believe that? >> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >done? Do you insulate yourself from history on purpose or is it just >another facet of your disfunction? well he didn't get his doctorate for relativity, that's for sure.
>> >> Apart from the redshift of light, they have never been properly substantiated. >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Well? ...all predicted by upgraded NM.
>> >Gravitational redshift. > >Well? ...all predicted by upgraded NM.
>> >Equivalence principle. While it isn't a prediction, rather a postulate, >> >a large number of things can be culled from GR using equivalences [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Well? written by a relativist. Notice how he changed all the official figures to the ones he wanted....hahaha!
>> >> The BaT say that if all apparatus components are mutually at rest, TWLS = OWLS >> >> = c.....backed by experiment. (you cannot even understand why) >> > >> >Explain how your theory is different from Newtonian mechanics. > >I honestly want to see you try to answer this. NM needs upgrading...otherwise it is basically the same.
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.
Eric Gisse - 02 Sep 2005 01:55 GMT > >> >Henri, your denial is always amusing. Why is it accelerators based on > >> >SR's kinematics work while those based on Newtonian kinematics abjectly [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Thank you Geese, you have proved my point that Einstein's relativity is just a > disguised version of aether theory. No, I haven't.
Just because you say it, doesn't mean it is true.
> >Now why don't you explain me why high energy physics can't be predicted > >with your "c+v theory". Don't bother responding if all you are gonna do > >is invoke a conspiracy. > > I have many times. It is much easier to say that you have than actually explain it or link to where you explained it. Right?
> >[snip] > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > None of your business. Put up or shut up.
> >> The relativists probably murdered him. > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > well he didn't get his doctorate for relativity, that's for sure. You finally got something right. Congratulations. I knew it was possible, but I didn't expect to see it within my lifetime.
> >> >> Apart from the redshift of light, they have never been properly substantiated. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > ...all predicted by upgraded NM. To be fair, Black holes are predicted by NM. But NM has been empirically falsified, so your point is irrelevant.
> >> >Gravitational redshift. > > > >Well? > > ...all predicted by upgraded NM. NM is empirically wrong, all the fiddling in the world cannot change that simple fact. It also doesn't predict gravitational redshift.
> >> >Equivalence principle. While it isn't a prediction, rather a postulate, > >> >a large number of things can be culled from GR using equivalences [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > written by a relativist. It must be easy to be you. Everything written by scientists you can dismiss by simply saying "written by a realtivist", without even addressing his points.
> Notice how he changed all the official figures to the ones he wanted....hahaha! Prove it.
> >> >> The BaT say that if all apparatus components are mutually at rest, TWLS = OWLS > >> >> = c.....backed by experiment. (you cannot even understand why) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > NM needs upgrading...otherwise it is basically the same. NM is *WRONG*. No amount of fiddling can fix that! NM has been dead and buried for a century now. If you need me to explain how NM has been falsified, I don't understand how you can be so arrogant when you don't even know of the subject of which you speak.
> 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. Henri Wilson - 02 Sep 2005 23:34 GMT >> >> Give up physics, Geese. You don't have the aptitude. >> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Put up or shut up. geese, neither of my degrees is of any importance to me or you or anyone else in reference to what is stated on this NG . Everyone is equal here. Some just appear more stupid than others.
>> >> >Black holes. Saggitarius A*, what is there? >> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >To be fair, Black holes are predicted by NM. But NM has been >empirically falsified, so your point is irrelevant. Don't be silly Geese.
>> >> >Gravitational redshift. >> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >NM is empirically wrong, all the fiddling in the world cannot change >that simple fact. It also doesn't predict gravitational redshift. Of course it does. Study the Pound-Rebka experiment. Light speeds up as it falls, hence the blue shift....exactly as measured. Gr says, let's keep the light speed constant and compress space in a gravity gradient instead. That's why it gets the same answer.
>> >Well? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Prove it. You can see how they have all been erased and the 'required GR ones' inserted.
>> >> >> The BaT say that if all apparatus components are mutually at rest, TWLS = OWLS >> >> >> = c.....backed by experiment. (you cannot even understand why) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >falsified, I don't understand how you can be so arrogant when you >don't even know of the subject of which you speak. pig's arse!
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.
Eric Gisse - 03 Sep 2005 01:32 GMT > >> >> Give up physics, Geese. You don't have the aptitude. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > in reference to what is stated on this NG . > Everyone is equal here. Some just appear more stupid than others. I don't believe you even have a single degree with the absurd amount of logicial errors you make, along with your inability to admit when you are wrong.
> >> >> >Black holes. Saggitarius A*, what is there? > >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Don't be silly Geese. Both parts are true.
A dude by the name of John Michell predicted what we now call black holes about 250 years ago. Newtonian mechanics is empirically falsified.
> >> >> >Gravitational redshift. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Of course it does. Study the Pound-Rebka experiment. I know of it. Mossbauer effect, etc.
> Light speeds up as it falls, hence the blue shift....exactly as measured. Which one is the Mossbauer effect sensitive to, again?
> Gr says, let's keep the light speed constant and compress space in a gravity > gradient instead. That's why it gets the same answer. The story hasn't changed - the speed of light can change when you work it out over non-local paths. This is called the Shapiro effect, measured by Sagnac.
Or something like that, I realised long ago that wasting even 5 minutes doing any bit of research for you is wasted.
> >> >Well? > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > You can see how they have all been erased and the 'required GR ones' inserted. I said "Prove it". Not "Insert unsubstantiated conjecture".
> >> >> >> The BaT say that if all apparatus components are mutually at rest, TWLS = OWLS > >> >> >> = c.....backed by experiment. (you cannot even understand why) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > pig's arse! That explains a lot. No point in continuing when you won't even acknowledge what was known a century ago.
> 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. Henri Wilson - 04 Sep 2005 22:30 GMT >> >> >> Give up physics, Geese. You don't have the aptitude. >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] >That explains a lot. No point in continuing when you won't even >acknowledge what was known a century ago. ..............Poor boy......!
I think he would love to be a real physicist.
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.
jgreen@seol.net.au - 31 Aug 2005 01:50 GMT > >Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: > > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > What, other than an absolute property of space could unify the two pulses? Magic! Photons which "know" how fast to arrive at a target; rubber rulers; clocks which "modify" themselves to assure that c=c+v
> Einstein merely replaced the aether with the definition....OWLS = c. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >your arguments, I see the errors in them, and I understand > >why your arguments fail. I carried on an interesting and cordial exchange with George D for quite a time. When arguing "time dilation", he sent me a cleverly constructed animation which purports to show why and how this occurs, with a vertically moving ray within a railway carriage. At first it seemed pursuasive, until I ran it against my own stopwatch. It then became obvious that George's clocks had PRIOR to the motion, assumed c=c+v (ie that dilation WOULD occur). I am still waiting for him to make the necessary corrections. Jeff R cannot seem to see that his "modifications" are based on prior assumption also.........and conclusions arrising from using wrong assumptions are WRONG also.
Jim G c'+c+v
Jeff Root - 31 Aug 2005 08:13 GMT Jim Greenfield wrote:
> I carried on an interesting and cordial exchange with George D > for quite a time. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > assumed c=c+v (ie that dilation WOULD occur). I am still waiting > for him to make the necessary corrections. What did you think needed correction? -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
jgreen@seol.net.au - 01 Sep 2005 05:07 GMT > Jim Greenfield wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > What did you think needed correction? See if you can understand where this is wrong: I claim that my car does 200mph; I adjust the speedo to read 50% fast; I take the car for a run! Yes! It DOES do 200! George's clock is running at a CHANGED rate, but this scenario is supposed to show WHY that rate (time dilation) occurs. I am not suggesting for a moment that he set out deliberately to mislead; AE made the same mistake in his railway gendankens, but then he had to invest a huge effort in developing a circular logic within the math "proof", in which the rulers shrink to suit the time dilation, and time pass depending on the length of the ruler it traverses.
Jim G c'=c+v
Eric Gisse - 01 Sep 2005 06:27 GMT > > Jim Greenfield wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > George's clock is running at a CHANGED rate, but this scenario is > supposed to show WHY that rate (time dilation) occurs. No, it isn't.
The actual (proper) rate does not change, but the observed rate does.
> I am not suggesting for a moment that he set out deliberately to > mislead; AE made the same mistake in his railway gendankens, but then > he had to invest a huge effort in developing a circular logic within > the math "proof", in which the rulers shrink to suit the time dilation, > and time pass depending on the length of the ruler it traverses. Before I say anything about your views on Einstein, could you fill in this table?
-1 * 1 = -1 * -1 = 1 * -1 = 1 * 1 =
I seem to recall you having some amusing beliefs about how neagtive numbers multiply.
> Jim G > c'=c+v Jeff Root - 01 Sep 2005 07:15 GMT > The actual (proper) rate does not change, but the observed > rate does. I agree, but wanted to avoid introducing the terms "proper" and "observed", so instead stuck with Jim's ambiguous terms. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Jeff Root - 01 Sep 2005 06:47 GMT Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root:
>> > I carried on an interesting and cordial exchange with George D >> > for quite a time. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > See if you can understand where this is wrong: OK.
> I claim that my car does 200mph; OK. Impressive claim.
> I adjust the speedo to read 50% fast; OK.
> I take the car for a run! Yes! It DOES do 200! OK.
Did you mean the speed of the car was 200 mph or did you mean the car's speedometer read 200 mph? You seem to have a lot of problems with ambiguity.
> George's clock is running at a CHANGED rate, but this scenario > is supposed to show WHY that rate (time dilation) occurs. That's correct.
The animation was intended to show why the clock rate changes.
What it actually showed was why the clock rate changes.
What did you expect it to show?
> I am not suggesting for a moment that he set out deliberately > to mislead; AE made the same mistake in his railway gendankens, Really? If there had been a mistake there, it would have been pointed out a century ago. Hundreds of millions of people have read about the thought experiments over the years, and thought about them long and hard, examining them for logical errors. Many of those people were a lot smarter than me. They didn't find an error. I didn't find an error when I read about them, or when I read other people's analysis of them.
More likely that you made a mistake.
> but then he had to invest a huge effort in developing a > circular logic within the math "proof", in which the rulers > shrink to suit the time dilation, and time pass depending > on the length of the ruler it traverses. That sounds like it might have come from a 1960's comic book version of relativity. I saw a one-page article on cosmology in a comic book in the mid-1960's. It was badly misleading. Not the best source for correct information, and a lousy source for getting a good understanding of a subject. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
George Dishman - 01 Sep 2005 14:41 GMT > Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The animation was intended to show why the clock rate changes. Let me correct you both again. The animation was never intended to show WHY time dilation occurs. It was only what Jim asked for, a more detailed explanation of a magazine article which showed how we could deduce that IF the speed of light is the same for all observers THEN time dilation must occur.
If I wanted to show Jim WHY it occurs, it would be necessary to explain Riemann geometry to him and that is far beyond his mathematical abilities. Sorry Jim, no offence meant, we all have our limits mine being tensors.
George
jgreen@seol.net.au - 06 Sep 2005 11:30 GMT > > Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > IF the speed of light is the same for all observers > THEN time dilation must occur. Remember, George, that there are NO observers of the rays in question; it all came down to what the clocks read when we came back from the pub! Now, if those clocks were tweaked ......... Also remeber that the train and trackside 'observers' see f*a, as the rays never strike their eyes.
> If I wanted to show Jim WHY it occurs, it would be > necessary to explain Riemann geometry to him and that > is far beyond his mathematical abilities. Sorry Jim, > no offence meant, we all have our limits mine being > tensors. Can Riemann explain how a change of velocity defaults to c? When the train moves, the DIRECTION of the ray in question alters (it no longer will strike earth center). It is not good enough to say that velocity of light is not altered although it obviously travels a longer path on a different heading.
Jim G c'=c+v pS: please send rain (victims of global warming??)
George Dishman - 09 Sep 2005 14:19 GMT >> > Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: >> > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Remember, George, that there are NO observers of the rays in question; > it all came down to what the clocks read Remember, Jim, the clocks ARE the "observers". An observation is a measurement and the measurement in this case is the reading on the clock.
> when we came back from the > pub! Now, if those clocks were tweaked ......... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Can Riemann explain how a change of velocity defaults to c? It explains every known measurement and observation in the macroscopic world without exception.
> When the train moves, the DIRECTION of the ray in question alters (it > no longer will strike earth center). It is not good enough to say that > velocity of light is not altered although it obviously travels a longer > path on a different heading. Aberration, contraction and dilation are all facets of the physics and together they explain all the effects we see.
George
jgreen@seol.net.au - 06 Sep 2005 11:09 GMT > Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: > [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > Not the best source for correct information, and a lousy > source for getting a good understanding of a subject. With train stationary, ray from ceiling would strike earth center; when train is in motion, by ANY analysis, the ray's direction is ALTERED- it no longer strikes center. FYI, this is a CHANGE IN VELOCITY; not only in direction, which is integral to velocity, but geometry (pythag) will give the conversion to the changed photon propagation. NB: no clocks here! or do you wish to call on the photon's inate sense of the train's speed, and alter it's expulsion speed from the globe? (Which must be different from those directed in each different direction lol )
Jim G c'=c+v
Jeff Root - 06 Sep 2005 18:08 GMT Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root:
(You didn't comment on anything quoted, so I snipped it all.)
> With train stationary, ray from ceiling would strike earth > center; OK-- You're talking about a light ray going from the ceiling of a railcar straight down to the floor, and beyond.
> when train is in motion, by ANY analysis, the ray's direction > is ALTERED- it no longer strikes center. Relative to the world outside the railcar, the ray's direction is altered. Of course, to a person on the railcar, not knowing whether the car is moving, or in which direction or at what speed, the ray's direction is not altered-- it is still going from the ceiling straight down to the floor.
> FYI, this is a CHANGE IN VELOCITY; not only in direction, > which is integral to velocity, Yes the velocity has changed, but only in direction. The magnitude of the velocity (speed) is unchanged.
> but geometry (pythag) will give the conversion to the > changed photon propagation. I'll let you explain what you had in mind when you wrote that, rather than trying to guess.
> NB: no clocks here! or do you wish to call on the photon's > inate sense of the train's speed, and alter it's expulsion > speed from the globe? (Which must be different from those > directed in each different direction lol ) Again, I'll let you explain what you are talking about. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
jgreen@seol.net.au - 07 Sep 2005 11:19 GMT > Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > is not altered-- it is still going from the ceiling > straight down to the floor. Hooray!!!!!!This is what I have been saying on this group forever; that the observers MAKE MISTAKES!!!!!! Because the train rider is denied the information about the REAL situation (being able to know that he is moving), he is MISTAKEN/TRICKED as to the true situation. He can easily get it right by drilling a hole in the floor, and coming back later to see where the ray ACTUALLY was headed when the train was in motion. Must we be condemned to believe a falsehood about light propagation forever, because the passenger has the WRONG information, and reaches the WRONG conclusion???????/ Not yours t!
> > FYI, this is a CHANGE IN VELOCITY; not only in direction, > > which is integral to velocity, > > Yes the velocity has changed, but only in direction. > The magnitude of the velocity (speed) is unchanged. Yep! That amazing bulb again, which gives each and every emitted photon instruction on which 'speed' to leave at, according to whether it is headed forward, down, or otherwise. haha
> > but geometry (pythag) will give the conversion to the > > changed photon propagation. > > I'll let you explain what you had in mind when you wrote > that, rather than trying to guess. A photon emitted directly forward will have velocity c+v Others will be subject to vector calculations. Get it now?
> > NB: no clocks here! or do you wish to call on the photon's > > inate sense of the train's speed, and alter it's expulsion > > speed from the globe? (Which must be different from those > > directed in each different direction lol ) > > Again, I'll let you explain what you are talking about. Done and dusted to those who escaped the AE brainwash
Jim G c'=c+v
Jeff Root - 09 Sep 2005 15:44 GMT Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root:
>> > With train stationary, ray from ceiling would strike earth >> > center; [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > (being able to know that he is moving), he is MISTAKEN/TRICKED > as to the true situation. What gives you the idea that the person on the train has been tricked or is mistaken about the true situation? He sees the light go from the ceiling straight down to the floor, and that is exactly what happens.
If he doesn't know whether or how the railcar is moving relative to the Earth, then he doesn't know where the light beam will go relative to Earth's center. He will only be mistaken if he *thinks* he knows how the railcar is moving relative to the Earth, but is wrong. I'm sure that isn't the scenario you're interested in.
> He can easily get it right by drilling a hole in the floor, > and coming back later to see where the ray ACTUALLY was headed > when the train was in motion. Or by looking out the window and seeing how the train is moving relative to the Earth. He's smart enough to realize that if he doesn't know how the train is moving relative to the Earth, he can't determine where the light will go relative to the Earth. Duh.
> Must we be condemned to believe a falsehood about light > propagation forever, because the passenger has the WRONG > information, and reaches the WRONG conclusion???????/ > Not yours t! You need to think about the scenario more carefully.
>> > FYI, this is a CHANGE IN VELOCITY; not only in direction, >> > which is integral to velocity, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > A photon emitted directly forward will have velocity c+v > Others will be subject to vector calculations. Get it now? No. Show the geometry and the numbers. Say what you have in mind instead of just making vague allusions to what you have in mind.
>> > NB: no clocks here! or do you wish to call on the photon's >> > inate sense of the train's speed, and alter it's expulsion [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Done and dusted to those who escaped the AE brainwash My hope was that you would explain why you think the light must be moving at different speeds in different directions. It seems obvious that it must move at different speeds-- until you try to explain it. You haven't done that. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Henri Wilson - 09 Sep 2005 21:58 GMT >Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: > [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] >It seems obvious that it must move at different speeds-- >until you try to explain it. You haven't done that. It doesn't matter where the light is heading.
The crucial point that you and Einstein stuffed up is that it takes the same time to go from top to botom no matter who measures that time.
> -- Jeff, in Minneapolis 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.
jgreen@seol.net.au - 11 Sep 2005 03:23 GMT > Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > He sees the light go from the ceiling straight down to the > floor, and that is exactly what happens. Rubbish! Read above again to realise that he IS mistaken- and I can prove it! Cut a hole in the floor, and where before the train rider was SURE that the beam is vertical, he actually finds out that he was mistaken/WRONG, when he sees the beam MISS the eaths centre (flat earth)
> If he doesn't know whether or how the railcar is moving > relative to the Earth, then he doesn't know where the light > beam will go relative to Earth's center. He will only be > mistaken if he *thinks* he knows how the railcar is moving > relative to the Earth, but is wrong. I'm sure that isn't > the scenario you're interested in. It certainly is! The passenger thinks he is ststionary ref the line at all times, and THAT is why he thinks the beam is VERTICAL at all times. Give him the true situation/information, and he deducts the truth. NB that I don't make claim as to what he SEES; the ray NEVER strikes the eye of any observer in this dendanken- the whole idea is based on the assumption that c=c+v BEFORE the clocks are started (they are not ticking in sync)
> > He can easily get it right by drilling a hole in the floor, > > and coming back later to see where the ray ACTUALLY was headed [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >> Yes the velocity has changed, but only in direction. > >> The magnitude of the velocity (speed) is unchanged. Then it will take longer to reach the floor, as it is travelling a LONGER path. Or doesn't v=d/t??
> > Yep! That amazing bulb again, which gives each and every > > emitted photon instruction on which 'speed' to leave at, [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > It seems obvious that it must move at different speeds-- > until you try to explain it. You haven't done that. The hypotenuse ceiling to floor is LONGER than the vertical. Therfore, unless the photon is moving at different d/t along those paths, they wouldn't hit floor simultaneously.
This is too repetitive- you either get it or not. When I have more time, I will get back to George with his animation, and see what he can come up with if his clocks tick together, rather than assuming that one WILL do more ticks (no offence George)
jim G c'=c+v
George Dishman - 11 Sep 2005 15:40 GMT >> Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: ...
I was really just going to ask about the comment to me at the bottom but since this is rehashing an old conversation with Jim, I'll refresh his memory.
>> >> > when train is in motion, by ANY analysis, the ray's direction >> >> > is ALTERED- it no longer strikes center. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> is not altered-- it is still going from the ceiling >> >> straight down to the floor. ... and the Earth is moving sideways (whether he knows it or not).
>> > Hooray!!!!!!This is what I have been saying on this group >> > forever; that the observers MAKE MISTAKES!!!!!! Because the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > mistaken/WRONG, when he sees the beam MISS the eaths centre (flat > earth) We went over this many times Jim but you seem to have forgotten it all. In the scenario where the train is moving, the Earth is moving sideways (inertial motion) with the centre directly below at the moment the light is emitted so he also expects the light to miss the centre.
>> If he doesn't know whether or how the railcar is moving >> relative to the Earth, then he doesn't know where the light [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > all times, and THAT is why he thinks the beam is VERTICAL at all times. > Give him the true situation/information, and he deducts the truth. He IS stationary and the light IS vertical as measured by him, it it the Earth that is moving. That is his "truth".
> NB that I don't make claim as to what he SEES; ... All of us I hope are correcting for illusions that would be caused by the finite light travel time, we really should be past that sort of diversion.
>> >> > FYI, this is a CHANGE IN VELOCITY; not only in direction, >> >> > which is integral to velocity, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Then it will take longer to reach the floor, as it is travelling a > LONGER path. Or doesn't v=d/t?? "d" and "t" as measured by the passenger gives v=c.
> When I have more time, I will get back to George with his animation, > and see what he can come up with if his clocks tick together, rather > than assuming that one WILL do more ticks (no offence George) I don't know why you think I would take offence when the work I had done was correct, merely unfinished. However, which graphic are you talking about, the one in which the clocks tick simultaneously illustrates Galilean relativity so the speed of the light is not c, while the other illustrates SR, the clocks do not tick at the same coordinate rates and the speed of light is c on all frames as we observe.
George
jgreen@seol.net.au - 12 Sep 2005 23:28 GMT > >> Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: > ... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > ... and the Earth is moving sideways (whether > he knows it or not). Perhaps- but what is its net motion? The earth rotates, revolves (sun), the milky way galaxy spins (probably on more than one axis), has motion ref other galaxies, globular clusters probably move ref each other......... the entire visible universe may be a unit moving ref other unseen 'parts' of the infinity. So we/you have no idea what the net motion of train or track is. (and never will :-( )
> >> > Hooray!!!!!!This is what I have been saying on this group > >> > forever; that the observers MAKE MISTAKES!!!!!! Because the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > at the moment the light is emitted so he also > expects the light to miss the centre. If he expects the light to have its path altered (miss the center), then he also knows that it is travelling a longer path (diagonal). If he still thinks it will take the same time to reach the floor, then ergo it is travelling FASTER along the diagonal- UNLESS apriori his speed measurer (clock) has been tweaked. This is what AE did, and afraid to say, you as well
> >> If he doesn't know whether or how the railcar is moving > >> relative to the Earth, then he doesn't know where the light [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > measured by him, it it the Earth that is moving. > That is his "truth". However you cut it, there IS a difference to the passenger between the two scenarios. Archimedes (?) reckoned that he had no way of telling whether a ship was moving if he was in the hold, and denied information from outside (like our passenger). A sudden stop would have told him there was a change in his velocity, but did the ship hit a reef (was already in motion, or did it accellerate( assuming he didn't know fore from aft)? He needed 'Jim's Motion Detector'. This consisits of a monochromatic light source (set single frequency/wavelength) and a filter which will allow ONLY that frequ to pass through, the two being constructed in the same frame. Because c'=c+v, Arch will know when his motion has changed from that in which the Detector was assembled, when the filter blocks the beam- the frequency has altered! Now NASA "knows" this, because they have to alter their filters (read radio receivers) when the motion of space craft ref earth alters........ but the AE component subscribes the phenomenon to magic!
> > NB that I don't make claim as to what he SEES; ... > > All of us I hope are correcting for illusions that > would be caused by the finite light travel time, we > really should be past that sort of diversion. Can't be done until the passenger speaks in tongues "I am wrong in my assumptions about my motion, and the motion of the light which I am "observing!"
> >> >> > FYI, this is a CHANGE IN VELOCITY; not only in direction, > >> >> > which is integral to velocity, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "d" and "t" as measured by the passenger > gives v=c. Sure, but if he doesn't know what his motion is, it's wrong.
> > When I have more time, I will get back to George with his animation, > > and see what he can come up with if his clocks tick together, rather [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > tick at the same coordinate rates and the speed of > light is c on all frames as we observe. Well, we are stuck, because as Henri points out (and I have asked for experimental evidence since whenever), experiments as to c'=c+v or otherwise have NEVER been done! The nearest I can find are assumptive claims as to what is happening with quasars and high energy reactors. All we need to settle the matter is a race between two slugs of emr over a reasonable distance (say Saturn). A few lousy million, after all that has been spent trying to find evidence FOR SR/GR Bye Jim G c'=c+v
George Dishman - 13 Sep 2005 20:25 GMT >> >> Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: >> ... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Perhaps- but what is its net motion? I left you paragraph intact because it was all correct, just unfinished. As you said, "to a person on the railcar, ... the ray's direction is not altered-- it is still going from the ceiling straight down to the floor."
> The earth rotates, revolves (sun), > the milky way galaxy spins (probably on more than one axis), has [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So we/you have no idea what the net motion of train or track is. > (and never will :-( ) To the person on the car, the car is not moving but the Earth, Sun, galaxies and clusters are moving. You speak about "net motion" as if it had some other meaning but it just means combining several, for example combining the motion of the galaxies relative to the Sun to that of the Sun relative to the railcar to get the motion of the galaxies relative to the railcar.
>> > Rubbish! Read above again to realise that he IS mistaken- and I can >> > prove it! Cut a hole in the floor, and where before the train rider was [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > If he expects the light to have its path altered (miss the center), > then he also knows that it is travelling a longer path (diagonal). In the first situation, the light moves vertically from the ceiling to the floor and through the hole. It goes on to hit the centre of the Earth which is directly below at all times. In the second scenario, the light moves vertically from the ceiling to the floor and through the hole. At that moment, the centre of the Earth was directly below the hole but moving sideways. The light goes on vertically downwards but the Earth has moved to the side by the time the light gets to where the centre was so it misses.
> If he still thinks it will take the same time to reach the floor, then > ergo it is travelling FASTER along the diagonal- UNLESS apriori his > speed measurer (clock) has been tweaked. This is what AE did, and > afraid to say, you as well Why should the fact that the Earth was moving in the second scenario cause the speed of the light between the ceiling and the floor to change?
>> >> If he doesn't know whether or how the railcar is moving >> >> relative to the Earth, then he doesn't know where the light [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > However you cut it, there IS a difference to the passenger between the > two scenarios. Yes, the difference is that the Earth is moving sideways in one while it is stationary in the other. The railcar is always stationary and the light always moving vertically in both.
> Archimedes (?) Did he say that? we call it "Galilean relativity" but my history isn't as good as it should be :-(
> reckoned that he had no way of telling whether a ship > was moving if he was in the hold, and denied information from outside > (like our passenger). No, [whoever] reckoned there was no way you could tell even if you _could_ see out because saying "the ship is moving through the sea" and "the sea is moving past the ship" are equivalent descriptions of the same relative motion.
> A sudden stop would have told him there was a > change in his velocity, but did the ship hit a reef (was already in > motion, or did it accellerate( assuming he didn't know fore from aft)? Yes, we know acceleration can be detected (in SR or deviation from freefall in GR).
> He needed 'Jim's Motion Detector'. This consisits of a monochromatic > light source (set single frequency/wavelength) and a filter which will > allow ONLY that frequ to pass through, the two being constructed in the > same frame. Because c'=c+v, Arch will know when his motion has changed > from that in which the Detector was assembled, when the filter blocks > the beam- the frequency has altered! It won't work since all the components move together, any Doppler shift cancels. Only relative motion produces a change.
> Now NASA "knows" this, because they have to alter their filters (read > radio receivers) when the motion of space craft ref earth > alters........ but the AE component subscribes the phenomenon to magic! Different thing, that is relative motion so obviously there is Doppler. In fact the Doppler measured by NASA matches the SR formula anyway so confirms SR.
>> > NB that I don't make claim as to what he SEES; ... >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > assumptions about my motion, and the motion of the light which I am > "observing!" Oh dear. I said earlier "At that moment, the centre of the Earth was directly below the hole but moving sideways.". I had hoped I didn't need to say that we would only see that happen some time later because of the time it would take for light from the centre to reach the car (assuming the Earth is transparent!)
Not only that but you just contradicted what you said about Archimedes.
>> >> >> > FYI, this is a CHANGE IN VELOCITY; not only in direction, >> >> >> > which is integral to velocity, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Sure, but if he doesn't know what his motion is, it's wrong. Nope. Speed is defined as distance as measured divided by time as measured. He measures the distance and measures the time and divides and that gives the correct value of speed as per the definition. If you don't like the definition, lobby to have the dictionary changed. That would also rewrite every book on physics of course so I don't think you will succeed. until you do, I will stick with the usual formula.
>> > When I have more time, I will get back to George with his animation, >> > and see what he can come up with if his clocks tick together, rather [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > experimental evidence since whenever), experiments as to c'=c+v or > otherwise have NEVER been done! Oh dear Jim, you're not having a good day. Haven't you seen Henri's long threads on binary stars? De Sitter pointed out that this was a test of light from a moving source in 1913, the same year that Sagnac performed his experiment. You know perfectly well that the Sagnac experiment measures the speed of light from a source on a rotating platform because we discussed it at length over last Christmas. That experiment has been done thousands of times and there are commercial devices using it every day.
George Dishman - 14 Sep 2005 23:18 GMT >>> >> Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: >>> ... [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I left your paragraph intact because it was all correct, > just unfinished. ... Ooops, sorry Jim, Jeff just let me know he wrote that paragraph. I hope we all agree what he said anyway, it is later that the differences arise. My apologies if you feel it is incorrect, the mis-attribution was not intentional.
George
jgreen@seol.net.au - 15 Sep 2005 06:28 GMT > >> >> Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: > >> ... [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > to get the motion of the galaxies relative to the > railcar. The old chestnut! If I could plot the center of the universe, with a good enough computer, FoRs become redundant, because ALL calculations to be made from there. :-(
> >> > Rubbish! Read above again to realise that he IS mistaken- and I can > >> > prove it! Cut a hole in the floor, and where before the train rider was [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > the light moves vertically from the ceiling to the > floor and through the hole. No. From the instant photon leaves bulb, it is going to miss earth center. Hole in floor hasn't much to do with anything- all I was trying to show is that photon path is altered by train motion, and travels a longer (diagonal) path through the universe, whether the passenger is aware of that, or not.
At that moment, the
> centre of the Earth was directly below the hole but > moving sideways. The light goes on vertically > downwards but the Earth has moved to the side by > the time the light gets to where the centre was so > it misses. It doesn't matter whether we consider train or earth moving; just reverse paths.
> > If he still thinks it will take the same time to reach the floor, then > > ergo it is travelling FASTER along the diagonal- UNLESS apriori his [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > second scenario cause the speed of the light between > the ceiling and the floor to change? Smack for Jeff! He says the clocks of passenger (pa) and platform observer (po) are operating together. So with train moving, pa stops his watch when beam hits floor, and so does po. Po has measured a longer path from emmission point. IIff c is the same along both paths, more time must show on po's clock, and therefore photon took longer time (both clocks identical, remember) according to po. I maintain that both will read the same , as the longer path was traversed at a higher speed. Although claims to the contrary abound, where are these "thousands" of measurements from various sources? Apart from high energy establishments, where a ruler is not a distance, but a time interval, and time is interprted as a distance travelled by emr, WHERE are the experiments? Binaries seem to be the only references, and sure as eggs, the distances to them, frequencies, periods, wavelengths etc are ALL derived from data which apriori(new word- hope its spelt right!) assumed c=c+v, and frequency and wavelengths altered as per SR/GR dogma.
> >> >> If he doesn't know whether or how the railcar is moving > >> >> relative to the Earth, then he doesn't know where the light [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > other. The railcar is always stationary and the > light always moving vertically in both. If pa fell asleep in the station, missed the accelleration, he will be in for a rude shock (find out he was wrong about his/the photon's motion, if your brake system fails :-)
> > Archimedes (?) > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Yes, we know acceleration can be detected (in SR > or deviation from freefall in GR). I am not referring to acceleration- ONLY velocity. Remember, the pa fell asleep. This is important, and goes back to our discussions on doppler (trains) Detecting acceleration is a given (?), it is the v under discussion.
> > He needed 'Jim's Motion Detector'. This consisits of a monochromatic > > light source (set single frequency/wavelength) and a filter which will [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > any Doppler shift cancels. Only relative motion produces > a change. But there IS relative motion; the port! and acceleration has taken place since (but not continuing). This is a wooden boat, George. I can point the filter at a source elsewhere (back in port). THAT is the signal which is blocked due to the changed motion ref port. You see, I do have a machine to detect my motion, without MYSELF seeing out; I just watch the filter, and note when signals are blocked. I deduce what is happening (happened), and that is what pa should do, in order to avoid being mistaken.
> > Now NASA "knows" this, because they have to alter their filters (read > > radio receivers) when the motion of space craft ref earth [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > there is Doppler. In fact the Doppler measured by > NASA matches the SR formula anyway so confirms SR. Doppler is NOT a cause, it is an EFFECT. There are two ways to show why c remains the same when f or u change (c= frequency x wavelength).........aether or magic
> >> > NB that I don't make claim as to what he SEES; ... > >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > so I don't think you will succeed. until you do, I will > stick with the usual formula. It will happen! The falsity that distance is defined by a time interval for a photon path will be scrapped , and seen as the illusion brought about by information delivery delay, which it is. (About the same era that it is noticed that perfect clocks don't alter their rate between sun above and sun below (gravity change)
> >> > When I have more time, I will get back to George with his animation, > >> > and see what he can come up with if his clocks tick together, rather [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > thousands of times and there are commercial devices using > it every day. Well how this?? Think on the scenario for Lorentz contraction due to velocity. Engine driver shines a beam back down the moving (forward)train. As the rear is coming on to meet the beam, he deduces that the train has shrunk, as c was the same as for a stationary train. The guard shines his beam forward; as the engine is going AWAY FROM the beam, HE deduces that the train has STRETCHED. Nothing happens to the train!!!!!!!!!!! BOTH are victims of illusion, and when doing their calculations later, should realise that their motion DID NOT CEASE when their respective flashes were sent. AE first mistake: c=c+v " second : not spotting LTs selective signage
Cheers Jim G c'=c+v
george@briar.demon.co.uk - 15 Sep 2005 13:10 GMT jgr...@seol.net.au wrote:
> > >> >> Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: > > >> ... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > The old chestnut! Jim, you introduced it with your talk of Archimedes on the ship. Why bring it up if you dislike it? You need to try to be consistent if you want this conversation to go anywhere.
> If I could plot the center of the universe, with a > good enough computer, FoRs become redundant, because ALL calculations > to be made from there. :-( Unless you are suggesting light always travels at c relative to the centre of the universe, the concept of a "center of the universe" is irrelevant. As you know current models do not have a centre.
We can 'plot the Earth' so the 'center of the universe' is redundant as 'ALL calculations can be made from the Earth.
We can 'plot the railcar' so the 'center of the Earth' is redundant as ALL calculations can be made from the car.
A few lines below this you said exactly the same thing:
> It doesn't matter whether we consider train or earth moving; just > reverse paths. Make your Mind up Jim.
> > >> > Rubbish! Read above again to realise that he IS mistaken- and I can > > >> > prove it! Cut a hole in the floor, and where before the train rider was [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > No. From the instant photon leaves bulb, it is going to miss earth > center. Pay attention Jim, I said "In the first situation" which is where the train isn't moving along the track so the light does hit the centre.
> Hole in floor hasn't much to do with anything- all I was trying > to show is that photon path is altered by train motion, and travels a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > It doesn't matter whether we consider train or earth moving; just > reverse paths. Exactly my point. Now apply that to both your scenarios.
> > > If he still thinks it will take the same time to reach the floor, then > > > ergo it is travelling FASTER along the diagonal- UNLESS apriori his [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Smack for Jeff! > He says .... I'm not going to comment on Jeff's posts, you switch back and forth between different situations so much I can't guess whether he was taling of the Galilean version, SR, Ritz or what. If you raise consistent questions we will be able to give consuistent answers. So far I haven't seen Jef make any significant errors and I commented on any ambiguity I saw.
> the clocks of passenger (pa) and platform observer (po) are > operating together. So with train moving, pa stops his watch when beam [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > identical, remember) according to po. I maintain that both will read > the same Maintain all you like, it doesn't happen in practice.
> , as the longer path was traversed at a higher speed. > Although claims to the contrary abound, where are these "thousands" of > measurements from various sources? Apart from high energy > establishments, where a ruler is not a distance, but a time interval, When muons generated by cosmic rays reach the ground, the ruler is the height of the atmosphere.
> and time is interprted as a distance travelled by emr, WHERE are the > experiments? Binaries seem to be the only references, I have told you over and over again, the Sagnac effect which is used in devices around the world and is seen in many other disciplines.
> and sure as eggs, > the distances to them, frequencies, periods, wavelengths etc are ALL > derived from data which apriori(new word- hope its spelt right!) Two words, "a priori".
> assumed c=c+v, and frequency and wavelengths altered as per SR/GR > dogma. <snip>
> > No, [whoever] reckoned there was no way you could > > tell even if you _could_ see out because saying [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I am not referring to acceleration- ... Yes you are, you said "A sudden stop would have told him there was a change in his velocity.." and a change in velocity is an acceleration. Try to produce a consistent argument Jim.
> ONLY velocity. Remember, the pa > fell asleep. This is important, and goes back to our discussions on [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > But there IS relative motion; the port! No Jim, you said "This consists of a monochromatic light source ... and a filter ... the two being constructed in the same frame."
If they are in the same frame, there is no relative motion. Try to produce a consistent explanation Jim.
> and acceleration has taken > place since (but not continuing). This is a wooden boat, George. I can [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Doppler is NOT a cause, it is an EFFECT. Yes, it is an effect caused by _relative_ motion and you said "motion of space craft ref earth" whereas your detector had the source and the filter "in the same frame".
<snip>
> > Nope. Speed is defined as distance as measured divided > > by time as measured. He measures the distance and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It will happen! ... No it won't, speed wil always be defined as the measured distance divided by the measured time.
<snip>
> > > Well, we are stuck, because as Henri points out (and I have asked for > > > experimental evidence since whenever), experiments as to c'=c+v or [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Well how this?? > Think on the scenario for Lorentz contraction due to velocity. No Jim, instead of everyone having to think about what you want, how about you think about what I said for a change and you stop saying the test has never been done when I have shown you commercial devices that do that test all the time they are working.
> Engine driver shines a beam back down the moving (forward)train. As the > rear is coming on to meet the beam, he deduces that the train has [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > AE first mistake: c=c+v > " second : not spotting LTs selective signage The fact that you cannot comprehend SR is not an argument against it. SR says the train was not stretched but that our method of measurement will show a different value depending on whether the ruler is moving past the train (or vice versa - they're the same thing) or at rest next to it. The cause is simple geometry but understanding that appears to be beyond you. Whatever the reason, writing arguments against some wierd stretching of the train to try to disprove SR is pointless when SR says nothing of the kind happens.
George
Jeff Root - 15 Sep 2005 19:33 GMT George replied to Jim:
>> Smack for Jeff! >> He says .... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I can't guess whether he was talking of the Galilean > version, SR, Ritz or what. None of the above. I never said what Jim claimed I said. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Jeff Root - 15 Sep 2005 20:42 GMT George Dishman replied to Jim Greenfield:
>> >> He needed 'Jim's Motion Detector'. This consisits of a >> >> monochromatic light source (set single frequency/wavelength) [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > No Jim, you said "This consists of a monochromatic light source > ... and a filter ... the two being constructed in the same frame." George,
He meant that the monochromatic light source and the filter were both constructed in the same reference frame. Like, the same factory.
What he described is an extremely limited version of a common radio navigational aid. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
George Dishman - 16 Sep 2005 14:59 GMT > George Dishman replied to Jim Greenfield: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > filter were both constructed in the same reference frame. > Like, the same factory. That doesn't make any sense. I think Jim considers that a change of speed would show up as a discrepancy between frequency and wavelength hence could be used to detect motion relative to the aether (or the centre of the universe or 'absolute motion' or something) by seeing an apparent Doppler shift from a source fixed rigidly at some distance from the detector.
This will be beyond Jim but I think you will follow, it would work to detect acceleration because the relative speed changes while the light is in flight but no for velocity.
In fact if that is what he is suggesting, it wouldn't work for BaT.
> What he described is an extremely limited version of a > common radio navigational aid. A simple Doppler speed detector? Could be but what does that prove? SR predicts the same first order Doppler shift and the second order differs but was confirmed by Ives-Stilwell. It beats me what he is on about if not what I guessed.
George
Jeff Root - 16 Sep 2005 18:13 GMT George replied to Jeff:
>> George Dishman replied to Jim Greenfield: >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > seeing an apparent Doppler shift from a source fixed > rigidly at some distance from the detector. He's just talking about motion of the detector relative to the light source. It doesn't help his argument at all, and it is absurdly limited in its capabilities, but it would work just fine. He said:
| But there IS relative motion; the port! and acceleration | has taken place since (but not continuing). This is a | wooden boat, George. I can point the filter at a source | elsewhere (back in port). THAT is the signal which is | blocked due to the changed motion ref port. You see, I | do have a machine to detect my motion, without MYSELF | seeing out; I just watch the filter, and note when | signals are blocked.
The fact that the boat is wooden can only be significant if he has radio waves in mind. So his detector detects radio waves. Whenever the detector is moving relative to the transmitter back at the home port, the detector stops detecting the monochromatic signal.
>> What he described is an extremely limited version of a >> common radio navigational aid. > > A simple Doppler speed detector? Yes.
> Could be but what does that prove? That Jim thinks a machine which detects his motion is somehow fundamentally different from detecting his motion with his own eyes. I'm curious why he thinks that, but I know he wouldn't be able to explain it. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
George Dishman - 16 Sep 2005 18:59 GMT > George replied to Jeff: > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > The fact that the boat is wooden can only be significant > if he has radio waves in mind. But he specifically said "a monochromatic light source". I guess you're right though.
> So his detector detects > radio waves. Whenever the detector is moving relative to [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > with his own eyes. I'm curious why he thinks that, but I > know he wouldn't be able to explain it. This was the original comment just after the discussion of Galilean relativity:
<jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message news:1126564087.777831.76000@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> However you cut it, there IS a difference to the passenger between the > two scenarios. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > allow ONLY that frequ to pass through, the two being constructed in the > same frame. What I want to know is how that fits the original context which was a detector that could distinguish between the ship moving while the port was at rest versus the port moving and the ship at rest with the same relative motion. Jim said "However you cut it, there IS a difference ..." which could be determined by 'Jim's Motion Detector'. In other words he disagrees with Galilean relativity, perhaps having some sort of 'absolute motion' philosophy hence his comments about the centre of the universe. To be honest I think he has just lost the plot, none of this makes any sense.
George
jgreen@seol.net.au - 18 Sep 2005 01:37 GMT > > George replied to Jeff: > > [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] > > George Try this: Build a monochromatic source and two identical filters which are transparent to that frequency/wavelength only. Place the source and one filter on a rocket, and leave the other behind. With the rocket at speed ref earth, split the source beam, sending one half straight to earth, and the other through the filter --> earth. What do you think will be noticed? Remember, for both to make it to earth AND through the earth based filter, we know that there CANNOT have been a doppler shift between the source and the space based filter, or the beam would have been blocked there!........or did these amazingly talented photons KNOW to change their f/u AFTER passing through the space filter????????
Jeff seems to be (subliminally) aware of what is actually happening to/on the train, when he mentions that SR describes the relationship between the observers , and the "observed" ONLY! This suggests that he realises that the "measurements" are due to the illusions produced by an object's velocity, and how the finite nature of information transfer by way of emr distorts the true situation to these observers. My position is, that although emr is ubiquitous throughout the universe in varying "densities", the "universe" doesn't give a shrug whether information is transfered or not, and WHAT puny humans wrongly perceive and deduce. Objects still exist for the blind, and distance exists between bodies, whether emr passes between them or not. Similarly, velocity of, and that of other objects transitting from one to the other, also "exists". If we are denied the emans to measure it, tough! The universe doesn't care. Observers are mistaken. AE was such an observer.
Jim G c'=c+v
Jeff Root - 18 Sep 2005 06:59 GMT Jim Greenfield wrote to George Dishman:
> Build a monochromatic source and two identical filters which > are transparent to that frequency/wavelength only. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the filter --> earth. > What do you think will be noticed? Obviously, both beams reach Earth, and neither beam will go through the filter on Earth.
> Remember, for both to make it to earth AND through the earth > based filter, That obviously can't happen.
> we know that there CANNOT have been a doppler shift between > the source and the space based filter, That obviously can't happen, either.
> or the beam would have been blocked there!........or did > these amazingly talented photons KNOW to change their f/u > AFTER passing through the space filter???????? If you and the light source are moving apart, you observe a lower frequency because each wave starts its journey from a little bit farther away. Simple geometry.
> Jeff seems to be (subliminally) aware of what is actually > happening to/on the train, when he mentions that SR describes > the relationship between the observers, and the "observed" ONLY! I didn't just mention it, I explained it to you.
> This suggests that he realises that the "measurements" are > due to the illusions produced by an object's velocity, So all measurements of things in motion are due to illusions? That's what you just said.
> and how the finite nature of information transfer by way of > emr distorts the true situation to these observers. I thought you were beyond that. You complained when I brought it up.
The time delay is not what causes a photon or dropped ball to have a diagonal path in the train thought experiment.
> My position is, that although emr is ubiquitous throughout > the universe in varying "densities", the "universe" doesn't > give a shrug whether information is transfered or not, and > WHAT puny humans wrongly perceive and deduce. Nancy? Is that you?
> Objects still exist for the blind, and distance exists > between bodies, whether emr passes between them or not. Obviously.
> Similarly, velocity of, and that of other objects transitting > from one to the other, also "exists". Obviously.
Virtually everything you say is either kindergarten obvious or bonehead wrong.
> If we are denied the emans to measure it, tough! The universe > doesn't care. Obviously.
> Observers are mistaken. You have not shown that in any of your arguments.
An observer will be mistaken in the way you suggest only if he is even stupider than you are.
> AE was such an observer. You think Albert Einstein was stupider than you?
Do you want to demonstrate how smart you are? -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
George Dishman - 18 Sep 2005 10:33 GMT ...
>> What I want to know is how that fits the original >> context which was a detector that could distinguish [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Place the source and one filter on a rocket, and leave the other > behind. OK, that's clear.
> With the rocket at speed ref earth, split the source beam, sending one > half straight to earth, and the other through the filter --> earth. > What do you think will be noticed? Good question so far but you should have left it at that.
> Remember, for both to make it to > earth AND through the earth based filter, we know that there CANNOT > have been a doppler shift between the source and the space based > filter, or the beam would have been blocked there! That is correct, you just gave half the answer.
The filter on the ship is not moving relative to the source so there is no Doppler shift and the second beam passes through. Both beams leave the craft.
The second part is what happens on Earth which you didn't address. When they reach Earth, it is moving relative to the source so the Doppler effect means neither beam passes through the Earth filter.
Your subsequent comments don't seem related to the above question at all and I can't for the life of me imagine what point you think this gedanken makes.
George
> ........or did these > amazingly talented photons KNOW to change their f/u AFTER passing [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > care. > Observers are mistaken. AE was such an observer. jgreen@seol.net.au - 18 Sep 2005 12:41 GMT > ... > >> What I want to know is how that fits the original [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > care. > > Observers are mistaken. AE was such an observer. Lucky you, that you are not living in the era when alchemists were burnt at the stake! Think on it! You have turned sapphire to emerald, to allow transfer of ALL light as posited. (Hint: an emerald remains an emerald, regardless of its velocity ref ANYTHING)
attn Jeff R: If there is measuremnt sans emr, what are the standards????
Jim
George Dishman - 18 Sep 2005 13:05 GMT >> ... >> >> What I want to know is how that fits the original [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > (Hint: an emerald remains an emerald, regardless of its velocity ref > ANYTHING) If a train is leaving you after it passes through a station, the whistle note sounds lower. If your ear could only hear one note, you would hear the whistle if you were on the train but not if you were on the platform.
As the ship moves away from Earth, the same thing will happen. Why do you expect something different?
George
jgreen@seol.net.au - 20 Sep 2005 04:53 GMT > >> ... > >> >> What I want to know is how that fits the original [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > As the ship moves away from Earth, the same thing > will happen. Why do you expect something different? So you wish to equate sound in a medium (air), to light? OK, but that makes light propagation dependent on jello (aether). jello recipe: take a cup of nothing (space), and subject it to a gravitational field. Cook for 1 second, or a billion years, depending on the strength of the field.
(change subject) Proposed experiment: Set up a standard apparatus for measuring light velocity, using the source as part of the setup, and the spinning wheels/discs on an axle through which the light shines as per laboratory. When a value is determined for c, take the apparatus into space, and adjust the spin to give the same result for the onboard source. (in case you claim the clock alters the axle revs). Now use Andromeda as the source! THIS light will NOT transit the apparatus as before, because the light from Andromeda is from a source with a different velocity.
(change again) Serious comment is still required, as to whether there is a distance between objects in the abscence of emr, what could its units be, and could they have relative motion
Cheers jim
George Dishman - 20 Sep 2005 09:53 GMT >> >> ... >> >> >> What I want to know is how that fits the original [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > > So you wish to equate sound in a medium (air), to light? No. You get a reduced frequency if you sail away from a source of ripples in water or if the source moves through the water but you also get the same reduction in impact frequency if you run away from a machine gun. It will happen with any repetetive phenomenon as long as the speed is finite simply because each event has farther to travel from source to detector than the previous one. That's why I don't understand what point you were trying to make. The same first order Doppler effect occurs in aether theory, Ritzian theory and SR. Only the second order part differs and that was measured by Ives and Stilwell and it only agrees with SR (and a Lorentzian aether of course).
<snip humour>
> (change subject) > Proposed experiment: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > light will NOT transit the apparatus as before, because the light from > Andromeda is from a source with a different velocity. I believe this has been done and the speed was the same but I couldn't cite an experimeter. Most people would just say it is because the light is moving through the atmosphere. If the speed didn't change when starlight hits the atmosphere, you wouldn't get refraction. Remember c is the speed in vacuo.
> (change again) > Serious comment is still required, as to whether there is a distance > between objects in the abscence of emr, what could its units be, Two serious answers: 1) before we switched to using light, we used a standard metal bar as the unit. In the absence of emr, that could still be used (ignoring the fact that in the absence of emr, only gas could exist).
> and could they have relative motion 2) If you lay the bar parallel to a piece of string you get one measurement but lay it at an angle and you get another (as I have said many times) due to rotation in the x-y plane. Similarly if the bar is parallel but moving you will get a different measured value because it is rotated in the x-t plane compared to the bar at rest.
George
Timo Nieminen - 21 Sep 2005 01:02 GMT > > (change subject) > > Proposed experiment: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > wouldn't get refraction. Remember c is the speed > in vacuo. Spinning disk measurement would be tricky to do accurately enough. Interferometric measurement has been done (but see below) - Shankland et al, Rev Mod Phys 27(2), 167 (1955) reviews past Michelson-Morley type experiments, and notes Miller (Miller PNAS 11, 311 (1925)) and Tomaschek (Tomaschek, Ann. d. Phys. 73, 105 (1924)) used sunlight and starlight as their sources. Neglecting the "extinction argument", these rule out emission theories where the velocity of light after reflection still has the source _velocity_ added to it (the original Ritzian theory) and where the mirror acts as a new source. Emission theories with _speed_ of reflected light equal to _speed_ of incident light aren't ruled out (by these experiments alone).
The real question to ask is: is there any point doing the space-based experiment? If extinction by the interstellar medium is used to argue against de Sitter's results, then surely the denser interplanetary medium would ensure a null result for the space-based spinning disk measurement?
 Signature Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/ E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
Henri Wilson - 21 Sep 2005 23:35 GMT >> > (change subject) >> > Proposed experiment: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Spinning disk measurement would be tricky to do accurately enough. they are impossible at this stage.
>Interferometric measurement has been done (but see below) - Shankland et >al, Rev Mod Phys 27(2), 167 (1955) reviews past Michelson-Morley type [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >reflected light equal to _speed_ of incident light aren't ruled out (by >these experiments alone). I have suggested a perfectly sound way to check the BaT. All we need is a relay receiver/transmitter on the edge of the moon and a space capsule equipped with a powerful EM pulse generator. The capsule will move at high speed v, away from Earth. When the capsule, relay station and Earth observer are approximately in line, a pulse is intercepted by the R/X, which after a short and known delay, sends another similar pulse down to Earth. The original pulse is traveling at c-v, the relayed one at c, wrt the observer.
The arrival time difference between the two pulses can be around 20us or more .
NASA is going back there soon. How can we get them to perform this relativiely simple and cheap experiment?
>The real question to ask is: is there any point doing the space-based >experiment? If extinction by the interstellar medium is used to argue >against de Sitter's results, then surely the denser interplanetary medium >would ensure a null result for the space-based spinning disk measurement? I have realised that extinction (or 'speed unification') would also cause corresponding errors in radial speed measurements and estimations. These is normally based on observed doppler shifts. If speed is unified, then so too would be doppler shift. De Sitter was plainly wrong. He interpreted all his observed data using Einsteiniana so his findings naturally conflicted with BaT concepts. His radial velocity estimates were probably way out.
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.
Timo Nieminen - 22 Sep 2005 01:49 GMT On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, it was written:
> >> > (change subject) > >> > Proposed experiment: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > they are impossible at this stage. I have in the past suggested to the proposer of that experiment some paths to follow to try to find a cheap and convincing test of his favoured emission theory. He hasn't been interested in following up. What about you? Do you want your theory tested?
Dirt cheap compared to any space-based experiment. Emission theories mean that the Maxwell equations are wrong. This is very likely to have consequences that can be measured in the lab. All you need to do is come up with testable predictions about deviations from Maxwellian electrodynamics, do the test, and you'll have falsified one or the other.
> I have suggested a perfectly sound way to check the BaT. > All we need is a relay receiver/transmitter on the edge of the moon and a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > NASA is going back there soon. How can we get them to perform this relativiely > simple and cheap experiment? If it involves going to the moon, it isn't simple or cheap.
If you're willing to fund it, it can be done. Start writing those grant proposals now!
However, think very carefully:
> >The real question to ask is: is there any point doing the space-based > >experiment? If extinction by the interstellar medium is used to argue > >against de Sitter's results, then surely the denser interplanetary medium > >would ensure a null result for the space-based spinning disk measurement? Basically, will extinction by the interplanetary medium mean that such an experiment would be useless? If you can't give a definite answer, then can you convince a donor to fund an experiment that might well be useless?
> I have realised that extinction (or 'speed unification') would also cause > corresponding errors in radial speed measurements and estimations. > These is normally based on observed doppler shifts. If speed is unified, then > so too would be doppler shift. Why? Emission theories, special relativity, and Galilean ether theories all give the same 1st order Doppler shift, assuming that light is an electromagnetic wave with frequency given by the rate of oscillation of fields. If your theory has a different mechanism for Doppler shift, then, great! That's even more deviations from currently accepted classical electrodynamics, so it should be even easier to do a cheap tabletop experiment.
 Signature Timo
Henri Wilson - 23 Sep 2005 00:17 GMT >On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, it was written: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >emission theory. He hasn't been interested in following up. What about >you? Do you want your theory tested? Like I said, spining disk methods are just not quite accurate enough.
>Dirt cheap compared to any space-based experiment. Emission theories mean >that the Maxwell equations are wrong. No they don't. Maxwell's equations apply to an aether. At best, they describe the speed of light EMITTED by the observer who measures the two constants. They say nothing about the speed of light from moving sources. They say nothing about light speed in 'no aether'.
>This is very likely to have >consequences that can be measured in the lab. All you need to do is come [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >If it involves going to the moon, it isn't simple or cheap. they are going anyway and will have a powerful transmitter. All they have to do is place a small receiver on the edge which can intercept signals from any distant probe that is sending pulses back to Earth.
>If you're willing to fund it, it can be done. Start writing those grant >proposals now! [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >experiment would be useless? If you can't give a definite answer, then can >you convince a donor to fund an experiment that might well be useless? There is probably enough 'extinction free' space between earth and moon to make this work. However an unlikely null result would not rule out the BaT.
A signal takes 1.3 secs to travel from moon to Earth. If the distant pulse transmitter is moving away at 0.0001c or 30 kms/sec, the arrival time difference between the two pulses should be about 130 microsecs...easily detectable.
>> I have realised that extinction (or 'speed unification') would also cause >> corresponding errors in radial speed measurements and estimations. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >electrodynamics, so it should be even easier to do a cheap tabletop >experiment. At practical speeds, the Doppler equation is virtually the same for all three theories.
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.
Timo Nieminen - 23 Sep 2005 01:25 GMT On Thu, 22 Sep 2005, it was written:
>> Dirt cheap compared to any space-based experiment. Emission theories mean >> that the Maxwell equations are wrong. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > They say nothing about the speed of light from moving sources. > They say nothing about light speed in 'no aether'. So you are saying that the Maxwell equations don't describe electromagnetic phenomena correctly? OK, all you need to do is figure out exactly how your theory of electromagnetism differs from classical EM theory, find where the difference is experimentally accessible, and do the experiment (moving source, maybe - what does your theory of EM say about synchrotron radiation, Brehmsstrahlung, Cerenkov radiation etc?).
If you want your theory to be tested, go for it.
[cut]
>> Basically, will extinction by the interplanetary medium mean that such an >> experiment would be useless? If you can't give a definite answer, then can >> you convince a donor to fund an experiment that might well be useless? > > There is probably enough 'extinction free' space between earth and moon to make > this work. However an unlikely null result would not rule out the BaT. So, you say that a null result would be useless. Have fun trying to get somebody to provide the funding!
Can't you provide a more quantitative answer than "probably"?
>>> I have realised that extinction (or 'speed unification') would also cause >>> corresponding errors in radial speed measurements and estimations. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > At practical speeds, the Doppler equation is virtually the same for all three > theories. So now you are saying that the Doppler shift _won't_ be unified?
 Signature Timo
Eric Gisse - 23 Sep 2005 02:42 GMT > On Thu, 22 Sep 2005, it was written: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > experiment (moving source, maybe - what does your theory of EM say about > synchrotron radiation, Brehmsstrahlung, Cerenkov radiation etc?). Henri does not do experiments, I have asked. He says he is an "idea man".
Henri does not derive anything, I have asked. His response is that he is "too busy". Obviously not busy enough to carry on multiple conversations, however.
> If you want your theory to be tested, go for it. Reality is a scary place, Henri likes to isolate himself from it.
[snippy]
Don't take him seriously, he can't back back up anything he says.
jgreen@seol.net.au - 23 Sep 2005 11:52 GMT > >> > (change subject) > >> > Proposed experiment: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >(Tomaschek, Ann. d. Phys. 73, 105 (1924)) used sunlight and starlight as > >their sources. Assuming the sun is stationary source, which star which is accepted to be moving significantly +/- v to earth was used? You can bet 'em both, that the "starlight" was a generalisation, and NOT what I have in mind as a real moving source.
Neglecting the "extinction argument", these rule out
> >emission theories where the velocity of light after reflection still has > >the source _velocity_ added to it (the original Ritzian theory) and where > >the mirror acts as a new source. Emission theories with _speed_ of > >reflected light equal to _speed_ of incident light aren't ruled out (by > >these experiments alone). What reflectors? I just want to point at the source, and measure.
> I have suggested a perfectly sound way to check the BaT. > All we need is a relay receiver/transmitter on the edge of the moon and a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > which after a short and known delay, sends another similar pulse down to Earth. > The original pulse is traveling at c-v, the relayed one at c, wrt the observer. The (relatively) small distance to the moon, and the velocity of the craft, means that an error of a few (hundred) meters in the capsule's position would make the results useless. I think we need much larger distances; a tragic opportunity lost, with Cassini and Huygen.
> The arrival time difference between the two pulses can be around 20us or more . Without arguement, or ambiguity? I would like to think that you are right.
> NASA is going back there soon. How can we get them to perform this relativiely > simple and cheap experiment? Forget (/) the politically correct NASA, with their inbred dependence on the funding by the previously brainwashed govt re Einstein. Blokes and companies like Richard Branson (Virgin Airlines) have an unbiased (money only) interset in the universe, and wouldn't mind to be remebered for a Nobel
> >The real question to ask is: is there any point doing the space-based > >experiment? If extinction by the interstellar medium is used to argue [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Einsteiniana so his findings naturally conflicted with BaT concepts. His radial > velocity estimates were probably way out. What I thought-- that he assumed c constant, and worked back his data and analysis from there.
Jim G c'=c+v
Henri Wilson - 24 Sep 2005 00:03 GMT >> >> > (change subject) >> >> > Proposed experiment: [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >craft, means that an error of a few (hundred) meters in the capsule's >position would make the results useless. No no no, Jim. The capsule's position doesn't matter...as long as it is roughly in line with the Earth and moon. The whole point is that the moon transmitter's pulse should arrive 20us earlier than the direct one. Remember the direct one also triggers the moon relay as it goes past (with a known electronic delay)
>I think we need much larger >distances; a tragic opportunity lost, with Cassini and Huygen. No need. although such a craft could be used as the pulse source.
>> The arrival time difference between the two pulses can be around 20us or more . > >Without arguement, or ambiguity? I would like to think that you are >right. Have another think about it. You didn't quite get it.
>> NASA is going back there soon. How can we get them to perform this relativiely >> simple and cheap experiment? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >unbiased (money only) interset in the universe, and wouldn't mind to be >remebered for a Nobel good point.
>> >The real question to ask is: is there any point doing the space-based >> >experiment? If extinction by the interstellar medium is used to argue [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >What I thought-- that he assumed c constant, and worked back his data >and analysis from there. That's right. All his data was based on light traveling to Earth at c so naturally his conclusions would conflict with the BaT. ...but what he saw was not what was really happening.
> Jim G >c'=c+v HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Jeff Root - 20 Sep 2005 10:32 GMT >> If a train is leaving you after it passes through >> a station, the whistle note sounds lower. If your [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > OK, but that makes light propagation dependent on jello > (aether). Yes. Because light and sound are both wave phenomenon, and therefore exhibit Doppler shift, they are equated with each other: Both require a medium for propagation, both are predicted by Maxwell's equations, both are audible in certain frequency ranges, both can cause sunburn, both have emission and absorption lines in their spectra, both can be used for communication with spacecraft, both can be made with a cello. A jello cello. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
jgreen@seol.net.au - 18 Sep 2005 01:52 GMT To be honest I think he has just lost the plot, none
> of this makes any sense. To the brainwashed! In the recent past, the BB has been lauded as complete vindication for AE's theories, with detailed descriptions of the universe' expansion, and "evidence" of the increasing youthfulness of objects at increasing distance being the cornerstone, indeed whe whole BASIS of the theory (GR). As a regular watcher of sci.astro , George MUST know by now, that discoveries of very OLD bodies and structures at very large distances has completely shattered the myth of BB, and brought down GR with it. To hand-wave about our understanding of galaxy formation being a "little inadequate", doesn't cut it. This in't a crack in BB structure, it is its demise! Time for you George, to realise that if something is so awfully WRONG with BB (being basic to GR), what caused the error? Hint: c'=c+v
Jim
Jeff Root - 18 Sep 2005 07:06 GMT Jim Greenfield wrote to George Dishman:
> In the recent past, the BB has been lauded as complete > vindication for AE's theories, with detailed descriptions > of the universe' expansion, and "evidence" of the increasing > youthfulness of objects at increasing distance being the > cornerstone, indeed whe whole BASIS of the theory (GR). How is that possible? When the general theory of relativity was published in 1916, it wasn't even known that other galaxies exist. The distance of the nearest galaxy, Andromeda, wasn't determined until 1929. Until then, it was thought likely that spiral nebulae were nebular clouds within the Milky way.
Please explain that, Jim.
> As a regular watcher of sci.astro , George MUST know by now, > that discoveries of very OLD bodies and structures at very > large distances has completely shattered the myth of BB, and > brought down GR with it. Those very early stars and galaxies happen to be exactly what I expected. I have some nonstandard notions of the evolution of the Universe following the Big Bang. Rapid formation of stars and galaxies is a possible consequence.
> To hand-wave about our understanding of galaxy formation > being a "little inadequate", doesn't cut it. This in't a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the error? > Hint: c'=c+v I don't see any flaw in the Big Bang theory, which we may consider to be:
Light from distant galaxies is Doppler shifted, which indicates that those galaxies and Earth are moving away from each other. The greater the distance, the greater the Doppler shift, and hence, the greater the speed of separation. This implies that several billion years ago, all the matter in the galaxies we see now occupied a very small volume, and has been expanding since then.
That has all been very firmly established. No new data that I've heard of contradicts it in any way. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
George Dishman - 18 Sep 2005 10:20 GMT > To be honest I think he has just lost the plot, none >> of this makes any sense. > > To the brainwashed! No Jim, I just mean your posts are getting to be very hard to understand compared to a few months ago. For example you have, in a number of recent posts, said that SR assume "c=c+v" when you should know that SR says the speed is c as measured, aether theory says it is c relative to the aether and only Ritz says it is c relative to the source which has velocity v. It makes it very hard to work out what you are saying.
Try sorting out your train question but avoiding mixing up the two scenarios and see where that thread gets you.
> In the recent past, the BB has been lauded as complete vindication for > AE's theories, Bullshit. BB is an application of GR, not evidence for it. Try addressing bending of starlight (Eddington) or the precession of Mercury or GPS or Pound-Rebka or Hulse-Taylor or recently confirmation of frame dragging (Lense-Thirring?) using (IIRC) LAGEOS. Those are real evidence.
> with detailed descriptions of the universe' expansion, > and "evidence" of the increasing youthfulness of objects at increasing > distance being the cornerstone, indeed whe whole BASIS of the theory > (GR). > As a regular watcher of sci.astro , George MUST know by now, that > discoveries of very OLD bodies and structures at very large distances Wrong Jim, we spent several posts going over that. What has been found was young structures about a billion or two years after the BB which were expected to be a bit later.
> has completely shattered the myth of BB, and brought down GR with it. > To hand-wave about our understanding of galaxy formation being a > "little inadequate", doesn't cut it. This in't a crack in BB structure, > it is its demise! > Time for you George, to realise that if something is so awfully WRONG > with BB (being basic to GR), what caused the error? So far you haven't shown anything wrong with it. If you want to do that, there have been two recent papers which you could have cited that you haven't even noticed, you are just going back to repeating an error you made months ago when you misread a post in the group. You seem to have forgotten you got it wrong and only remember your glee at an imagined problem.
George
jgreen@seol.net.au - 23 Sep 2005 12:00 GMT > So far you haven't shown anything wrong with it. > If you want to do that, there have been two recent [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > got it wrong and only remember your glee at an > imagined problem. That would be the one where stars 8Gya old have been seen at 12.7 TERMINAL CANCER!!!!!!!!!
Jim
George Dishman - 23 Sep 2005 12:12 GMT >> So far you haven't shown anything wrong with it. >> If you want to do that, there have been two recent [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That would be the one where stars 8Gya old have been seen at 12.7 No such paper exists.
> TERMINAL CANCER!!!!!!!!! Nope, it's the one that actually said the galaxies were less than 2Ga old and 8Ga _away_ which you misread as saying they were 8Ga _old_. Still that suits your bias so I guess accuracy doesn't matter to you as long as you can bolster your fantasy.
George
jgreen@seol.net.au - 25 Sep 2005 09:28 GMT > >> So far you haven't shown anything wrong with it. > >> If you want to do that, there have been two recent [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > George At what elapsed time after BB, did quasars form? What are their life expectancies? At what DISTANCE (age) have they been observed???
Jim G c'=c+v
George Dishman - 25 Sep 2005 12:38 GMT > At what elapsed time after BB, did quasars form? What are their life > expectancies? At what DISTANCE (age) have they been observed??? http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/quasars.html
George
jgreen@seol.net.au - 26 Sep 2005 08:48 GMT > > At what elapsed time after BB, did quasars form? What are their life > > expectancies? At what DISTANCE (age) have they been observed??? > > http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/quasars.html > > George Ta George. It would seem that the discovery of one close handy would be very bad news :-)
Jim
George Dishman - 26 Sep 2005 21:58 GMT >> > At what elapsed time after BB, did quasars form? What are their life >> > expectancies? At what DISTANCE (age) have they been observed??? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ta George. Starter for 10, I'm sure you'll find better.
> It would seem that the discovery of one close handy would be very bad > news :-) Well there isn't as much free gas around these days as back then but hypothetically if a nearby galaxy collided with a large dense cloud, it could become a quasar I suppose (there are problems of density with that which I am ignoring for the sake of argument). That would definitely be very bad news to the point of sterilising our galaxy depending on how close it was!
George
jgreen@seol.net.au - 27 Sep 2005 10:54 GMT > >> > At what elapsed time after BB, did quasars form? What are their life > >> > expectancies? At what DISTANCE (age) have they been observed??? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > George Oh well, it least it might kill off these fungi which are giving my groin hell! :-) But the "bad news" I mentioned is for THE THEORY, George! Quasars as per those faqs can ONLY be at long distance, for BB to shape up (occurred only in the very young universe). So if any are seen around here.......... ..."good night, nurse"!
Cheers Jim
George Dishman - 27 Sep 2005 18:08 GMT >> >> > At what elapsed time after BB, did quasars form? What are their life >> >> > expectancies? At what DISTANCE (age) have they been observed??? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > (occurred only in the very young universe). So if any are seen around > here.......... ... remembering that they aren't ...
> ..."good night, nurse"! Again just wishful thinking Jim. Firstly what I said does not conflict with the theory so if a new quasar formed, it wouldn't be a problem for big bang, though it might raise questions about our understanding of the threshold density at which a gas cloud can condense into stars versus the density needed to power a quasar.
On the other hand, since we see a greater density of quasars at high red shift, their existence in fact supports the big bang, conditions were significantly different in the past. It is your alternative of some sort of steady state that has the problem.
George
George Dishman - 27 Sep 2005 19:05 GMT Jim I said a few days ago you were missing some posts and continuing to repeat old errors. There is another example today:
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2005/28/full/
I said some time ago I thought we were going to see mounting evidence that our ideas of galaxy formation need an overhaul and this is leading the same way. If galaxies formed by slow aggregation then this would be problematic. There is mounting evidence that supermassive black holes are a key component and I wonder whether we are seeing evidence that they and dark matter clump first and pull in large masses of gas that then forms stars very quickly so galaxies start large and shrink rather than starting small and growing, at least in the earliest epochs.
George
jgreen@seol.net.au - 28 Sep 2005 08:06 GMT > Jim I said a few days ago you were missing some > posts and continuing to repeat old errors. There [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > George Thanks for the link. Sure enough, I note that the data was FIRST subjected to analysis under the assumption that the universe is expanding, and therefore frequencies were looked at in that "light". So long as such embedded bias is applied, I remain very unimpressed. It still seems increasingly obvious, that the better the views of large distances away, the more obvious it becomes that the universe on average is homogenous throughout our (limitted) field of vision, both for age and chemical composition. I have read somewhere lately (and of course can't find the ****), that there may even be quasars within the Milky Way, which have previously been wrongly assessed for distance from earth; also some which are inter-galactic space???????
Ooroo Jim
Eric Gisse - 28 Sep 2005 08:22 GMT jgr...@seol.net.au wrote:
> > Jim I said a few days ago you were missing some > > posts and continuing to repeat old errors. There [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > been wrongly assessed for distance from earth; also some which are > inter-galactic space??????? There aren't quasars in the Milky Way.
If you are going to post asinine bullshit like that, at least have the courtesy to give us the link so we can mock that too.
Please stop posting until you get an education in something.
> Ooroo > Jim George Dishman - 28 Sep 2005 19:59 GMT >> Jim I said a few days ago you were missing some >> posts and continuing to repeat old errors. There [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > subjected to analysis under the assumption that the universe is > expanding, I have no idea where you get that from.
> and therefore frequencies were looked at in that "light". Of course, that's how all stellar work is done. How else do you work out what the temperature is, or what the composition is or the age of the stars?
> So > long as such embedded bias is applied, I remain very unimpressed. There is no "bias", looking at the spectrum and intensity is the only way to find out anything. What else do you think they could do with the light?
> It still seems increasingly obvious, that the better the views of large > distances away, the more obvious it becomes that the universe on > average is homogenous throughout our (limitted) field of vision, both > for age and chemical composition. Nope, this is an unusual galaxy by local standards so more evidence for inhomogeneity.
I can't find the prime paper but there is more information in this which refers to the findings:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509605
It says Mobasher et al found that the period of star formation was probably less than 100 M years long and occurred when the universe was between 200 M and 400 M years old.
> I have read somewhere lately (and of course can't find the ****), that > there may even be quasars within the Milky Way, It may have been an old article, when they were first discovered it took some years to confirm they were distant. The nearest known quasar is over 800 million light years away. Incidentally, with over 60000 known in total, there should be about a dozen closer than that if they were homogenous, and probably more because we should see more closer just because they would be easier to detect.
I skimmed this and it looks informative:
http://cas.sdss.org/dr4/en/proj/advanced/quasars/spectracomparisons.asp
> which have previously > been wrongly assessed for distance from earth; also some which are > inter-galactic space??????? Not that I know of but in some cases they are so bright it is hard to detect the host galaxy. If it is close to using up the matter in its vicinity, there is no reason in theory why they shouldn't be isolated of course.
George
jgreen@seol.net.au - 29 Sep 2005 02:09 GMT > >> Jim I said a few days ago you were missing some > >> posts and continuing to repeat old errors. There [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > I have no idea where you get that from. Read the paragraph in that link beginning "Mobasher and his...." It is obvious that the analysis of ALL collected data is subjected to the assumptions that 1) c is constant 2) the universe is expanding "Those who believe they have the truth in their hand, will not find it."
> > and therefore frequencies were looked at in that "light". > > Of course, that's how all stellar work is done. How > else do you work out what the temperature is, or > what the composition is or the age of the stars? Hopefully, by maintaining an open and questioning mind as to what may influence _apparent_ observations, from being the real situation (temp/composition) FI: In that link, blue light is claimed to have been absorbed by free intergalactic H- no mention of it being redshifted out of contention.
> > So > > long as such embedded bias is applied, I remain very unimpressed. > > There is no "bias", looking at the spectrum and intensity > is the only way to find out anything. What else do you > think they could do with the light? I do need a book on Fraunhoffer, spectrum of elements, comparisons of elements at differing temperatures, and absorbtion lines. I would suggest even the composition of the earth at depth is educated guess work, and to claim detailed analysis of objects of which we only see the top micron, or its atmosphere, may have astronomers wrongfully believing that they know exactly the composition of a distant object, due to mistaken analysis of the temp, velocity, gravitational pull (mass), chemical composition of the emmitting object of the emr reaching us.
> > It still seems increasingly obvious, that the better the views of large > > distances away, the more obvious it becomes that the universe on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Nope, this is an unusual galaxy by local standards so > more evidence for inhomogeneity. Even ONE contradictory body or situation brings the theory down! "Unusual" (read ignore it) doesn't work.
> I can't find the prime paper but there is more > information in this which refers to the findings: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > occurred when the universe was between 200 M and > 400 M years old. Which would mean that ALL stars were born on the same day, between 13.5 and 13.3 Gya. Then the 2nd generation is introduced etc, as these burnt out. Young stars (galaxies) are seen at large distance, ALONG WITH much older ones. As we look with better telescopes for longer periods at large distances, the homogeneity of the universe _will- become more apparent. even that article admits that looking in the wrong band would have missed that unacceptable galaxy.
> > I have read somewhere lately (and of course can't find the ****), that > > there may even be quasars within the Milky Way, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > we should see more closer just because they would be > easier to detect. Whole galaxies are "discovered" much closer than that.
> I skimmed this and it looks informative: > > http://cas.sdss.org/dr4/en/proj/advanced/quasars/spectracomparisons.asp I might not get a chance to look at it till next week (camping trip)
> > which have previously > > been wrongly assessed for distance from earth; also some which are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > using up the matter in its vicinity, there is no reason > in theory why they shouldn't be isolated of course. Put them on my list of places to avoid?
Seeya Jim
Eric Gisse - 29 Sep 2005 04:00 GMT > > >> Jim I said a few days ago you were missing some > > >> posts and continuing to repeat old errors. There [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > "Those who believe they have the truth in their hand, will not find > it." That is called the abstract, you asshat.
If you have any questions about the analysis, you read the paper. Though I question what effect the paper would have on you, considering the amazing amount of misunderstandings you have about pretty much everything.
> > > and therefore frequencies were looked at in that "light". > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > (mass), chemical composition of the emmitting object of the emr > reaching us. Yess....spectrocopy obviously only deals with the top micron of the object in question, even gas clouds! I would indeed suggest you get a book instead of making uneducated guesses about how science works.
[snip]
jgreen@seol.net.au - 02 Oct 2005 07:07 GMT > > > >> Jim I said a few days ago you were missing some > > > >> posts and continuing to repeat old errors. There [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > object in question, even gas clouds! I would indeed suggest you get a > book instead of making uneducated guesses about how science works. Bible? Qu'ran? Other "faith" based tomes? They certainly have more chance than AE's scribbles
J
> [snip] Eric Gisse - 02 Oct 2005 07:32 GMT [snip]
> > > I do need a book on Fraunhoffer, spectrum of elements, comparisons of > > > elements at differing temperatures, and absorbtion lines. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Bible? Qu'ran? Other "faith" based tomes? > They certainly have more chance than AE's scribbles You will die ignorant. The only sad part is that it is willful.
> J > > > > [snip] George Dishman - 30 Sep 2005 14:58 GMT >> >> Jim I said a few days ago you were missing some >> >> posts and continuing to repeat old errors. There [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > It is obvious that the analysis of ALL collected data is subjected to > the assumptions that 1) c is constant There is no doubt about that anyway, but I still don't see where you get that in the paragraph.
> 2) the universe is expanding That is the current best model so we use it for the analysis. If that model is wrong, it should show up as errors in the results. There is no other way to analyse the data.
> "Those who believe they have the truth in their hand, will not find > it." Such as those who ignore that fact that all the evidence leads to expansion and cling to steady state models for which there is no evidence at all? Check your mirror.
>> > and therefore frequencies were looked at in that "light". >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > influence _apparent_ observations, from being the real situation > (temp/composition) That is one of the key aspects of the peer review that results like this go through. Everyone reading the paper will be looking for missed effects.
> FI: In that link, blue light is claimed to have been absorbed by free > intergalactic H- no mention of it being redshifted out of contention. It's a press release. The redshift is crucial to the methods used.
>> > So >> > long as such embedded bias is applied, I remain very unimpressed. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I do need a book on Fraunhoffer, spectrum of elements, comparisons of > elements at differing temperatures, and absorbtion lines. You also need to find out why the Lyman Alpha line is very important in astronomy, and in particular why it creates a hard edge to spectra of high redshift objects.
> I would suggest even the composition of the earth at depth is educated > guess work, and to claim detailed analysis of objects of which we only [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (mass), chemical composition of the emmitting object of the emr > reaching us. You can always say that but it is just baseless hand-waving. We don't know everything but we do have a good idea of how far we trust our models and it is vastly more reliable than you imagine.
>> > It still seems increasingly obvious, that the better the views of large >> > distances away, the more obvious it becomes that the universe on [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Even ONE contradictory body or situation brings the theory down! But it doesn't contradict the big bang, only our tentative ideas on the formation of galaxies. That's an area where our knowledge is almost entirely from modelling and may well be wrong.
> "Unusual" (read ignore it) doesn't work. Unusual in this case does work, isn't what was expected and is unlike anything around today so is more evidence against homogeneity in time. As you said
> "Those who believe they have the truth in their hand, will not find > it."
>> I can't find the prime paper but there is more >> information in this which refers to the findings: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Which would mean that ALL stars were born on the same day, No, they said "less than 100 million years", not "less than 24 hours".
> between 13.5 > and 13.3 Gya. Then the 2nd generation is introduced etc, as these burnt > out. No Jim, that is what is most unusual about this galaxy, there was no second generation or third or fourth. There was just a first generation then everything stopped. It is very large too and if the stars were formed around z=15 to 20, they might be Pop III stars which we have never seen.
> Young stars (galaxies) are seen at large distance, ALONG WITH much > older ones. Maybe older, maybe not. All we know is that the light seems to have very little blue content which implies no new stars being formed at a cosmic age of about 800 million years.
> As we look with better telescopes for longer periods at large > distances, the homogeneity of the universe _will- become more apparent. Why do you say that when this discovery introduces yet more inhomogeneity, a type of galaxy unlike anything ever seen before?
> even that article admits that looking in the wrong band would have > missed that unacceptable galaxy. Of course, that is what we expect, look up how the Lyman Alpha absorbtion line produces a cutoff.
>> > I have read somewhere lately (and of course can't find the ****), that >> > there may even be quasars within the Milky Way, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Whole galaxies are "discovered" much closer than that. Only very faint ones, quasars are very bright so the bias means we should see _more_ nearby but instead we see less.
>> I skimmed this and it looks informative: >> >> http://cas.sdss.org/dr4/en/proj/advanced/quasars/spectracomparisons.asp > > I might not get a chance to look at it till next week (camping trip) OK, but do try to read it sometime, it will tell you a lot about quasars that will save you asking pointless questions.
>> > which have previously >> > been wrongly assessed for distance from earth; also some which are [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Put them on my list of places to avoid? Definitely.
George
Timo Nieminen - 30 Sep 2005 19:41 GMT >> I do need a book on Fraunhoffer, spectrum of elements, comparisons of >> elements at differing temperatures, and absorbtion lines. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > have a good idea of how far we trust our models > and it is vastly more reliable than you imagine. Worth pointing out that "vastly more reliable than you imagine", while probably correct (but depends on Jim Greenfield's imagination), astronomers generally don't believe that they know exactly the composition of a distant object. There is a healthy respect for the uncertainties inherent in such measurements, even for such nearby well-studies objects such as the sun. Alas, I don't have a list of uncertainties in solar abundances of elements at hand, but I can offer the observation that I once measured the cobalt content of the sun to +/- 25%, and that uncertainty was as good as the best published results I could find.
Jim might find it educational to read about the fluctuating opinions on the iron content of the sun (no, not the iron sun stuff, but the real controvery with abundances varying significantly between different workers for quite some time).
 Signature Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/ E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
George Dishman - 30 Sep 2005 20:54 GMT >>> I do need a book on Fraunhoffer, spectrum of elements, comparisons of >>> elements at differing temperatures, and absorbtion lines. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > controvery with abundances varying significantly between different workers > for quite some time). I think Jim is at the stage of saying well maybe the Sun has some helium in it and maybe it doesn't, whatever he has to believe to avoid accepting anything that isn't to his liking.
George
jgreen@seol.net.au - 03 Oct 2005 05:26 GMT > >>> I do need a book on Fraunhoffer, spectrum of elements, comparisons of > >>> elements at differing temperatures, and absorbtion lines. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > whatever he has to believe to avoid accepting > anything that isn't to his liking. If a theory smells, looks like sh.t, and appears under a dog's bum, chances are it is sh.t. I am not going to do an "Eric" and taste it!
J
> George donstockbauer@hotmail.com - 03 Oct 2005 05:46 GMT If a theory smells, looks like sh.t, and appears under a dog's bum, chances are it is sh.t. I am not going to do an "Eric" and taste it!
***********
Perhaps it's a theory concerning canine feces????? What's wrong with that???????
jgreen@seol.net.au - 03 Oct 2005 05:22 GMT > >> I do need a book on Fraunhoffer, spectrum of elements, comparisons of > >> elements at differing temperatures, and absorbtion lines. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > controvery with abundances varying significantly between different workers > for quite some time). If astronomers can't even agree on the chemistry of the sun, do you not think it is pulling the long bow to claim accurate "knowlege" of the composition (read age) of bodies at 12Gya ? I do not suggest that they have no idea, but I object to spectra and data from distant objects being claimed as "evidence" for BB, UNTIL it contradicts. Then BigBangers rush to "review models of galaxy formation"
Jim G c'=c+v
Timo Nieminen - 03 Oct 2005 06:23 GMT > > Jim might find it educational to read about the fluctuating opinions on > > the iron content of the sun (no, not the iron sun stuff, but the real [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > contradicts. > Then BigBangers rush to "review models of galaxy formation" What particular claims are you objecting to? Who claims accurate and precise knowledge of the composition of distant objects?
Before you object too strenuously, you should learn (a) how accurately the composition of the sun can be determined (b) how accurately the composition of individual stars can be determined (c) how large is the difference in composition between old and young stars compared to (b) (d) how accurately the composition of a distant galaxy can be determined (e) how large is the difference in composition between old and young galaxies compared to (e).
Who knows? You might be able to learn enough to make an argument that makes sense and will actually convinve people. Surely that would be worth putting some effort into it?
 Signature Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/ E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
Henri Wilson - 03 Oct 2005 11:01 GMT >> > Jim might find it educational to read about the fluctuating opinions on >> > the iron content of the sun (no, not the iron sun stuff, but the real [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >makes sense and will actually convinve people. Surely that would be worth >putting some effort into it? The more papers I read about astronomy, the more I realise how utter confusion reigns there.
I really get a good laugh at the pathetic explanations for and categorizations of variable stars.
Most variable star brightness curves follow the very straightforward predictions of the BaT.
Light travels across space at c+v relative to planet Earth, where v is the source's original speed wrt Earth at the instant the light arrives here.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
jgreen@seol.net.au - 03 Oct 2005 05:55 GMT > >> >> Jim I said a few days ago you were missing some > >> >> posts and continuing to repeat old errors. There [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > that results like this go through. Everyone reading > the paper will be looking for missed effects. For "everyone", read that they ALL accedit c constant, and BB expansion a given. Of course they will agree; they are singing from the same psalm.
> > FI: In that link, blue light is claimed to have been absorbed by free > > intergalactic H- no mention of it being redshifted out of contention. > > It's a press release. The redshift is crucial to the > methods used. Yep. And if redshift is attributable to other than expansion???????
> >> > So > >> > long as such embedded bias is applied, I remain very unimpressed. > >> > >> There is no "bias", looking at the spectrum and intensity > >> is the only way to find out anything. What else do you > >> think they could do with the light? I have a friend doing a family tree, who is having trouble understanding that putting in adopted members leads to fraud down the page (no relation!). Similarly, genetic testing will render many trees useless, when it becomes apparent that great-grandma fooled with the milkman. THAT is what I suspect is happening with astronomy- false assumptions have been used to produce a "model" which is the victim of "infidelity".
> > I do need a book on Fraunhoffer, spectrum of elements, comparisons of > > elements at differing temperatures, and absorbtion lines. > > You also need to find out why the Lyman Alpha line is > very important in astronomy, and in particular why it > creates a hard edge to spectra of high redshift objects. And the "forbidden" lines of H
> > I would suggest even the composition of the earth at depth is educated > > guess work, and to claim detailed analysis of objects of which we only [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >> Nope, this is an unusual galaxy by local standards so > >> more evidence for inhomogeneity. Rubbish! What I claim, is that galaxies of ALL AGES exist locally. They are forming and decaying throughout the infinite universe eternally. The existence of this OLDER galaxy amongst other smaller (younger?) ones, IS evidence for large scale homogeneity. The mobs are "boxed" as we old farmers say; ewes of all ages, rams and lambs all mixed. If BB was correct, an accurate age of a galaxy could be determined purely by its distance from us. You need do much more than reconsider" models of galaxy and star formation.
> > Even ONE contradictory body or situation brings the theory down! > [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] > > George Chow Jim c'=c+v
George Dishman - 03 Oct 2005 09:42 GMT ...
>> > Hopefully, by maintaining an open and questioning mind as to what may >> > influence _apparent_ observations, from being the real situation [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > a given. > Of course they will agree; they are singing from the same psalm. We are talking about what is measured, not possible explanations for those observations. Temperature and composition come from spectrographic evidence in a way that is not dependent on the speed of light or expansion.
>> > FI: In that link, blue light is claimed to have been absorbed by free >> > intergalactic H- no mention of it being redshifted out of contention. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yep. And if redshift is attributable to other than expansion??????? It would make no difference whatsoever. Do some research Jim, learn a bit about what you are discussing.
>> >> > So >> >> > long as such embedded bias is applied, I remain very unimpressed. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > have been used to produce a "model" which is the victim of > "infidelity". Sorry Jim, that's just handwaving nonsense.
>> > I do need a book on Fraunhoffer, spectrum of elements, comparisons of >> > elements at differing temperatures, and absorbtion lines. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > And the "forbidden" lines of H Just do some research Jim, you'll talk less nonsense.
>> > I would suggest even the composition of the earth at depth is educated >> > guess work, and to claim detailed analysis of objects of which we only [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Rubbish! What I claim, is that galaxies of ALL AGES exist locally. Then why do we locally see vastly more galaxies that are over 9 billion years old than all the rest put together? Why don't we see any galaxies over 13 billion years old. Why do all the galaxies we see have stellar populations that show that the rate of new stars was much higher withing the first couple of billion years of the galaxies life than now?
There are two things unusual about this galaxy. First the Milky way is considered large by local standards, this one is eight time larger. Second the majority of local galaxies had a rapid burst of new stars being formed about 10 billion years ago and have had a decreasing rate ever since, this galaxy seems to have had a shorter burst and then stopped completely. I know of no galaxy _anywhere_ else that has done that. It is unlike anything we have seen before. That can't be construed as evidence of homogeneity by any stretch of the imagination.
> They are forming and decaying throughout the infinite universe > eternally. Nice fantasy, but every shred of evidence says otherwise.
George
Henri Wilson - 03 Oct 2005 11:07 GMT >... >>> > Hopefully, by maintaining an open and questioning mind as to what may [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] >much higher withing the first couple of billion years >of the galaxies life than now? Because all astronomy is based on the Earthly notion that the speed of light is fixed and doesn't affect our perception of very distant objects.
What we see on Earth is pretty well real. What we observe at 1 billion LYs is an illusion and nothing like reality.
One cannot construct reality from an illusion unless one uses the correct model.
>There are two things unusual about this galaxy. First >the Milky way is considered large by local standards, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >construed as evidence of homogeneity by any stretch of >the imagination. That is because all your data is derived using Einsteiniana.
>> They are forming and decaying throughout the infinite universe >> eternally. > >Nice fantasy, but every shred of evidence says >otherwise. George, there are lots of 'little bangs' but no BIG ONE.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 03 Oct 2005 12:23 GMT > On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 09:42:17 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: ...
>>>> >> Nope, this is an unusual galaxy by local standards so >>>> >> more evidence for inhomogeneity. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > light is > fixed ... Which we have known to be a fact for over a hundred years.
> and doesn't affect our perception of very distant objects. And how how would the speed of light change the observed ratio of new stars to old ones in the same galaxy?
> What we see on Earth is pretty well real. > What we observe at 1 billion LYs is an illusion and nothing like reality. Yet more handwaving with no credible linkage even to your long disproven claims.
> One cannot construct reality from an illusion unless one uses the correct > model. Exactly why your binary star simulations are pointless until you construct a model that is not falsified by the Sagnac experiment.
George
donstockbauer@hotmail.com - 03 Oct 2005 12:28 GMT One cannot construct reality from an illusion unless one uses the correct model.
************************
I'm going to have to remember that one. If I want to get correct results from an illusion, I'd better model it correctly. Thanks!
jgreen@seol.net.au - 03 Oct 2005 18:54 GMT > One cannot construct reality from an illusion unless one uses the > correct model. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'm going to have to remember that one. If I want to get correct > results from an illusion, I'd better model it correctly. Thanks! The "illusion" I believe Henri is referring to, is likened to an image altered by having the velocities of the photons carrying it altered, as seen by our eye/brain. For example: If the Milky Way is revolving once per 200,000yr , an object at distance 1.1 billion light years is actually 180 degrees from where it appears now. Do you not consider that to be an illusion?? So deep space mapping is about as usefull as using a modern world map featuring Gondwana Land.
Jim G c'=c+v
Androcles - 03 Oct 2005 19:16 GMT | > One cannot construct reality from an illusion unless one uses the | > correct model. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] | Jim G | c'=c+v I'm not sure here what H. Cool Wilson is referring to since the text has been snipped, Jim, but fig 3 in http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm, written in 1987, the same year I wrote my first c+v program and back of the envelope sketch of fig 2 when the iron curtain was still a serious problem, was exemplified in July though October 1999 by http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif c' = c+v. Androcles.
Jeff Root - 03 Oct 2005 21:43 GMT Jim Greenfield wrote:
> If the Milky Way is revolving once per 200,000yr , an > object at distance 1.1 billion light years is actually > 180 degrees from where it appears now. You've said that before. It is extremely important if it is true. So it is worth money to know for sure. I'll pay you $8000 for an explanation of the effect, if you post it in sci.astro before the end of Saturday, October 15, 2005.
Please note that using incorrect figures in your argument makes no difference, as long as the geometry and logic are essentially sound. If, for example, the angle actually turns out to be only 18 degrees rather than 180 degrees, but your explanation is basically sound, I will pay.
The actual rotation period of the Milky Way at the Solar System is about 2,000,000 to 2,500,000 years.
-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
jeff5 (at) freemars (dot) org Jeff S. Root 48 27th Ave SE #4 Minneapolis, MN 55414 USA
Jeff Root - 03 Oct 2005 22:01 GMT I wrote:
> The actual rotation period of the Milky Way at the Solar > System is about 2,000,000 to 2,500,000 years. How about that! I made just about the same mistake!
The actual rotation period of the Milky Way at the Solar System is about 200,000,000 to 250,000,000 years. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
jgreen@seol.net.au - 04 Oct 2005 10:34 GMT > I wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > -- Jeff, in Minneapolis Do you really think that the form of the galaxy would be so stable, if it has only done 65 revolutions (given max possible age according to BB), since it was first formed???????????????????
You owe me another 8,000
Jim G c'=c+v
Jeff Root - 13 Oct 2005 11:09 GMT On October 4, Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root:
>> The actual rotation period of the Milky Way at the Solar >> System is about 200,000,000 to 250,000,000 years. > > Do you really think that the form of the galaxy would be so > stable, if it has only done 65 revolutions (given max possible > age according to BB), since it was first formed??????????????????? Of course.
Although, as stated later, the Galaxy has actually rotated only about 20 times since it formed.
How stable do you think the form of the Galaxy is?
Do you think that it would take more than 20 rotations to achieve its present spiral shape? If so, why?
> You owe me another 8,000 Why? -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Jeff Root - 15 Oct 2005 00:55 GMT I wrote:
>>> The actual rotation period of the Milky Way at the Solar >>> System is about 200,000,000 to 250,000,000 years. ...
> Although, as stated later, the Galaxy has actually rotated > only about 20 times since it formed. I seem to have a problem getting these numbers right.
Jim and George collaboratively computed that the Milky Way has rotated about 20 times since the *Earth* formed. But the Milky Way has rotated about 60 times since the Milky Way formed. Close to the figure originally stated! -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
jgreen@seol.net.au - 04 Oct 2005 10:27 GMT > Jim Greenfield wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > The actual rotation period of the Milky Way at the Solar > System is about 2,000,000 to 2,500,000 years. Take time out to go to the local fair. Get on the inside horse on the merry-go-round, and the outside horse's head (say Sirius) will be your "north"- your pointer. Someone in the crowd of baby watchers will be only offset by a very small fraction of a degree when the machine is rotating, due to the light's flight time from watcher to you. But as you go faster, or the watcher is further away, that image is NOT where it was produced, ref the horse's head. My bank acc. no. is *********************
Jim G c'=c+v
Jeff Root - 13 Oct 2005 11:05 GMT On October 4, Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root:
>>> If the Milky Way is revolving once per 200,000yr , an >>> object at distance 1.1 billion light years is actually [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > or the watcher is further away, that image is NOT where it was > produced, ref the horse's head. If the person in the crowd is north of the merry-go-round, he will always appear to be north of the merry-go-round. Never east or west or south. Nomatter how fast you are moving.
You didn't say anything to explain your assertion that an object far outside the Milky Way would appear to be in a completely different direction from its actual direction. All you did was vaguely describe by analogy the fact that finite light travel time means that foreground objects have moved since the light we see left them. That, of course, is well-known to every astronomer.
The distance of a distant object has no bearing on light travel time from foreground objects.
My apologies for taking so long to respond. I let myself be distracted by other things. If you want a week's extension of the time limit, I will be glad to grant it.
> My bank acc. no. is ********************* I won't need your bank account number to send money to you unless you can arrange for the bank to accept a direct deposit from me and you want to do it that way.
-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
jeff5 (at) freemars (dot) org Jeff S. Root 48 27th Ave SE #4 Minneapolis, MN 55414 USA
Henri Wilson - 03 Oct 2005 22:33 GMT >> One cannot construct reality from an illusion unless one uses the >> correct model. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >altered by having the velocities of the photons carrying it altered, as >seen by our eye/brain. Don't waste your time on this fool Jim. He wouldn't even be able to understand the problem.
>For example: If the Milky Way is revolving once per 200,000yr , an >object at distance 1.1 billion light years is actually 180 degrees from >where it appears now. Do you not consider that to be an illusion?? So >deep space mapping is about as usefull as using a modern world map >featuring Gondwana Land. Precisely. Even more to the point. If the object is a binary pair then the relative positions of the two will be determined by their c+v relationship during each orbit. They will be observed as anything BUT a binary pair.
Similarly, many stars appear to be binaries when in fact they are just single stars with a large orbiting planet.
>Jim G >c'=c+v HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 04 Oct 2005 09:03 GMT >>> One cannot construct reality from an illusion unless one uses the >>> correct model. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Don't waste your time on this fool Jim. He wouldn't even > be able to understand the problem. That's because Jim is talking complete nonsense again. Still you have given him a way to duck out leaving just the crap and no justification.
The common phrase is "Put up or shut up." Jim.
George
jgreen@seol.net.au - 04 Oct 2005 10:46 GMT > >>> One cannot construct reality from an illusion unless one uses the > >>> correct model. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > The common phrase is "Put up or shut up." Jim. George, my old computer died on me, losing the email I remember quite vividly (from you) saying how sagnac machine works because the TIME OF TRAVEL of the signal alters. If you cannot see/understand that this refers to VELOCITY, as the DISTANCE does NOT ALTER, that is too bad!
Jim PS: Henri- George is not a fool (like some of his co-believers) He just cannot grasp that it is in the INTERRETATION of data that the truth is to be found.
George: Fix your clocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jim
> George George Dishman - 04 Oct 2005 11:27 GMT >> >>> One cannot construct reality from an illusion unless one uses the >> >>> correct model. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > TRAVEL of the signal alters. If you cannot see/understand that this > refers to VELOCITY, as the DISTANCE does NOT ALTER, that is too bad! Sadly it seems you also lost my response to your comment, the distance does alter Jim, the detector MOVES while the light is in transit. In the experiment, the length is known to change because we know the speed of rotation of the table, the time is measured to change and when you calculate the speed as distance/time you always get c.
In the commercial products, knowing the speed is c, the device measures the time difference and calculates the rotation and they work perfectly.
As for your stuff on the galaxy and a merry-go-round, the correct analogy is that you make the measurement not against the horses head but using a gyroscope (or you could say a distant mountain if you were on a non-rotating planet). Astronomers are well aware of the local proper motion of stars. That's why you need to learn how astronomy is done before criticising.
George
Henri Wilson - 04 Oct 2005 22:47 GMT >> George, my old computer died on me, losing the email I remember quite >> vividly (from you) saying how sagnac machine works because the TIME OF [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >the table, the time is measured to change and when you >calculate the speed as distance/time you always get c. George, that's the aether explanation.
>In the commercial products, knowing the speed is c, the >device measures the time difference and calculates the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >stars. That's why you need to learn how astronomy is done >before criticising. They eventually learnt to allow for a CONSTANT light speed.
The still haven't woken up to the fact that all starlight isn't miraculously adjusted (by the fairies) to travel to little planet Earth at exactly 'c'.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 04 Oct 2005 23:06 GMT > On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 11:27:40 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > George, that's the aether explanation. No, it isn't an explanation at all Henri, it is a statement of fact. The detector moves in the lab frame, period.
>>In the commercial products, knowing the speed is c, the >>device measures the time difference and calculates the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > They eventually learnt to allow for a CONSTANT light speed. No, they just got better instruments that were able to measure the very low rotation rates involved. Look up the ICRF.
> The still haven't woken up to the fact that all starlight isn't > miraculously > adjusted (by the fairies) to travel to little planet Earth at exactly 'c'. Flaunting your inability to comprehend something as simple as SR isn't helping your case.
George
Henri Wilson - 04 Oct 2005 23:58 GMT >> On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 11:27:40 +0100, "George Dishman"
>> They eventually learnt to allow for a CONSTANT light speed. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Flaunting your inability to comprehend something >as simple as SR isn't helping your case. George, the SRian postulate that all starlight travels to little planet Earth at the same speed 'c' is a direct consequence of combining LET with christianity.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 05 Oct 2005 07:59 GMT > On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:06:51 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > at the same speed 'c' is a direct consequence of combining LET with > christianity. Rubbish Henri, it was a consequence of Maxwell's Equations and the _starting_point_ for SR.
George
Henri Wilson - 05 Oct 2005 21:14 GMT >> On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:06:51 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >Rubbish Henri, it was a consequence of Maxwell's >Equations and the _starting_point_ for SR. Maxwell's equations don't apply in completelyempty space, idiot.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 06 Oct 2005 09:51 GMT > On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 07:59:12 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Maxwell's equations don't apply in completelyempty space, idiot. You don't know much about physics, do you. Open a textbook sometime.
George
The Ghost In The Machine - 06 Oct 2005 13:00 GMT In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Wed, 05 Oct 2005 20:14:32 GMT <f0d8k1tjj2b8k5paid4fha5ajm5kh80adi@4ax.com>:
>>> On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:06:51 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Maxwell's equations don't apply in completelyempty space, idiot. OK, I'll bite.
Why wouldn't they apply? And what equations *do* apply?
In any event, space isn't truly empty, though intergalactic space is probably pretty desolate.
[.sigsnip]
 Signature #191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
Henri Wilson - 06 Oct 2005 22:43 GMT >In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> > wrote >on Wed, 05 Oct 2005 20:14:32 GMT ><f0d8k1tjj2b8k5paid4fha5ajm5kh80adi@4ax.com>:
>>>> at the same speed 'c' is a direct consequence of combining LET with >>>> christianity. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >OK, I'll bite. OK Ghost, you are out in remote and completely empty space.
What answers do you get when your instruments measure the two constants? Are they zero? What do they imply?
Next, you accelerate at 0.0001 c/sec2 for 1000 seconds. What values do you now get for the two constants? What do they imply?
>Why wouldn't they apply? And what equations *do* apply? > >In any event, space isn't truly empty, though intergalactic >space is probably pretty desolate. Probably below the 'Wilsonian threshold density', where strange things happen to light.
>[.sigsnip] HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Timo Nieminen - 06 Oct 2005 23:09 GMT On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, it was written:
> >In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > What answers do you get when your instruments measure the two constants? > Are they zero? What do they imply? One very traditional way to measure permittivity is using a parallel plate capacitor. Neglecting edge effects, the capacitance is C=eA/d where e is the permittivity, A is the area, and d is the distance between the plates. Measure the capacitance, and you have the permittivity.
What do you say the effect of having "completely empty" space between the two plates is?
Likewise, you can measure permeability by measuring inductance.
> Next, you accelerate at 0.0001 c/sec2 for 1000 seconds. > What values do you now get for the two constants? > What do they imply? Well, the traditional relativistic view is that moving through empty space won't have any effect, so the measurements would be the same as before.
If there was an effect, it would be evidence of "ether wind", which brings to mind a certain experiment by Trouton and Noble.
> >Why wouldn't they apply? And what equations *do* apply? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Probably below the 'Wilsonian threshold density', where strange things happen > to light. And a quantitative value for the WTD might be?
 Signature Timo
Henri Wilson - 07 Oct 2005 22:17 GMT >On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, it was written: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >the permittivity, A is the area, and d is the distance between the plates. >Measure the capacitance, and you have the permittivity. That's right. Trouble is, the field itself turns 'empty space' into 'space with a field'.
>What do you say the effect of having "completely empty" space between the >two plates is? > >Likewise, you can measure permeability by measuring inductance. Once again, the field itself turns 'empty space' into 'space with a field'.
>> Next, you accelerate at 0.0001 c/sec2 for 1000 seconds. >> What values do you now get for the two constants? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >space won't have any effect, so the measurements would be the same as >before. I don't want to hear the 'traditional relativistic view'. However, the finding might be that the value of the universal constant 'c' is indeed constant.
This implies that light emitted by the observer would travel at c wrt that observer.
>If there was an effect, it would be evidence of "ether wind", which brings >to mind a certain experiment by Trouton and Noble. According to aether theories the instruments would physically change so as to keep the measured values constant.
>> >Why wouldn't they apply? And what equations *do* apply? >> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >And a quantitative value for the WTD might be? very very very low .
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Timo Nieminen - 08 Oct 2005 21:03 GMT On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, it was written:
>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, it was written: >>>> In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > That's right. > Trouble is, the field itself turns 'empty space' into 'space with a field'. Given that the electric field of any charged particle extends to an infinite distance (or, if the particle came into existence a time t ago, extends to tc), then there isn't any empty space anywhere in the vicinity of matter. Oh, look, there's light in intergalactic space! Look, the microwave background radiation is everywhere!
If the presence of electromagnetic fields is enough to make space not "completely empty", then can your claim "Maxwell's equations don't apply in completelyempty space" have any purpose, since there isn't any "completely empty" space anywhere?
>> What do you say the effect of having "completely empty" space between the >> two plates is? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > This implies that light emitted by the observer would travel at c wrt that > observer. Sure. It would also mean that light emitted by other sources would travel at c wrt that observer. Unless the Maxwell equations are wrong. Prove that, and you are a long way towards getting your theory accepted. If you can't prove it, then your theory is kaput.
Now, this is IMHO an interesting question of physics. I'd have thought the ballistic theory gang would be interested, since it could lead to a real test of your various ballistic/emission theories. Alas, it hasn't been possible to discuss it with Greenfield or Androcles.
What about you? Are you willing to discuss the physics of your theory?
>> If there was an effect, it would be evidence of "ether wind", which brings >> to mind a certain experiment by Trouton and Noble. > > According to aether theories the instruments would physically change so as to > keep the measured values constant. According to SOME ether theories. Only according to ether theories specifically designed to explain such null results.
 Signature Timo
Androcles - 08 Oct 2005 23:40 GMT Ghost:
| >> One very traditional way to measure permittivity is using a parallel plate | >> capacitor. Neglecting edge effects, the capacitance is C=eA/d where e is | >> the permittivity, A is the area, and d is the distance between the plates. | >> Measure the capacitance, and you have the permittivity. Niemenem:
| Given that the electric field of any charged particle extends to an | infinite distance (or, if the particle came into existence a time t ago, | extends to tc), then there isn't any empty space anywhere in the vicinity | of matter. Oh, look, there's light in intergalactic space! Look, the | microwave background radiation is everywhere! Ok, Now reduce the area to a point, say one atom at the end of a needle. Apply some large voltage (say 1,000,000V) between the needle and a plate (any area). Start with d large, say 1 kilometre. Gradually reduce d. What happens?
Androcles.
Timo Nieminen - 09 Oct 2005 09:05 GMT [incorrect attributions corrected]
[Nieminen wrote:]
> | >> One very traditional way to measure permittivity is using a > parallel plate [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > plates. > | >> Measure the capacitance, and you have the permittivity. [Nieminen wrote:]
> | Given that the electric field of any charged particle extends to an > | infinite distance (or, if the particle came into existence a time t [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > (any area). > Start with d large, say 1 kilometre. Gradually reduce d. What happens? Well, the connnection between your question and the quoted text is unclear to me (other than both involving capacitors), and the connection with our previous discussion where you claimed that permittivity (e) and permeability (m) of free space are zero, and that the Maxwell equations other than (the modified) Ampere's law are correct, is also unclear. What is your point?
Anyway, I'd say that about the same thing would happen if you brought them together in empty space as if you brought them together in air, until the fields became large enough to get fun stuff like arcing, ion wind etc. All of these are strong-field effects which basically obscure the more relevant physics. Insisting on strong fields is basically a distraction from the fundamentals - all material media are nonlinear (but linear over a very useful practical range) and nonlocal (but local over a very useful range). The cute stuff that happens - in air or in vacuum - is due to the nonlinear/nonlocal effects of the material media. (In the case of vacuum, once you get electrons being ejected, it isn't strictly vacuum anymore, is it?)
I assume you don't to get into QM-GR nonlinear effects in free space?
In the low field limit, I'd say there is no measurable difference between the things in vacuum and the things in low-pressure gas. OTOH, your repeated claim that e=0, m=0 in empty space (as opposed to e=e0 and m=m0 as experimentally measured in low-pressure gases) implied quite different physics. What do you say will happen, and, in particular, exactly how will it differ from the predictions of classical electrodynamics? Exactly how empty must the "empty space" be before this (sudden?) transition from e=e0 to e=0 and m=m0 to m=0 occurs?
The above all assuming that by "point" you don't mean an absolutely perfect point, with the deviant-from-reality classical predictions of infinite charge density at the point etc. When you get to atom-sized needle tips, I expect that quantum effects will become rather important. Did you really want to get into that, or was the non-zero atomic sized needle tip just to avoid the usual classical singularities?
 Signature T.
Androcles - 09 Oct 2005 13:17 GMT | [incorrect attributions corrected] | [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] | > (any area). | > Start with d large, say 1 kilometre. Gradually reduce d. What happens? Ok, I stand corrected. For my excuse, the attributions were not clear.
| Well, the connnection between your question and the quoted text is unclear | to me (other than both involving capacitors), and the connection with our | previous discussion where you claimed that permittivity (e) and | permeability (m) of free space are zero, and that the Maxwell equations | other than (the modified) Ampere's law are correct, is also unclear. What | is your point? To try to clarify what is unclear.
| Anyway, I'd say that about the same thing would happen if you brought them | together in empty space as if you brought them together in air, until the | fields became large enough to get fun stuff like arcing, ion wind etc. You would, huh? That ends the discussion, then, my TV needs a vacuum to operate. Androcles.
All
| of these are strong-field effects which basically obscure the more | relevant physics. Insisting on strong fields is basically a distraction [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] | Did you really want to get into that, or was the non-zero atomic sized | needle tip just to avoid the usual classical singularities? Timo Nieminen - 09 Oct 2005 20:43 GMT > | [incorrect attributions corrected] > | [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > You would, huh? > That ends the discussion, then, my TV needs a vacuum to operate. You have a megavolt TV? How close do you think you can the two together in air?
Well, clearly another Androclean cut-and-run effort. Your persistent refusal to discuss physics is noted.
What's the matter? Don't you want to discuss physics that might allow the theory you push to be tested in the lab? Clearly not. Why?
-- T.
Androcles - 09 Oct 2005 21:51 GMT | > | [incorrect attributions corrected] | > | [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] | You have a megavolt TV? How close do you think you can the two together in | air? Trying to save face won't work, Nieminen. I'd never operate a TV with air in the tube. I was polite to you, and now Google has a record of what a phuckwit you really are.
| Well, clearly another Androclean cut-and-run effort. Your persistent | refusal to discuss physics is noted. You want to go on? Ok, make a bigger fool of yourself. So let's see. You say "that about the same thing would happen if you brought them together in empty space". Ok, prove it. Puncture your TV or monitor tube.
| What's the matter? Don't you want to discuss physics that might allow the | theory you push to be tested in the lab? Clearly not. Why? I'll discuss it as much you like, go ahead and puncture your TV tube and let air leak in. Be careful not to implode it. One very traditional way to measure permittivity is using a parallel plate capacitor. Neglecting edge effects, the capacitance is C=eA/d where e is the permittivity, A is the area, and d is the distance between the plates. Measure the capacitance, and you have the permittivity.
Before you do, disconnect the cathode heaters and measure the permittivity at 26,000V, then repeat with the air in. Then smash the tube, measure the area of the cathode and the anode. Let me know the result of your experiment, and we'll discuss it.
Androcles "No creature smarts so little as a fool." -- Alexander Pope
Timo Nieminen - 09 Oct 2005 23:06 GMT > | > | Anyway, I'd say that about the same thing would happen if you > brought [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > with air in the tube. I was polite to you, and now Google has a record > of what a phuckwit you really are. Oh dear, your reading comprehension seems to need as much work as your physics! Didn't you notice two reasons why an air-filled CRT won't work noted above?
You think the air makes a fundamental difference when the needle-point is a km from the plate?
Well, you've stated that you do. You keep claiming that the permittivity and permeability of free space are zero.
[cut]
You write (well, quote, but ...)
> One very traditional way to measure permittivity is using a > parallel plate capacitor. Neglecting edge effects, the capacitance is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Then smash the tube, measure the area of the cathode and the anode. > Let me know the result of your experiment, and we'll discuss it. Having measured the capacitance of a parallel plate capacitor, and the area of the plates, and the separation, with air between the plates, I can let you know the result of that experiment: about 8.9e-12 F/m, which is within experimental error of the standard accepted value of the permittivity of free space.
What do you say you'd measure with a vacuum filled capacitor?
Do you agree that the capacitance in equal to eA/d?
 Signature Timo
Androcles - 09 Oct 2005 23:57 GMT | > | > | Anyway, I'd say that about the same thing would happen if you | > brought [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] | > with air in the tube. I was polite to you, and now Google has a record | > of what a phuckwit you really are. [snip Nieminen potty mouth]
your reading comprehension seems to need as much work as your
| physics! Refusal to discuss physics noted, my reading comprehension is not physics.
| Didn't you notice two reasons why an air-filled CRT won't work | noted above? Refusal to discuss physics noted, what I notice is not physics.
| You think the air makes a fundamental difference when the needle-point is | a km from the plate? Refusal to discuss physics noted, what I think is not physics.
| Well, you've stated that you do. You keep claiming that the permittivity | and permeability of free space are zero. | | [cut] Yep. Now f.ck off, stooopid c.nt. Androcles.
Timo Nieminen - 10 Oct 2005 00:01 GMT > what I think is not physics. Can't argue with that!
 Signature Timo
brian a m stuckless - 10 Oct 2005 02:05 GMT Dimwit ADMiTs EVERYthing.!! ```Brian
>><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
> > what I think is not physics. > > Can't argue with that! > > -- > Timo Androcles - 10 Oct 2005 13:05 GMT | > what I think is not physics. | | Can't argue with that! Back again, troll? You've been whipped, boy, caught with your pants down. Typical troll, aren't you? Androcles
Henri Wilson - 10 Oct 2005 22:35 GMT >> Before you do, disconnect the cathode heaters and measure the >> permittivity [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >within experimental error of the standard accepted value of the >permittivity of free space. That is the capacity of the instrument itself, not the space between the plates. The act of measuring completely alters the state of that space.
>What do you say you'd measure with a vacuum filled capacitor? > >Do you agree that the capacitance in equal to eA/d? HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Androcles - 10 Oct 2005 23:06 GMT | >> Before you do, disconnect the cathode heaters and measure the | >> permittivity [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] | plates. | The act of measuring completely alters the state of that space. Nieminen would know the result of MMX before it was performed. There would definitely be fringe shifts as predicted, the only thing left to do is measure them. Nieminen cannot possibly be a scientist, he knows the result before it happens. Androcles.
John C. Polasek - 11 Oct 2005 14:56 GMT >| > | [incorrect attributions corrected] >| > | [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] >Androcles >"No creature smarts so little as a fool." -- Alexander Pope It's so simple. The dielectric constant of air is about 1.0004 so air will increase the capacitance by 1 out of 2,500 parts. Sparkover voltages have no connection with permittivity.
John Polasek
John Polasek http://www.dualspace.net
Androcles - 11 Oct 2005 16:18 GMT | >| > | [incorrect attributions corrected] | >| > | [quoted text clipped - 114 lines] | John Polasek | http://www.dualspace.net Who mentioned sparkover? Nieminen did. Maybe the electron beam in my TV is a "spark" but it doesn't seem to emit quite as much light as a 'light'ning strike, which is a rather large spark. I think there is a considerable difference between air and vacuum, it's so simple. So let's put a megavolt between the needle and the plate and measure the permittivity. Got an electron microscope handy? It might be interesting to see what temperature the needle has to be before conduction, but there is no way I'm discussing this with a phuckwit like Nieminen. http://lectureonline.cl.msu.edu/~mmp/kap28/PhotoEffect/photo.htm http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/46/Diffraction2vs5.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8c/Standing_wave.gif http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/electricCircuits/AC/AC_1.html http://campus.umr.edu/physics/alab/polar/circular_wave.gif Androcles.
John C. Polasek - 11 Oct 2005 16:55 GMT snip
>| >| theory you push to be tested in the lab? Clearly not. Why? >| > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >http://campus.umr.edu/physics/alab/polar/circular_wave.gif >Androcles. Google "Dielectric constant of air" and you see k = 1.00059 in one of the first headlines at 100 atmospheres.
John Polasek
Androcles - 11 Oct 2005 17:17 GMT | snip | >| >| theory you push to be tested in the lab? Clearly not. Why? [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] | | John Polasek Maybe Michelson should have googled his null result and saved the trouble of doing his experiment. It would have told him the shift he didn't find. Obviously you too are a phuckwit. Androcles.
Bilge - 10 Oct 2005 00:00 GMT Androcles:
>That ends the discussion, then, my TV needs a vacuum to operate. The vacuum is needed to prevent the electron beam from scattering from air in the CRT, not because a few tens of kV require vacuum to avoid sparking. Your real problem is that your head operates with a vacuum between your ears.
brian a m stuckless - 10 Oct 2005 02:05 GMT > Androcles: > >That ends the discussion, then, my TV needs a vacuum to operate. > > The vacuum is needed to prevent the electron beam from scattering > from air in the CRT, not because a few tens of kV require vacuum to > avoid sparking. -- Dimwit GR-cracked-pot.!!
> -- Your real problem is that your head operates with > a vacuum between your ears. 17. $ GOLDEN <pi> The GREAT PYRAMiD is THAT four-sided pyramid which exactly fits (..with all four faces TANGENT), to a SPHERE with its BOTTOM HALF, exactly, BELOW base.! [ i.e. The PYRAMiD which BEST fits an HEMiSPHERE. ] [ i.e. The PYRAMiD with the LEAST X-section area. ] [ The APEX ANGLE of the pyramid ..ARCtan TWO (2). ] [ The APOTHEM / BASE EDGE quotient (sqrt5 + 1)/2. ] [ PHi is (sqrt5 + 1) / 2 = GOLDEN RATiO quotient. ] [ GOLDEN <pi> = 6*<phi>^2 / 5 = 6*<ROYAL KuBiTs>. ] >><> >><> >><> >><> >><> 18. p.s. ANGULAR momentum pA = planet-like mass*radius*velocity: (Notice there is NO quantity for CENTRAL mass in there.)
"There is NO space.!! The GUESS *iNTERface* is in-BETWEEN.!!" $ Read my My lips.!!
Jeff Root - 09 Oct 2005 13:23 GMT > all material media are nonlinear (but linear over a very useful > practical range) and nonlocal (but local over a very useful range). Could you explain what you mean by local/nonlocal? Thanks! -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Androcles - 09 Oct 2005 14:01 GMT | > all material media are nonlinear (but linear over a very useful | > practical range) and nonlocal (but local over a very useful range). | | Could you explain what you mean by local/nonlocal? Thanks! | | -- Jeff, in Minneapolis Nieminen couldn't explain how a TV works, and he claims to be a physicist. He got his Ph.D. from George Hammond University or equivalent. He should get a colostomy, he'll never be a physicist as long as he has a hole in his arse. Androcles.
Timo Nieminen - 09 Oct 2005 20:57 GMT >> all material media are nonlinear (but linear over a very useful >> practical range) and nonlocal (but local over a very useful range). > > Could you explain what you mean by local/nonlocal? Thanks! Basically, if you can write the constitutive relations D=eE, B=mH, J=sE, where e,m,s are the permittivity, permeability, and conductivity with
e(r,t) = e(r,E(r,tau<=t),H(r,tau<=t))
where e,m,s at a given point and a given time only depend on the current and past fields at that point. If the fields over a finite (ie non-infinitesimal) area need to be considered, that's nonlocal.
 Signature Timo
Jeff Root - 10 Oct 2005 00:11 GMT Timo Nieminen replied to Jeff Root:
> >> all material media are nonlinear (but linear over a very useful > >> practical range) and nonlocal (but local over a very useful range). [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > current and past fields at that point. If the fields over a finite > (ie non-infinitesimal) area need to be considered, that's nonlocal. More complex than I expected! I think I get the idea.
Would the coupling of a 1.25 m radio wave to a simple antenna designed to pick up 1.25 m be considered a local or nonlocal effect?
If "past fields" are significant, I'd think they would just constrain how the current field is changing. If the definition of the current field includes how it currently is changing, I wouldn't think it would be necessary to mention "past fields". -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Timo Nieminen - 10 Oct 2005 00:30 GMT > Timo Nieminen replied to Jeff Root: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > antenna designed to pick up 1.25 m be considered a local > or nonlocal effect? If the current density in the antenna is given by Ohm's law (J=sE), then it's local. This is the usual case. The charge distribution along the antenna may well affect the field, but that's another matter; the local J=sE Ohm's law can still be used.
Q: what about simple semiconductor devices such as diodes and transistors? Local or non-local?
> If "past fields" are significant, I'd think they would > just constrain how the current field is changing. If the > definition of the current field includes how it currently > is changing, I wouldn't think it would be necessary to > mention "past fields". Well, every time you pretend that permittivity (or refractive index) is a function of frequency, e=e(w), then you are pretending that you know the future field as well (since you don't "know" the frequency spectrum unless you know E(t) for all times). The "real" description is of the permittivity as a function of current and past fields; the Kramers-Kronig relations connect the two. Rothwell has a reasonably clear coverage of all that.
Past fields can affect a material beyond the usual electrodynamic considerations: consider melting/boiling of a substance in the past through applicatio of EM fields.
 Signature Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/ E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
Henri Wilson - 09 Oct 2005 22:17 GMT >[incorrect attributions corrected] > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >empty must the "empty space" be before this (sudden?) transition from e=e0 >to e=0 and m=m0 to m=0 occurs? It occurs at the 'Wilson Density Threshold'.
Strange things happen below that.
>The above all assuming that by "point" you don't mean an absolutely >perfect point, with the deviant-from-reality classical predictions of >infinite charge density at the point etc. When you get to atom-sized >needle tips, I expect that quantum effects will become rather important. >Did you really want to get into that, or was the non-zero atomic sized >needle tip just to avoid the usual classical singularities? HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Androcles - 08 Oct 2005 23:48 GMT | Now, this is IMHO an interesting question of physics. I'd have thought the | ballistic theory gang would be interested, since it could lead to a real | test of your various ballistic/emission theories. Alas, it hasn't been | possible to discuss it with Greenfield or Androcles. I'll discuss it, but you have to agree to do it on an equal basis, I'll only cheese off your pompous know-it-all attitude and one-up-manship games of "Noted refused to answer". I'll cuss you out. I've started the thread "Capacitors in space". This one has a silly title. Androcles.
Timo Nieminen - 09 Oct 2005 02:58 GMT > | Now, this is IMHO an interesting question of physics. I'd have thought > the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > only cheese off your pompous know-it-all attitude and one-up-manship > games of "Noted refused to answer". I'll cuss you out. Oh, so your "rules of discussion" mean that you consider bad language, insults, claiming that curl E = -dB/dt is different from curl E + dB/dt = 0 in some substantial way? You insist that you can repeatedly ignore or cut relevant questions that are central to the discussion proceeding? Well, let's see if you really mean "equal", or whether you really mean "the Androclean way".
The discussion that you ran out on had reached the stage:
(a) You claimed that the permittivity and permeability of free space are zero. (b) You agreed that this meant that D and B are both zero in free space. (c) You claimed that all of the Maxwell equations except (the modified) Ampere's law are correct. (d) The above mean that either div E is non-zero or E is zero in free space.
You refused to answer which you believe is correct. Either should lead to experimentally detectable effects.
Feel free to continue that discussion. If you believe that you made a mistake in your starting assumptions, feel free to say so.
> I've started the thread "Capacitors in space". This one has a silly > title. Well, so far that thread doesn't continue the previous discussion at all. Why not just continue where we were at before?
 Signature Timo
Androcles - 09 Oct 2005 12:00 GMT | > | Now, this is IMHO an interesting question of physics. I'd have thought | > the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] | insults, claiming that curl E = -dB/dt is different from | curl E + dB/dt = 0 in some substantial way? The rules of discussion are those set out by Phuckwit Duck aka Paul Draper, relativist, and broken by him in *his* pompous know-it-all and now bitter attitude. Here's how it began: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Draper: I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment. I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or drifting to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking reveals the true interest in the proposal.
While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual "classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it straight, and then make progress from there.
I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better, my heart does not. [sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to appear] PD Draper: Androcles, in your case, I will get over my disenchantment. But I want this to be a fruitful exchange between the two of us, so let's agree on some ground rules. We'll go things one little step at a time. When we get to a point of conflict, we'll identify what the error is on either side, and the party in error MUST acknowledge the error and remove the erroneous statement from further discussion. Androcles: I'll agree to your terms. My terms: Either one of us could inadvertantly make a typographical error or simple arithmetic error, and should correct it if noticed. I'd require: the error to be acknowledged and corrected; the discussion continued until I have convince you or you have convinced me. Failing to respond in a reasonable time is a Pyrrhic victory and unsatisfactory. The penalty for failing to respond is to be hounded by me at any time I choose. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Phuckwit Duck was *plonked* for failing to follow his own rules, the exchange was never fruitful. Phuckwit Duck remains enchanted and bitter that his shot from the duck blind blew out his own tailfeathers. From: "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Bielawski agrees with Androcles for a change. Date: 7 Oct 2005 15:04:16 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 27 Message-ID: 1128722656.705288.224380@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
That fumble was truly spectacular. What was amazing was his sticking to his guns on the arithmetic error. He apparently can't say "oops" without vomiting uncontrollably. PD I did of course address the alleged fumble, but Phuckwit Duck has to vomit uncontrollably.
So now you know and need not guess what the rules of discussion are. Please acknowledge them.
| You insist that you can | repeatedly ignore or cut relevant questions that are central to the | discussion proceeding? No.
| Well, let's see if you really mean "equal", or | whether you really mean "the Androclean way". | | The discussion that you ran out on had reached the stage: You are a LIAR, the last thing I said in that discussion was
"Sorry, I thought you were familiar with the Maxwell equations." (instigitated of course by Timo Nieminen) Timo Nieminen: Oh? Yes, my mistake. Sorry about that." Under the rule of discussion by Phuckwit Duck: "We'll go things one little step at a time. When we get to a point of conflict, we'll identify what the error is on either side, and the party in error MUST acknowledge the error and remove the erroneous statement from further discussion", we have reached a point of conflict. Please acknowledge that you've lied, I did not run out, you did. Androcles.
donstockbauer@hotmail.com - 09 Oct 2005 12:08 GMT Phuckwit Duck. Isn't that a new childrens' cartoon on the telly?????
Timo Nieminen - 09 Oct 2005 20:39 GMT > | > | Now, this is IMHO an interesting question of physics. I'd have > thought [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > The rules of discussion are those set out by [cut Androclean potty-mouth > spew] aka Paul Draper [cut]
> When we get to a point of conflict, we'll identify what the > error is on either side, and the party in error MUST acknowledge the > error and remove the erroneous statement from further discussion. [cut]
> So now you know and need not guess what the rules of discussion are. > Please acknowledge them. No. I don't agree to these terms of discussion. In any case, you've already shown that you don't follow those rules, anyway, in your discussion with PD. "Equal", eh? :)
> | You insist that you can > | repeatedly ignore or cut relevant questions that are central to the > | discussion proceeding? > > No. Yet you did last time, and you did below, as well.
> | Well, let's see if you really mean "equal", or > | whether you really mean "the Androclean way". [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Oh? > Yes, my mistake. Sorry about that." OK, you've revealed exactly how much physics you wish to discuss.
The above was what you posted when you ran out on the discussion last time.
(a) You claimed that permittivity and permeability of free space are zero (b) You agreed that this implied that D=0, B=0 (c) You claimed the all of the Maxwell equations apart from the modified Ampere's law are correct
(a) is a point of conflict. After (c), you refused to answer any questions relating to (a)-(c).
> Under the rule of discussion by [cut Androclean potty-mouth spewing]: > "We'll go things one little step at a time. When we get to a point of > conflict, we'll identify what the error is on either side, and the party > in error MUST acknowledge the error and remove the erroneous > statement from further discussion", we have reached a point of > conflict. This you clearly didn't do, since you cut-and-ran to evade the point. Twice.
> Please acknowledge that you've lied, I did not run out, you did. Ha! You run out on a question of physics, and return to divert the discussion to the above! Well, this clearly demonstrates your willingness to discuss physics. Still, I'll give you a further chance to discuss physics, though I expect you'll use it as an opportunity to cut-and-run.
(d) Are E and H zero in free space, as well as D and B? (e) What is the correct 4th Maxwell equation? (f) Is the Lorentz force-law correct? (g) What are the constitutive parameters for a moving medium that is linear and isotropic when at rest?
 Signature T.
Androcles - 09 Oct 2005 21:18 GMT | No. I don't agree to these terms of discussion. Ok, so f.ck off. Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 09 Oct 2005 00:25 GMT >On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, it was written: > >>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, it was written:
>>> One very traditional way to measure permittivity is using a parallel plate >>> capacitor. Neglecting edge effects, the capacitance is C=eA/d where e is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >infinite distance (or, if the particle came into existence a time t ago, >extends to tc), You are assuming that electric fields travel at c wrt the charge that creates them..
>then there isn't any empty space anywhere in the vicinity >of matter. Oh, look, there's light in intergalactic space! Look, the >microwave background radiation is everywhere! You could be right..... but there could also be a lot of empty space between the 'photons' that make up starlight and the CMBR.
>If the presence of electromagnetic fields is enough to make space not >"completely empty", then can your claim >"Maxwell's equations don't apply in completelyempty space" >have any purpose, since there isn't any "completely empty" space anywhere? That's why I have proposed the 'Wilson density threshold' below which the interaction between photons and matter changes fairly abruptly.
Above the threshold density, matter constitutes a kind of aether, which determines the equilibrium light speed in that region. The speed of any light emitted in that region or entering from outside will tend towards that equilibrium...not necessarilty very rapidly, though.
Below the threshold, photons are large and engulf atoms, causing them to be 'dragged along a little'. The energy lost by the photon to the atom is a major cause of the cosmic redshift although the photon's direction of travel is virtually unaffected.
>>> What do you say the effect of having "completely empty" space between the >>> two plates is? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >that, and you are a long way towards getting your theory accepted. If you >can't prove it, then your theory is kaput. Maxwell's equations are totally meaningless unless a speed reference is provided. For Maxwell, that reference was a universal medium.
>Now, this is IMHO an interesting question of physics. I'd have thought the >ballistic theory gang would be interested, since it could lead to a real >test of your various ballistic/emission theories. Alas, it hasn't been >possible to discuss it with Greenfield or Androcles. > >What about you? Are you willing to discuss the physics of your theory? I am always willing. I have thought about this a great deal...and repeat what I just stated above. Speed must have a reference.
Maxwell's equations do not imply that EM must move at c wrt ALL observers. They merely say that light generated by a source should move at the value of c determined by an observer who measures the two constants in the source frame.
That notion is in accordance with aether theories, which basically say that any observer will always get the same value 'c' ""because his instruments change to make it so""..
>>> If there was an effect, it would be evidence of "ether wind", which brings >>> to mind a certain experiment by Trouton and Noble. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >According to SOME ether theories. Only according to ether theories >specifically designed to explain such null results. I think they all do that.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Timo Nieminen - 09 Oct 2005 04:10 GMT On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, it was written:
>> On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, it was written: >>>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, it was written: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > You are assuming that electric fields travel at c wrt the charge that creates > them.. The Maxwellian prediction, so far in agreement with experiment. If you prefer to assume that the electrostatic potential is instantaneous, then, well, there is no field-free space.
>> If the presence of electromagnetic fields is enough to make space not >> "completely empty", then can your claim [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > emitted in that region or entering from outside will tend towards that > equilibrium...not necessarilty very rapidly, though. Essentially the usual extinction argument, but with a threshhold density below which extinction won't occur.
I believe this has real problems trying to explain Fizeau-Fresnel "ether drag".
Anyway, it looks difficult to quantify accurately. But an explanation of Fizeau-Fresnel in terms of your theory would be nice. Any ideas?
>>>> What do you say the effect of having "completely empty" space between the >>>> two plates is? [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > provided. > For Maxwell, that reference was a universal medium. Use a distance object as the speed reference; doesn't need to be anything local. A coordinate system doesn't need local matter. Of course, making measurements will need local matter. But the measurements don't need to be made in the same region of space in which the Maxwell equations are used to predict the propagation of fields. Still, where is sufficiently empty space - below your threshold density - available, and experimentally accessible?
>> Now, this is IMHO an interesting question of physics. I'd have thought the >> ballistic theory gang would be interested, since it could lead to a real [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > They merely say that light generated by a source should move at the value of c > determined by an observer who measures the two constants in the source frame. Not necessarily the source frame. Essentially, the Maxwell equations imply that EM moves that c wrt to the coordinate system being used, regardless of the motion of the source. In general, there is no requirement for the source to be stationary.
So, for ballistic theories to be correct, the Maxwell equations must be wrong. However, given that AFAICT your theory is essentially identical to Maxwellian theory in the presence of even minimal amounts of matter makes experimental tests difficult.
Galilean ether theories basically mean that Maxwell equations + permittivity and permeability independent of coordinate system must be wrong.
>>>> If there was an effect, it would be evidence of "ether wind", which brings >>>> to mind a certain experiment by Trouton and Noble. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I think they all do that. Any that haven't been falsified by experiment do that. The ones that were falsified by the experiments in question didn't predict a null result. Some of the papers from that time make for interesting reading. Trouton's attempt to measure orientation-dependence of electrical resistance was a nice try.
 Signature Timo
Henri Wilson - 09 Oct 2005 22:40 GMT >On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, it was written: > >>> On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, it was written: >>>>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, it was written:
>>> Given that the electric field of any charged particle extends to an >>> infinite distance (or, if the particle came into existence a time t ago, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >prefer to assume that the electrostatic potential is instantaneous, then, >well, there is no field-free space. No actually I don't. Paul Andersen and I had a private joke about this.
The fact that electric fields operate at c is the reason why charges cannot be accelerated beyond c in cyclotrons etc.
It is not related to Einsteiniana at all.
>>> If the presence of electromagnetic fields is enough to make space not >>> "completely empty", then can your claim [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >I believe this has real problems trying to explain Fizeau-Fresnel "ether >drag". much higher densities involved here.
>Anyway, it looks difficult to quantify accurately. But an explanation of >Fizeau-Fresnel in terms of your theory would be nice. Any ideas? It would be easier to explain Ohm's Law at 1 degK.
You seem like the kind of person who would ridicule the suggestion that electrical resistance would suddenly approach zero below a critical threshold temperature....or that the PE effect threshold was nonsense.
Timo, physics is riddled with THRESHOLDS.
>>>>> What do you say the effect of having "completely empty" space between the >>>>> two plates is? [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >space - below your threshold density - available, and experimentally >accessible? There lies the problem.
>>> Now, this is IMHO an interesting question of physics. I'd have thought the >>> ballistic theory gang would be interested, since it could lead to a real [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >of the motion of the source. In general, there is no requirement for the >source to be stationary. No they don't. Einstein said that, not Maxwell. Maxwell assumed an aether as a reference. Einstein merely replaced that aether with a postulate.
>So, for ballistic theories to be correct, the Maxwell equations must be >wrong. However, given that AFAICT your theory is essentially identical to >Maxwellian theory in the presence of even minimal amounts of matter makes >experimental tests difficult. Timo, no matter how or where Maxwell's two constants are measured, they will only produce the value of the universal constant 'c'.
It so happens that light is emitted at c wrt its source. Why I dunno.
>Galilean ether theories basically mean that Maxwell equations + >permittivity and permeability independent of coordinate system must be >wrong. all speeds must have a reference. Otherwise they are meaningless.
Light emitted by a remote source has only one reference...and that certainly isn't little planet Earth....which just happens to harbour lots of religious fanatics who still want to cling to the notion that it really IS the centre of the universe. Maybe all relativists belong in this category.
>>>>> If there was an effect, it would be evidence of "ether wind", which brings >>>>> to mind a certain experiment by Trouton and Noble. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >attempt to measure orientation-dependence of electrical resistance was a >nice try. They wont find a universal aether because there isn't one. Local EM FoRs could easily exist though. Our atmosphere effectively constitutes one such frame. So might the Earth's gravity field.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Timo Nieminen - 09 Oct 2005 23:21 GMT On Sun, 9 Oct 2005, it was written:
> >On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, it was written: > >>> If the presence of electromagnetic fields is enough to make space not [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > much higher densities involved here. Sure, but I still don't see how it can be explained in terms of ballistic emission theories with extinction. The density is high enough so there should be essentially immediate extinction. So why dragging?
> >Anyway, it looks difficult to quantify accurately. But an explanation of > >Fizeau-Fresnel in terms of your theory would be nice. Any ideas? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Timo, physics is riddled with THRESHOLDS. Sure. Especially the physics of complex systems. People believe that superconductors exist since they can be experimentally demonstrated and there are working theoretical explanations.
If you can provide a reproducable lab experiment and a working theory, then people will believe you. Otherwise, you have an ad hoc proposal that appears to be experimentally untestable, contrary to currently accepted theory that works very well in laboratory experiments, and is, in the orthodox view, not needed.
At the very least, if you can develop some real theory - quantitative, and not just hand-waving - then you're over the first hurdle.
> >> Maxwell's equations do not imply that EM must move at c wrt ALL observers. > >> They merely say that light generated by a source should move at the value of c [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Einstein said that, not Maxwell. > Maxwell assumed an aether as a reference. Yes. According to Maxwell, EM waves and changes in EM fields move at c wrt the ether. Note that this means not at c wrt the source when the source is moving.
> Einstein merely replaced that aether with a postulate. The Maxwell equations holding in all inertial coordinate systems, and permittivity and permeability of free space being the same in all inertial coordinate systems gives you Maxwellian electrodynamics, with EM waves at c relative to the _observer_ in all cases.
I think it's interesting that whereas EM waves at c relative to observers means EM waves are not at c relative to a moving source, the SR composition of velocities means that you can have both: c wrt observers and c wrt sources at the same time.
 Signature Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/ E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
Androcles - 10 Oct 2005 00:21 GMT | Sure. Especially the physics of complex systems. Yeah, a CRT is a really complex system. ROFLMAO! Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 10 Oct 2005 02:00 GMT >On Sun, 9 Oct 2005, it was written: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >emission theories with extinction. The density is high enough so there >should be essentially immediate extinction. So why dragging? I never liked the expanation of the fizeau experiment.
>> >Anyway, it looks difficult to quantify accurately. But an explanation of >> >Fizeau-Fresnel in terms of your theory would be nice. Any ideas? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >At the very least, if you can develop some real theory - quantitative, and >not just hand-waving - then you're over the first hurdle. The cosmic redshift is a place to start. The cause is that light slows down as it travels, due to 'atom dragging'. We roughly know the rate of slowing.
>> >> Maxwell's equations do not imply that EM must move at c wrt ALL observers. >> >> They merely say that light generated by a source should move at the value of c [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >the ether. Note that this means not at c wrt the source when the source >is moving. Ah! But in aether theories, measured OWLS is still c because absolute observer movement changes the observer's measuring equipment.
>> Einstein merely replaced that aether with a postulate. > >The Maxwell equations holding in all inertial coordinate systems, and >permittivity and permeability of free space being the same in all inertial >coordinate systems gives you Maxwellian electrodynamics, with EM waves at >c relative to the _observer_ in all cases. No it doesn't. It moves at 'c' wrt its source. That's all we know.
You don't know they hold in all inertial systems and all they produces is the value of the universal constant 'c'.
>I think it's interesting that whereas EM waves at c relative to observers >means EM waves are not at c relative to a moving source, the SR >composition of velocities means that you can have both: c wrt observers >and c wrt sources at the same time. The velocity addition equation is just a reiteration of the second postulate. It has never been proved.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Timo Nieminen - 11 Oct 2005 02:51 GMT On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, it was written:
> >Sure, but I still don't see how it can be explained in terms of ballistic > >emission theories with extinction. The density is high enough so there > >should be essentially immediate extinction. So why dragging? > > I never liked the expanation of the fizeau experiment. So come up with your own.
> >If you can provide a reproducable lab experiment and a working theory, > >then people will believe you. Otherwise, you have an ad hoc proposal [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The cosmic redshift is a place to start. The cause is that light slows down as > it travels, due to 'atom dragging'. We roughly know the rate of slowing. So turn that into a real quantitative theory. Hand-waving won't convince anybody.
> >The Maxwell equations holding in all inertial coordinate systems, and > >permittivity and permeability of free space being the same in all inertial > >coordinate systems gives you Maxwellian electrodynamics, with EM waves at > >c relative to the _observer_ in all cases. > > No it doesn't. It moves at 'c' wrt its source. That's all we know. Look, it's really simple: the Maxwell equations predict one thing, you predict a different thing. Either you are wrong, or the Maxwell equations are wrong. This is testable.
Do you think your theory is correct? If so, then surely you think it will survive experimental tests. If so, then surely it is worth putting in some effort to find out what would make for a convincing experimental test.
You appeared to be claiming that the Maxwell equations predict EM waves to propagate at c relative to the source. That is wrong. Sit down and do the maths yourself. Making incorrect claims about Maxwellian electrodynamics does not help you make your case - it's more likely to convince the reader that you are simply mistaken in your ideas.
If your theory is correct, then isn't it worth putting in a little, or even a lot of, effort to learn the physics needed to convince others?
> You don't know they hold in all inertial systems and all they produces is the > value of the universal constant 'c'. So find an inertial system where they don't hold.
 Signature Timo
Androcles - 11 Oct 2005 07:39 GMT | Look, it's really simple: the Maxwell equations predict one thing, you | predict a different thing. Either you are wrong, or the Maxwell equations | are wrong. This is testable. Look, it's really simple: "It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. "--Albert Einstein, 1905. It was known 100 yeas ago that Maxwell's equation are wrong. Get over it. Androcles.
Timo Nieminen - 11 Oct 2005 07:56 GMT > | Look, it's really simple: the Maxwell equations predict one thing, you > | predict a different thing. Either you are wrong, or the Maxwell [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It was known 100 yeas ago that Maxwell's equation are wrong. Get over > it. Does the hook hurt your mouth?
(a) When is 5 hours earlier than 5 hours later than now? (b) What is the capacitance of a parallel plate capacitor with vacuum between the plates? (c) If the Maxwell-modified Ampere's law is wrong, what is the correct equation?
 Signature Timo
Androcles - 11 Oct 2005 08:16 GMT | > | Look, it's really simple: the Maxwell equations predict one thing, you | > | predict a different thing. Either you are wrong, or the Maxwell [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] | | Does the hook hurt your mouth? Refusal to discuss physics noted. Androcles.
| (a) When is 5 hours earlier than 5 hours later than now? | (b) What is the capacitance of a parallel plate capacitor with vacuum | between the plates? | (c) If the Maxwell-modified Ampere's law is wrong, what is the correct | equation? Henri Wilson - 11 Oct 2005 11:28 GMT >On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, it was written: > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >does not help you make your case - it's more likely to convince the reader >that you are simply mistaken in your ideas. I'm beginning to think you are as thick as the rest of them. You are effectively asking me to perform a OW light speed experiment using a moving source.
I have proposed a very feasible OWLS comparison experiment. Why don't YOU do it?
>If your theory is correct, then isn't it worth putting in a little, or >even a lot of, effort to learn the physics needed to convince others? What the f.ck do you think I have been doing for the past five years. I have put together a very comprehensive research tool in the form of a computer program that allows the user to predict all kinds of star brightness curves according to the BaTh. It works...and it produces many of the curves that are observed.
There is nothing else like it. I doubt if anyone else could have done it. I intend publishing it when all the bugs are out...but how does one publish a computer program except via the net?
If you cannot use it, that is not my problem.
If astrophysicists are too bloody dumb and brainwashed to deduce that all starlight DOES NOT travel to little planet Earth at c, then all I can do is feel sorry for them.
It is now plainly obvious to me that light speed is always initially c wrt its source. All believable evidence supports that view.
>> You don't know they hold in all inertial systems and all they produces is the >> value of the universal constant 'c'. > >So find an inertial system where they don't hold. Starlight leaves its source at c and travels at Earth at c+v.
Whether or not an observer on Earth MEASURES that speed to be c, makes no difference to the BaTh theory about star brightness curves.
Space it filled with photons traveling at all kinds of speeds in all directions. Maxwell's equations relate solely to a light carrying medium.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Androcles - 11 Oct 2005 15:30 GMT | >On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, it was written: | > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] | | I'm beginning to think you are as thick as the rest of them. Nieminen's been tested on the Androclean WIT (Wisdom, Intelligence, Tenacity)scale, which is similar to the Beaufort (wind) and Richter (seismic) scales. Here is his statement:
One very traditional way to measure permittivity is using a parallel plate capacitor. Neglecting edge effects, the capacitance is C=eA/d where e is the permittivity, A is the area, and d is the distance between the plates. Measure the capacitance, and you have the permittivity. ================================== The Androclean WIT test: Ok, Now reduce the area to a point, say one atom at the end of a needle. Apply some large voltage (say 1,000,000V) between the needle and a plate (any area). Start with d large, say 1 kilometre. Gradually reduce d. What happens? ================================== Nieminen's exam paper: Anyway, I'd say that about the same thing would happen if you brought them together in empty space as if you brought them together in air, until the fields became large enough to get fun stuff like arcing, ion wind etc. ================================== Androcles marks his paper: You would, huh? That ends the discussion, then, my TV needs a vacuum to operate. =================================== Nieminen is a level 1 phuckwit, he understood the question but claims there is no difference between air and vacuum.
moortel should record that as an immoortel fumble, but of course moortel reveres relativists and only shows prejudice.
| You are effectively asking me to perform a OW light speed experiment using a | moving source. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] | | There is nothing else like it. I doubt if anyone else could have done it. Oh! Do us all a favour, you stupid c.nt.
| I intend publishing it when all the bugs are out...but how does one publish a | computer program except via the net? You put in on a web page. Sheesh... I had you on my WIT scale at level 5 halfwit. That drops you to dimwit.
| If you cannot use it, that is not my problem. | [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | It is now plainly obvious to me that light speed is always initially c wrt its | source. All believable evidence supports that view. How many years did that take?
| >> You don't know they hold in all inertial systems and all they produces is the | >> value of the universal constant 'c'. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] | directions. | Maxwell's equations relate solely to a light carrying medium. And that's YOUR theory that I've been telling you for five years, right? Why not use the Einstein term for transparent? It's "luminiferous". Your claims are luminiferous. Androcles.
Timo Nieminen - 11 Oct 2005 20:34 GMT On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, it was written:
>> Look, it's really simple: the Maxwell equations predict one thing, you >> predict a different thing. Either you are wrong, or the Maxwell equations [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > You are effectively asking me to perform a OW light speed experiment using a > moving source. No. OW light speed experiments have been done, and you're not convinced by them. "Extinction" is the usual claim of why - is this also why you don't believe the experiments?
Your claims about the propagation of light directly contradict the Maxwell equations. If you're right, the Maxwell equations are wrong. This is testable. Find the right experiment, do it, or at least propose it, while providing the quantitative theory that shows why it will work.
If you're not interested in having your theory tested, then continue to ignore this possibility.
> I have proposed a very feasible OWLS comparison experiment. > Why don't YOU do it? I wasn't in this thread from the beginning. What was your OWLS experiment?
>> If your theory is correct, then isn't it worth putting in a little, or >> even a lot of, effort to learn the physics needed to convince others? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I intend publishing it when all the bugs are out...but how does one publish a > computer program except via the net? Publish the theory behind it in the regular physics/astro journals. Journals such as Computer Physics Communications will take the code as well and make it available.
But that has nothing to do with my question. Basically, you make incorrect claims about relevant physics, e.g., what the Maxwell equations say about the propagation of light. Errors like this only hurt your case.
 Signature Timo
Henri Wilson - 11 Oct 2005 22:32 GMT >On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, it was written: > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >claims about relevant physics, e.g., what the Maxwell equations say about >the propagation of light. Errors like this only hurt your case. Tell me, where in Maxwell's equations is there an inference that light moves at the value of 'c', particularly wrt anything but the apparatus that measures the constants?
The universal constant 'c' just happens to have dimensions of speed. Physically speaking, all speeds must be defined relative to something. Where is Maxwell's theory, is that reference? Was it the 'aether'?
The statement, "the speed of light is c" is physically meaningless.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Timo Nieminen - 11 Oct 2005 23:17 GMT On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, it was written:
> Tell me, where in Maxwell's equations is there an inference that light moves at > the value of 'c', particularly wrt anything but the apparatus that measures the > constants? OK, write down the Maxwell equations in source-free free space. Substitute eE and mH for D and B (where e and m are the permittivity and permeability). Take either of the curl equations, take the curl of both sides. Since E and H are divergence-free, then you can convert the curl curl into a Laplacian. What equation do you have?
Repeat for the time-harmonic Maxwell equations. What equation do you have?
Notice that neither of the above equations has anything about the velocity of the source in it. Note that the variables in the above equations are E(r,t) and H(r,t). What is the coordinate system in which r is specified?
What do the above equations tell you about the propagation speed of EM waves?
As for the 2nd part of your question, if two apparatuses that are moving relative to each other measure the same e and m, then, unless the Maxwell equations are wrong, then EM waves must travel at 1/sqrt(em) in coordinate systems in which either apparatus is at rest. From whence, special relativity.
Showing the Maxwell equations are wrong is a good first step towards showing that your theory of EM wave propagation is correct. Also a good first step towards falsifying special relativity, if you're into that kind of thing.
> The universal constant 'c' just happens to have dimensions of speed. Physically > speaking, all speeds must be defined relative to something. Of course. Velocity is dr/dt, the position vector r requires a coordinate system.
> Where is Maxwell's theory, is that reference? Was it the 'aether'? In Maxwell's original theory, it was the ether. In modern classical electrodynamics, any inertial coordinate system will do.
> The statement, "the speed of light is c" is physically meaningless. Strictly speaking, yes. How about "the speed of light is c relative to <object X>" or "the speed of light is c in <coordinate system X>"? The short form, if used, should be taken to mean one of those.
 Signature Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/ E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
Henri Wilson - 12 Oct 2005 01:37 GMT >On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, it was written: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >What do the above equations tell you about the propagation speed of EM >waves? You completely fail to see the point.
With respect to WHAT is this propagation speed?
The apparatus..or the 'aether'?
>As for the 2nd part of your question, if two apparatuses that are moving >relative to each other measure the same e and m, then, unless the Maxwell >equations are wrong, then EM waves must travel at 1/sqrt(em) in >coordinate systems in which either apparatus is at rest. From whence, >special relativity. Sorry, from whence LET.
>Showing the Maxwell equations are wrong is a good first step towards >showing that your theory of EM wave propagation is correct. Also a good >first step towards falsifying special relativity, if you're into that kind >of thing. Maxwell's equations produce a value for the universal constant c, in space that is NOT a perfect vacuum.
>> The universal constant 'c' just happens to have dimensions of speed. Physically >> speaking, all speeds must be defined relative to something. > >Of course. Velocity is dr/dt, the position vector r requires a coordinate >system. So what do you think Maxwell's reference is?
>> Where is Maxwell's theory, is that reference? Was it the 'aether'? > >In Maxwell's original theory, it was the ether. In modern classical >electrodynamics, any inertial coordinate system will do. Meaningless ... Never proven. You are merely quoting the second postulate of Einstein.
>> The statement, "the speed of light is c" is physically meaningless. > >Strictly speaking, yes. How about "the speed of light is c relative to ><object X>" or "the speed of light is c in <coordinate system X>"? The >short form, if used, should be taken to mean one of those. Never proven. Nobody has ever (convincingly ) measured the speed of light from a moving source.
My suggested OWLS comparison experiment involves a moon relay station and a space capsule that is traveling very rapidly away from Earth (say 0.0001c).
With the Earth observer, Moon and capsule roughly in line, sharp pulses are sent from the latter towards Earth, say one every five seconds. As they pass the edge of the moon, the receiver/transmitter there picks up each pulse and immediately (more correctly, after a small and known delay) transmits a similar pulse to earth.
The direct pulses travel at 0.9999c towards Earth, those from the moon, at c.
If the BaTh is correct then the arrival time difference on Earth should be about 1.3 x 0.0001 secs or 130 us...which should be easily detectable.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Androcles - 12 Oct 2005 07:08 GMT | >On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, it was written: | > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] | | You completely fail to see the point. He's as blind as a f.cking bat. When he starts blabberiing about e and m he's talking aether. Androcles.
| With respect to WHAT is this propagation speed? | [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] | "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. | The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". bz - 10 Oct 2005 00:14 GMT > The fact that electric fields operate at c is the reason why charges > cannot be accelerated beyond c in cyclotrons etc. Charges can not be accleerated to c in cyclotrons, etc.
The phase velocity of the RF field is what accelerates the charges.
It is quite possible to have the phase velocity in the accelerator move faster than light.
Non the less, the charges won't move even as fast as light.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
The Ghost In The Machine - 07 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Thu, 06 Oct 2005 21:43:23 GMT <jb6bk15um5c5gbjd8b71kvnkdr6gkk2e17@4ax.com>:
>>In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) >><H@> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > OK Ghost, you are out in remote and completely empty space. There are certain practical difficulties in such -- not the least of which is my presence influencing the measurement...but OK. :-)
> What answers do you get when your instruments measure the two constants? > Are they zero? What do they imply? What constants?
epsilon_0? mu_0? c? k?
> Next, you accelerate at 0.0001 c/sec2 for 1000 seconds. > What values do you now get for the two constants? > What do they imply? This experiment cannot distinguish between SR and BaT. It *can* distinguish between LET and SR or LET and BaT.
All four constants remain the same.
>>Why wouldn't they apply? And what equations *do* apply? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Probably below the 'Wilsonian threshold density', where > strange things happen to light. OK, dumb question #2: what value/quantity/units is the "Wilsonian threshold density"?
[.sigsnip]
 Signature #191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
Henri Wilson - 07 Oct 2005 22:11 GMT >In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > >All four constants remain the same. You don't know that. No such experiment has ever been performed. Anyway, the answer would be the value of the universal constant 'c'.
>>>Why wouldn't they apply? And what equations *do* apply? >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >OK, dumb question #2: what value/quantity/units is the >"Wilsonian threshold density"? Somewhere between 10^-20 and 10^-100 kgm/m3
>[.sigsnip] HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
The Ghost In The Machine - 08 Oct 2005 05:00 GMT In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Fri, 07 Oct 2005 21:11:06 GMT <3uodk1lok9abaal1u3ps1sks62a1qo60ml@4ax.com>:
>>In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) >><H@> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > You don't know that. No such experiment has ever been performed. Probably not, but both theories predict the same thing AFAICT.
In any event, the Earth is moving around in a circle at a speed of about 10^-4 c (or 30 km/s).
> Anyway, the answer would be the value of the universal constant 'c'. For all four constants?
>>>>Why wouldn't they apply? And what equations *do* apply? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Somewhere between 10^-20 and 10^-100 kgm/m3 Hm...well, the density of interstellar space is estimated to be 0.1-1000 atoms per cubic centimeter, which, if every atom is a neutral hydrogen atom, translates into 1.673 * 10^-21 to 1.673 * 10^-17 kg/m^3.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/DaWeiCai.shtml
This would suggest that a star the size of our sun (1.9862 * 10^30 kg) would require a spherical volume of diameter 0.64 light years, at this density, to form. (It's of course a lot smaller now, :-) but still big enough to dominate the Solar System.)
For the entire Universe, a report suggests 3 * 10^-27 kg/m^3:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/universe_density_010307.html
[.sigsnip]
 Signature #191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
Henri Wilson - 08 Oct 2005 11:05 GMT >In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> > wrote
>>>epsilon_0? >>>mu_0? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >In any event, the Earth is moving around in a circle at a speed >of about 10^-4 c (or 30 km/s). And it is rotating with the galaxy
>> Anyway, the answer would be the value of the universal constant 'c'. > >For all four constants? How do you know the readings would be the same? .
>>Why wouldn't they apply? And what equations *do* apply? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >is a neutral hydrogen atom, translates into >1.673 * 10^-21 to 1.673 * 10^-17 kg/m^3. That's within the galaxy. Estimates are much smaller in intergalactic space. ....10^26 -10^-29
These are all guesses anyway.
>http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/DaWeiCai.shtml > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/universe_density_010307.html Just guesses really.
If you want to use my redshift program to see how light is redshifted as it escapes a star or galaxy, you can plug in any density you like.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/redshift.exe
>[.sigsnip] HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
The Ghost In The Machine - 08 Oct 2005 20:00 GMT In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Sat, 08 Oct 2005 10:05:12 GMT <m36fk11abperks4bmbcgr0ot9a7550b2np@4ax.com>:
>>In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) >><H@> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > And it is rotating with the galaxy Very slowly, though the actual speed might be 10x faster. The good news about the Earth's revolution is that we know the period -- it's 1 year. Any variation of lightspeed relative to that period should show up fairly readily.
>>> Anyway, the answer would be the value of the universal constant 'c'. >> >>For all four constants? > > How do you know the readings would be the same? I don't, but I don't see why they wouldn't be.
> . >>>Why wouldn't they apply? And what equations *do* apply? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > That's within the galaxy. Yes.
> Estimates are much smaller in intergalactic space. ....10^26 -10^-29 > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Just guesses really. No way to know without a lot of work and exploring. We can make some guesses by establishing G = 6.674215*10^-11 m^3/(kg s^2) and trying to weigh the Earth, then the Sun -- but there's a lot of unknown stuff out there, not the least of which is "dark matter".
Presumably, that's what's being done here.
> If you want to use my redshift program to see how light is redshifted as it > escapes a star or galaxy, you can plug in any density you like. > > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/redshift.exe If I wanted to use your redshift program I'd rewrite it in Java. :-P And even then, there's the issue of the Eolas patent, which basically precludes, among other things, applets and objects without a license.
http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/n etahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='5838906'.WKU.&OS=PN/5838906&RS=PN/5838906
[.sigsnip]
 Signature #191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
Henri Wilson - 09 Oct 2005 00:32 GMT >In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> > wrote >on Sat, 08 Oct 2005 10:05:12 GMT
>>>Probably not, but both theories predict the same thing AFAICT. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >the period -- it's 1 year. Any variation of lightspeed >relative to that period should show up fairly readily. You are just reiterating the age old notion that ONE EARTH ROTATION is an excellent time reference. :)
Very good Ghost. I'm sure if you had been around 10000 years ago you would have invented the sundial and maybe designed stonehenge.
>>>> Anyway, the answer would be the value of the universal constant 'c'. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >I don't, but I don't see why they wouldn't be. I don't either. But the fact that both of us don't see any obvious reason isn't a proof that there isn't one.
>> . >>>>Why wouldn't they apply? And what equations *do* apply? [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > >If I wanted to use your redshift program I'd rewrite it in Java. :-P Java is terrible to use. The code is pretty easy though.
>And even then, there's the issue of the Eolas patent, which basically >precludes, among other things, applets and objects without a license. I am not trying to make money out of my programs.
>http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/n etahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='5838906'.WKU.&OS=PN/5838906&RS=PN/5838906 > >[.sigsnip] HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
The Ghost In The Machine - 09 Oct 2005 02:00 GMT In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Sat, 08 Oct 2005 23:32:15 GMT <8clgk1tn3l0mscnkbs7gc1gd89lsgbuokc@4ax.com>:
>>In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) >><H@> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > You are just reiterating the age old notion that ONE EARTH ROTATION is an > excellent time reference. :) It's not a time reference. It's a variance. In short, if there is a c'=c+v effect, v varies by about 2 * 10^-4 over the course of about a (sidereal) year, from any external source.
If not...well, then not. But there is a variance in absolute velocity, assuming the concept of absolute velocity holds any water at all.
> Very good Ghost. I'm sure if you had been around 10000 > years ago you would have invented the sundial and maybe > designed stonehenge. Maybe, but we're here and now, not then and there. :-P
>>>>> Anyway, the answer would be the value of the universal constant 'c'. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I don't either. But the fact that both of us don't see > any obvious reason isn't a proof that there isn't one. True. There's no data here.
>>> . >>>>>Why wouldn't they apply? And what equations *do* apply? [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > Java is terrible to use. The code is pretty easy though. Would you prefer C#?
>>And even then, there's the issue of the Eolas patent, which basically >>precludes, among other things, applets and objects without a license. > > I am not trying to make money out of my programs. You are not. However, website designers are worried about the Eolas patent, as they should be; many Web pages include applets, which can be construed as extrenal programs whose display is embedded within a hypermedia (HTML) page, and are thereby using the patent.
To their credit, Eolas is on record as stating that they'll license noncommercial usage of their patent, and there is a workaround using dynamic Javascript.
>>http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/n etahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='5838906'.WKU.&OS=PN/5838906&RS=PN/5838906 >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
 Signature #191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
Henri Wilson - 09 Oct 2005 22:50 GMT >In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> > wrote
>>>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/redshift.exe >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Would you prefer C#? I'm quite happy with basic. It's easy and quick enough.
>>>And even then, there's the issue of the Eolas patent, which basically >>>precludes, among other things, applets and objects without a license. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >license noncommercial usage of their patent, and there is >a workaround using dynamic Javascript. Another good reason for not using Java.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 08 Oct 2005 07:15 GMT [snip]
> >>>Why wouldn't they apply? And what equations *do* apply? > >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Somewhere between 10^-20 and 10^-100 kgm/m3 Haha what?
You have a range thats spans 80 orders of magnitude.
In other words, you have no idea.
> >[.sigsnip] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". Henri Wilson - 08 Oct 2005 11:05 GMT >[snip] > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >In other words, you have no idea. I'll let you in on a secret Geese...nor has anyone else.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Jeff Root - 05 Oct 2005 10:12 GMT Henri,
On August 26, you wrote:
> The whole idea of distorting space to make light speed constant > is clearly as stupid as using Earth centricism to describe the > universe....yet the latter theory prevailed for many centuries > purely through similar religious indoctrination.. I challenged you to support your assertion that "Earth centricism" is stupid:
I'll pay you $200 US if you can show that the Earth is NOT at the center of the Universe. I realize that $200 isn't much, but if Earth centrism is really as stupid as you say, it should be easy for you to show that Earth is not at the center, and you will enjoy showing me up. This offer is to Henri Wilson only, and must be accomplished by the end of September 30, 2005.
You failed.
Here is one answer you could have given:
Observations of globular clusters by Harlow Shapley in 1917 lead to the realization that they have a spherical distribution centered on a point about 30,000 light-years away in the direction of the constellation Sagittarius and in line with the visible Milky Way. Shapley deduced that the clusters are distributed around the galactic center. Until then, it had been assumed that the Solar System was near the center of the Milky Way.
Here is a page listing the locations of the Milky Way's approximately 150 known globular clusters, and a diagram plotting those locations:
http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/globular.html
Fifty percent of all globular clusters associated with the Milky Way are located in the constellations Sagittarius, Scorpius, and Ophiuchus, which is where the center of the galaxy is located. Doppler shifts of spectra of the stars making up the clusters show that the clusters orbit the center of the galaxy. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Henri Wilson - 05 Oct 2005 21:30 GMT >Henri, > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >making up the clusters show that the clusters orbit the >center of the galaxy. Very interesting but irrelevant.
Please send the $200 anyway.
> -- Jeff, in Minneapolis HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Kim B - 05 Oct 2005 17:50 GMT >George, the SRian postulate that all starlight travels to little planet Earth >at the same speed 'c' Is it the same kind of postulate that make an airplane know, it has to look small when viewed from the ground ?
Kim
jgreen@seol.net.au - 05 Oct 2005 09:00 GMT > >> >>> One cannot construct reality from an illusion unless one uses the > >> >>> correct model. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > the table, the time is measured to change and when you > calculate the speed as distance/time you always get c. "Time" is MEASURED to change????? Say the path around the machine is 3 meter. Time for circuit of light is 10^-8 sec. Now do a fast turn. How much did the 3m alter, and how good is the watch that differentiated between periods stable and rotating. Hint; Your clocks (time) are trying to measure the difference between the flight of a photon over 3m, and 2.999999999999999999999999999m The time is NOT measured to change! We do not posses the technology to get anywhere near that accuracy.It is ASSUMED!
> In the commercial products, knowing the speed is c, the > device measures the time difference and calculates the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the horses head but using a gyroscope (or you could say a > distant mountain if you were on a non-rotating planet). Nope. Sirius IS the distant mountain as far as our markers for direction go.
> Astronomers are well aware of the local proper motion of > stars. That's why you need to learn how astronomy is done > before criticising. It will be 12 billion years before we know what is happening NOW at the limit of our present vision. Might as well shop local!
BTW: Do YOU think it likely that the Milky Way has only revolved 60 times? It seems much more stable than that.
Jim G c'=c+v
George Dishman - 05 Oct 2005 10:11 GMT ...
>> > George, my old computer died on me, losing the email I remember quite >> > vividly (from you) saying how sagnac machine works because the TIME OF [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > is > 10^-8 sec. Now do a fast turn. Let's assume 600 rpm, 10 rev per second.
> How much did the 3m alter, 3m * 10^-8 = 300nm, or 10^-15 sec
> and how good > is the watch that differentiated between periods stable and rotating. Yellow light has a frequency of 5 * 10^14 Hz so 0.1 of a fringe shift is 2 * 10^-16 sec. I have used interferometers and worked to a tenth of a fringe by eye without too much trouble. Electronics is far better.
> Hint; Your clocks (time) are trying to measure the difference between > the flight of a photon over 3m, and 2.999999999999999999999999999m 3.0m versus 3.0000003m and we can measure to better than 0.00000006m.
> The time is NOT measured to change! We do not posses the technology to > get anywhere near that accuracy. In fact the technology is much better than the example given above. If you had read the web sites on iFOGs we were talking about, the best can measure a few tens of degrees per hour. They can measure the rotation of the Earth with a bit of care once properly calibrated which is about 100,000 times better than above in a box only a few cm across! Ring lasers are even better. You don't seem to realise just how powerful modern technology has become.
>>It is ASSUMED! So how does the commercial kit know how fast it is rotating if we humans only assume it? Where do the numbers on the dial come from Jim? Why don't the planes fall out of the sky?
>> As for your stuff on the galaxy and a merry-go-round, the >> correct analogy is that you make the measurement not against [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Nope. Sirius IS the distant mountain as far as our markers for > direction go. Wrong Jim, find out before speaking. Look up "ICRF" and learn. In particular look up the defining source details and find the average red shift (z factor).
>> Astronomers are well aware of the local proper motion of >> stars. That's why you need to learn how astronomy is done [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > times? > It seems much more stable than that. Why do you think stability is related to the number of turns? I can't see why you think there would be a connection.
Anyway, to add a bit of education, a galaxy isn't rigid so stars at different radii have completed different numbers of revolutions. The place is very dynamic, the Sun was only created 4.6 billion years ago and will die in a few more. The arms are shock waves that move round at a different speed to the stars in them, so saying "the Milky Way has only revolved 60 times" is an oversimplification. What I would say is that by using small radio sources billions of light years away as a reference (the 'mountain') we can now _measure_ the rotation of the galaxy (around Sag A*) directly using VLBI, and the value is the same as that obtained by measuring the Doppler shift of other parts of the galaxy relative to us. It's about 220 million years at the distance we are from the centre (about 28kly) and we also "bob up and down" through the plane roughly every 80 million years IIRC. These are not contentious figures Jim, I don't understand why you are sceptical.
George
jgreen@seol.net.au - 08 Oct 2005 11:00 GMT > ... > >> > George, my old computer died on me, losing the email I remember quite [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Let's assume 600 rpm, 10 rev per second. The passengers would all be DEAD! George, I am referring to the rotation of the aircraft ref the earth, which you claim to be able to "time" (the difference in a photon doing one rev of the attached sagnac machine) when the aircraft is proceeding straight, and comparing to the "time" of that photon doing one rev when the plane is changing direction- say 180degrees (half the circumference of the sagnac) per HOUR! Whatever your sagnac animation is doing, it is NOT comparing measured times of photon circuits.
> > How much did the 3m alter, > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > do the numbers on the dial come from Jim? Why > don't the planes fall out of the sky? Q: If the machine is set at 600rpm grounded, how many rpm is it doing when the airframe to which it is attached is doing 1rpm (Hint: either 601 or 599)
> >> As for your stuff on the galaxy and a merry-go-round, the > >> correct analogy is that you make the measurement not against [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > contentious figures Jim, I don't understand why you > are sceptical. So now the poor old sun has only managed 4.6 / .22 = 20 revs around the galaxy :-( .....hardly seems fair.........
Jim
George Dishman - 08 Oct 2005 12:36 GMT >> ... >> >> > George, my old computer died on me, losing the email I remember [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > The passengers would all be DEAD! You said "Say the path around the machine is 3 meter". That description fits the usual Sagnac experiment with a spinning turntable of less than 1m diameter so that's how I answered. No passengers. Again, if you give me insufficient details, I may guess incorrectly.
Anyway, regardless of all that, the Sagnac experiment measures the speed of the light of the source moving on the turntable and gives a value of exactly what SR predicts, c in vacuum or just the right amount lower depending on the refractive index in fibre.
> George, I am referring to the rotation of the aircraft ref the earth, > which you claim to be able to "time" (the difference in a photon doing > one rev of the attached sagnac machine) when the aircraft is proceeding > straight, and comparing to the "time" of that photon doing one rev when > the plane is changing direction- say 180degrees (half the circumference > of the sagnac) per HOUR! An iFOG will do slightly better than that. The thing you don't seem to grasp is that engineers like me work on such devices for years finding ways to eliminate errors and improve the performance by doing things like modulating the light beam and using configurations in which noise cancels out.
> Whatever your sagnac animation is doing, it is NOT comparing measured > times of photon circuits. That is precisely what it does Jim, in some case by direct measurement or sometimes by placing a delay circuit into the optical loop and using a closed-loop servo to null the difference. As I said:
>> In fact the technology is much better than the example >> given above. If you had read the web sites on iFOGs we [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > when the airframe to which it is attached is doing 1rpm > (Hint: either 601 or 599) The Sagnac experiment I described in the lab was doing 600rpm. In the case of an aircraft trying to fly straight, an error in the iFOG might give a drift of 20 degrees per hour. The stability is around 1 degree per hour so if you measure the offset for a given device and apply a fixed correction, the plane won't deviate more than 1 degree off course in an hour (I'm ignoring temperature effects).
http://www.kvh.com/pdf/DSP3000_5.04.pdf
The drift would usually be corrected by compass or GPS. The role of the iFOG is primarily to provide dynamic information with a fast response as part of the autopilot but is quite adequate to control a plane as a backup should say the GPS box fail.
> So now the poor old sun has only managed 4.6 / .22 = 20 revs > around the galaxy :-( .....hardly seems fair......... A galaxy is a very dynamic place, astronomy might be as boring as a kid's roundabout if not :-)
George
Androcles - 08 Oct 2005 12:48 GMT | > ... | > >> > George, my old computer died on me, losing the email I remember quite [quoted text clipped - 121 lines] | | Jim Hey Jim! Let him have enough rope to hang himself.
This is Sagnac: Light starts at A, goes in opposite directions to mirrors at B and C, meets itself at D. + A--\C | | B\--D
As it does so, the system revolves.
+ D--\B | | C\--A
So on the turntable, the light went from A to D On the page it went from the top left, where the '+' is, to the top left, where the '+' is. Speed of light on the rotating turntable, c. Speed of light on the page, zero clockwise, 2c counterclockwise. Let him have his time slow down, the observer on the page is not allowed to see the speed of light be anything but c, so it is his watch that slows down and stops. Be careful not to look at fast Sagnac devices, your heart will stop. Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 03 Oct 2005 22:44 GMT >> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 09:42:17 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >until you construct a model that is not falsified by >the Sagnac experiment. Give it up George. The Sagnac effect is not related to the BaT.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 04 Oct 2005 08:56 GMT >>> One cannot construct reality from an illusion unless one uses the >>> correct [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Give it up George. The Sagnac effect is not related to the BaT. Any theory of light has to be compatible with the observations Henri. Sagnac is very simple, it measures the speed of light from a moving source and the answer is exactly c in the lab frame regardless of the speed of the source.
If your theory isn't capable of making a prediction for this test then it isn't a theory, and if its prediction is wrong, as Ritz's was, then the theory is falsified.
George
Henri Wilson - 04 Oct 2005 10:14 GMT >>>> One cannot construct reality from an illusion unless one uses the >>>> correct [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >theory, and if its prediction is wrong, as >Ritz's was, then the theory is falsified. George, I told you. Each component is moving noramally in the frame of the next component.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 04 Oct 2005 10:45 GMT > On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 08:56:32 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > next > component. And I told you, and you agreed, that the light is not moving normally to the mirrors, but that is beside the point. Henri, what is needed is for you to take the experimental setup of Sagnac and derive a prediction using your theory. Show your working so that other people can understand how to apply your equations for their own experiments. That is what a theory is, something that anyone can use as a predictive tool.
My expectation is that applying your BaT to the Sagnac will give the same null prediction that using Ritzian theory gives, but you have never said how what you call "BaT" differs from Ritz.
George
Henri Wilson - 04 Oct 2005 22:51 GMT >>>If your theory isn't capable of making a >>>prediction for this test then it isn't a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >is not moving normally to the mirrors, but that >is beside the point. George, the 'c' component is not....but the 'v' component IS.
>Henri, what is needed is >for you to take the experimental setup of Sagnac [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >experiments. That is what a theory is, something >that anyone can use as a predictive tool. I have already told you why I don't believe the sagnac effect is related to light speed.
>My expectation is that applying your BaT to the >Sagnac will give the same null prediction that >using Ritzian theory gives, but you have never >said how what you call "BaT" differs from Ritz. It is the same. It is easier to write 'BaT'.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 04 Oct 2005 23:11 GMT > On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 10:45:06 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > George, the 'c' component is not....but the 'v' component IS. And as I told you the result is the vector sum for Ritzian theory which produces a null prediction. If you disagree, show your prediction and how you get it.
>>Henri, what is needed is >>for you to take the experimental setup of Sagnac [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > to > light speed. I don't care what you believe, if you want to claim you have a theory, you have to make it available for people to use. That's what a theory is!
>>My expectation is that applying your BaT to the >>Sagnac will give the same null prediction that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It is the same. > It is easier to write 'BaT'. Sure, but knowing they are the same means now I don't have to keep qualifying my answers to say Ritz is falsified but BaT might not be if it differs. They are both falsified by Sagnac.
George
Henri Wilson - 05 Oct 2005 21:29 GMT >> On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 10:45:06 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote:
>>>And I told you, and you agreed, that the light >>>is not moving normally to the mirrors, but that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >prediction. If you disagree, show your >prediction and how you get it. George, I know you love rotating frames.
Why don't you plot the instantaneous direction of movement of the source in the frame of the first mirror.
You will find it is perpendicular.
Your earlier analysis didn't include the movement of the mirror frame.
>>>Henri, what is needed is >>>for you to take the experimental setup of Sagnac [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >available for people to use. That's what a >theory is! If you don't know what the BaT implies then you shouldn't be here.
>>>My expectation is that applying your BaT to the >>>Sagnac will give the same null prediction that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Ritz is falsified but BaT might not be if it >differs. They are both falsified by Sagnac. rubbish. You are starting to dream, like Andersen does.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 06 Oct 2005 09:57 GMT > On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:11:29 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > in the > frame of the first mirror. Because it is the speed of the light that matters, we have already discussed all this.
> You will find it is perpendicular. > > Your earlier analysis didn't include the movement of the mirror frame. Of course it did Henri. I even did an animation that showed you the rotation of the beams was in the same direction, remember?
>>>>Henri, what is needed is >>>>for you to take the experimental setup of Sagnac [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > If you don't know what the BaT implies then you shouldn't be here. I know what Ritz syas, the Sagnac experiement will give a null result. You keep suggesting BaT won't so I have to conclude either you can't do the math or BaT is different to Ritz.
>>>>My expectation is that applying your BaT to the >>>>Sagnac will give the same null prediction that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > rubbish. You are starting to dream, like Andersen does. Then it's up to you to show how you get a non-null prediction, and you need to start by identifying how BaT differs from Ritz.
George
Henri Wilson - 06 Oct 2005 22:38 GMT >> On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:11:29 +0100, "George Dishman"
>> George, I know you love rotating frames. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Because it is the speed of the light that matters, >we have already discussed all this. George it is the vector speed of the source wrt the next mirror that matters.
That is ZERO.
>> You will find it is perpendicular. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >that showed you the rotation of the beams was in >the same direction, remember? But you didn't calculate the path difference.
>>>>>Henri, what is needed is >>>>>for you to take the experimental setup of Sagnac [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >so I have to conclude either you can't do the math >or BaT is different to Ritz. Where did Ritz ever say that sagnac should give a null result. The MMX should... but not sagnac.
>>>>>My expectation is that applying your BaT to the >>>>>Sagnac will give the same null prediction that [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >prediction, and you need to start by identifying >how BaT differs from Ritz. George, you have been trying to find a decent explanation for the sagnac effect for years. I have given you my opinion. Light has a built-in gyro in the form of an 'axis'
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 07 Oct 2005 08:41 GMT > On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 09:57:16 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > That is ZERO. No it isn't Henri, it is the vector speed of the LIGHT wrt the next mirror that matters. You aren't bouncing one mirror off the next!
>>> You will find it is perpendicular. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > But you didn't calculate the path difference. Because we were discussing whether the angle changed. You can find the path length calculation on most web pages about the effect.
>>>>I don't care what you believe, if you want to >>>>claim you have a theory, you have to make it [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Where did Ritz ever say that sagnac should give a null result. Do the calculation yorself. That's the thing about a published theory, anyone can apply it to anything.
> The MMX should... but not sagnac. Try it for yourself. Post your working here so we can see how you did it.
>>Then it's up to you to show how you get a non-null >>prediction, and you need to start by identifying [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > effect > for years. Trivial Henri, the speed of light is c in the lab frame does it perfectly.
> I have given you my opinion. Light has a built-in gyro in the form of an > 'axis' Ritz doesn't have a "built-in gyro" in the theory and you said BaT was the same as Ritz. Anyway, as I have pointed out, photon spin is known and is related to polarisation, and commercial iFOGs use elliptical cross-section fibre to prevent changes of polarisation reducing the accuracy so think again.
George
Henri Wilson - 07 Oct 2005 22:24 GMT >> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 09:57:16 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk>
>> George it is the vector speed of the source wrt the next mirror that >> matters. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the LIGHT wrt the next mirror that matters. >You aren't bouncing one mirror off the next! Your basic physics is sadly lacking George.
>>>> You will find it is perpendicular. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >changed. You can find the path length calculation >on most web pages about the effect. I have seen it. I am not impressed by what is just the aether view.
>> Where did Ritz ever say that sagnac should give a null result. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Try it for yourself. Post your working here so >we can see how you did it. I have explained that the source is moving normally to the next mirror IN THAT MIRROR'S FRAME. The 'v' in 'c+v' is zero in that mirror's frame.
>>>Then it's up to you to show how you get a non-null >>>prediction, and you need to start by identifying [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Trivial Henri, the speed of light is c in the >lab frame does it perfectly. In a gaseous atmosphere, that might be true.
>> I have given you my opinion. Light has a built-in gyro in the form of an >> 'axis' [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >cross-section fibre to prevent changes of polarisation >reducing the accuracy so think again. Ritz died prematurely.
Axis rotation is not the same as polarization.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 07 Oct 2005 23:34 GMT > On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 08:41:04 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Your basic physics is sadly lacking George. If you think one mirror hits the next, it is your understanding of the apparatus that is sadly lacking Henri.
>>>>> You will find it is perpendicular. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > I have explained No "expalanations" Henri, show the maths that gives you the predicted output.
> that the source is moving normally to the next mirror IN THAT > MIRROR'S FRAME. > The 'v' in 'c+v' is zero in that mirror's frame. No it isn't. If you insist on using the second mirror frame for all your calculations (a rather odd choice but any consistent choice of frame is as good as any other), then the speed of the light is the vector sum of c in some direction (to be determined) and v perpendicular to path. That isn't zero Henri, remember Pythagoras.
>>>>Then it's up to you to show how you get a non-null >>>>prediction, and you need to start by identifying [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > In a gaseous atmosphere, that might be true. Nope. The speed is c in vacuo for SR and for Maxwell's equations but in anything other than a vacuum it is reduced by the refractive index. That's basic physics Henri, you must know that.
>>> I have given you my opinion. Light has a built-in gyro in the form of an >>> 'axis' [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Ritz died prematurely. His theory is what it is and still predicts a null result.
> Axis rotation is not the same as polarization. Nor was it part of Ritz's theory so the prediction remains null.
George
Henri Wilson - 08 Oct 2005 11:19 GMT >>>> George it is the vector speed of the source wrt the next mirror that >>>> matters. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >is your understanding of the apparatus that >is sadly lacking Henri. George, let me explain.
You are claiming that the speed component that a photon gains due to the movement of its source relative to an observer is c+v, where v is the speed of the observer relative to the source.
In the rotating frame...which you love....the source's speed is at right angles to the first mirror. Its speed component towards the mirror is zero.
>>>>> You will find it is perpendicular. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >No "expalanations" Henri, show the maths that >gives you the predicted output. Just resort to LET and you will get the Einsteinian version.
>> that the source is moving normally to the next mirror IN THAT >> MIRROR'S FRAME. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >determined) and v perpendicular to path. That >isn't zero Henri, remember Pythagoras. Every component is moving normally wrt the next IN THE FRAME OF THE NEXT. The 'c' part remains c because the beam is not perfectly parallel. The bit that hits the centre of the mirror during rotation is not the same as when it is still.
>>>>>Then it's up to you to show how you get a non-null >>>>>prediction, and you need to start by identifying [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >a vacuum it is reduced by the refractive index. >That's basic physics Henri, you must know that. Maxwell couldn't measure his two constants in a pure vacuum because the act of measuring would have disturbed the vacuum
As Androcles says, the values of permitivity in completely empty space is zero.
>>>> I have given you my opinion. Light has a built-in gyro in the form of an >>>> 'axis' [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >His theory is what it is and still predicts >a null result. Like Newton, he didn't have a chance to bring it up to date. I'm trying to do that for him.
>> Axis rotation is not the same as polarization. > >Nor was it part of Ritz's theory so the >prediction remains null. Physics was pretty primative in 1907. It still is.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
donstockbauer@hotmail.com - 08 Oct 2005 11:37 GMT Physics was pretty primative in 1907. It still is.
**************************
Amen.
**********************
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
************************
What did he do? Buy a losing lottery ticket?
George Dishman - 08 Oct 2005 13:44 GMT > On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 23:34:40 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > George, let me explain. Good idea, it helps to flush out any misunderstandings.
> You are claiming that the speed component that a photon gains due to the > movement of its source relative to an observer is c+v, where v is the > speed of the observer relative to the source. No. What I call the "lab frame" is an inertial frame (not rotating) defined such that the central point of the turntable is at rest. The easy way is to take that point as the origin.
I have always said that the speed of the light in the lab frame is the vector sum of the velocity of the source and a vector describing the emission. The vector sum points in the direction of the point where the light must reflect off the first mirror so that it eventually reaches the detector because only light that hits the detector affects the output of the detector (you seem to think that light that misses the detector defines the output, a view I have never understood). The magnitude of the resultant can then be determined by trigonometry.
> In the rotating frame...which you love....the source's speed > is at right angles to the first mirror. > Its speed component towards the mirror is zero. In the rotating frame, the source's speed is zero, period!
The light is emitted at c from the source but will then vary along the path as the radius varies between source and mirror.
For Ritzian theory, you can convert between those two frames using the transforms of Galilean Relativity.
For an iFOG which has a circular light path, the analysis is trivial in the rotating frame, the speed is c/n regardless of rotation therefore the output cannot vary with rotation. QED. All others frames must give the same result.
>>>>> Where did Ritz ever say that sagnac should give a null result. >>>> >>>>Do the calculation yorself. That's the thing about >>>>a published theory, anyone can apply it to anything. <snip to clarify>
>>No "explanations" Henri, show the maths that >>gives you the predicted output. > > Just resort to LET and you will get the Einsteinian version. Perhaps you lost the plot, the question was what does Ritz predict for Sagnac. The answer is a null result.
>>> that the source is moving normally to the next mirror IN THAT >>> MIRROR'S FRAME. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Every component is moving normally wrt the next IN THE FRAME OF THE NEXT. If that is to be your approach, you have to analyse the first leg from source to first mirror in the frame of the first mirror, then do a transform into the frame of the second mirror before analysing the second leg, etc.. You haven't accounted for the transform effects. At the end of the day, the result can be no different from either of the two methods we discussed above - a null result.
> The 'c' part remains c because the beam is not perfectly parallel. The bit > that > hits the centre of the mirror during rotation is not the same as when it > is > still. And you know from personal experience that moving the beam sideways does not alter the fringes. You said you had seen this when you used a interferometer. Henri, we have been over all this before.
>>>>>>Then it's up to you to show how you get a non-null >>>>>>prediction, and you need to start by identifying [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Maxwell couldn't measure his two constants in a pure vacuum because the > act of measuring would have disturbed the vacuum Irrelevant Henri, the speed is c in the lab frame in SR hence SR gives the correct prediction. Whinge all you like, you cannot change that.
> As Androcles says, the values of permitivity in completely empty space is > zero. Then he is an idiot, that would mean the speed of light would be infinite in ANY medium.
>>>>> I have given you my opinion. Light has a built-in gyro in the form of >>>>> an 'axis' [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Like Newton, he didn't have a chance to bring it up to date. > I'm trying to do that for him. Then that will be your "BaT" theory not his. Ritz's theory predicts a null result.
George
Henri Wilson - 09 Oct 2005 01:01 GMT >> On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 23:34:40 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > >In the rotating frame, the source's speed is zero, period! Well OK. I shouldn't have said 'the rotating frame'. Just the mirror frame.
In the '1st mirror frame' the source's component velocity in the mirror direction is zero.
You neglected to incorporate the mirror's velocity in your previous arguments.
In the mirror frame, the source is moving in a circle around that mirror. Its velocity component towards the mirror is zero.
>The light is emitted at c from the source but will then >vary along the path as the radius varies between source >and mirror. Since the source is orbiting the first mirror, we have a transverse doppler situation.
>For Ritzian theory, you can convert between those two >frames using the transforms of Galilean Relativity. Source speed doesn't enter directly into the picture.
>For an iFOG which has a circular light path, the >analysis is trivial in the rotating frame, the speed >is c/n regardless of rotation therefore the output >cannot vary with rotation. QED. All others frames >must give the same result. ...and that argument applies to SR as well. So sagnac refutes SR.
The only one that explains sagnac is LET.
However I prefer my 'light axis' theory.
Now I can add that Sagnac is just a 'transverse doppler effect'....and you will find that 'gamma' appears in the maths.
>>>>>> Where did Ritz ever say that sagnac should give a null result. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >does Ritz predict for Sagnac. The answer is a null >result. Ritz has no bearing on Sagnac for the above reasons. In the frame of any component, the previous component moves in a circle...and thus contributes no speed component to the beam.
>>>No it isn't. If you insist on using the second >>>mirror frame for all your calculations (a rather [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >can be no different from either of the two methods >we discussed above - a null result. there are NO transforms.
The source orbits the first mirror. Sagnac is a transverse doppler effect. I have finally provided you with a plausible answer.
>> The 'c' part remains c because the beam is not perfectly parallel. The bit >> that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >had seen this when you used a interferometer. Henri, we >have been over all this before. All right . None of that matters now. I have found the answer.
>>>Nope. The speed is c in vacuo for SR and for >>>Maxwell's equations but in anything other than [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >in SR hence SR gives the correct prediction. Whinge >all you like, you cannot change that. SR just reiterates the aether concept.
>> As Androcles says, the values of permitivity in completely empty space is >> zero. > >Then he is an idiot, that would mean the speed >of light would be infinite in ANY medium. There is not such entity as the 'speed of light'.
There can be a 'speed of light relative to..'
>>>>>Ritz doesn't have a "built-in gyro" in the theory and >>>>>you said BaT was the same as Ritz. Anyway, as I have [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Then that will be your "BaT" theory not his. Ritz's >theory predicts a null result. No, George. I have now provided you with something to seriously ponder. The Sagnac effect is based on transverse doppler....
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 09 Oct 2005 08:34 GMT > On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 13:44:13 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > Well OK. > I shouldn't have said 'the rotating frame'. Just the mirror frame. It's easy to make these little slips in the heat of the argument, I do the same myself.
> In the '1st mirror frame' the source's component velocity in the mirror > direction is zero. > > You neglected to incorporate the mirror's velocity in your previous > arguments. I have never worked in the first mirror frame, only the lab frame or occassionally the rotating frame.
> In the mirror frame, the source is moving in a circle around that mirror. > Its [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > doppler > situation. We are not worried about Doppler as it cancels out round the loop. What does matter is the propagation time. The source has a purely transverse speed in the mirror frame but the sum of that transverse speed plus the emission speed of c almost towards the mirror gives a vector sum which is exactly towards the mirror but at slightly less than c.
>>For Ritzian theory, you can convert between those two >>frames using the transforms of Galilean Relativity. > > Source speed doesn't enter directly into the picture. The vector sum brings it in and the detector responds to differences in arrival time.
>>For an iFOG which has a circular light path, the >>analysis is trivial in the rotating frame, the speed [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The only one that explains sagnac is LET. Sorry Henri, SR works just fine, denial doesn't work.
> However I prefer my 'light axis' theory. I'm not surprised. The fact that the use of polarising fibre eliminates is something you can just ignore. Not that you have a theory anyway, no equations, just hand-waving.
> Now I can add that Sagnac is just a 'transverse doppler effect'.... Doppler would produce a fixed rate of shift, not a displacement of the fringes, or in the case of a photodetector an sine wave output instead of a DC output which depends on the rate of rotation.
Also, transverse Doppler only ccurs in SR and LET, there is no such thing in Ritz's theory.
> ....and you will > find that 'gamma' appears in the maths. Gamma is second order, the Sagnac effect is first order.
>>>>>>> Where did Ritz ever say that sagnac should give a null result. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Ritz has no bearing on Sagnac for the above reasons. Ritz is a theory of light and therefore makes a prediction in the case of Sagnac. That prediction is null but the observation isn't, Ritz is wrong.
> In the frame of any component, the previous component moves in a > circle...and > thus contributes no speed component to the beam. Then a Ritzian prediction must take that into account, or better still don't choose such a difficult frame to work in, use the lab frame.
>>>>No it isn't. If you insist on using the second >>>>mirror frame for all your calculations (a rather [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > The source orbits the first mirror. For the next leg applying the same view, you work in the frame of the second mirror. You have to transform the results of the first leg which you found in the first mirror frame into the second before you can do the next stage. That shouldn't actually worry you, it is Galilean transforms, not Lorentz transforms we are talking about.
> Sagnac is a transverse doppler effect. > I have finally provided you with a plausible answer. It isn't plausible Henri, Doppler changes frequency and putting two different frequencies into an interferometer gives you a moving fringe pattern. Look into a Sagnac experiment and the pattern is static.
(The pattern moves during constant rotational acceleration of the table because of Doppler but not when rotating at constant speed.)
>>> The 'c' part remains c because the beam is not perfectly parallel. The >>> bit [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > All right . None of that matters now. I have found the answer. Not yet.
>>>>Nope. The speed is c in vacuo for SR and for >>>>Maxwell's equations but in anything other than [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > SR just reiterates the aether concept. Nope. You really should try to find out what SR says. You were close a few weeks ago but I am still waiting for your answer to this:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.astro/msg/75f05646b8cd1bec
About half way done there is this quoted text:
>>> You are not even prepared to consider the possibility that the clocks >>> are not perfect and might have malfunctioned under the different >>> conditions From there on is relevant to SR, the rest is probably 'water under the bridge' by now.
>>> As Androcles says, the values of permitivity in completely empty space >>> is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > There can be a 'speed of light relative to..' True, and in Maxwell's Equations it has the value of 1/sqrt(e_0 * u_0) which would be infinite.
>>>>>>Ritz doesn't have a "built-in gyro" in the theory and >>>>>>you said BaT was the same as Ritz. Anyway, as I have [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I have now provided you with something to seriously ponder. > The Sagnac effect is based on transverse doppler.... I do agree you have given this more serious consideration this time, but unfortunately a Doppler-based result gives the wrong kind of output. Ritzian theory still gives a null prediction.
The problem Henri is that Ritzian theory was published in 1908. There's nothing you can do to change it and it gives the wrong answer.
That doesn't stop you inventing a new theory called BaT but it needs to differ somehow from Ritz to give a different answer and you need to define what that difference is in your equations so everyone can test it. My expectation is that any change you put in to cope with Sagnac will cause some other prediction to fail.
George
Jeff Root - 09 Oct 2005 13:11 GMT George replied to Henri:
>>>> As Androcles says, the values of permitivity in >>>> completely empty space is zero. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > True, and in Maxwell's Equations it has the value > of 1/sqrt(e_0 * u_0) which would be infinite. Henri and Ralph should collaborate.
I wonder whether Henri would go along with Ralph's constant of one second, or Ralph would go along with Henri's constant of something less than 10^-20 kg/m^3.
Of course, Henri loves graphs, while Ralph hates them. Opposites attract, right? -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Androcles - 09 Oct 2005 13:31 GMT | George replied to Henri: | [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] | > True, and in Maxwell's Equations it has the value | > of 1/sqrt(e_0 * u_0) which would be infinite. It's amazing how many stooopid phuckwits think 1/0 = infinity, when any mathematician knows it is undefined. Androcles.
| Henri and Ralph should collaborate. | [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | | -- Jeff, in Minneapolis bz - 09 Oct 2005 13:54 GMT > In the mirror frame, the source is moving in a circle around that > mirror. False.
In the mirror's frame, the location of the source is constant and the angle of incidence of light from the source is constant.
Proof? If what you stated were true, the source would orbit around the mirror and the angle of incidence of the light would change through 360 degrees with every rotation of the platform.
This is obviously not true as the angle of incidence of the light is measureable constant within a few fractions of a wavelength, no matter how fast the platform rotates.
> Its velocity component towards the mirror is zero. If your first statement were true, your second statement could not be true because if the source were in circular motion wrt the first mirror then it MUST be moving with a velocity of sin theta in one direction and a velocity of cos theta in the perpendicular direction. There would be a component in the direction of the mirror at all times.
The source and the mirrors are fixed wrt each other at all times. The only things that are not fixed in postion are the photons traveling around the ring.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
George Dishman - 09 Oct 2005 14:53 GMT >> In the mirror frame, the source is moving in a circle around that >> mirror. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > mirror and the angle of incidence of the light would change through 360 > degrees with every rotation of the platform. Consider a non-rotating frame centred on the mirror. It is not inertial because the origin is accelerated but the source orbits the mirror at the same rate that the mirror rotates.
It's hard to imagine a more awkward frame to choose
George
> This is obviously not true as the angle of incidence of the light is > measureable constant within a few fractions of a wavelength, no matter how [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > things that are not fixed in postion are the photons traveling around the > ring. The Ghost In The Machine - 09 Oct 2005 16:00 GMT In sci.physics, George Dishman <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote on Sun, 9 Oct 2005 14:53:39 +0100 <dib6vp$472$1@news.freedom2surf.net>:
>>> In the mirror frame, the source is moving in a circle around that >>> mirror. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> the light would change through 360 degrees with every >> rotation of the platform. In such a frame the mirror is also rotating.
> Consider a non-rotating frame centred on the mirror. > It is not inertial because the origin is accelerated > but the source orbits the mirror at the same rate that > the mirror rotates. > > It's hard to imagine a more awkward frame to choose How about one rotating in the opposite direction? :-)
[rest snipped]
 Signature #191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
bz - 09 Oct 2005 16:09 GMT "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:dib6vp$472$1 @news.freedom2surf.net:
> Consider a non-rotating frame centred on the mirror. > It is not inertial because the origin is accelerated agreed.
> but the source orbits the mirror at the same rate that > the mirror rotates. In the mirror's FoR, the universe is rotating in a rather eccentric way, but the source is fixed in position at a contant distance and angle. This must be true as all mirrors and source are fastened securely to a base- plate of some sort.
You (Henri or George) seem choosing a POINT on the mirror, perhaps a point at the exact center of the mirror and are using that as your origin, but looking at things around that point from a FoR that is parallel to some reference in the lab FoR.
Thus you have NOT chosen the mirror's FoR, but a hybred FoR that is related to the turntable AND to the lab in a rather complex way.
> It's hard to imagine a more awkward frame to choose Agreed, except, perhaps, for the photons FoR.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson - 09 Oct 2005 23:04 GMT >"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:dib6vp$472$1 >@news.freedom2surf.net: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Agreed, except, perhaps, for the photons FoR. The moon is rotating around the earth, which is also rotating daily. The moon's radial speed wrt Earth is zero. It wouldn't make any difference if the earth rotated in 1 day, 28 days or 1000 days.
Sagnac DOES NOT refute the BaTh. Sagnac clearly supports either my transverse doppler theory' my 'photon axis' theory or good old fashioned aether, of which SR is a subset. .
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
bz - 10 Oct 2005 00:25 GMT >>"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:dib6vp$472$1 >>@news.freedom2surf.net: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > The moon's radial speed wrt Earth is zero. It wouldn't make any > difference if the earth rotated in 1 day, 28 days or 1000 days. I think you have it backwards.
The Earths radial speed wrt the moon is zero. If you replace the earth with a satelite in a lunar syncronous orbit, there would be no doppler shift on signals between that satelite and the moon.
On the other hand, the moon swings around the earth every 28 days. The earth rotates every day. Those motions will give doppler shifts on signals from moon to earth.
> Sagnac DOES NOT refute the BaTh. I think you are wrong.
> Sagnac clearly supports either my transverse doppler theory' my 'photon > axis' theory or good old fashioned aether, of which SR is a subset. > . I think you are right, one of the above.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson - 10 Oct 2005 02:10 GMT >>>"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:dib6vp$472$1 >>>@news.freedom2surf.net: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >a satelite in a lunar syncronous orbit, there would be no doppler shift on >signals between that satelite and the moon. so what?
>On the other hand, the moon swings around the earth every 28 days. The >earth rotates every day. Those motions will give doppler shifts on signals >from moon to earth. there is no significant radial velocity between Earth and moon.
>> Sagnac DOES NOT refute the BaTh. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >I think you are right, one of the above. I think you should learn some basic physics.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
bz - 10 Oct 2005 12:30 GMT >>>>"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:dib6vp$472$1 >>>>@news.freedom2surf.net: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > so what? So, you had it backwards, it is the earths radial speed wrt the moon that is zero, but not vice versa.
>>On the other hand, the moon swings around the earth every 28 days. The >>earth rotates every day. Those motions will give doppler shifts on >>signals from moon to earth. > > there is no significant radial velocity between Earth and moon. For some value of 'significant' radial velocity. I suppose that the moons 1.03 km/s orbital velocity is 'insignificant' in some books. That would make the earths daily rotational velocity of 0.46 km/s really insignificant.
But if the velocity is insignificant, then the transverse doppler would also be so.
Strangely enough, the normal earth-moon radial velocity is considered significant by some scientists. They study it on a daily basis.
....
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
donstockbauer@hotmail.com - 10 Oct 2005 12:51 GMT Strangely enough, the normal earth-moon radial velocity is considered significant by some scientists. They study it on a daily basis.
***************
Pays the bills. Can you blame them???????
....
Henri Wilson - 10 Oct 2005 22:41 GMT >>>The Earths radial speed wrt the moon is zero. If you replace the earth >>>with a satelite in a lunar syncronous orbit, there would be no doppler [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >So, you had it backwards, it is the earths radial speed wrt the moon that >is zero, but not vice versa. I think you just like to hear yourself arguing. For the purpose of this analogy, the moon has NO radial velocity towards Earth. Similarly, the Sagnac source has NO radial velocity towards the first mirror.
>>>On the other hand, the moon swings around the earth every 28 days. The >>>earth rotates every day. Those motions will give doppler shifts on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >make the earths daily rotational velocity of 0.46 km/s really >insignificant. You are drivelling.
>But if the velocity is insignificant, then the transverse doppler would >also be so. > >Strangely enough, the normal earth-moon radial velocity is considered >significant by some scientists. They study it on a daily basis. You are drivelling.
>.... HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Henri Wilson - 09 Oct 2005 22:59 GMT >>> In the mirror frame, the source is moving in a circle around that >>> mirror. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >It's hard to imagine a more awkward frame to choose Now that you have gotten the picture right , please explain it to the other morons here.
We have an approximate example of this in the case of the moon orbiting the earth...with the earth circling the sun and also rotating about its own axis.
All the time, there is no radial motion between earth and moon....but light from the moon is 'transversely doppler shifted'.
Similarly, there is no radial motion between any mirror of the Sagnac and the previous one.
If you want to write a joint paper on this I am quite willing. I think the world should know why Sagnac DOES NOT refute the BaTh. .
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 10 Oct 2005 00:53 GMT > On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 14:53:39 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > other > morons here. Lucky guess, you didn't say whether you meant a rotating or non-rotating frame.
> We have an approximate example of this in the case of the moon orbiting > the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > light > from the moon is 'transversely doppler shifted'. Transverse Doppler is another name for time dilation so doesn't occur in Ritzian theory (nor I presume in your BaT).
> Similarly, there is no radial motion between any mirror of the Sagnac and > the > previous one. > > If you want to write a joint paper on this I am quite willing. I think the > world should know why Sagnac DOES NOT refute the BaTh. But it does Henri. Doppler would produce a second order output while the Sagnac Effect is first order, and transverse Doppler doesn't exist in Ritzian theory.
Try again.
George
Henri Wilson - 10 Oct 2005 02:21 GMT >> On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 14:53:39 +0100, "George Dishman"
>>>Consider a non-rotating frame centred on the mirror. >>>It is not inertial because the origin is accelerated [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Lucky guess, you didn't say whether you >meant a rotating or non-rotating frame. I thought you could work that out. Non rotating.
>> We have an approximate example of this in the case of the moon orbiting >> the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >so doesn't occur in Ritzian theory (nor I presume in >your BaT). You have been talking to Jim Greenfield for too long.
A form of transverse doppler DOES exist in the BaTh...the point being that a signal from an orbiting source doesn't come from the point it appears to come from. When the source APPEARS directly overhead, it has really moved on a little. When it IS REALLY directly overhead, light reaching the observer came from a point before the vertical and therefore has a transverse velocity component.
>> Similarly, there is no radial motion between any mirror of the Sagnac and >> the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >order output while the Sagnac Effect is first order, >and transverse Doppler doesn't exist in Ritzian theory. Well I haven't looked into that. The main point is htat there is no significant radial velocity between the source and the first mirror.
>Try again. I wil persevere for as long as necessary.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
george@briar.demon.co.uk - 10 Oct 2005 13:07 GMT > >> On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 14:53:39 +0100, "George Dishman" > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I thought you could work that out. Non rotating. The confusion is because you said "In the mirror frame, " ... which means 'in a frame in which the mirror is at rest, i.e. not rotating, hence neither is the source but then went on to say ".. the source is moving in a circle around that mirror."
> >> We have an approximate example of this in the case of the moon orbiting the > >> earth...with the earth circling the sun and also rotating about its own axis. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You have been talking to Jim Greenfield for too long. I don't think I can disagree with that!
> A form of transverse doppler DOES exist in the BaTh...the point being that a > signal from an orbiting source doesn't come from the point it appears to come > from. When the source APPEARS directly overhead, it has really moved on a > little. > When it IS REALLY directly overhead, light reaching the observer came from a > point before the vertical and therefore has a transverse velocity component. When the signal received is from a point where the motion is perpendicular to the line of sight, there is no Doppler. Looking at a signal from a satellite coming from an earlier point, the motion is generally not perpendicular so you get Doppler caused by the radial component. The fact that the signal is offset from the current location due to aberration doesn't give transverse Doppler, it is just delayed radial Doppler.
> >> Similarly, there is no radial motion between any mirror of the Sagnac and > >> the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Well I haven't looked into that. Sorry, I should have said it produces continuous movement of the fringes, not a static shift (as I mentioned before). The gamma factor is second order.
> The main point is that there is no significant > radial velocity between the source and the first mirror. Right, unlike viewing the Moon or a satellite from the surface of the Earth where the observer's offset from the centre creates a radial component. As long as the distance between the source and mirror is constant, you get no Doppler.
> >Try again. > > I wil persevere for as long as necessary. The bottom line is that the Ritzian model gives only a single prediction for the Sagnac experiment and you must get the same result no matter what frame(s and transforms) you use since the are mathematical descriptions only. That prediction is a null result which doesn't match the observations so Ritz is ruled out. That's why I try to keep yuor BaT term separate because if you come up with a new set of equations, they may well produce a different result. The hard part is to propose such a theory that gets Sagnac right without giving a non-null result for MMX or incorrect predictions for other experiments. Until you publish though, that can't be tested.
George
Henri Wilson - 10 Oct 2005 22:53 GMT >> >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>> >Transverse Doppler is another name for time dilation >> >so doesn't occur in Ritzian theory (nor I presume in [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >aberration doesn't give transverse Doppler, it is >just delayed radial Doppler. Yes That's why I stated "a FORM of tranverse doppler"
>> >> Similarly, there is no radial motion between any mirror of the Sagnac and >> >> the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >movement of the fringes, not a static shift (as I >mentioned before). The gamma factor is second order. The 'continuous movement' idea supports my 'photon gyro' concept.
George, if a sagnac is rotating at constant angular speed, Do the fringes move continuously or remain steady but offset?
>> The main point is that there is no significant >> radial velocity between the source and the first mirror. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >as the distance between the source and mirror is >constant, you get no Doppler. If it rotates rapidly enough there will be the afforementioned 'type of doppler'.
>> >Try again. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >which doesn't match the observations so Ritz is ruled >out. How can Ritz be ruled out when we now know tat there is no radial velocity betwene each component?
>That's why I try to keep yuor BaT term separate >because if you come up with a new set of equations, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >incorrect predictions for other experiments. Until >you publish though, that can't be tested. My 'photon axis' theory works.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 11 Oct 2005 21:19 GMT >>> A form of transverse doppler DOES exist in the BaTh...the point being >>> that a [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Yes That's why I stated "a FORM of tranverse doppler" OK, the difference is important. More later.
>>> >> ... I think the >>> >> world should know why Sagnac DOES NOT refute the BaTh. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > The 'continuous movement' idea supports my 'photon gyro' concept. Not really.
> George, if a sagnac is rotating at constant angular speed, Do the fringes > move > continuously or remain steady but offset? The latter, steady but with an offset proportional to the speed of rotation.
>>> The main point is that there is no significant >>> radial velocity between the source and the first mirror. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If it rotates rapidly enough there will be the afforementioned 'type of > doppler'. Nope, the distance from source to mirror is constant so no Doppler. The fact that it is delayed makes no difference, there is no radial component as you say yourself later.
>>> >Try again. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > How can Ritz be ruled out when we now know tat there is no radial velocity > betwene each component? The question is difficult to answer because you are ignoring what happens on the other legs, but crudely no radial velocity means no change of fringes, yet the fringes do change. As I said, you are choosing a difficult frame to work in. All frames must give the same result so pick an easy one.
>>That's why I try to keep yuor BaT term separate >>because if you come up with a new set of equations, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > My 'photon axis' theory works. Nonsense, you haven't even shown any equations that predict what the output would be so you don't know yourself whether it would work or not. Nor have you applied those equations to say the MMX to see if it would predict a non-null result for that. Any new theory you propose has to be able to pass all the tests that have been done, not just one.
George
Henri Wilson - 11 Oct 2005 22:58 GMT >>>signal is offset from the current location due to >>>aberration doesn't give transverse Doppler, it is [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >The latter, steady but with an offset proportional >to the speed of rotation. (Yes I thought that's what came up before. Just checking). So the total angle moved is calculated by continuously integrating that offset with time. Once again that supports my 'photon-axis gyro' theory.
>>>> The main point is that there is no significant >>>> radial velocity between the source and the first mirror. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >delayed makes no difference, there is no >radial component as you say yourself later. OK. Yes true. Not wrt the centre of the mirror.
CMIIW, but in the case of objects like the Earth and moon, moonlight would be doppler shifted on the SURFACE of the Earth due to the EARTH'S rotation.
>>>> >Try again. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >All frames must give the same result so pick an >easy one. As far as I can see, there is no radial velocity between any two components in ANY frame. So whether or not light speed is source dependent doesn't enter into the argument.
>>>That's why I try to keep yuor BaT term separate >>>because if you come up with a new set of equations, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >able to pass all the tests that have been done, >not just one. We know why the MMX predicts a null result. That's a very simple application of the BaTh.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 12 Oct 2005 22:41 GMT > On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:19:34 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > So the total angle moved is calculated by continuously > integrating that offset with time. Units typically have a direct rate output and an integrator fed from that signal. When used for fly-by-wire, it is only the rate that matters. They can be used for navigation too but the drift then is a limitation.
> Once again that supports my 'photon-axis gyro' theory. Your 'photon-axis gyro theory' doesn't exist, you haven't published the equations.
>>> If it rotates rapidly enough there will be the afforementioned 'type of >>> doppler'. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > OK. Yes true. Not wrt the centre of the mirror. That should be your clue to the whistle question ;-)
> CMIIW, but in the case of objects like the Earth and moon, moonlight would > be > doppler shifted on the SURFACE of the Earth due to the EARTH'S rotation. Yes, and also because of the distance from the Earth's centre even if it wasn't rotating (think of the view of the Moon from a mountain 200,000 miles high), and also because the Moon's orbit isn't perfectly circular. None of these are 'transverse Doppler' however, all just resolve to the normal Doppler due to the radial component.
>>>>The bottom line is that the Ritzian model gives only >>>>a single prediction for the Sagnac experiment and you [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > components in > ANY frame. Right, but there are a couple of complex points you are missing even neglecting the complication of using different frames for each leg. The origin of the mirror frame is not inertial, it is moving in a circle so you get an apparent centrifugal force between the source and the mirror. That means you also get "gravitational redshift" and Shapiro delay. Also the speed of the light varies with the radius because the frame is accelerating. There are lots of tricky aspects to consider that come from using an accelerating origin.
> So whether or not light speed is source dependent doesn't enter into the > argument. It enters too. If you take all the above into account, you will still get different answers if you compare a model where the light is moving at c in the lab frame or at c+kv where k depends on the number of mirrors.
>>>>That's why I try to keep yuor BaT term separate >>>>because if you come up with a new set of equations, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > We know why the MMX predicts a null result. > That's a very simple application of the BaTh. Yes, but Ritz predicts null for both MMX and Sagnac. If you introduce a new feature like a "photon gyro" to produce a non-null result for Sagnac, it may also produce a non-null prediction for the MMX. That's why you can't just guess, you have to write out the equations and work each of the experiments. If you can't provide the equations, you don't have a theory, just a speculation.
George
Eric Gisse - 12 Oct 2005 23:01 GMT [snip]
> Yes, but Ritz predicts null for both MMX and Sagnac. > If you introduce a new feature like a "photon gyro" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > can't provide the equations, you don't have a theory, > just a speculation. In case you haven't noticed my conversation with Henri, I will tell you.
I have been asking Henri over and over for the equations to his theory to make it something other than handwavy nonsense. He refuses - every time.
> George jgreen@seol.net.au - 14 Oct 2005 12:08 GMT > > On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:19:34 +0100, "George Dishman" > > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > That should be your clue to the whistle question ;-) HinT: even if the whistle is travelling at >800feet per sec (or speed of sound in air), you will STILL hear it, at the center-------and its tone will be the same! (although you will not know what direction it is coming from) Doppler (sound) is due to CHANGING distance between source and receiver; if the distance is not changing, NEITHER is the frequency observed by receiver
> > CMIIW, but in the case of objects like the Earth and moon, moonlight would > > be > > doppler shifted on the SURFACE of the Earth due to the EARTH'S rotation. The surface is not the center of the moon's orbit! An observer anywhere but at the center of the whistle's orbit will hear a fluctuating note too.
Jim G c=c'+v
> Yes, and also because of the distance from the > Earth's centre even if it wasn't rotating (think [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > George george@briar.demon.co.uk - 14 Oct 2005 12:29 GMT jgr...@seol.net.au wrote:
> > > On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:19:34 +0100, "George Dishman" > > > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > > That should be your clue to the whistle question ;-) ...
> Doppler (sound) is due to CHANGING distance between source and > receiver; if the distance is not changing, NEITHER is the frequency [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > but at the center of the whistle's orbit will hear a fluctuating note > too. Nice one Jim. Do you realise that you, Henri and I are now all in complete agreement? That has to be a first. :-)
best regards George
bz - 14 Oct 2005 22:39 GMT > jgr...@seol.net.au wrote: >> > > On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:19:34 +0100, "George Dishman" [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Nice one Jim. Do you realise that you, Henri and I are now > all in complete agreement? That has to be a first. :-) BZ agrees too. :)
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson - 14 Oct 2005 22:09 GMT >> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:19:34 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>>>The latter, steady but with an offset proportional >>>to the speed of rotation. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Your 'photon-axis gyro theory' doesn't exist, >you haven't published the equations. One must start with a concept.
>>>> If it rotates rapidly enough there will be the afforementioned 'type of >>>> doppler'. [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >between the source and the mirror. That means you >also get "gravitational redshift" and Shapiro delay. you can believe that if you want to. I wont.
>Also the speed of the light varies with the radius >because the frame is accelerating. There are lots >of tricky aspects to consider that come from using >an accelerating origin. The whole thing is very tricky....particularly when nobody has a real clue as to what a 'photon' actually is.
>> So whether or not light speed is source dependent doesn't enter into the >> argument. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >model where the light is moving at c in the lab frame >or at c+kv where k depends on the number of mirrors. I maintain that each mirror is moving normally in the frame of the next. This means that source speed makes no difference to the fringe shifts.
>>>>>That's why I try to keep yuor BaT term separate >>>>>because if you come up with a new set of equations, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Yes, but Ritz predicts null for both MMX and Sagnac. Only in YOUR imagination.
>If you introduce a new feature like a "photon gyro" >to produce a non-null result for Sagnac, it may also >produce a non-null prediction for the MMX. It doesn't. The MMX result is straight forward. If the MMX apparatus is rotated, it becomes a sagnac.
>That's >why you can't just guess, you have to write out the >equations and work each of the experiments. If you >can't provide the equations, you don't have a theory, >just a speculation. One must begin with speculation.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 15 Oct 2005 10:04 GMT > On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 22:41:22 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: ..
>>> Once again that supports my 'photon-axis gyro' theory. >> >>Your 'photon-axis gyro theory' doesn't exist, >>you haven't published the equations. > > One must start with a concept. Sure, you have a concept but not a theory.
>>> As far as I can see, there is no radial velocity between any two >>> components in ANY frame. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > you can believe that if you want to. I wont. I'm not talking SR here, I think just applying Galilean relativity to Newtonian mechanics will give you an equivalent result. You might want to call it something like "centrifugal force redshift" to distinguish them.
>>Also the speed of the light varies with the radius >>because the frame is accelerating. There are lots [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > as > to what a 'photon' actually is. You may not.
>>> So whether or not light speed is source dependent doesn't enter into the >>> argument. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I maintain that each mirror is moving normally in the frame of the next. I agree, the motion is purely transverse.
> This > means that source speed makes no difference to the fringe shifts. No it doesn't, it means the radial distance is constant. That in turn means the time taken is inversely proportional to the speed. Working out the speed becomes complex in the mirror frame.
>>> We know why the MMX predicts a null result. >>> That's a very simple application of the BaTh. >> >>Yes, but Ritz predicts null for both MMX and Sagnac. > > Only in YOUR imagination. I've shown you the maths repeatedly or you can find it on several pages on the web if you don't trust me. It is a simple statement of fact that Ritz produces a null prediction for Sagnac.
>>If you introduce a new feature like a "photon gyro" >>to produce a non-null result for Sagnac, it may also >>produce a non-null prediction for the MMX. > > It doesn't. You don't know that, you don't have any equations for your "photon gyro" concept so you can't do the calculation to find out.
> The MMX result is straight forward. Without your "photon gyro" it is, you have no idea how that might affect it.
> If the MMX apparatus is rotated, it becomes a sagnac. That depends on the details but generally it won't. The delay in Sagnac is propotional to the area enclosed by the path but in MMX the light usually returns back along the same path on each leg so the ennclosed area is zero.
>>That's >>why you can't just guess, you have to write out the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > One must begin with speculation. Sure, you have a speculation but not a theory.
George
Henri Wilson - 15 Oct 2005 23:27 GMT >>>> As far as I can see, there is no radial velocity between any two >>>> components in ANY frame. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >call it something like "centrifugal force redshift" >to distinguish them Hmm. Using rotating frames always introduces some confusion.
>>>Also the speed of the light varies with the radius >>>because the frame is accelerating. There are lots [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >You may not. You do not either.
>>>It enters too. If you take all the above into account, >>>you will still get different answers if you compare a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >out the speed becomes complex in the mirror >frame. I thnk you have gotten that wrong. I think the speed remains c but the path length changes.
>>>> We know why the MMX predicts a null result. >>>> That's a very simple application of the BaTh. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >trust me. It is a simple statement of fact that >Ritz produces a null prediction for Sagnac. I have now told you why Ritz was wrong then.
>>>If you introduce a new feature like a "photon gyro" >>>to produce a non-null result for Sagnac, it may also [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >for your "photon gyro" concept so you can't do the >calculation to find out. George, you SR 'explanation' is really just the LET explanation. As always, SR reverts to LET when it tries to go physical instead of plain mathematical.
>> The MMX result is straight forward. > >Without your "photon gyro" it is, you have no >idea how that might affect it. But you know that the fringes become displaced only when movement is actually occuring. They return to their original positions when the rotation ceases. I doubt if Michelson watched while he rotated the apparatus ,...but if he had, it would have done what any sagnac would do.
>> If the MMX apparatus is rotated, it becomes a sagnac. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >usually returns back along the same path on each >leg so the ennclosed area is zero. Not when the MMX is rotating. A sagnac interferometer is just a Michelson one set up so that the fringe offset can be observed during rotation.
>>>That's >>>why you can't just guess, you have to write out the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Sure, you have a speculation but not a theory. well forget the 'photon gyro' business. I think that the path length difference is not affected by source speed because that is always normal to the next mirror (in that mirror's frame), not 45 degrees as you previously thought.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 16 Oct 2005 09:23 GMT > On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:04:39 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Hmm. Using rotating frames always introduces some confusion. For the iFOG where the path is circular, it is easier. With mirrors where the path is chords, the lab frame is easier.
However, isn't it an interesting that Sagnac gives a hand-waving way to predict the equivalence of acceleration and gravity?
>>>>Also the speed of the light varies with the radius >>>>because the frame is accelerating. There are lots [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You do not either. No, but the people who have studied QED do.
>>>>It enters too. If you take all the above into account, >>>>you will still get different answers if you compare a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I thnk you have gotten that wrong. > I think the speed remains c but the path length changes. I think you misunderstood me. The general result is that in calculating the time taken, the speed still matters if the distance is constant. I also think that the speed of emission would remain equal to c irrespective of the angular velocity according to Ritz. However, the path length does not change because "each mirror is moving normally in the frame of the next". If there is no distance change and Ritz predicts no speed change, then it also predicts no change to the time taken, hence a null output.
>>>>> We know why the MMX predicts a null result. >>>>> That's a very simple application of the BaTh. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I have now told you why Ritz was wrong then. Yes, we are no in agreement :-)
>>>>If you introduce a new feature like a "photon gyro" >>>>to produce a non-null result for Sagnac, it may also [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > George, you SR 'explanation' is really just the LET explanation. No Henri it isn't even vaguely close. I tried to explain some of the differences and you seemed to be getting an inkling of how SR works but you stopped replying to that thread. See message news:dfaarq$9ag$1@news.freedom2surf.net
> As always, SR reverts to LET when it tries to go physical instead of plain > mathematical. You do that, SR uses geometry alone to derive the LTs and is then mathematical.
>>> The MMX result is straight forward. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > had, > it would have done what any sagnac would do. No, there would have been no shift or only a tiny shift if they used multiple passes along the legs to increase the effective distance, the reflection points need to be slightly offset.
>>> If the MMX apparatus is rotated, it becomes a sagnac. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > one > set up so that the fringe offset can be observed during rotation. For Sagnac the first leg is A->B->C->D->A
A--->---B | | | v ^ | | | D---<---C
That encloses an area and the empirical result is that the shift is proportional to the area.
In MMX the first leg goes from A to B and back:
A-<--->-B | | | | D
Neither leg encloses any area so empirically we expect no shift when rotating. Your ideas on a "photon gyro" would suggest to me that the act of rotating should produce a shift even in MMX but that is hand-waving. Until you produce the equations, we can only guess ... as I said:
>>>>That's >>>>why you can't just guess, you have to write out the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > well forget the 'photon gyro' business. I think we have to until you can write down the equations so we can both apply them. Degrees of freedom for a photon are also intimately tied to thermodynamic considerations and you would need to do a pile of work to show your idea didn't fail those experiments. It's not something we can do here.
It's also somewhat academic since part of the design of iFOGs is to apply a modulation to the light and it also exhibits the same time delay. You might find a way to use a "photon gyro" to explain the carrier shift but not the modulation.
> I think that the path length difference is not affected by source speed Indeed, the path length isn't affected, but the time taken to traverse that path depends on the emission speed. I think that's obvious. Constant speed means constant time taken, but the experiment shows variable time hence Ritz is wrong.
> because > that is always normal to the next mirror (in that mirror's frame), not 45 > degrees as you previously thought. I never thought that Henri, I said the _light_ path is at 45 degrees to the mirror hence the speed in the _lab_ frame is c + v / sqrt(2) according to Ritz.
In the non-rotating mirror-centred frame, the source is moving in a circle but the light moves on a curved path at variable speed, it all gets very complicated!
George
Henri Wilson - 16 Oct 2005 23:09 GMT >> Hmm. Using rotating frames always introduces some confusion. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >a hand-waving way to predict the equivalence of >acceleration and gravity? That's a big question. It gets a bit messy.
Consider the frame of the first mirror. Light in transit appears to accelerate in that frame. It also changes direction. GR would try to distort space so that it remained at the same speed in a straight line.
I don't go along with the equivalence principle at all, anyway. I prefer the define acceleration as d2x/dt2. F/M not a definition.... just a magnitude...
>>>>>Also the speed of the light varies with the radius >>>>>because the frame is accelerating. There are lots [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >No, but the people who have studied QED do. hoho! funny.
>>>constant. That in turn means the time taken is >>>inversely proportional to the speed. Working [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >also predicts no change to the time taken, hence a >null output. George, I really think you should stop trying to work out the principle behind sagnac before it sends you crazy. I am content to accept that it is not a test of source dependency.
The standard explanations are just those involving a 'local aether frame' and it is quite possible that such a frame DOES exist around Earth.
The BaTh is mainly concerned with linear motion. Sagnac involves rotation and aspectsof light that I believe are quite unknown at this stage.
>>>I've shown you the maths repeatedly or you can >>>find it on several pages on the web if you don't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Yes, we are nowin agreement :-) there have been 'developments' since Ritz died.
>>>>>If you introduce a new feature like a "photon gyro" >>>>>to produce a non-null result for Sagnac, it may also [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >stopped replying to that thread. See message > news:dfaarq$9ag$1@news.freedom2surf.net I know hw SR 'explains' sagnac.
It merely states the aether principle that light speed = c.
>> As always, SR reverts to LET when it tries to go physical instead of plain >> mathematical. > >You do that, SR uses geometry alone to derive the >LTs and is then mathematical. SR uses LET geometry. SR wrongly assumes that a vertical beam of light in one frame becomes a diagonal beam in another. In LET that is not true either. The diagonal beam in the second frame is not the same beam as the vertical one in the first frame.
>>>> The MMX result is straight forward. >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >to increase the effective distance, the reflection >points need to be slightly offset. Too much speculation George.
>>>> If the MMX apparatus is rotated, it becomes a sagnac. >>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >but that is hand-waving. Until you produce the >equations, we can only guess ... as I said: Well, I'm not convinced that rotating the MMX is not equivalent.
>>>>>That's >>>>>why you can't just guess, you have to write out the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >fail those experiments. It's not something we >can do here. I'm not going to speculate George.
>It's also somewhat academic since part of the >design of iFOGs is to apply a modulation to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >experiment shows variable time hence Ritz is >wrong. No I don't believe sagnac is a test of Ritz. It involves rotation and all the complications that go with that.. Ritz requires straight lines. I'll stick with star light.
>> because >> that is always normal to the next mirror (in that mirror's frame), not 45 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >moves on a curved path at variable speed, it >all gets very complicated! It sure does...
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 17 Oct 2005 13:37 GMT > On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 09:23:07 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: <snip side issues>
>>>>constant. That in turn means the time taken is >>>>inversely proportional to the speed. Working [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > behind > sagnac before it sends you crazy. The principle is trivially simple, the detector moves while the light is in flight so the beam going against the diriction of rotation takes less time that that going with the rotation. It's only Ritz that has a problem with that, not me :-)
> I am content to accept that it is not a test of source dependency. You are content to bury your head in the sand, yes I know.
> The standard explanations are just those involving a 'local aether frame' > and > it is quite possible that such a frame DOES exist around Earth. Except that the speed of the Earth through the aether would then enter into the analysis. Let's leave that to others, I'm not interested in aether theory probelms.
> The BaTh is mainly concerned with linear motion. Sagnac involves rotation > and > aspectsof light that I believe are quite unknown at this stage. BaT models like any physical theory must give a valid prediction for Sagnac or they are falsified.
>>>>>>If you introduce a new feature like a "photon gyro" >>>>>>to produce a non-null result for Sagnac, it may also [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I know hw SR 'explains' sagnac. Then why don't you answer the message.
> It merely states the aether principle that light speed = c. Wrong, the aether principle says the speed is c relative to the aether, not the lab. You are still just demonstrating you don't understand either Henri.
>>> As always, SR reverts to LET when it tries to go physical instead of >>> plain [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > SR uses LET geometry. Wrong again. The geometry of LET is 3d Euclidean, the geometry of SR is 4d Riemann with signature (+---).
> SR wrongly assumes that a vertical beam of light in one frame becomes a > diagonal beam in another. I thought we discussed that some time ago? Your own graphic showed the change in angle. Henri, I don't want to waste time repeating all that, if you want to discuss it again, can you find where we left off and see if there was any remaining disagreement.
>>> I doubt if Michelson watched while he rotated the apparatus ,...but if >>> he [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Too much speculation George. No speculation at all Henri, just the empirical result.
>>>>> If the MMX apparatus is rotated, it becomes a sagnac. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Well, I'm not convinced that rotating the MMX is not equivalent. You should realise there is a fundamental difference in the physical layout of the experiment which means you cannot just assume the result of rotation, you need the equations from your theory to get a prediction.
>>>>> One must begin with speculation. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I'm not going to speculate George. Agreed.
>>It's also somewhat academic since part of the >>design of iFOGs is to apply a modulation to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > No I don't believe sagnac is a test of Ritz. Tough luck, it involves the speed of light emitted from a moving source which is how Ritz differs from other theories.
> It involves rotation and all the > complications that go with that.. > Ritz requires straight lines. No, Ritz is supposed to be a scientific theory for light propagation which means I can apply it to any situation I like. Those are the rules.
George
Henri Wilson - 17 Oct 2005 22:27 GMT >> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 09:23:07 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >going with the rotation. It's only Ritz that has a >problem with that, not me :-) Can you not see that you are quoting the aether explanation. You seem to think that space has absolute properties that determine light speed.
Imagine a completely remote sagnac interferometer with mirrors 1 million LYs apart. Are you suggesting that the speed of the beam is determined by something other than its relationship with its source? If so, what might that 'something' be?
I think you are just a good old fashioned aetherist.
>> I am content to accept that it is not a test of source dependency. > >You are content to bury your head in the sand, yes >I know. I am not an aetherist like you.
>> The standard explanations are just those involving a 'local aether frame' >> and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >leave that to others, I'm not interested in aether >theory probelms. Like all SRians, You ARE really an aetherist.
>> The BaTh is mainly concerned with linear motion. Sagnac involves rotation >> and >> aspectsof light that I believe are quite unknown at this stage. > >BaT models like any physical theory must give a >valid prediction for Sagnac or they are falsified. How does YOUR theory fare with a remote apparatus having mirrors 1 million LYs apart? It become standard LET.
>>>>>>>If you introduce a new feature like a "photon gyro" >>>>>>>to produce a non-null result for Sagnac, it may also [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >You are still just demonstrating you don't >understand either Henri. So how do YOU explain why light speed travels at anything other than c wrt its source, in the case of the huge remote interferometer.
You cannot without talking straight LET.
>>>> As always, SR reverts to LET when it tries to go physical instead of >>>> plain [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Wrong again. The geometry of LET is 3d Euclidean, the >geometry of SR is 4d Riemann with signature (+---). very funny. ....so you make a 4D 'plot' of 3D space and 1D time.
Do you think that achieves some kind of magical transition from reality? It is simply a mathematical ploy. It does nothing physical.
>> SR wrongly assumes that a vertical beam of light in one frame becomes a >> diagonal beam in another. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >to discuss it again, can you find where we left off >and see if there was any remaining disagreement. It didn't show any change in angle. The beam remains vertical in the moving frame. ....and of course you don't want to discuss it. It clearly demonstrates how and why Einstein was wrong in the first chapter.
>>>> I doubt if Michelson watched while he rotated the apparatus ,...but if >>>> he [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >No speculation at all Henri, just the empirical result. ...and I say the result is due to factors unknown at this stage. They will probably remain unknown for as long as physics remains in the grip of Einsteiniana/Lorentz.
>>>>>> If the MMX apparatus is rotated, it becomes a sagnac. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >need the equations from your theory to get a >prediction. Well, for tyhe MMX, assumptions might have to be made about the reflection of normally incident light from a sideways moving mirror. In the sagnac, the mirrors are at 45, so the light gets a 'kick' at each reflection according to the BaTh. I still think they are equivalent....but I could be wrong.
>>>>>> One must begin with speculation. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >from a moving source which is how Ritz differs from >other theories. So what determines the speed of the beam in the large apparatus mention above? You cannot answer that can you.
>> It involves rotation and all the >> complications that go with that.. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >for light propagation which means I can apply >it to any situation I like. Those are the rules. Ritz and the BaTh say that light moves at c wrt its source.
LET accepts that light can move at c+v wrt an observer BUT that the observer will always MEASURE the speed of that light as 'c' because his meassuring equipment will physically change tom make that happen.
SR says the same... with the proviso that every observer carries his own 'personal aether frame' around with him. This is just a mathematical trick.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
jgreen@seol.net.au - 18 Oct 2005 06:39 GMT > >> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 09:23:07 +0100, "George Dishman" > >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 267 lines] > 'personal aether frame' around with him. > This is just a mathematical trick. When questioned privately whether a 10m coil tape would physically change between ground zero, and high speed (uncoiled on the rocket), George says no! DHR's just can't seem to comprehend that observers MAKE MISTAKES; that what you see, isn't necessarily what IS
Jim G c'=c+v
> >George > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". Henri Wilson - 18 Oct 2005 23:09 GMT >> >No, Ritz is supposed to be a scientific theory >> >for light propagation which means I can apply [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >DHR's just can't seem to comprehend that observers MAKE MISTAKES; that >what you see, isn't necessarily what IS Because they can usually 'believe our eyes' on Earth, they think the same should apply to stellar observations. They just cannot get it I'm afraid, Jim.
All distant observations are willusions.
>Jim G c'=c+v >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. >> The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 21 Oct 2005 15:26 GMT > On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:37:56 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > think > that space has absolute properties that determine light speed. I know you have chosen not to understand SR, you said so a few weeks ago. That doesn't alter the fact that the explanation it provides for Sagnac is trivially simple.
> Imagine a completely remote sagnac interferometer with mirrors 1 million > LYs [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 'something' > be? The geometry of spacetime. You might want to think of it as an extension of Pyhtagoras to 4D.
> I think you are just a good old fashioned aetherist. I can't help the mistakes you make, you have said ignorance is your choice.
>>>>> George, you SR 'explanation' is really just the LET explanation. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > its > source, in the case of the huge remote interferometer. See news:dfaarq$9ag$1@news.freedom2surf.net
>>>>> As always, SR reverts to LET when it tries to go physical instead of >>>>> plain mathematical. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > very funny. Fact Henri, but then you have chosen to remain ignorant of SR, or at least so you told me.
>>> SR wrongly assumes that a vertical beam of light in one frame becomes a >>> diagonal beam in another. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > how and > why Einstein was wrong in the first chapter. I'm happy to discuss it since your diagram proved my point and showed Einstein was correct, but I don't want to waste time repeating what has already been said.
>>>>> I doubt if Michelson watched while he rotated the apparatus ,...but if >>>>> he [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > ...and I say the result is due to factors unknown at this stage. Irrelevant, the result is known. That is what 'empirical' means.
>>>>Neither leg encloses any area so empirically we >>>>expect no shift when rotating. Your ideas on a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > the BaTh. > I still think they are equivalent....but I could be wrong. There is no 'kick' even in Sagnac. I showed you months ago that the light arrives at c so when it leaves at c, the speed is the same. Again, you are just rehashing old ground.
>>> No I don't believe sagnac is a test of Ritz. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > above? > You cannot answer that can you. I have already told you many times but that is irrelevant. The apparatus you describe would measure the speed. Sagnac measures the speed from a moving source in the lab and the result is c.
>>> It involves rotation and all the >>> complications that go with that.. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Ritz and the BaTh say that light moves at c wrt its source. Exactly, yet in Sagnac it moves at c relative to the lab inertial frame even though the source is moving in that frame, ergo Ritz is wrong.
> LET accepts that light can move at c+v wrt an observer BUT that the > observer > will always MEASURE the speed of that light as 'c' because his meassuring > equipment will physically change tom make that happen. Correct.
> SR says the same... with the proviso that every observer carries his own > 'personal aether frame' around with him. Wrong, if that were true, the light between your two mirrors 1 million LYs apart would need to move at some composite speed if viewed by two observers passing each other on the path between the mirrors and both influencing (e'g' dragging) the aether. Both would measure a speed other than c in such a composite-aether theory. In reality, the speed measured by each observer is c and SR explains that by the geometry of spacetime. It is the metric which is physical.
> This is just a mathematical trick. Sorry Henri, as long as you choose to remain ignorant of how SR works, you'll never understand the physical basis. We went a long way to starting you off but you decided not to respond so I'll leave it at that. Nobody can force you to learn and I don't intend to waste my time trying.
George
Henri Wilson - 22 Oct 2005 10:38 GMT >> Can you not see that you are quoting the aether explanation. You seem to >> think [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the explanation it provides for Sagnac is trivially >simple. Of course it is simple. It has no physical basis. It is just circular maths.
>> Imagine a completely remote sagnac interferometer with mirrors 1 million >> LYs [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >The geometry of spacetime. You might want to think >of it as an extension of Pyhtagoras to 4D. George, physically speaking, there is NO spacetime. It is just a maths tool.
>> I think you are just a good old fashioned aetherist. > >I can't help the mistakes you make, you have said >ignorance is your choice. brainwashing is yours then..
>>>Wrong, the aether principle says the speed >>>is c relative to the aether, not the lab. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >See news:dfaarq$9ag$1@news.freedom2surf.net can't get it.
>>>>>> As always, SR reverts to LET when it tries to go physical instead of >>>>>> plain mathematical. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Fact Henri, but then you have chosen to remain ignorant >of SR, or at least so you told me. Try as I may, I cannot understand bullshit.
I don't wish to be associated with any theory that is based on the obvious fallacy that a vertical light beam in one frame becomes a diagonal light beam in another. That is plain nonsense.
>>>No speculation at all Henri, just the empirical result. >> >> ...and I say the result is due to factors unknown at this stage. > >Irrelevant, the result is known. That is what 'empirical' >means. If the result agrees with anything you want it to prove, it is for the wrong reasons.
>> Well, for tyhe MMX, assumptions might have to be made about the reflection >> of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >the speed is the same. Again, you are just rehashing >old ground. I don't accept that. Too many assumptions are involved. It can never be directly verified.
>>>> No I don't believe sagnac is a test of Ritz. >>> >>>Tough luck, it involves the speed of light emitted >>>from a moving source which is how Ritz differs from >>>other theories.
>> So what determines the speed of the beam in the large apparatus mention >> above? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >measures the speed from a moving source in the lab and the >result is c. No it doesn't . The speed of the source is normal to the next mirror's movement.
>>>> It involves rotation and all the >>>> complications that go with that.. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >inertial frame even though the source is moving in that >frame, ergo Ritz is wrong. So was Einstein then. Lorentz was correct. There is at least a 'local aether'.
>> LET accepts that light can move at c+v wrt an observer BUT that the >> observer [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >measure a speed other than c in such a composite-aether >theory. Yes..so SR breaks down in any physical situation..
>In reality, the speed measured by each observer >is c and SR explains that by the geometry of spacetime. >It is the metric which is physical. Never verified.
>> This is just a mathematical trick. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >not to respond so I'll leave it at that. Nobody can force >you to learn and I don't intend to waste my time trying. Geoge, expressing 3D space and time as a 4D graphic achieves nothing new. It might impress a lot of little kids but that's about all.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 22 Oct 2005 11:36 GMT > On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:26:27 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > George, physically speaking, there is NO spacetime. There is a nice artists impression of a binary system on the LISA site home page:
http://lisa.jpl.nasa.gov/
The middle link illustrates gravitational waves, ripples in spacetime:
http://lisa.jpl.nasa.gov/popups/ripples.html
Those ripples should carry off energy, a prediction confirmed by Hulse and Taylor.
http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/psr1913.htm
> It is just a maths tool. Maths tools don't change the orbits of stars, that takes something physical. The energy is transported as ripples in spacetime so spacetime must be physical.
>>> I think you are just a good old fashioned aetherist. >> >>I can't help the mistakes you make, you have said >>ignorance is your choice. > > brainwashing is yours then.. No, I check for myself as far as I can. Most of SR is within my capabilities.
>>>>Wrong, the aether principle says the speed >>>>is c relative to the aether, not the lab. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > can't get it. If your server has retired the post, Google has it:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.astro/msg/75f05646b8cd1bec
There's a lot that is past history but you seemed to be making some relevant comments on the SR aspects near the bottom. Anyway, if you want to know how SR (and I) explains the invariance of the speed of light, that post will get you started.
>>>>> SR uses LET geometry. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Try as I may, I cannot understand bullshit. Strange, you produce it well enough ;-)
Seriously though, it is a fact that LET and SR use completely different geometries.
> I don't wish to be associated with any theory that is based on the obvious > fallacy that a vertical light beam in one frame becomes a diagonal light > beam > in another. > That is plain nonsense. Let me quote from your own program introduction:
"One frame (rest) is equipped with a laser which sends pulses vertically. ... the path of each infinitesimal element of each photon is diagonal."
The phrase "each infinitesimal element of each photon" is gibberish, a photon is a point particle, but what we are concerned with is the paths. In the rest frame the path is vertical while in the moving frame you say yourself that the path is diagonal. Just compare the red laser line with the purple path.
You have a small error in your diagram, obviously the short section at the tip of each diagonal path needs to align with the path because, if you treat the photon as extended, then the part farthest from the laser was emitted earlier so will be laterally displaced from the end nearest the laser in the moving frame by the amount the frame moved during the time the element was emitted.
>>> Well, for tyhe MMX, assumptions might have to be made about the >>> reflection [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I don't accept that. Check for yourself then:
http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/speed.gif
> Too many assumptions are involved. It can never be directly verified. No assumptions, just what Ritz tells us, the speed of emission is c relative to the source.
>>>>> No I don't believe sagnac is a test of Ritz. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > No it doesn't . > The speed of the source is normal to the next mirror's movement. Speed is distance divided by time. The distance is known from the dimensions of the experiment and the rate of rotation. The time difference is measured and when you do the sum you find the speed is c.
>>> Ritz and the BaTh say that light moves at c wrt its source. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > So was Einstein then. No, SR says the speed should be measured as being c in the lab frame and it is.
> Lorentz was correct. Sort of, LET gives the right prediction but it does not say the light moves at c in the lab frame, it only moves at that speed in the aether frame.
>>Wrong, if that were true, the light between your two >>mirrors 1 million LYs apart would need to move at some [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Yes..so SR breaks down in any physical situation.. Nope, the measured speed is c, it is the dragged aether theories that break down.
>>In reality, the speed measured by each observer >>is c and SR explains that by the geometry of spacetime. >>It is the metric which is physical. > > Never verified. Invariance of speed is verified by Sagnac, MMX, aberration, Fizeau, etc.. The physical nature of the metric was verified by Hulse and Taylor.
>>> This is just a mathematical trick. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Geoge, expressing 3D space and time as a 4D graphic achieves nothing new. It brings our maths into line with what happens in reality. Clock ticks are measured to be equally spaced in 4D, not in 1D as Newton thought.
George
Robert - 23 Oct 2005 01:10 GMT >> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:26:27 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >http://lisa.jpl.nasa.gov/popups/ripples.html There isn't any 'spacetime' there. Just 'movement in space'.
>Those ripples should carry off energy, a prediction >confirmed by Hulse and Taylor. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >takes something physical. The energy is transported >as ripples in spacetime so spacetime must be physical. Bullshit. Spacetime doesn't describe any physical quantity. It is just a bit of maths. .
>>>> I think you are just a good old fashioned aetherist. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >No, I check for myself as far as I can. Most of SR >is within my capabilities. SR is within the capabilities of anyone who cannot see that a vertical light beam doesn't suddenly become a diagonal one in a moving frame.
>>>>>Wrong, the aether principle says the speed >>>>>is c relative to the aether, not the lab. [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >is gibberish, a photon is a point particle, but what >we are concerned with is the paths. There can be no such animal as a 'point particle'. Such would be indistinguishable from 'nothing'.
>In the rest frame >the path is vertical while in the moving frame you [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >end nearest the laser in the moving frame by the amount >the frame moved during the time the element was emitted. My 'movingframe.exe' program is better.
Yes, the vertical green dashes are really just there to show how all the ends of the diagonal paths remain in vertical alignment.
The point I am getting across is that no continuous beam moves up any one particular diagonal. The diagonals are lines of infinitesimal thickness. What goes up them is certainly not light.
>>>There is no 'kick' even in Sagnac. I showed you months >>>ago that the light arrives at c so when it leaves at c, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/speed.gif It's wrong. You didn't use the mirror frame. You used the screen frame.
>> Too many assumptions are involved. It can never be directly verified. > >No assumptions, just what Ritz tells us, the speed of >emission is c relative to the source. that's what Einstein said, too.
>>>>>> No I don't believe sagnac is a test of Ritz. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >rate of rotation. The time difference is measured >and when you do the sum you find the speed is c. The part of the beam that goes from the source to the centre of the mirror travels at c towards that centre no matter how the apparatus rotates. You already agreed that light from the moon - or any other object in circular orbit - always travels to Earth at c. Sagnac involves the same principle.
So the BaTh explanation is exactly the same as any other.
Thankyou for clearing this up.
>>>> Ritz and the BaTh say that light moves at c wrt its source. >>> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >reality. Clock ticks are measured to be equally >spaced in 4D, not in 1D as Newton thought. It merely complicates the whole issue unnecesarily and to no advantage.
>George Eric Gisse - 23 Oct 2005 01:26 GMT [snip]
So...are we supposed to call your Robert now, Henri?
The Ghost In The Machine - 23 Oct 2005 03:00 GMT In sci.physics, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote on 22 Oct 2005 17:26:21 -0700 <1130027181.292522.93000@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
> [snip] > > So...are we supposed to call your Robert now, Henri? Either that, or Henri's starting a club. :-)
 Signature #191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
HW@.. - 23 Oct 2005 22:52 GMT >In sci.physics, Eric Gisse ><jowr.pi@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Either that, or Henri's starting a club. :-) I accidentally wiped everything off my browser. Sorry about that. Not sure who 'Robert' is.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 23 Oct 2005 08:51 GMT > On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 11:36:54 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > There isn't any 'spacetime' there. Just 'movement in space'. Observations like that of Hulse and Taylor tell me otherwise.
>>Those ripples should carry off energy, a prediction >>confirmed by Hulse and Taylor. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Spacetime doesn't describe any physical quantity. > It is just a bit of maths. More verbiage, but that binary system is losing energy and at the rate the GR predicts. That energy is being transported by ripples in spacetime so it is physical, the maths is just a description of it.
> SR is within the capabilities of anyone who cannot see that a vertical > light > beam doesn't suddenly become a diagonal one in a moving frame. Your "movingframe" diagram shows it does.
>>> I don't wish to be associated with any theory that is based on the >>> obvious [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > There can be no such animal as a 'point particle'. > Such would be indistinguishable from 'nothing'. If that's your opinion, then ...
>>You have a small error in your diagram, obviously the >>short section at the tip of each diagonal path needs to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > My 'movingframe.exe' program is better. I've now looked at that too. Consider just the first of your elements. Its path is outlined by the two parallel lines that suddenly appear on the upper diagram. That path is diagonal while its equivalent in the lower diagram is vertical.
> Yes, the vertical green dashes are really just there to show how all the > ends > of the diagonal paths remain in vertical alignment. Of course, nobody is disputing that. Your diagram confirms the conventional view with the minor error that your small elements should lie on the diagonal. The two small elements you illustrate as sine wave segments show that quite well. you need to use the purple one at the head of each line in the moving frame diagram while it is the green one in the static frame.
> The point I am getting across is that no continuous beam moves up any one > particular diagonal. The point that Einstein made in his illustration of the train is that when considering the path of a single one of your elements, the length is increased because that path is diagonal. His argument applies to each element individually.
> The diagonals are lines of infinitesimal thickness. What > goes up them is certainly not light. The diagonals are "rays", hypothetical perpendiculars to the wavefront as in Huygens.
>>>>There is no 'kick' even in Sagnac. I showed you months >>>>ago that the light arrives at c so when it leaves at c, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It's wrong. You didn't use the mirror frame. You used the screen frame. So use Galilean relativity to switch to the mirror frame and tell me what you get.
>>> Too many assumptions are involved. It can never be directly verified. >> >>No assumptions, just what Ritz tells us, the speed of >>emission is c relative to the source. > > that's what Einstein said, too. Nonsense. Why are you wasting our time saying things you know aren't true.
>>>>>>> No I don't believe sagnac is a test of Ritz. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > The part of the beam that goes from the source to the centre of the mirror > travels at c towards that centre no matter how the apparatus rotates. No, in Ritz it is supposed to be c+mv in the lab frame (where m is a factor that depends on the number of mirrors).
> You already agreed that light from the moon - or any other object in > circular > orbit - always travels to Earth at c. No I didn't, what we agreed when discussing the Moon was that there was no transverse Doppler in Ritz. We didn't discuss speed at all.
> Sagnac involves the same principle. No it doesn't, the light goes round the cicumference or along chords to the circumference, it never goes to the centre of the table.
> So the BaTh explanation is exactly the same as any other. > > Thankyou for clearing this up. My pleasure, shame you had so manyt errors in your description.
>>> Geoge, expressing 3D space and time as a 4D graphic achieves nothing >>> new. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It merely complicates the whole issue unnecesarily and to no advantage. The advantage was that the errors that were a problem in late nineteenth century were resolved. Ritz can't do that as witnessed by Sagnac. No matter how much hand- waving you try, Ritz gives a null prediction which contradicts the observed result.
George
HW@.. - 23 Oct 2005 23:36 GMT >> On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 11:36:54 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk>
>>>http://lisa.jpl.nasa.gov/popups/ripples.html >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >spacetime so it is physical, the maths is just >a description of it. George, the ripples are moving in space at a certain time rate.
>> SR is within the capabilities of anyone who cannot see that a vertical >> light >> beam doesn't suddenly become a diagonal one in a moving frame. > >Your "movingframe" diagram shows it does. George there is no BEAM moving up one particular diagonal. There is ONE INFINITESIMAL ELEMENT of the beam moving up each diagonal. The Diagonal is merely a line showing the path of one such element. A line has no thickness. It cannot constitute light or anything else.
>> There can be no such animal as a 'point particle'. >> Such would be indistinguishable from 'nothing'. > >If that's your opinion, then ... I suppose one could talk about the point where moving scissor blades meet... Is IT distinguishable from nothing?
>>>You have a small error in your diagram, obviously the >>>short section at the tip of each diagonal path needs to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >diagram. That path is diagonal while its equivalent >in the lower diagram is vertical. That's because the upper plot of the beam is in the moving frame. The lower one shows the beam in the rest frame.
>> Yes, the vertical green dashes are really just there to show how all the >> ends [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >confirms the conventional view with the minor error >that your small elements should lie on the diagonal. That is wrong George. The conventional view ignores the fact that the ends of the 'elements' are emitted at different times, during which the source moves along a little. All the elements of the beam remain aligned vertically in both frames. That is what the program is intended to show and it DOES just that.
The vertical green dashes could be taken as elements of finite lengths if you like.
>The two small elements you illustrate as sine wave >segments show that quite well. you need to use the >purple one at the head of each line in the moving >frame diagram while it is the green one in the >static frame. No George, the program is correct. You will have to study it a bit more closely.
>> The point I am getting across is that no continuous beam moves up any one >> particular diagonal. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >because that path is diagonal. His argument applies >to each element individually. He said each element moves at c. Why should it? It isn't a light beam. It isn't anything. It certainly is not governed by maxwell's equations. Einstein would be correct if an ether existed.
>> The diagonals are lines of infinitesimal thickness. What >> goes up them is certainly not light. > >The diagonals are "rays", hypothetical perpendiculars >to the wavefront as in Huygens. No. they aren't even that. They are merely loci of points...lines on a graph...with no physical properties at all.
>>>>>There is no 'kick' even in Sagnac. I showed you months >>>>>ago that the light arrives at c so when it leaves at c, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >So use Galilean relativity to switch to the mirror >frame and tell me what you get. I get exactly the conventional explanation. Light always moves at c from the source to where the mirror will be when the beam gets there. the path length is longer in one direction than the other.
>>>> Too many assumptions are involved. It can never be directly verified. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Nonsense. Why are you wasting our time saying >things you know aren't true. Even Paul Andersen agrees that light leaves its source at c (relative to the source). Are you seriously suggesting that it leaves at some other speed?
>>>> No it doesn't . >>>> The speed of the source is normal to the next mirror's movement. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >(where m is a factor that depends on the number of >mirrors). Well that is wrong. It always travels at c relative to the (moving) point representing the centre of the next mirror. The path lengths are differnet in either direction ..just as in the conventional explanation.
>> You already agreed that light from the moon - or any other object in >> circular [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >along chords to the circumference, it never goes to the >centre of the table. The source revolves around the first mirror.
George the mistake you have been making all along is that you have calculated the light speed towards the mirror as c + v/root 2. You have ignored the movement of the mirror. c + v/root 2 is the speed wrt the point where the mirror was at the time of emission. The speed of the beam relative to the moving mirror AS IT REACHES the CENTER OF the DISPLACED mirror, is always exactly c.
I have now proved conclusively that Sagnac does NOT refute the BaTh.
>> So the BaTh explanation is exactly the same as any other. >> >> Thankyou for clearing this up. > >My pleasure, shame you had so manyt errors in your >description. What I have stated hasn't sunken in to you yet.
>>>> Geoge, expressing 3D space and time as a 4D graphic achieves nothing >>>> new. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >waving you try, Ritz gives a null prediction which >contradicts the observed result. Ritz gives exactly the same prediction as the conventional one.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 24 Oct 2005 11:42 GMT > On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 08:51:29 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > George, the ripples are moving in space at a certain time rate. GR predicts the ripples move at the speed of light.
>>> SR is within the capabilities of anyone who cannot see that a vertical >>> light [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > INFINITESIMAL ELEMENT of the beam moving up each diagonal. > The Diagonal is merely a line showing the path of one such element. Right, so when you want to know the length of the path, it is the length of that diagonal. That's the basis of Einstein's illlustration.
> A line has > no thickness. It cannot constitute light or anything else. See below.
>>> My 'movingframe.exe' program is better. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > lower one > shows the beam in the rest frame. Right, that's why I say your program illustrates that Einstein was correct.
>>> Yes, the vertical green dashes are really just there to show how all the >>> ends of the diagonal paths remain in vertical alignment. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That is wrong George. No, it's right, the "conventional view" relates to the path taken, not the orientation of elements. In fact when discussing it I usually describe the source as a photographic flash bulb to make it clearer.
> The conventional view ignores the fact that the ends of the 'elements' are > emitted at different times, during which the source moves along a little. > All the elements of the beam remain aligned vertically in both frames. > That is what the program is intended to show and it DOES just that. Yes, if you had a series of flashes, that would be true, but the illustration relates to the path length for a single flash so that is not contrary to the conventional view.
> The vertical green dashes could be taken as elements of finite lengths if > you > like. Indeed, consider the light from a car indicator. You would have elements with equal length gaps between them.
>>The two small elements you illustrate as sine wave >>segments show that quite well. you need to use the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No George, the program is correct. You will have to study it a bit more > closely. <from above>
> A line has > no thickness. It cannot constitute light or anything else. Indeed, I made a mistake. You are right about the orientation of the element, the mistake is that the entire element sweeps out an area, the diagonal line trailing behind the element should be wider.
>>> The point I am getting across is that no continuous beam moves up any >>> one [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > He said each element moves at c. Correct. Each element in your diagram or the flash from the bulb as I put it moves at the speed of light, because it is light.
> Why should it? It isn't a light beam. It isn't anything. It certainly is > not > governed by maxwell's equations. Of course it is Henri. How can you say the light from a laser isn't light? That's just bizarre.
> Einstein would be correct if an ether existed. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > properties > at all. The locus has a key property - length.
>>>>>>There is no 'kick' even in Sagnac. I showed you months >>>>>>ago that the light arrives at c so when it leaves at c, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > source to where the mirror will be when the beam gets there. > the path length is longer in one direction than the other. In that case you haven't actually tried to do it, you are just saying you did.
>>>>> Too many assumptions are involved. It can never be directly verified. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the > source). Sorry Henri, I don't respond to accusations of what other people might have said. I know Paul understands SR and you admit you don't so I'm not surprised you don't follow him.
> Are you seriously suggesting that it leaves at some other speed? Light will be measured to move at c in any inertial frame, that's been known for a century now.
>>>>> No it doesn't . >>>>> The speed of the source is normal to the next mirror's movement. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Well that is wrong. That's what Ritz predicts, I agree Ritz is wrong.
> It always travels at c relative to the (moving) point representing the > centre > of the next mirror. Yes, that's correct and follows from the above since the next mirror is moving at mv relative to the lab frame.
> The path lengths are differnet in either direction ..just as in the > conventional explanation. Right, in the lab frame, but the path length difference matches the speed difference hence to propagation times are the same in Ritz, hence a null prediction
>>> You already agreed that light from the moon - or any other object in >>> circular [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > The source revolves around the first mirror. Exactly, not the centre of the table.
> George the mistake you have been making all along is that you have > calculated [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > CENTER OF > the DISPLACED mirror, is always exactly c. Yes, that is exactly what I showed in this diagram:
http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/speed.gif
hence there is no "kick" in the speed. You finally agreed with me :-)
> I have now proved conclusively that Sagnac does NOT refute the BaTh. No, you have now proved that it predicts a null result. The speed is c and the path in that frame is unchaged by the rotational speed too.
>>> So the BaTh explanation is exactly the same as any other. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What I have stated hasn't sunken in to you yet. What you have stated is exactly what I drew on that diagram and it is dated 1st Feb, 2004. You finally caught up!
>>... No matter how much hand- >>waving you try, Ritz gives a null prediction which >>contradicts the observed result. > > Ritz gives exactly the same prediction as the conventional one. Nope, you just proved it gives a null prediction.
George
Henri Wilson - 25 Oct 2005 00:10 GMT >> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 08:51:29 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote:
>>>More verbiage, but that binary system is losing >>>energy and at the rate the GR predicts. That [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >GR predicts the ripples move at the speed of light. I don't care.
>>>> SR is within the capabilities of anyone who cannot see that a vertical >>>> light [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >path, it is the length of that diagonal. That's >the basis of Einstein's illlustration. the faulty basis. He assumed the light would take longer to get to the top because it had a longer path. Of course in reality the light beam takes the same time to get to the top. It is not light that moves up each diagonal.
>> A line has >> no thickness. It cannot constitute light or anything else. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Right, that's why I say your program illustrates >that Einstein was correct. bull! How can you say that?
>>>> Yes, the vertical green dashes are really just there to show how all the >>>> ends of the diagonal paths remain in vertical alignment. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >single flash so that is not contrary to the conventional >view. Instead of flashes, think in terms of 'moving wavecrests' George.
Plot the path of each wavecrest. It is diagonal. BUT ALL THE WAVECRESTS REMAIN VERTICALLY ALIGNED in the moving frame.
>> The vertical green dashes could be taken as elements of finite lengths if >> you >> like. > >Indeed, consider the light from a car indicator. You >would have elements with equal length gaps between them. Like I said, the best method is to plot the points that represent consecutive wavecrests (whatever a wavecrest is).
>>>The two small elements you illustrate as sine wave >>>segments show that quite well. you need to use the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >out an area, the diagonal line trailing behind the element >should be wider. That's why I use infinitesimal elements. With an infinite number of these, the diagonal line would be continuous. ..as wide as the whole beam...if you see what I mean.
>>>> The point I am getting across is that no continuous beam moves up any >>>> one [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >the bulb as I put it moves at the speed of light, because >it is light. Not so. It is a point on a graph.....nothing physical. There is no connection with light or Maxwell's equations.
The purple laser beam in my demo is a REAL diagonal light beam. All the elements follow each other up the same diagonal. That is a distinctly diffferent situation.
>> Why should it? It isn't a light beam. It isn't anything. It certainly is >> not >> governed by maxwell's equations. > >Of course it is Henri. How can you say the light from >a laser isn't light? That's just bizarre. The vertical line of elements IS light. The diagonal plot of each infinitesimal element is NOT light.
>> Einstein would be correct if an ether existed. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >The locus has a key property - length. It has indeed. ..and the time taken for each element to travel the length of the diagonal is the same as that taken by the same element in the rest frame. In other words, the element 'moves up' the diagonal at sqrt(c^2+v^2) NOT at 'c'. Einstein' major error was to claim that each element constituted a light beam moving at c in the moving frame.
The theory works in LET if one uses a spherical light source instead of a laser. ...one that emits continuous beams in all 360 degrees. (part three of my demo, unfinished). You can see what happens. In this case a true diagonal beam DOES exist, moving at c through the aether....but the actual beam is different for each speed of the moving frame.
>>>>>http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/speed.gif >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >In that case you haven't actually tried to do it, >you are just saying you did. I can visualize what happens. It is exactly the same as the conventional explanation. The path lengths are different and the light speed remains c everywhere. Even the kick of each mirror is normal to the next mirror IN THAT MIRROR'S FRAME.
>>>Nonsense. Why are you wasting our time saying >>>things you know aren't true. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >you admit you don't so I'm not surprised you don't follow >him. Do you not believe that light leaves its source at c? ....I find that extraordinary.
>> Are you seriously suggesting that it leaves at some other speed? > >Light will be measured to move at c in any inertial >frame, that's been known for a century now. How has it been known when it has never been measured? You are starting to rave and preach, George.
>>>> The part of the beam that goes from the source to the centre of the >>>> mirror [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >That's what Ritz predicts, I agree Ritz is wrong. I agree you are wrong and Ritz never said that.
>> It always travels at c relative to the (moving) point representing the >> centre [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the next mirror is moving at mv relative to the lab >frame. The mirror is moving in a circle in the frame of the next mirror. That's the crucial point, George.
>> The path lengths are differnet in either direction ..just as in the >> conventional explanation. > >Right, in the lab frame, but the path length difference >matches the speed difference hence to propagation times >are the same in Ritz, hence a null prediction No George. I have just explained why not. The conventional explanation applies.
>>>No it doesn't, the light goes round the cicumference or >>>along chords to the circumference, it never goes to the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Exactly, not the centre of the table. It revolves around that too.
We must be careful here to disciminate between the ROTATING and NON-Rotating frames of the first mirror. In the former, the source does not move or rotate. In the latter, the source moves in a circle.
In both cases, CMIIW, the source does not move radially wrt the first mirror.
>> George the mistake you have been making all along is that you have >> calculated [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/speed.gif I haven't the faintest idea what you are getting at here.
the true situation is at: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/george1.jpg
The yellow beam is supposed to be collimated and coherent....but it will always have a little deviation and dispersion.
Without rotation, the centres of the source and mirrors are lined up parallel (black line). During rotation, the part of the original beam that reaches the mirror centre is drawn diagonally in black. WRT that (moving) mirror, that diagonal light beam arrives with a one way speed of c. The path length is distinctly longer than the parallel one.
>hence there is no "kick" in the speed. You finally >agreed with me :-) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >The speed is c and the path in that frame is unchaged >by the rotational speed too. No No. The path changes just as the conventional theory states.
>>>My pleasure, shame you had so manyt errors in your >>>description. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >diagram and it is dated 1st Feb, 2004. You finally >caught up! No George. Light from the source always has a relative OWLS of c in both the source frame and the next miror frame. The two opposite paths are longer and shorter during rotation, just as the conventional theory states..
>>>... No matter how much hand- >>>waving you try, Ritz gives a null prediction which [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Nope, you just proved it gives a null prediction. No. see my diagram.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 26 Oct 2005 20:50 GMT > On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 11:42:19 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I don't care. Then why introduce the point? Your response seems somewhat short when I was only agreeing with you.
>>>>> SR is within the capabilities of anyone who cannot see that a vertical >>>>> light [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > He assumed the light would take longer to get to the top because it had a > longer path. That is correct inference from the fact that the path length is greater and the postulate that the speed is invariant.
> Of course in reality the light beam takes the same time to get to the top. > It is not light that moves up each diagonal. So if I stand in front of you with a torch shining upwards, it emits light but if I walk past you what is emitted is something other than light? That's possibly the most ridiculous statement I've heard in a long time.
>>> That's because the upper plot of the beam is in the moving frame. The >>> lower one shows the beam in the rest frame. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > bull! > How can you say that? Because your program shows that the diagonal path of each photon or flash or wavefront on the top diagram is longer than the vertical line showing the corresponding path on the bottom diagram.
>>>>> Yes, the vertical green dashes are really just there to show how all >>>>> the [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Plot the path of each wavecrest. It is diagonal. Exactly, which is what Einstein assumed.
> BUT ALL THE WAVECRESTS REMAIN > VERTICALLY ALIGNED in the moving frame. Yes, that is also true. Nobody is disputing it.
>>> The vertical green dashes could be taken as elements of finite lengths >>> if [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > consecutive > wavecrests (whatever a wavecrest is). Sure, interpret it as a flash or a wavefront or a photon or whatever, the length of the diagonal line is always going to be greater than the vertical line.
>>>>The two small elements you illustrate as sine wave >>>>segments show that quite well. you need to use the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > ..as > wide as the whole beam...if you see what I mean. Indeed but you would just get a solid green triangle so it wouldn't convey anything. Your approach is sensible. However, you have shown finite length elements so for consistency I think your picture should look like this
http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/hw4.png
>>>>> The point I am getting across is that no continuous beam moves up any >>>>> one [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Not so. It is a point on a graph.....nothing physical. It is a mrker on the light beam, for example a wavefront as you suggested.
> There is no connection with light or Maxwell's equations. Of course there is Henri, they define the motion of the light. The diagram is just a history of that motion with the light leading the diagonal trace.
> The purple laser beam in my demo is a REAL diagonal light beam. All the > elements follow each other up the same diagonal. That is a distinctly > diffferent situation. Indeed, that would be what you got from an angled but non-moving laser, but remember the light progresses at right angles to the wavefront ;-)
>>> Why should it? It isn't a light beam. It isn't anything. It certainly is >>> not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The vertical line of elements IS light. > The diagonal plot of each infinitesimal element is NOT light. The vertical line is a plot of the history of one wavefront in the rest frame of the laser. In fact it is the plot of all the wavefronts which lay on top of each other. In the moving frame the lines are equivalent plots of the same wavefronts but the motion means they are no longer superimposed.
>>>>> The diagonals are lines of infinitesimal thickness. What >>>>> goes up them is certainly not light. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the diagonal is the same as that taken by the same element in the rest > frame. Nope. Einstein is illustrating the consequence of the postulates, the path length are demonstrably different, the postulates require the speed to be invariant, therefore logically the times must be different. There are three related parameters and you are trying to fix the wrong one.
> In other words, the element 'moves up' the diagonal at sqrt(c^2+v^2) NOT > at [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > I can visualize what happens. From what you said, I can tell your visualisation is incomplete.
> It is exactly the same as the conventional explanation. > The path lengths are different and the light speed remains c everywhere. > Even > the kick of each mirror is normal to the next mirror IN THAT MIRROR'S > FRAME. No, in the mirror frame, the speed is continuously varying between the mirrors.
>>>>Nonsense. Why are you wasting our time saying >>>>things you know aren't true. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Do you not believe that light leaves its source at c? ....I find that > extraordinary. It would be, if that is what I had said, but I didn't. Here it is again:
>>> Are you seriously suggesting that it leaves at some other speed? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > How has it been known when it has never been measured? > You are starting to rave and preach, George. No, you are just in denial. The speed of light has been measured many times.
>>>>> The part of the beam that goes from the source to the centre of the >>>>> mirror travels at c towards that centre no matter how the apparatus [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I agree you are wrong and Ritz never said that. Ritz says the light is emitted at c relative to the source, hence it is c+mv in the lab frame where 'm' is a factor that depends on the number of mirrors. Why do you think that isn't correct?
>>> It always travels at c relative to the (moving) point representing the >>> centre [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the > crucial point, George. The crucial point is that _any_ consistent theory must make the same prediction for _any_ experiment regardless of what frame you choose to do your calculations. Do the calculation properly and this time take into account the variable speed between the mirrors (and source and detector of cousre) and you _must_ get the same answer as in the lab frame or the co-rotating table frame. That answer is a prediction of a null output.
>>> The path lengths are differnet in either direction ..just as in the >>> conventional explanation. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No George. I have just explained why not. > The conventional explanation applies. If by "tThe conventional explanation" you mean SR then you are wrong. SR says the speed in the lab frame is c while Ritz says it is modifed by the motion of the source. If they differ in one frame, they must differ in all. That's basic Galilean relativity.
>>>>No it doesn't, the light goes round the cicumference or >>>>along chords to the circumference, it never goes to the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > NON-Rotating > frames of the first mirror. Indeed, and I must be careful to distinguish between the light and the source, I hadn't noticed you changed the subject :-(
> In the former, the source does not move or rotate. > In the latter, the source moves in a circle. > > In both cases, CMIIW, the source does not move radially wrt the first > mirror. Correct, therefore there is no Doppler, but I thought we had agreed that some time ago.
Hoewever, in both those frames, the speed of the light varies between the mirrors, but in different ways. As I said, this all gets devilishly complex, the lab and rotating table-centred frames are simpler and all must give the same result.
If you want to carry on considering the mirror frames by all means do so but you need to start taking other effects into account.
>>> George the mistake you have been making all along is that you have >>> calculated [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I haven't the faintest idea what you are getting at here. Simply showing by symmetry that the incident speed is c if the previous emission speed is c.
> the true situation is at: > http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/george1.jpg Rotate the diagram so that the rays are parallel and you get the same as mine.
> The yellow beam is supposed to be collimated and coherent....but it will > always [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > longer > than the parallel one. Yes, in the lab frame but in that frame the speed isn't c since you have to vector add the speed of the source. It is c in the either mirror frame but as you said there is no radial motion in that frame. You have mixed bits from two different frames.
>>hence there is no "kick" in the speed. You finally >>agreed with me :-) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No No. The path changes just as the conventional theory states. No, as you said above "the source does not move radially wrt the first mirror."
>>What you have stated is exactly what I drew on that >>diagram and it is dated 1st Feb, 2004. You finally [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > frame > and the next miror frame. No, it is emitted and received at c but it varies along the path. Think about "c minus angular velocity times radius" and see if the penny drops. This is just a consequence of the Galilean transforms.
George
Henri Wilson - 26 Oct 2005 22:56 GMT >>>Right, so when you want to know the length of the >>>path, it is the length of that diagonal. That's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >length is greater and the postulate that the speed is >invariant. The postulate says the speed of LIGHT is invariant.
It should be plainly obvious to anyone with even half a brain that no light BEAM moves along any one of the infinite number of infinitesimally thin diagonal lines that represent the paths if infinitesimal elements of the light beam that is vertical in the rest frame.
What moves up a diagonal is an infinitesimal point. It is not a physical entity.
>> Of course in reality the light beam takes the same time to get to the top. >> It is not light that moves up each diagonal. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >possibly the most ridiculous statement I've heard >in a long time. Are you playing dumb? Have you ever plotted a point on a graph? Does it have any physical significance?
Do something useful for once George and plot the 'wavecrests' of your emitted beam.. . Use a laser.
>>>> That's because the upper plot of the beam is in the moving frame. The >>>> lower one shows the beam in the rest frame. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >diagram is longer than the vertical line showing >the corresponding path on the bottom diagram. IT IS NOT THE DIAGONAL PATH OF A PHOTON.
It is a diagonal line showing the path of an infinitesimal point of the vertical beam.
>>>>>> Yes, the vertical green dashes are really just there to show how all >>>>>> the [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >Exactly, which is what Einstein assumed. It is NOT what Einstein assumed. He assumed that the whole beam went up ONE diagonal and moved at c. Is that what you are saying too?
Geez, this is so obviously wrong I cannot see how anyone would be stupid enough to even consider it.
>> BUT ALL THE WAVECRESTS REMAIN >> VERTICALLY ALIGNED in the moving frame. > >Yes, that is also true. Nobody is disputing it. Well can you not see tat hte line of vertical wavecrests constitute the light beam. IT REMAINS VERTICAL IN BOTH FRAMES.
Your problem George is that you think photons are like ball bearings.
Consider this: You have a machine gun that can fire either spherical lead shot or normal elongated bullets. Fire a machine gun vertically, first with the lead shot. As seen in a moving frame, the centre of each shot moves diagonally. Since the shot is symmetrical there is no obvious way to tell which way up it is. However each shot moves along a different diagonal path.
Now do the same with the bullets. In the moving frame, as before, the centre of each bullet moves along its own unique diagonal. Only one bullet centre moves along any particular diagonal. However, NOW, the axis of each bullet is angled wrt the diagonal...because each element of the bullet emerges from the barrel at a slightly different time. It remains vertical..so that all the bullet axes are still lined up vertically. Another important point is that the bullets take the same time to reach their target no matter who measures that time.
If you cannot follow this I will have to give up on you.
>>>> The vertical green dashes could be taken as elements of finite lengths >>>> if [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >photon or whatever, the length of the diagonal line >is always going to be greater than the vertical line. Of course...which means that the infintesimal point that follows each diagonal path moves at sqrt(c^2+v^2) and NOT at 'c', as Einstein stupidly believed.
I'm afraid he spent too much time misinterpreting the way in which raindrops moved past train windows.
>>>Indeed, I made a mistake. You are right about the orientation >>>of the element, the mistake is that the entire element sweeps [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >elements so for consistency I think your picture >should look like this Unfortunately the thickness of each lines is limited to one screen pixel.
> http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/hw4.png No that is not right. If all the infiniteximal e,ements were plotted, it WOULD REALLY BE a solid green triangle...with a vertical RHS represnting the whole beam in the moving frame.
>> Not so. It is a point on a graph.....nothing physical. > >It is a mrker on the light beam, for example a wavefront >as you suggested. A 'point'
>> There is no connection with light or Maxwell's equations. > >Of course there is Henri, they define the motion of >the light. The diagram is just a history of that >motion with the light leading the diagonal trace. No light beam moves diagonally.
>> The purple laser beam in my demo is a REAL diagonal light beam. All the >> elements follow each other up the same diagonal. That is a distinctly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >but non-moving laser, but remember the light >progresses at right angles to the wavefront ;-) That is irrelevant.
>>>> Why should it? It isn't a light beam. It isn't anything. It certainly is >>>> not [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >are equivalent plots of the same wavefronts but >the motion means they are no longer superimposed. George, I think you should spend a litle more time thinking about this. You seem utterly confused. Come back when you have worked out what is really happening.
>>>The locus has a key property - length. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >different. There are three related parameters and >you are trying to fix the wrong one. ..and that epitomizes Einstein's ignorance. He really believed that the solitary infinitesimal dimensionless point which when plotted against time created a diagonal line, somehow constituted a light beam moving at c along that same path. How bloody stupid can one get?
see this full stop .
Is that a light beam moving at c? You seem to believe it is.
>> In other words, the element 'moves up' the diagonal at sqrt(c^2+v^2) NOT >> at [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >From what you said, I can tell your visualisation is >incomplete. well use you head and complete it. .but you are limited to pixels.....so you wont improve on what I have presented.
>> It is exactly the same as the conventional explanation. >> The path lengths are different and the light speed remains c everywhere. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >No, in the mirror frame, the speed is continuously >varying between the mirrors. I think you should only consider the instantaneous OWLS as the light actually hits the mirror. In the mirror frame that is c.
>>>Sorry Henri, I don't respond to accusations of what other >>>people might have said. I know Paul understands SR and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >No, you are just in denial. The speed of light has been >measured many times. In TWLS experiments with no moving parts.. ...and according to the BaTh, in such experiments TWLS = OWLS = c. So you and many others are right.... but for the wrong reasons. The value of the universal constant 'c' has been accurately established using TWLS experiments.
>>>>>> The part of the beam that goes from the source to the centre of the >>>>>> mirror travels at c towards that centre no matter how the apparatus [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >where 'm' is a factor that depends on the number >of mirrors. Why do you think that isn't correct? because of what I said above.. .you should only consider the instantaneous OWLS as the light actually hits the mirror. That is c.
>>>> It always travels at c relative to the (moving) point representing the >>>> centre [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >or the co-rotating table frame. That answer is a >prediction of a null output. You saw my diagram. The path lengths are obviously different in both diirections.
>>>> The path lengths are differnet in either direction ..just as in the >>>> conventional explanation. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >source. If they differ in one frame, they must differ >in all. That's basic Galilean relativity. the SR explanation is really an aether one.
Following my 'revelation', it now appears that the BaTh is the only plausible explanation.
>>>> The source revolves around the first mirror. >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >the light and the source, I hadn't noticed you changed >the subject :-( again, you should only consider the instantaneous OWLS as the light actually hits the mirror.
>> In the former, the source does not move or rotate. >> In the latter, the source moves in a circle. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >by all means do so but you need to start taking other >effects into account. I am content to acept that no matter how the table rotates, the speed of light from each member wrt the next remains c.
>>>Yes, that is exactly what I showed in this diagram: >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Simply showing by symmetry that the incident speed is >c if the previous emission speed is c. I think it is wrong.
>> the true situation is at: >> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/george1.jpg > >Rotate the diagram so that the rays are parallel and >you get the same as mine. I dont understand that. The horizontal line is the rest state. The slanted line is the path of the ray that reaches the centre of the mirror during rotation. (with the source at the same point in each case)
>> The yellow beam is supposed to be collimated and coherent....but it will >> always [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >is no radial motion in that frame. You have mixed bits >from two different frames. Yes I undertand what you are saying... but that is taken into account when the reflection from the first mirror is considered. It is also moving at 45 wrt the beam...so you have a rather complicated reflection process occuring. I think you will find that it explains your question.
>>>No, you have now proved that it predicts a null result. >>>The speed is c and the path in that frame is unchaged [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >No, as you said above "the source does not move >radially wrt the first mirror." But the mirror moves slightly while the light is in flight.
>>>What you have stated is exactly what I drew on that >>>diagram and it is dated 1st Feb, 2004. You finally [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >radius" and see if the penny drops. This is just a >consequence of the Galilean transforms. you should only consider the instantaneous OWLS as the light actually hits the mirror. In the lab frame that mirror is moving at 45 wrt the beam.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 30 Oct 2005 11:56 GMT > On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:50:41 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > The postulate says the speed of LIGHT is invariant. And the speed of any "infinitesimal element" as you describe them in your program, or photons as we know them.
> It should be plainly obvious to anyone with even half a brain that no > light [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What moves up a diagonal is an infinitesimal point. It is not a physical > entity. It is the smallest, indivisible piece of light. Your diagram is like tracking the path of a water molecule in the jet from a hose.
>>> Of course in reality the light beam takes the same time to get to the >>> top. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > have > any physical significance? The thing whose path is being plotted exists and the line is a plot of its path.
> Do something useful for once George and plot the 'wavecrests' of your > emitted [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > It is a diagonal line showing the path of an infinitesimal point of the > vertical beam. And an "infinitesimal point of the ... beam" is what we call "a photon".
>>>>> The conventional view ignores the fact that the ends of the 'elements' >>>>> are [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > He assumed that the whole beam went up ONE diagonal and > moved at c. No, he didn't. The source obviously moves while, if the beam went along the diagonal, the source would need to be static.
> Is that what you are saying too? > > Geez, this is so obviously wrong I cannot see how anyone would be stupid > enough > to even consider it. No, I'm saying you are misquoting Einstein and, perhaps unintentionally, creating a strawman.
>>> BUT ALL THE WAVECRESTS REMAIN >>> VERTICALLY ALIGNED in the moving frame. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > light > beam. IT REMAINS VERTICAL IN BOTH FRAMES. As I said, nobody is disputing that.
> Your problem George is that you think photons are like ball bearings. Sort of, they are like other sub-atomic particles.
> Consider this: You have a machine gun that can fire either spherical lead > shot [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > unique diagonal. Only one bullet centre moves along any particular > diagonal. Let's consider what you said of the shot: "However each shot moves along a different diagonal path."
That remains true of the bullets, each bullet moves along a diagonal path and that is the basis of the argument.
> However, NOW, the axis of each bullet is angled wrt the diagonal...because > each > element of the bullet emerges from the barrel at a slightly different > time. It > remains vertical..so that all the bullet axes are still lined up > vertically. Yes, motion of the source can influence polarisation. See for example how that is used on the CMBR. That doesn't change the fact that each photon travels a diagonal path just as for the shot and bullets.
> Another important point is that the bullets take the same time to reach > their > target no matter who measures that time. Sorry Henri, that's just your religious belief showing through again. If the speed of the light along the diagonal is c then the time taken has to be different. That's the whole point, and we know experimentally that the speed is always measured to be c.
> If you cannot follow this I will have to give up on you. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > diagonal > path moves at sqrt(c^2+v^2) and NOT at 'c', as Einstein stupidly believed. It moves at c as measured, you therefore have to revise your belief that the times must be the same.
> I'm afraid he spent too much time misinterpreting the way in which > raindrops > moved past train windows. Your diagram shows he was right, the paths are diagonal.
>>>>Indeed, I made a mistake. You are right about the orientation >>>>of the element, the mistake is that the entire element sweeps [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Unfortunately the thickness of each lines is limited to one screen pixel. OK, you might replace your short line for your "infinitesimal element" by a single pixel of a different colour in that case. It would make more sense anyway if it is supposed to be "infinitesimal".
>> http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/hw4.png > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > whole > beam in the moving frame. I was trying to do a corrected version of yours where there are gaps between light elements. I think I mentioned before, like a car indicator.
>>> Not so. It is a point on a graph.....nothing physical. >> >>It is a mrker on the light beam, for example a wavefront >>as you suggested. > > A 'point' The location of "an infinitesimal element of light", a photon.
>>> There is no connection with light or Maxwell's equations. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No light beam moves diagonally. If you stand in your garden and shine a torch up at the clouds, you get a beam. That beam doesn't move at all, it stretches from the torch to the cloud. What moves at c is the elements of light that form the collection you call the beam. In fact those elements are emitted and destroyed in a fraction of a second so what is a "beam" anyway? Nothing that forms what you call the beam at one time exists a second later.
Einstein's explanation applies to the individual photons, not the nebulous concept of a beam.
>>>>> Why should it? It isn't a light beam. It isn't anything. It certainly >>>>> is not governed by maxwell's equations. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > You seem utterly confused. > Come back when you have worked out what is really happening. Read it again Henri but this time think about it, I am correct.
>>>>The locus has a key property - length. >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > created a diagonal line, somehow constituted a light beam moving at c > along that same path. No, that's your confused alternative, "the beam" is always attached to the laser, it is the "infinitesimal elements" that are moving at c, either vertically in one frame or diagonally in the other.
This post is getting too long and a visitor has arrived so I'll respond to the Sagnac stuff separately.
George
Henri Wilson - 30 Oct 2005 21:59 GMT >> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:50:41 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote:
>> It should be plainly obvious to anyone with even half a brain that no >> light [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >diagram is like tracking the path of a water molecule >in the jet from a hose. No it is smaller than that. It is infinitesimal. It is the same size as a line on a graph. Didn't you ever study maths George?
>>>> Of course in reality the light beam takes the same time to get to the >>>> top. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >The thing whose path is being plotted exists and >the line is a plot of its path. The point where the moving blades of scissors cross is also real is it George?
>>>Because your program shows that the diagonal path >>>of each photon or flash or wavefront on the top [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >And an "infinitesimal point of the ... beam" is what >we call "a photon". You seem to believe that photons are like ball bearings. In that case, their diagonal speed is sqrt(c^2+v^2).
>>>> Instead of flashes, think in terms of 'moving wavecrests' George. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >the beam went along the diagonal, the source would >need to be static. My animation shows the difference between a diagonal beam (purple) and the diagonally moving 'infinitesimal point'. How can you compare the two? Are you being deliberately stubborn?
>> Is that what you are saying too? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >No, I'm saying you are misquoting Einstein and, >perhaps unintentionally, creating a strawman. Sorry George, that's the essence of SR. It works in LET, it fails in SR.
>>>> BUT ALL THE WAVECRESTS REMAIN >>>> VERTICALLY ALIGNED in the moving frame. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >As I said, nobody is disputing that. Well does it move at 'c' vertically? Does it take the same time to reach the top no matter who goes past?
>> Your problem George is that you think photons are like ball bearings. > >Sort of, they are like other sub-atomic particles. So you claim to know something about the structure of photons eh George? Tell us more.....
>> Consider this: You have a machine gun that can fire either spherical lead >> shot [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >along a diagonal path and that is the basis of the >argument. But its axis is not diagonal. It remains vertical. Similarly, if a hole was drilled through the lead shot, the holes would remain lined up vertically..
>> However, NOW, the axis of each bullet is angled wrt the diagonal...because >> each [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >doesn't change the fact that each photon travels a >diagonal path just as for the shot and bullets. This is bloody stupid. Can you not get it into your head that the diagonal 'path' is just a line on a graph. It is the path taken by an infinitesimal part of something. Do you understand what 'infinitesimal' means George? I gather you don't.
A photon might be small but it is certainly not infinitesimal.
>> Another important point is that the bullets take the same time to reach >> their [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >That's the whole point, and we know experimentally that >the speed is always measured to be c. Whatever moves along the graphed path of an infinitesimal point is not light and it moves at sqrt(c^2+v^2)
>>>Sure, interpret it as a flash or a wavefront or a >>>photon or whatever, the length of the diagonal line [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >It moves at c as measured, you therefore have to revise >your belief that the times must be the same. George, don't talk nonsense. You are starting to look like a complete fool. You are proving that you have no understanding of physics at all.
>> I'm afraid he spent too much time misinterpreting the way in which >> raindrops >> moved past train windows. > >Your diagram shows he was right, the paths are diagonal. Each droplet APPEARS to move diagonally. In fact, the paths of each infinitesimal point inside each water molecule travels along a different diagonal at the speed sqrt(u^2+v^2). The drops take the same time to reach the ground no matter how fast Einstein moves.
>>>Indeed but you would just get a solid green triangle >>>so it wouldn't convey anything. Your approach is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >different colour in that case. It would make more >sense anyway if it is supposed to be "infinitesimal". You should know what 'infinitesimal' means.
>>> http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/hw4.png >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >The location of "an infinitesimal element of >light", a photon. Is this a magic photon designed by the fairies, George?
Infinitesimal points don't have physical properties George.
>>>> There is no connection with light or Maxwell's equations. >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Nothing that forms what you call the beam at one >time exists a second later. irrelevant drivel.
>Einstein's explanation applies to the individual >photons, not the nebulous concept of a beam. well, I have shown you why he is plainly wrong.
>>>The vertical line is a plot of the history of one >>>wavefront in the rest frame of the laser. In fact [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Read it again Henri but this time think about >it, I am correct. You 'correction' of my output is wrong.
>>>>>The locus has a key property - length. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >elements" that are moving at c, either vertically in >one frame or diagonally in the other. HoHohahahaha!!! Whoever measured that?
You are quoting a postulate not a proven fact.
>This post is getting too long and a visitor has arrived >so I'll respond to the Sagnac stuff separately. > >George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 01 Nov 2005 21:04 GMT > On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 10:56:41 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > No it is smaller than that. It is infinitesimal. "infinitesimal" means of negligible size but finite. A photon like electrons and other fundamental particles is of zero size so smaller than infinitesimal, unless you want to speculate about them being of the Planck size and the consequences of string theory.
> It is the same size as a line on a graph. > Didn't you ever study maths George? Enough to highlight the errors in your program Henri. Ad hominems won't get you anyhere Henri, shall we drop them and stick to the science?
>>>>> Of course in reality the light beam takes the same time to get to the >>>>> top. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > The point where the moving blades of scissors cross is also real is it > George? You can plot the path of something that exists or something that is not. The light from the laser is real regardless of what frame you choose.
>>>>Because your program shows that the diagonal path >>>>of each photon or flash or wavefront on the top [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You seem to believe that photons are like ball bearings. In some cases, except that they have zero size and zero mass, in other cases they act like waves.
> In that case, their diagonal speed is sqrt(c^2+v^2). That's what any self-respecting 18th century physicist would have believed. Maxwell's equations suggested it was wrong and observation has confirmed that, they move at c in the moving frame too.
>>>>> Instead of flashes, think in terms of 'moving wavecrests' George. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > diagonally moving 'infinitesimal point'. > How can you compare the two? That's the key Henri, you have to compare like with like. If you want to compare one of the diagonal green lines, which is the historical path of one photon, with something in the laser frame, it has to be the historical path of the same photon, not the "beam" as you are trying to do.
> Are you being deliberately stubborn? No, I'm being intelligent. Can we drop the insults?
>>> Is that what you are saying too? >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Sorry George, that's the essence of SR. No Henri it isn't. As you said before, you have deliberately avoided learning SR so it is to be expected that you will have these misunderstandings.
> It works in LET, it fails in SR. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Well does it move at 'c' vertically? No, it doesn't move at all. The "beam" always has its base at the aperture of the laser.
> Does it take the same time to reach the top no matter who goes past? It doesn't take any time to "reach the top", one end of the beam IS the top (of the beam). How much time does it take a piece of string to reach the end of the piece of string?
>>> Your problem George is that you think photons are like ball bearings. >> >>Sort of, they are like other sub-atomic particles. > > So you claim to know something about the structure of photons eh George? > Tell us more..... I made no such claim.
>>> Consider this: You have a machine gun that can fire either spherical >>> lead [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > remain > lined up vertically.. Einstein's gedanken deals with the length of the path the photon took. It doesn't matter what a photon looks like, only the length of the path it takes is relevant to his illustration of the consequences of the speed being c in both frames.
>>> However, NOW, the axis of each bullet is angled wrt the >>> diagonal...because [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > This is bloody stupid. Can you not get it into your head that the diagonal > 'path' is just a line on a graph. Can you not get it into your head that you have to compare like with like? The length of the line on that graph is being compared with length of the equivalent line for the same "infinitesimal element", if that's what you want to call it, on the laser-frame graph.
> It is the path taken by an infinitesimal part of something. > Do you understand what 'infinitesimal' means George? > I gather you don't. Whatever you think it means, you must still compare like with like. The path of the 'infinitesimal' in one frame with the path of the same 'infinitesimal' in the other.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+infinitesimal
"a variable that has zero as its limit"
"In mathematics, an infinitesimal ... is a number that is greater in absolute value than zero yet smaller than any positive real number."
"an abstract description of nearly nothing."
"a very small quantity, approaching zero"
> A photon might be small but it is certainly not infinitesimal. Right, it has zero size so is smaller than "infinitesimal", unless string theory turns out to be correct.
>>> Another important point is that the bullets take the same time to reach >>> their [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > light > and it moves at sqrt(c^2+v^2) It is pointless to repeat assertions unless you have something to back them up. Experimentally the measured speed is c.
>>>>Sure, interpret it as a flash or a wavefront or a >>>>photon or whatever, the length of the diagonal line [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > You are starting to look like a complete fool. > You are proving that you have no understanding of physics at all. Your inability to offer anyhing other than insults is telling.
>>> I'm afraid he spent too much time misinterpreting the way in which >>> raindrops moved past train windows. >> >>Your diagram shows he was right, the paths are diagonal. > > Each droplet APPEARS to move diagonally. The PATH of each droplet IS diagonal in the train frame while the path of the SAME droplet was vertical in the trackside frame. Compare like with like Henri.
> In fact, the paths of each > infinitesimal point inside each water molecule travels along a different > diagonal at the speed sqrt(u^2+v^2). Almost, but not quite ;-)
> The drops take the same time to reach the ground no matter how fast > Einstein > moves. Almost, but not quite ;-)
>>>>Indeed but you would just get a solid green triangle >>>>so it wouldn't convey anything. Your approach is [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > You should know what 'infinitesimal' means. I do, better than you it appears. You are highlighting the finite-sized pixel within which the 'infinitesimal element' can be found at the current time and pducing a path of all such pixels where the 'infinitesimal element' was located at previous times. Showing a single pixel of a different colour is a more accurate representation of an 'infinitesimal element' than your multiple pixels.
>>>>> Not so. It is a point on a graph.....nothing physical. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Infinitesimal points don't have physical properties George. Yet more baseless assertions Henri?
>>>>> There is no connection with light or Maxwell's equations. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > well, I have shown you why he is plainly wrong. No, you have shown you can't keep the concepts of a beam and an 'infinitesimal element' of that beam distinct. Confusing the two produces your error.
>>>>The vertical line is a plot of the history of one >>>>wavefront in the rest frame of the laser. In fact [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > You 'correction' of my output is wrong. What is wrong with your argument is that you aren't comparing like with like. You would be better to show a single diagonal green line and the same element moving vertically in the laser frame. However you choose to show it, you need to compare like with like.
The diagram was to illustrate how consistent graphics would look. If you are using a line element for the path, the other way to get consistency is to correct the symbol for the element. That was a minor point intended to be helpful.
>>>>... Einstein is illustrating the consequence of >>>>the postulates, the path length are demonstrably [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > HoHohahahaha!!! Whoever measured that? Well I could start with Roemer, but that's beside the point. The gedanken illustrates a consequence by comparing the length of the paths in the two frames, not the directions of the beam in the two frames. Your diagram confirms the path in one is vertical but diagonal in the other.
> You are quoting a postulate not a proven fact. All science is based on postulates, it is a fact that no measurement has ever falsified the postulate and any possible deviation is tightly constrained, which is as good as any science can ever get.
George
Henri Wilson - 01 Nov 2005 23:26 GMT >> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 10:56:41 -0000, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >you want to speculate about them being of the Planck >size and the consequences of string theory. Talk science, not religion.
>> It is the same size as a line on a graph. >> Didn't you ever study maths George? > >Enough to highlight the errors in your program Henri. >Ad hominems won't get you anyhere Henri, shall we drop >them and stick to the science? How thick is a line on a graph George. Talk science, not religion.
>>>The thing whose path is being plotted exists and >>>the line is a plot of its path. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >something that is not. The light from the laser is >real regardless of what frame you choose. You just said it has zero size. Do you know what you mean? If it has zero size it also has zero roperties. OBVIOUSLY.
>>>>>Because your program shows that the diagonal path >>>>>of each photon or flash or wavefront on the top [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >In some cases, except that they have zero size and zero >mass, in other cases they act like waves. In other words you haven't a clue but will stick rigidly to your religion.
>> In that case, their diagonal speed is sqrt(c^2+v^2). > >That's what any self-respecting 18th century physicist >would have believed. Maxwell's equations suggested it >was wrong and observation has confirmed that, they move >at c in the moving frame too. Maxwell's equation are not relevant. There is no wavelike structure moving along each diagonal. There is ONE infinitesimal point on a graph. The only 'wave' remains in the vertical direction of all frames.
>>>No, he didn't. The source obviously moves while, if >>>the beam went along the diagonal, the source would [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >in the laser frame, it has to be the historical path of the >same photon, not the "beam" as you are trying to do. The diagonal green line is NOT the path of ONE PHOTON. It is the path of an infinitesimal length of one photon. ..and whatever moves up it has a velocity sqrt(c^2+v^2)
>> Are you being deliberately stubborn? > >No, I'm being intelligent. Can we drop the insults? Well if you cannot understand the difference between an 'infinitesimal point on a graph' and a whole 'photon' then you leave yourself open to ridicule.
>>>No, I'm saying you are misquoting Einstein and, >>>perhaps unintentionally, creating a strawman. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >avoided learning SR so it is to be expected that you will >have these misunderstandings. Sorry George, the 'light clock' idea summarizes the principle behind SR and also shows why the whole theory is nonsense from the first chapter.
>> It works in LET, it fails in SR. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >No, it doesn't move at all. The "beam" always has its >base at the aperture of the laser. The elements that make up the beam remain vertically aligned in all frames. Do you remember my chainsaw experiment? Fasten a chainsaw in your car roof with the blade vertical. Start the saw then drive the car along the road. Do you really believe the chain leans over diaginally in the road frame? Each link in the chain appears to move diagonally but on close inspection it can be seen that the axis of the link remains vertical adn that each infinitesimal section of each link moves along a different diagonal.
Do you really think the blade takes any longer to reach the top if different observers time it?
>> Does it take the same time to reach the top no matter who goes past? > >It doesn't take any time to "reach the top", one end of the >beam IS the top (of the beam). How much time does it take >a piece of string to reach the end of the piece of string? Talk science, not religion.
>>>> Your problem George is that you think photons are like ball bearings. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >I made no such claim. You said they have zero size. In that case you must surely have some idea of what makes them different from 'nothing'. Please tell us.
>>>> Now do the same with the bullets. >>>> In the moving frame, as before, the centre of each bullet moves along [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >to his illustration of the consequences of the speed >being c in both frames. He wrongly assumed that photons were like ball bearings and he wrongly postulated that these imaginary objects travel at c in both frames.
>>>> However, NOW, the axis of each bullet is angled wrt the >>>> diagonal...because [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >same "infinitesimal element", if that's what you want to >call it, on the laser-frame graph. It IS an infinitesimal element...in other words its size approaches zero. ,,,and since the time taken to reach the top is unaffected by observer motion, the speed along the diagonal must be aqrt(c^2+v^2)
>> It is the path taken by an infinitesimal part of something. >> Do you understand what 'infinitesimal' means George? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >with like. The path of the 'infinitesimal' in one frame >with the path of the same 'infinitesimal' in the other. We aren't really interested in the infinitesimal points. We want to know what the light beam is doing. It remains vertical in all frames and it is only a true 'light beam' in the 'vertical line' that appears to move sideways in the moving frame..
>http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+infinitesimal > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Right, it has zero size so is smaller than "infinitesimal", >unless string theory turns out to be correct. If it has zero size, George, please tell the world how it differs from 'nothing'.
>> Whatever moves along the graphed path of an infinitesimal point is not >> light [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >something to back them up. Experimentally the measured >speed is c. It has never been measured and you know it.
>>>> Of course...which means that the infintesimal point that follows each >>>> diagonal [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Your inability to offer anyhing other than insults is telling. I have explained over and over, in the simplest of terms why Einstein is wrong. You refuse to accept, saying only that 'PHOTONS HAVE ZERO SIZE'. That is meaningless drivel.
>>>> I'm afraid he spent too much time misinterpreting the way in which >>>> raindrops moved past train windows. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >while the path of the SAME droplet was vertical in the >trackside frame. Compare like with like Henri. George, if you were able to magnify each droplet a billion times as it moved 'diagonally' past your train window, would you see each molecule moving along the same diagonal? Would the nucleus of each atom move along the same diagonal as the electron shell?
No, of course not.
>> In fact, the paths of each >> infinitesimal point inside each water molecule travels along a different >> diagonal at the speed sqrt(u^2+v^2). > >Almost, but not quite ;-) Why 'not quite' George. Are you about to show you know even less about physics than I thought?
>> The drops take the same time to reach the ground no matter how fast >> Einstein >> moves. > >Almost, but not quite ;-) Why 'not quite' George. Are you about to show you know even less about physics than I thought?
>>>OK, you might replace your short line for your >>>"infinitesimal element" by a single pixel of a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >a different colour is a more accurate representation of >an 'infinitesimal element' than your multiple pixels. My representation should be obvious to anyone with inltelligence.
>>>>>> Not so. It is a point on a graph.....nothing physical. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Yet more baseless assertions Henri? An infinitesimal point IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM NOTHING!!!!!!!
>>>Einstein's explanation applies to the individual >>>photons, not the nebulous concept of a beam. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >beam and an 'infinitesimal element' of that beam >distinct. Confusing the two produces your error. George, here is an experiment for you.
Set up a vertically pointing laser beam. No move past that beam at c/2. How would you detect the presence of the CONTINUOUS beam if you had a photodetector that was only on micron wide?
Would you angle the detector at 60 degrees somewhere offset wrt your own vertical or would you place it above you and then move it sideways at -c/2 when the beam was detected?
For the former, there would be a very brief and probably unnoticed flash.
In other words, the continuous beam exists only in the source frame. Maxwell only applies in the source frame.
>>>>>The vertical line is a plot of the history of one >>>>>wavefront in the rest frame of the laser. In fact [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >the symbol for the element. That was a minor point >intended to be helpful. Each diagonal green line represents the path of a 'wavecrest' of the vertical beam. That should be obvious enough.
>>>No, that's your confused alternative, "the beam" is >>>always attached to the laser, it is the "infinitesimal [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >diagram confirms the path in one is vertical but >diagonal in the other. There is a vertical beam of light in one frame. There is NO diagonal beam of light in the other. Do you want to disagree with that?
>> You are quoting a postulate not a proven fact. > >All science is based on postulates, it is a fact >that no measurement has ever falsified the postulate >and any possible deviation is tightly constrained, >which is as good as any science can ever get. No measurement has ever supported the postulate George.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 06 Nov 2005 12:00 GMT > On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 20:04:10 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Talk science, not religion. In science, infinitesimal is not zero.
>>> It is the same size as a line on a graph. >>> Didn't you ever study maths George? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > How thick is a line on a graph George. > Talk science, not religion. In physics the line is representative of the motion of something measurable, such as the centre of momentum of a ball bearing, or some trackable location on a wavefront, or a photon.
>>>>The thing whose path is being plotted exists and >>>>the line is a plot of its path. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Do you know what you mean? > If it has zero size it also has zero roperties. OBVIOUSLY. Talk science, not religion Henri. Your assertion that something of zero size cannot have properties is religious. Scientifically, a photon has no measurable size but does have measurable properties including energy and momentum.
>>>>>>Because your program shows that the diagonal path >>>>>>of each photon or flash or wavefront on the top [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > In other words you haven't a clue but will stick rigidly to your religion. No, in other words I follow the scientific method, I accept what is repeatably measured.
>>> In that case, their diagonal speed is sqrt(c^2+v^2). >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Maxwell's equation are not relevant. Of course they are Henri.
> There is no wavelike structure moving along each diagonal. There is ONE > infinitesimal point on a graph. There is infinitesimal point on your graph which indicates the motion of the wavefront. When a wave near the top of your display was emitted, the laser was near the left edge of the screen so the diagonal line marks the path it took. How you relate your point on the graph to that wavefront is for you to define.
> The only 'wave' remains in the vertical direction of all frames. Try drawing the motion of an actual wavefront and you'll learn some interesting aspects that aren't apparent to you yet.
>>>>No, he didn't. The source obviously moves while, if >>>>the beam went along the diagonal, the source would [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > The diagonal green line is NOT the path of ONE PHOTON. > It is the path of an infinitesimal length of one photon. It is a mathematical line of zero width which tracks some point related to the physical phenomenon being plotted, be that a photon or a wavefront or whatever.
> ..and whatever moves up it has a velocity sqrt(c^2+v^2) Talk science, not religion Henri.
>>> Are you being deliberately stubborn? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > point on > a graph' and a whole 'photon' then you leave yourself open to ridicule. If you don't know that a plotted point on a graph is not 'infinitesimal' but of zero size then I'm not the one who will be ridiculed. Similarly if you don't know that the mathematical point must be related to the object being described by some definition (which you have so far omitted) to relate the maths to the physics.
>>>>No, I'm saying you are misquoting Einstein and, >>>>perhaps unintentionally, creating a strawman. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and > also shows why the whole theory is nonsense from the first chapter. The 'light clock' is a consequence, not the essence.
>>> It works in LET, it fails in SR. >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > The elements that make up the beam remain vertically aligned in all > frames. True but irrelevant, Einstein's explanation relates to the path of an individual element.
> Do you remember my chainsaw experiment? > Fasten a chainsaw in your car roof with the blade vertical. Start the saw [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > infinitesimal > section of each link moves along a different diagonal. And it is that diagonal path that is being described. You simply keep proving Einstein was right.
> Do you really think the blade takes any longer to reach the top if > different > observers time it? "the blade" doesn't take any time to "reach the top", it is "each link" that moves from bottom to top, and yes scientific measurements show that the time _does_ depend on the motion of the instrument measuring that time.
>>> Does it take the same time to reach the top no matter who goes past? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Talk science, not religion. I'm talking basic English here, just as "the blade" is the whole object while "each link" is an item that moves along the blade. Stick the physics Henri, you never win these silly word games.
>>>>> Your problem George is that you think photons are like ball bearings. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You said they have zero size. You said I claimed they had structure. How could something of zero size have structure Henri?
> In that case you must surely have some idea of what makes them different > from > 'nothing'. > Please tell us. Momenergy (hate that word but that's what they call it).
>>>>> Now do the same with the bullets. >>>>> In the moving frame, as before, the centre of each bullet moves along [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > He wrongly assumed that photons were like ball bearings He didn't even know about photons, Planck quantised light some years after Einstein published SR.
> and he wrongly > postulated that these imaginary objects travel at c in both frames. He derived his theory from the observation, encapsulated in Maxwell's Equations, that light wavefronts propagate at c.
>>>>> However, NOW, the axis of each bullet is angled wrt the >>>>> diagonal...because [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > It IS an infinitesimal element...in other words its size approaches zero. The size of the point on the graph does not 'approach zero' Henri, it is _precisely_ zero as is true for all mathematical points. To relate it to the real world, you need a definition, for example you might identify the point as the intersection of a particular wavefront with a ray, which is itself defined as a mathematical line passing down the central axis of the laser.
> ,,,and since the time taken to reach the top is unaffected by observer > motion, > the speed along the diagonal must be aqrt(c^2+v^2) Talk science, not religion Henri. You are assuming that the universe obeys Galilean relativity, that is not what is measured.
>>> It is the path taken by an infinitesimal part of something. >>> Do you understand what 'infinitesimal' means George? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > what > the light beam is doing. No, we are interested in the length of the path of a single wavefront. That is what can be related to the speed defined by Maxwell's equations. Where later wavefronts lie in relation to that one is of no interest.
> It remains vertical in all frames and it is only a > true 'light beam' in the 'vertical line' that appears to move sideways in [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > If it has zero size, George, please tell the world how it differs from > 'nothing'. Just learn what the words mean Henri.
>>> Whatever moves along the graphed path of an infinitesimal point is not >>> light [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It has never been measured and you know it. Roemer, etc. Why do you say such idiotic things Henri, I know you are smarter than that.
>>>>> Of course...which means that the infintesimal point that follows each >>>>> diagonal [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I have explained over and over, in the simplest of terms why Einstein is > wrong. And in return I have explained repeatedly why you are not comparing like with, you considering the path of a single wavefront in the moving frame so you must compare that to the path of the same wavefront in the laser frame. You have simple ignored my corretion, endlessly repeating your original erroneous statements. Change the record if you want me to resond differently.
> You refuse to accept, saying only that 'PHOTONS HAVE ZERO SIZE'. That is > meaningless drivel. That is the reason I gave for why your illustration fails to disprove Einstein, as an aside I was correcting yet another of your errors. SR was published before Planck quantised radiation, and even at that time Planck still thought it was a quantisation of the amount of energy in a wave rather than a particulate theory.
>>>>> I'm afraid he spent too much time misinterpreting the way in which >>>>> raindrops moved past train windows. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > No, of course not. Very good Henri, you're starting to think. So how do you define the mathematical point on the graph that represents the raindrop? If it is falling in a vacuuum then using the centre of momentum of the drop would be reasonable. Nothing "infinitesimal" is involved at all.
>>> In fact, the paths of each >>> infinitesimal point inside each water molecule travels along a different [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Why 'not quite' George. Because you forgot the extra factor involving gamma from SR. sqrt(u^2+v^2) is a very good approximation though ;-)
> Are you about to show you know even less about physics than I thought? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Why 'not quite' George. Because you forgot the extra factor involving gamma from SR. "the same time" is a very good approximation though.
> Are you about to show you know even less about physics than I thought? > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > My representation should be obvious to anyone with inltelligence. It is obvious. With knowledge of science as well as intelligence, the error is also obvious, you are not comparing like with like, just playing word games comparing "the beam" versus an "infinitesimal element".
>>>>>>> Not so. It is a point on a graph.....nothing physical. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > An infinitesimal point IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM NOTHING!!!!!!! But a wavefront is quite different and that's what the mathematical point on the graph describes.
> George, here is an experiment for you. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Maxwell > only applies in the source frame. Suppose the detector is at the end of a narrow tube to exclude ambient light. The detector would be vertical if it was at rest wrt the laser but if I try to use it when moving past I have to angle it to compensate for aberration, and Maxwell's Equations apply to the propagation of the wavefront along the tube.
>>>>>>The vertical line is a plot of the history of one >>>>>>wavefront in the rest frame of the laser. In fact [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > vertical > beam. That should be obvious enough. It would be equally obvious if you used a distinct colour and that would also highlight why you are not comparing like with like, the moving frame would show a diagonal of one colour with your moving element at the tip in another. See if you can imagine the corresponding display in the laser frame, you have choices to make.
>>>>No, that's your confused alternative, "the beam" is >>>>always attached to the laser, it is the "infinitesimal [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > of > light in the other. Do you want to disagree with that? "The beam" is of no relevance, Einstein's gedanken is about the speed of one particular wavefront of a propagating wave as defined by Maxwell's Equations. The path of EACH wavefront is vertical in the laser frame but diagonal in the moving frame. Do you want to disagree with that, because that's what you have to do to prove him wrong?
>>> You are quoting a postulate not a proven fact. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No measurement has ever supported the postulate George. Since no measurement has ever falsified it, every measurement ever made relating to the speed of light has supported it, including Michelson-Morely, Fizeau, aberration, Sagnac, Kennedy-Thorndike and so on. You know better than to write nonsense like that Henri.
George
Henri Wilson - 06 Nov 2005 20:50 GMT >>>"infinitesimal" means of negligible size but finite. A >>>photon like electrons and other fundamental particles [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >In science, infinitesimal is not zero. It approaches zero. It is 1/infinity...or effectively zero.
>>>> It is the same size as a line on a graph. >>>> Didn't you ever study maths George? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >of a ball bearing, or some trackable location on a >wavefront, or a photon. that's right...and it has zero thinckness.
>>>>>The thing whose path is being plotted exists and >>>>>the line is a plot of its path. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >size but does have measurable properties including >energy and momentum. What a load of crap. You are starting to sound like the rest of the relativist trolls here, George. I thought you were a little better than that.
>>>> You seem to believe that photons are like ball bearings. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >No, in other words I follow the scientific method, I accept >what is repeatably measured. The relevance of which is? Are you under the impression that OWLS from a moving source is repeatedly measured George?
>>>> In that case, their diagonal speed is sqrt(c^2+v^2). >>> [quoted text clipped - 532 lines] > >George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 11 Nov 2005 15:53 GMT > On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 12:00:19 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > It approaches zero. Right, it approaches zero but is not zero.
> It is 1/infinity...or effectively zero. Scientifically speaking, it is not zero.
>>>>> It is the same size as a line on a graph. >>>>> Didn't you ever study maths George? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > that's right...and it has zero thinckness. Agreed, the thickness is zero, not "infinitesimal". Don't confuse the infinitesimal part of the wave with the mathematical point that represents its location at some instant.
>>>>>>The thing whose path is being plotted exists and >>>>>>the line is a plot of its path. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > trolls here, George. > I thought you were a little better than that. I'm talking science Henri, if the size of an object is less than we can measure so we are unable to determine a minimum, only a maximum, we can state that it is consistent with the assumption of zero size. That doesn't mean we are saying it has zero size though, only that the size is smaller than can be measured. The hard sciences are entirely about measurement.
>>>>> You seem to believe that photons are like ball bearings. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The relevance of which is? None that I can see, you started dragging religion into this when you are the only one making assertions without measurements to back them up.
> Are you under the impression that OWLS from a moving source is repeatedly > measured George? No Henri, wherever did you get such an idea? What is regularly measured, and confirms SR, is the anisotropy of the speeds in the moving frame from a moving source.
George
<rest snipped, no further comments from Henri>
Henri Wilson - 11 Nov 2005 22:11 GMT >>>In physics the line is representative of the motion of >>>something measurable, such as the centre of momentum [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >with the mathematical point that represents its >location at some instant. George, 1/infinity is a lot smaller than one wavelength.
The infinitessimal elements I am refering to are obviously NOT a light beam moving at c.
>>>Talk science, not religion Henri. Your assertion that >>>something of zero size cannot have properties is [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >only that the size is smaller than can be measured. >The hard sciences are entirely about measurement. Scientifically speaking, the size of the infinitie number of infinitesimal elements is 1/infinity which is a lot smaller than the wavelength of any light beam.
>>>No, in other words I follow the scientific method, I accept >>>what is repeatably measured. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >regularly measured, and confirms SR, is the anisotropy >of the speeds in the moving frame from a moving source. Nonsense George. I think you meant to say something else there..
>George > ><rest snipped, no further comments from Henri> HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Black Knight - 12 Nov 2005 04:48 GMT > On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:53:38 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > HW. Message rating several casks. Androcles.
George Dishman - 12 Nov 2005 15:29 GMT > On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:53:38 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > beam > moving at c. Good for you, I am talking about finite width wavefronts in the real world whose locations at any instant are represented by a family of mathematical points on a graph. How you want to relate your elements to those is your problem.
>>>>Talk science, not religion Henri. Your assertion that >>>>something of zero size cannot have properties is [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Scientifically speaking, the size of the infinitie number of infinitesimal > elements is 1/infinity Nope, it is infinity/infinity. Do you really want to go off down another sidetrack?
> which is a lot smaller than the wavelength of any light > beam. <restoring context>
>>>>>> You seem to believe that photons are like ball bearings. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Nonsense George. I think you meant to say something else there.. No, I answered your question. The OWLS is not measured but anisotropy is measured. Perhaps you failed to see the connection. If the speed is isotropic then the OWLS = the TWLS and the TWLS is measured to be c as you already know. Hence, I follow the scientific method, I accept what is repeatably measured, TWLS = c, isotropic speed in any inertial frame and anisotropic speed in non-inertial frame (e.g. Sagnac, Shapiro delay), zero measured mass and size to the limits of present measurement capability, and (other than quantum effects) wave-like behaviour which is a solution to Maxwell's Equations.
George
George Dishman - 12 Nov 2005 16:48 GMT >> Scientifically speaking, the size of the infinitie number of >> infinitesimal >> elements is 1/infinity > > Nope, it is infinity/infinity. Do you really want to go > off down another sidetrack? That could have been clearer, the total of elements is infinity/infinity which is finite.
I could perhaps also have pointed out that each wavefront is perpendicular to the direction of the beam. It is not clear which way your are breaking it into elements.
George
Henri Wilson - 12 Nov 2005 20:53 GMT >>> Scientifically speaking, the size of the infinitie number of >>> infinitesimal [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >George No matter. It is patently obvious that what moves diagonally at sqrt(c^2+v^2) is not a beam of light.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Black Knight - 12 Nov 2005 23:40 GMT > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 16:48:50 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > HW. Message rating several casks Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 06 Nov 2005 22:12 GMT >Talk science, not religion Henri. Your assertion that >something of zero size cannot have properties is >religious. Scientifically, a photon has no measurable >size but does have measurable properties including >energy and momentum. continued...
>>>> You seem to believe that photons are like ball bearings. >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Of course they are Henri. Are you losing your marbles George? Do you have the faintest idea what Maxwell's equations describe? They relate to a lossless resonance between an electric field and a magnetic one in a dielectric material. It turns out that a solution involves a wave moving at c where the value of c is found via the two measured constants.
I fail to see how an infinitesimal point can represent a wavelike process moving at c.
>> There is no wavelike structure moving along each diagonal. There is ONE >> infinitesimal point on a graph. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >How you relate your point on the graph to that wavefront is >for you to define. The only wavelike structure in any frame follows a vertical path in that frame. The whole path is moving sideways in the moving frame. George, when you drive past a light pole, does it lean over diagonally? If ants are crawling up it, do their bodies point diagonally?
Of course not!!
>> The only 'wave' remains in the vertical direction of all frames. > >Try drawing the motion of an actual wavefront and you'll >learn some interesting aspects that aren't apparent to >you yet. You keep thinking in terms of the paths of infinitesimal elements. The whole beam remains aligned vertically in all frames.
>>>That's the key Henri, you have to compare like with like. >>>If you want to compare one of the diagonal green lines, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Talk science, not religion Henri. I take it from that, you are starting to realize your error. ..It obviously has a velocity sqrt(c^2+v^2)
>>>> Are you being deliberately stubborn? >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >being described by some definition (which you have so >far omitted) to relate the maths to the physics. George, I will try to make my point even MORE clear.
You drive your car past an archer who fires an arrow vertically into the air. In your frame, each minute element of that arrow moves along a diagonal path.
ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC, EVERY SUCH INFINITESIMAL DIAGONAL PATH HAS AN ARROW GOING UP IT. You have somehow turned one arrow into an infinite number. Brilliant!!!!
>> Sorry George, the 'light clock' idea summarizes the principle behind SR >> and >> also shows why the whole theory is nonsense from the first chapter. > >The 'light clock' is a consequence, not the essence. It is the very basis of SR.
>>>> It works in LET, it fails in SR.
>>>> Well does it move at 'c' vertically? >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >True but irrelevant, Einstein's explanation relates to >the path of an individual element. Einstein's 'explanation' is plain nonsense.
>> Do you remember my chainsaw experiment? >> Fasten a chainsaw in your car roof with the blade vertical. Start the saw [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >And it is that diagonal path that is being described. You >simply keep proving Einstein was right. He said each link moves at the same speed vertically and diagonally. It obviously moves at sqrt(u^2+v^2)
>> Do you really think the blade takes any longer to reach the top if >> different [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >scientific measurements show that the time _does_ depend >on the motion of the instrument measuring that time. Yes I meant each 'link'.
Bull. That is just the postulate. It has never been proved.
>>>> Does it take the same time to reach the top no matter who goes past? >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >the blade. Stick the physics Henri, you never win these >silly word games. George, it is obvious that the time taken for each link to reach the top is not dependent on the movement of any stray observer. It is a direct aether concept that the moving observer will MEASURE a different time than the rest observer. SR merely uses the same principle in a disguised fashion.
>> You said they have zero size. > >You said I claimed they had structure. How could something >of zero size have structure Henri? That's what I asked you. If it doesn't have structure, then it is no different from 'nothing'.
>> In that case you must surely have some idea of what makes them different >> from >> 'nothing'. >> Please tell us. > >Momenergy (hate that word but that's what they call it). Preaching your religion again George? How can something that has no volume, no properties and is indistinguishable from 'nothing' suddenly possess energy and momentum?
>>>Einstein's gedanken deals with the length of the path >>>the photon took. It doesn't matter what a photon looks [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >He didn't even know about photons, Planck quantised light >some years after Einstein published SR. He didn't even get that far. He got the whole picture wrong when he 'deduced' that the raindrops moving diagonally past his train window took longer to reach the ground BECAUSE the train was moving.
>> and he wrongly >> postulated that these imaginary objects travel at c in both frames. > >He derived his theory from the observation, encapsulated in >Maxwell's Equations, that light wavefronts propagate at c. wrt an 'aether'.
>>>Can you not get it into your head that you have to compare >>>like with like? The length of the line on that graph is [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >the universe obeys Galilean relativity, that is not what >is measured. You are assuming that 'absolute' states of matter are observer dependent.
This is a direct consequence of aether theory belief.
>>>> It is the path taken by an infinitesimal part of something. >>>> Do you understand what 'infinitesimal' means George? [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > >Just learn what the words mean Henri. Learning any number of words wont turn 'nothing' into 'something' George.
>>>It is pointless to repeat assertions unless you have >>>something to back them up. Experimentally the measured [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Roemer, etc. Why do you say such idiotic things Henri, I know >you are smarter than that. ....and did Roemer get 2.997E8 m/sec George?
>>>Your inability to offer anyhing other than insults is telling. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >original erroneous statements. Change the record if you >want me to resond differently. Says George, the magician who can turn ONE arrow into an infinite number just by driving past in his car.
>> You refuse to accept, saying only that 'PHOTONS HAVE ZERO SIZE'. That is >> meaningless drivel. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >thought it was a quantisation of the amount of energy >in a wave rather than a particulate theory. Well I agree that we have to ultimately regard all matter as quantized waves in fields, whatever that means.
>>>>>> I'm afraid he spent too much time misinterpreting the way in which >>>>>> raindrops moved past train windows. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >then using the centre of momentum of the drop would be >reasonable. Nothing "infinitesimal" is involved at all. You are moving into a differnet area here. If you want to consider raindrops as rigid spheres then you will find that the momentum of each in your moving frame increases to p*sqrt(u^2+v^2)
...so let's stick with arrows. They are more like photons than are raindrops.
>>>> In fact, the paths of each >>>> infinitesimal point inside each water molecule travels along a different [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Because you forgot the extra factor involving gamma from >SR. sqrt(u^2+v^2) is a very good approximation though ;-) George, you apparently want to use a prediction of your theory to prove your theory.
>> Are you about to show you know even less about physics than I thought? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Because you forgot the extra factor involving gamma from >SR. "the same time" is a very good approximation though. George, you apparently want to use a prediction of your theory to prove your theory.
>>>I do, better than you it appears. You are highlighting >>>the finite-sized pixel within which the 'infinitesimal [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >comparing like with like, just playing word games >comparing "the beam" versus an "infinitesimal element". George, the question is, do the links of the 'photon chainsaw' move diagonally at c or at sqrt(v^2+c^2)?
since Einstein's postulate that they move at 'c' has never been even remotely supported by ezperiment, one must regard his whole theory as a complete joke.
>>>> Infinitesimal points don't have physical properties George. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >But a wavefront is quite different and that's what >the mathematical point on the graph describes. But George, can you not see that no continuous WAVE follows the 'wavefront' up its unique diagonal?
In my demo, the purple beam represents such a continuous wave. It is obviously quite different from the 'green element'.
>> George, here is an experiment for you. >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >for aberration, and Maxwell's Equations apply to the >propagation of the wavefront along the tube. this is not a good example, however...
You angle it so as to pick up the different part of the beam that ends up in your new direction. The distance traveled by the beam you detect is longer than the vertical.
If the beam was perfectly narrow and parallel, you wouldn't see it at all. You would only detect a minute flash.
>> Each diagonal green line represents the path of a 'wavecrest' of the >> vertical [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >another. See if you can imagine the corresponding display >in the laser frame, you have choices to make. George, I have shown only a small number of representative elements. Obviouslky I cannot draw an infinite number. If I used your idea, I would end up with one wide rainbow instead of lots of narrow green ones.
>> There is a vertical beam of light in one frame. There is NO diagonal beam >> of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >frame. Do you want to disagree with that, because that's >what you have to do to prove him wrong? Yes I certainly do want to disagree with that. What moves diagonally is NOT the wavefront of a light beam moving at c.
>>>> You are quoting a postulate not a proven fact. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >aberration, Sagnac, Kennedy-Thorndike and so on. You >know better than to write nonsense like that Henri. Give up George.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 12 Nov 2005 15:12 GMT > On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 12:00:19 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > I fail to see how an infinitesimal point can represent a wavelike process > moving at c. Easy, I gave you that answer lower in the post:
>>The size of the point on the graph does not 'approach zero' >>Henri, it is _precisely_ zero as is true for all mathematical >>points. To relate it to the real world, you need a definition, >>for example you might identify the point as the intersection of >>a particular wavefront with a ray, which is itself defined as a >>mathematical line passing down the central axis of the laser.
>>> There is no wavelike structure moving along each diagonal. There is ONE >>> infinitesimal point on a graph. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The only wavelike structure in any frame follows a vertical path in that > frame. Try illustrating the wavefronts as short lines perpendicular to their direction of motion. In the laser frame, it might look like this (drawn side by side as I can't animate in ASCII):
- - - | | | | | | |-| | | | | | | |-| | | |-| | | |-| | | |-| | | |-| | | | | | | |-| | |
So you get wavefronts coming out the top of the laser tube at regular intervals. I can't show the mirrors at the ends.
See how that works in the moving frame. Each point on your graph is the centre of one of those wavefront segments show as "-" above.
> The whole path is moving sideways in the moving frame. > George, when you drive past a light pole, does it lean over diagonally? > If ants are crawling up it, do their bodies point diagonally? > > Of course not!! The path of each ant is diagonal which is what we are discussing, but if you want to go into more detail, consider what the above diagram would look like in the moving frame. As you said of Maxwell's Equations, "a solution involves a wave moving at c" and the magnetic fields still exist and are still governed by Maxwell's Equations in the moving frame.
>>> The only 'wave' remains in the vertical direction of all frames. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You keep thinking in terms of the paths of infinitesimal elements. That's what your simulation depicts, according to what you have told me. Actually I am thinking in terms of wavefronts moving in accordance with Maxwell's Equations.
> The whole beam remains aligned vertically in all frames. Yes, we have agreed that several times. The line of narrow segments of wavefronts remains vertically aligned while each segment moves diagonally.
>>>>That's the key Henri, you have to compare like with like. >>>>If you want to compare one of the diagonal green lines, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I take it from that, you are starting to realize your error. > ..It obviously has a velocity sqrt(c^2+v^2) No, scientifically speaking, if we measure it we find it has a speed of c whether we understand why or not. That is an empirical statement.
You have a religious conviction that Galilean relativity should hold and therefore you expect on faith that the speed will be sqrt(c^2+v^2).
>>>>> Are you being deliberately stubborn? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > ARROW > GOING UP IT. No. In my interpretation of _your_ world, if the archer fires a series of arrows, each arrow would be seen to be still vertical but it would be flying along a diagonal path relative to the car.
The series of arrows would also still be in line vertically because, although each is moving diagonally, the archer is also moving sideways (relative to the car) and stays directly beneath the line as he fires.
What Maxwell's equations say is that arrows always move in the direction of the shaft. :-o
> You have somehow turned one arrow into an infinite number. Brilliant!!!! You did that when you talked of a beam, which is a collection of wavefronts.
I'm going to snip some less relevant stuff, this is much too long.
>>> Do you remember my chainsaw experiment? >>> Fasten a chainsaw in your car roof with the blade vertical. Start the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > He said each link moves at the same speed vertically and diagonally. He took as a postulate that it would be the same because that is what Maxwell's Equations tell us as you said above, "a wave moving at c where the value of c is found via the two measured constants."
> It obviously moves at sqrt(u^2+v^2) If you prefer faith to measurement.
>>> Do you really think the blade takes any longer to reach the top if >>> different [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Bull. > That is just the postulate. And that is the whole point of the gedanken, he is demonstrating a consequence of the postulate.
> It has never been proved. A thought experiment can never prove a postulate.
>>>>>>> Your problem George is that you think photons are like ball >>>>>>> bearings. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > That's what I asked you. > If it doesn't have structure, then it is no different from 'nothing'. That is your faith. I am saying photons are as much like ball-bearings as electrons or quarks, I made no other claim to have knowledge of any structure more fundamental than any of those particles.
>>> In that case you must surely have some idea of what makes them different >>> from 'nothing'. Please tell us. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > indistinguishable > from 'nothing' suddenly possess energy and momentum? That it possesses energy and momentum is what distinguishes it from 'nothing'.
<big snip, all repeating what has been said above or just agreed>
>>>>>>> I'm afraid he spent too much time misinterpreting the way in which >>>>>>> raindrops moved past train windows. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > frame > increases to p*sqrt(u^2+v^2) Momentum is frame dependent. For your laser, note that moving the laser will give the usual Doppler effect for an observer and the change in frequency gives a change in momentum.
> ...so let's stick with arrows. They are more like photons than are > raindrops. Actually they aren't, rigid ball bearings are probably closest.
>>>>> In fact, the paths of each >>>>> infinitesimal point inside each water molecule travels along a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > George, you apparently want to use a prediction of your theory to prove > your theory. No, you made a statement and I just corrected the error. I added a " ;-) " because the effect you missed is so tiny that it is immeasurable in practice for raindrops.
>>>>I do, better than you it appears. You are highlighting >>>>the finite-sized pixel within which the 'infinitesimal [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > George, the question is, do the links of the 'photon chainsaw' move > diagonally at c or at sqrt(v^2+c^2)? No Henri, that isn't the question. Einstein is illustrating a consequence of the postulate so the question is "Assuming the links move at c, what other conclusions can we draw?". Finding differences between that and the conclusions if we assume the speed is sqrt(v^2+c^2) then provides a means to test the postulate.
>>But a wavefront is quite different and that's what >>the mathematical point on the graph describes. > > But George, can you not see that no continuous WAVE follows the > 'wavefront' up its unique diagonal? Try drawing wavefronts and see what happens.
> In my demo, the purple beam represents such a continuous wave. It is > obviously quite different from the 'green element'. Since the wavefront has to be a solution of Maxwell's Equations, that would indicate you have another error that we haven't discussed yet. Drawing the wavefronts will help you find it. You'll probably learn more that way than if I just tell you.
>>> George, here is an experiment for you. >>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > this is not a good example, however... You chose it Henri.
> You angle it so as to pick up the different part of the beam that ends up > in > your new direction. The distance traveled by the beam you detect is longer > than > the vertical. Try adding such a detector to your animation when you do the wavefronts and see how they are related to the tube.
> If the beam was perfectly narrow and parallel, you wouldn't see it at all. > You would only detect a minute flash. Well obviously, the same is true in both frames as your detector is passing through the beam briefly, but the angle that has to change if you want to see anything at all.
>>> Each diagonal green line represents the path of a 'wavecrest' of the >>> vertical [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > If I used your idea, I would end up with one wide rainbow instead of lots > of narrow green ones. My suggestion is that you should draw just one as it can be representative of all.
>>> There is a vertical beam of light in one frame. There is NO diagonal >>> beam of light in the other. Do you want to disagree with that? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Yes I certainly do want to disagree with that. > What moves diagonally is NOT the wavefront of a light beam moving at c. Well in what direction does an individual wavefront move?
>>>>> You are quoting a postulate not a proven fact. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Give up George. OK, my point is made.
George
Henri Wilson - 12 Nov 2005 21:28 GMT >>>> Maxwell's equation are not relevant. >>> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >on your graph is the centre of one of those wavefront >segments show as "-" above. That's right. ..but you have only drawn one point of the wavefront. There is an infintie number, each one moving along a different diagonal. If you represented them all, you would have a broad diagonal line.
>> The whole path is moving sideways in the moving frame. >> George, when you drive past a light pole, does it lean over diagonally? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >detail, consider what the above diagram would look >like in the moving frame. The ant bodies remain aligned vertically in the moving frame. Each infinitesimal element of an ant (infinitely smaller than a molecule) follows a diagonal path.
The ants take the same time to reach the top no matter who moves past.
>As you said of Maxwell's >Equations, "a solution involves a wave moving at c" >and the magnetic fields still exist and are still >governed by Maxwell's Equations in the moving frame. Maxwell's equation applies to a wave that is symmetrical around an axis. You 'diagonal field' is skewed. The only true wave remains vertical in all frames.
>> You keep thinking in terms of the paths of infinitesimal elements. > >That's what your simulation depicts, according to what you >have told me. Actually I am thinking in terms of wavefronts >moving in accordance with Maxwell's Equations. The purple laser beam in my demo represents that. The green elements are completely different.
>> The whole beam remains aligned vertically in all frames. > >Yes, we have agreed that several times. The line of >narrow segments of wavefronts remains vertically >aligned while each segment moves diagonally. ...and the axis of wave symmetry remains vertical in all frames.
>>>> ..and whatever moves up it has a velocity sqrt(c^2+v^2) >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >it has a speed of c whether we understand why or not. >That is an empirical statement. You are simply preaching the unproven second postulate. That is hardly a scientific statement George.
>You have a religious conviction that Galilean relativity >should hold and therefore you expect on faith that the >speed will be sqrt(c^2+v^2). It obviously is. It isn't light. It is a point on a graph. It can move at any speed.
>>>>>> Are you being deliberately stubborn? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >be still vertical but it would be flying along a diagonal >path relative to the car. Of course. but each part of the arrow moves along a different diagonal.... and the arrow takes the same time to reach the top no matter how fast the car moves.
>The series of arrows would also still be in line vertically >because, although each is moving diagonally, the archer is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >What Maxwell's equations say is that arrows always move in >the direction of the shaft. :-o But you claim they are moving diagonally. You have now identified your own mistake.
>> You have somehow turned one arrow into an infinite number. Brilliant!!!! > >You did that when you talked of a beam, which is a >collection of wavefronts. It is a collection of infinitesimal elements.
>>>And it is that diagonal path that is being described. You >>>simply keep proving Einstein was right. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >If you prefer faith to measurement. You know there has never been such a measurement, George.
>>>> Do you really think the blade takes any longer to reach the top if >>>> different [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >A thought experiment can never prove a postulate. ...a postulate can never prove itself either...particularly when that postulate was based on a thought experiment anyway.
>>>You said I claimed they had structure. How could something >>>of zero size have structure Henri? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >other claim to have knowledge of any structure more >fundamental than any of those particles. Anything that has zero size and no properties must be 'nothing'.
>>>> In that case you must surely have some idea of what makes them different >>>> from 'nothing'. Please tell us. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >That it possesses energy and momentum is what distinguishes >it from 'nothing'. How does your 'nothing' possess energy George?
>>>Very good Henri, you're starting to think. So how do >>>you define the mathematical point on the graph that [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >for an observer and the change in frequency gives a >change in momentum. Standard NM.
>> ...so let's stick with arrows. They are more like photons than are >> raindrops. > >Actually they aren't, rigid ball bearings are probably >closest. So you DO have a model for a photon, eh George? Tell us about it.
>>>It is obvious. With knowledge of science as well as >>>intelligence, the error is also obvious, you are not [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >we assume the speed is sqrt(v^2+c^2) then provides a means >to test the postulate. well it has never been adequately tested. No direct measurement of OWLS from a moving source has ever been achieved.
>> But George, can you not see that no continuous WAVE follows the >> 'wavefront' up its unique diagonal? > >Try drawing wavefronts and see what happens. I have. That's what my program shows. They all move up diffrent diagonals. Surely you have enough intelligence to see that. Even Paul Andersen can.
>> In my demo, the purple beam represents such a continuous wave. It is >> obviously quite different from the 'green element'. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >will help you find it. You'll probably learn more that >way than if I just tell you. You are raving. Wavefronts have nothing to do with this.
>Try adding such a detector to your animation when you do >the wavefronts and see how they are related to the tube. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >angle that has to change if you want to see anything at >all. You didn't understand my point.
>>>in the laser frame, you have choices to make. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >My suggestion is that you should draw just one as >it can be representative of all. By drawing a number of them, I show how the beam remains vertically aligned in the moving frame.
>>>frame. Do you want to disagree with that, because that's >>>what you have to do to prove him wrong? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Well in what direction does an individual wavefront >move? A 'wavefront' is perpendicular to the wave axis. Wavefronts really exist only in the source frame.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Black Knight - 12 Nov 2005 23:40 GMT > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 15:12:11 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 369 lines] > > HW. Message rating several casks Androcles.
George Dishman - 13 Nov 2005 11:44 GMT > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 15:12:11 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > That's right. > ..but you have only drawn one point of the wavefront. No, each hyphen is a finite width, it is the entire wavefront across the width of the tube, or as close as I can get in ASCII.
> There is an infintie number, each one moving along a different diagonal. > If you represented them all, you would have a broad diagonal line. This is the best I can do in reasonable width:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| | |-| | | | | | | |-| | | | | | | |-| | | | | | | |-| | | | | |-| | | |-| | | |-| | | |-| | | |-| | | |-| | | |-| | | |-| | | | | | | | | |-| | | | | | | |-| | | | | | | |-| | | | | | | |-| That's harder to read, at any time the picture would be typically this showing two wavefronts moving up the screen having left the tube and the wavefront inside the laser moving down towards the rear mirror:
-
- | | |-| | |
>>> The whole path is moving sideways in the moving frame. >>> George, when you drive past a light pole, does it lean over diagonally? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The ant bodies remain aligned vertically in the moving frame. Indeed but that is where your analogy breaks down and a spherical object would be more appropriate.
> Each infinitesimal element of an ant (infinitely smaller than a molecule) > follows a diagonal path. The mathematical point locating the centre of momentum of the ant moves diagonally. Your infinitesimal elements only clouds the issue but yes their paths would also be diagonal.
> The ants take the same time to reach the top no matter who moves past. In your religion it does. I Einstein's gedanken, the aim is to derive the time from the speed.
>>As you said of Maxwell's >>Equations, "a solution involves a wave moving at c" >>and the magnetic fields still exist and are still >>governed by Maxwell's Equations in the moving frame. > > Maxwell's equation applies to a wave that is symmetrical around an axis. No, Maxwell's Equations apply to the interactions of electric and magnetic fields regardless of symmetry. You can define a set of boundary conditions and they will tell you how the fields evolve thereafter. For example the waves produced by applying a sine wave voltage to a metal sphere will differ from those produced by a flat plate or a long wire. Maxwell's Equations apply to the fields regardless of the shape or motion of the source.
For our purposes, just note that they apply equally well in both frames.
> You 'diagonal field' is skewed. Yes, and Maxwell's Equations must still apply or they would be invalid.
> The only true wave remains vertical in all frames. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The purple laser beam in my demo represents that. > The green elements are completely different. Unfortunately your wiggly lines are easy to understand but don't explain the behaviour of the wavefronts.
>>> The whole beam remains aligned vertically in all frames. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ...and the axis of wave symmetry remains vertical in all frames. Truye, but I don't think you yet realise the consequence of that, or at least you have avoided illustrating it.
>>>>> ..and whatever moves up it has a velocity sqrt(c^2+v^2) >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You are simply preaching the unproven second postulate. No, I am stating what is measured regardless of postulates.
> That is hardly a scientific statement George. If I was stating the postulate, you would have a point.
>>You have a religious conviction that Galilean relativity >>should hold and therefore you expect on faith that the >>speed will be sqrt(c^2+v^2). > > It obviously is. "obvious" being a statement of faith.
> It isn't light. It is a point on a graph. It can move at any speed. The point is representative of the wavefront which must be a solution to Maxwell's equations in _both_ frames.
>>>>>>> Are you being deliberately stubborn? >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Of course. Thank you. No need to shout then.
> but each part of the arrow moves along a different diagonal.... Yes.
> and the arrow > takes the same time to reach the top no matter how fast the car moves. Your religious assertion again. Don't state it, derive it.
>>The series of arrows would also still be in line vertically >>because, although each is moving diagonally, the archer is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > But you claim they are moving diagonally. As you said, all the arrows move diagonally, and the time evolution of wavefronts must be a solution to Maxwell's Equations. Keep going Henri, we have 2 and 2 but you haven't tried to add them yet.
> You have now identified your own mistake. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It is a collection of infinitesimal elements. If you wish to view it that way, that's your choice though I don't see how it will help (unless you intend to use Huygens method).
>>>>And it is that diagonal path that is being described. You >>>>simply keep proving Einstein was right. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > You know there has never been such a measurement, George. The speed of light has been measured many times Henri, I have no idea why you are denying that.
>>>>> Do you really think the blade takes any longer to reach the top if >>>>> different [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > ...a postulate can never prove itself either... That's what I just said >:-|
> particularly when that postulate > was based on a thought experiment anyway. It wasn't, it was based on Maxwell's Equations, the speed is the product of two measured constants, remember?
>>>>You said I claimed they had structure. How could something >>>>of zero size have structure Henri? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Anything that has zero size and no properties must be 'nothing'. But photons don't have "no properties" so your argument fails.
>>>>> In that case you must surely have some idea of what makes them >>>>> different [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > How does your 'nothing' possess energy George? Easy, it isn't 'nothing' because your requirement that it be 'nothing' is that it has no properties. Your argument is circular.
>>>>Very good Henri, you're starting to think. So how do >>>>you define the mathematical point on the graph that [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Standard NM. Yes, to first order.
>>> ...so let's stick with arrows. They are more like photons than are >>> raindrops. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So you DO have a model for a photon, eh George? > Tell us about it. No model, just properties.
>>>>It is obvious. With knowledge of science as well as >>>>intelligence, the error is also obvious, you are not [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > well it has never been adequately tested. In your opinion.
> No direct measurement of OWLS from a moving source has ever been achieved. Nor can it ever be measured since a one-way measure requires synchronisation of clocks at the ends and the means of sync completes the loop turning it into a two-way measure. As I said, the two-way measure plus a measure of anisotropy gives the one-way value indirectly and both have been done many times.
>>> But George, can you not see that no continuous WAVE follows the >>> 'wavefront' up its unique diagonal? >> >>Try drawing wavefronts and see what happens. > > I have. That's what my program shows. Your short lines moving up the screen are vertical while the wavefronts should be horizontal.
> They all move up diffrent diagonals. Yes, that part is fine.
> Surely you have enough intelligence to see that. > Even Paul Andersen can. Yes but I don't think you realised what I was suggesting.
>>> In my demo, the purple beam represents such a continuous wave. It is >>> obviously quite different from the 'green element'. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You are raving. > Wavefronts have nothing to do with this. Much more than you think.
>>Try adding such a detector to your animation when you do >>the wavefronts and see how they are related to the tube. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > You didn't understand my point. I did but again you aren't comparing like with like. In one case you have the detector passing through the beam so it sees a flash while in the other it is permanently in the beam and sees steady illumination so there is no comparison.
>>>>in the laser frame, you have choices to make. >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > aligned in > the moving frame. Understood, but in the lower diagram their paths lie on top of each other so you cannot see what is happening. Perhaps you could highlight the first on the moving frame and show it on lower then show the subsequent wavefronts only on the upper where they don't overlap. That shows both aspects.
>>>>frame. Do you want to disagree with that, because that's >>>>what you have to do to prove him wrong? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > only > in the source frame. The electric and magnetic fields exist in both, and disturbances propagate in accordance with Maxwell's Equations which must apply equally in both. I think you are now starting to see one of the problems that faced science at the end of the nineteenth century.
George
Henri Wilson - 13 Nov 2005 21:43 GMT >> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 15:12:11 -0000, "George Dishman"
>as I can get in ASCII. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >the screen having left the tube and the wavefront >inside the laser moving down towards the rear mirror: You are still drawing only a few of them.
> - > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Indeed but that is where your analogy breaks down >and a spherical object would be more appropriate. It would fool some people.
How about using spinning spheres eh George....
Does their spin axis lean over diagonally? Of course not.
>> Each infinitesimal element of an ant (infinitely smaller than a molecule) >> follows a diagonal path. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >only clouds the issue but yes their paths would also be >diagonal. George, there are NO diagonal ants.
>> The ants take the same time to reach the top no matter who moves past. > >In your religion it does. I Einstein's gedanken, the >aim is to derive the time from the speed. That's his unproven postulate.
>>>As you said of Maxwell's >>>Equations, "a solution involves a wave moving at c" [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Equations apply to the fields regardless of the shape >or motion of the source. That's rubbish George. Both waves are symmetrical about an axis which also defines the direction of movement. The whole concept depend on that movement.
>For our purposes, just note that they apply equally >well in both frames. They don't. There is no wave moving diagonally. there is just a dimesnionless point.
>> You 'diagonal field' is skewed. > >Yes, and Maxwell's Equations must still apply or >they would be invalid. they don't apply to any skewed wave.
If they did, the speed of the wave would be sqrt(c^2+v^2)
>> The purple laser beam in my demo represents that. >> The green elements are completely different. > >Unfortunately your wiggly lines are easy to understand >but don't explain the behaviour of the wavefronts. There is only one wave. It is vertical in the source frame and it is vertical in the moving frame but moving sideways.
George, hold a pen vertically. Now move you hand sideways. Does the pen lean over?
>> ...and the axis of wave symmetry remains vertical in all frames. > >Truye, but I don't think you yet realise the consequence >of that, or at least you have avoided illustrating it. What do you think the green dashes represent in my program?
>>>No, scientifically speaking, if we measure it we find >>>it has a speed of c whether we understand why or not. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >If I was stating the postulate, you would have a point. Well it certainly has NOT been measured.
>>>You have a religious conviction that Galilean relativity >>>should hold and therefore you expect on faith that the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >The point is representative of the wavefront which must >be a solution to Maxwell's equations in _both_ frames. There is NO wave moving along any diagonal.
>> Of course. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Your religious assertion again. Don't state it, derive it. Physical processes are not observer dependent.
>>>What Maxwell's equations say is that arrows always move in >>>the direction of the shaft. :-o [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >to Maxwell's Equations. Keep going Henri, we have >2 and 2 but you haven't tried to add them yet. Do the pen experiment again and you will see that vertical objects can move sideways without leaning over.
>> You have now identified your own mistake. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >though I don't see how it will help (unless you intend >to use Huygens method). The points that 'move diagonally' are not physical entities at all.
>>>> It obviously moves at sqrt(u^2+v^2) >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >The speed of light has been measured many times >Henri, I have no idea why you are denying that. HoHohahaha!
George, TWLS has been measured and found to be consistent and precise. That is exactly what the BaTh predicts.
In any TWLS experiment with all components at rest TWLS = OWLS = c.
>>>> It has never been proved. >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >It wasn't, it was based on Maxwell's Equations, the speed >is the product of two measured constants, remember? Then why should differently moving observers produce the same value for c, via Maxwell, when any light beam will approach them at different speeds? ...you seem very confused.
>> Anything that has zero size and no properties must be 'nothing'. > >But photons don't have "no properties" so your argument >fails. Well please give us a physical description of their properties.
>>>That it possesses energy and momentum is what distinguishes >>>it from 'nothing'. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >be 'nothing' is that it has no properties. Your argument >is circular. Define photon properties George.
>>>Momentum is frame dependent. For your laser, note that >>>moving the laser will give the usual Doppler effect [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Yes, to first order. Standard NM.
>>>> ...so let's stick with arrows. They are more like photons than are >>>> raindrops. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >No model, just properties. No clue either.
>>>>>It is obvious. With knowledge of science as well as >>>>>intelligence, the error is also obvious, you are not [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >In your opinion. George, if a vertical laser beam is moved sideways, there is no way to measure any part of it that is moving diagonally.
Any detector positioned to sense the diagonally moving element would merely detect an infinitesimal blip.
I suppose an approximate answer could be obtained using adjacent diagonals of finite size. But I can tell you the answer now. It is sqrt(c^2+v^2).
>> No direct measurement of OWLS from a moving source has ever been achieved. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >plus a measure of anisotropy gives the one-way value >indirectly and both have been done many times. Clocks at rest can be absolutely synched using Einstein's method. Just make tAB=tBA.
OWLS = c if source and detector are in the same frame.
>>>> But George, can you not see that no continuous WAVE follows the >>>> 'wavefront' up its unique diagonal? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Your short lines moving up the screen are vertical >while the wavefronts should be horizontal. Oh for christ's sake George, there is no continuous wave moving up each infinitesimally wide diagonal. Can't you see that?
>> They all move up diffrent diagonals. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Yes but I don't think you realised what I was suggesting. I did...and it makes no sense at all. Infinitesimal points on a graph do not constitute 'wavefronts'.
>>>Well obviously, the same is true in both frames as your >>>detector is passing through the beam briefly, but the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >other it is permanently in the beam and sees steady >illumination so there is no comparison. If the green beam was diagonal, the detector would pick up a continuous signal.
>>>My suggestion is that you should draw just one as >>>it can be representative of all. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >only on the upper where they don't overlap. That shows >both aspects. I suppose I can show dots moving up the green beam in the lower diagram. I will do that.
>> A 'wavefront' is perpendicular to the wave axis. Wavefronts really exist >> only [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >you are now starting to see one of the problems that >faced science at the end of the nineteenth century. I can see those answer to that problem. The fields a skewed in all frames other than that of the source. they don't move at c.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 15 Nov 2005 14:55 GMT > >> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 15:12:11 -0000, "George Dishman" > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > You are still drawing only a few of them. No, they are all there. Perhaps we have a different understanding of 'wavecrest' or 'wavefront' but it seems unlikely. I'll add a plot of field versus distance to the next bit:
> > \ > > - ) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > |-| > > | | Does that help at all? Each hyphen is a cross section of a plane of maximum voltage.
> >>>> The whole path is moving sideways in the moving frame. > >>>> George, when you drive past a light pole, does it lean over diagonally? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > How about using spinning spheres eh George.... Better.
> Does their spin axis lean over diagonally? Of course not. Right, that is why polarisation is affected.
> >> Each infinitesimal element of an ant (infinitely smaller than a molecule) > >> follows a diagonal path. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > George, there are NO diagonal ants. The ants move diagonally in the moving frame and they are still ants.
> >> The ants take the same time to reach the top no matter who moves past. > > > >In your religion it does. I Einstein's gedanken, the > >aim is to derive the time from the speed. > > That's his unproven postulate. That reply makes no sense in the context Henri. Deriving time wehen speed and distance are known is not a postulate.
> >>>As you said of Maxwell's > >>>Equations, "a solution involves a wave moving at c" [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > That's rubbish George. I suggest you open a textbook and find out ho Maxwell's equations are used.
> Both waves are symmetrical about an axis which also defines the direction of > movement. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > They don't. There is no wave moving diagonally. there is just a dimesnionless > point. The ant is still an ant.
> >> You 'diagonal field' is skewed. > > > >Yes, and Maxwell's Equations must still apply or > >they would be invalid. > > they don't apply to any skewed wave. Right, but they do apply to electromagnetic fields so how are you going to resolve that ;-)
> If they did, the speed of the wave would be sqrt(c^2+v^2) Nope, the speed is the product of the constants in the equations.
> >> The purple laser beam in my demo represents that. > >> The green elements are completely different. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > George, hold a pen vertically. Now move you hand sideways. It draws a straight line.
> Does the pen lean over? I don't care, now repeat the sideways motion but this time also move it away from you at the same time. It moves diagonally and for the same amount of sideways motion the line is longer than the first time, that fact is all that Einstein uses. The line isn't a pen, but then it wasn't the pen the first time either so your stuff about "the light isn't light anymore" is just meaningless nonsense.
> >> ...and the axis of wave symmetry remains vertical in all frames. > > > >Truye, but I don't think you yet realise the consequence > >of that, or at least you have avoided illustrating it. > > What do you think the green dashes represent in my program? You said they were just a way of distinguishing the point representing the wavefront form the diagonal line so they don't mean anything.
> >>>No, scientifically speaking, if we measure it we find > >>>it has a speed of c whether we understand why or not. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Well it certainly has NOT been measured. Of course the speed of light has been measured Henri, what are you raving about.
> >>>You have a religious conviction that Galilean relativity > >>>should hold and therefore you expect on faith that the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > There is NO wave moving along any diagonal. The ant is still an ant.
> >> Of course. > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Physical processes are not observer dependent. Right, but some values are, so while Maxwell's Equations must apply in all frames but the specific values of electric and magnetic field might differ from frame to frame.
> >>>What Maxwell's equations say is that arrows always move in > >>>the direction of the shaft. :-o [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Do the pen experiment again and you will see that vertical objects can move > sideways without leaning over. Einstein didn't say it wouldn't affect the polarisation of the light Henri, that's what your lean represents.
> >> You have now identified your own mistake. > >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > The points that 'move diagonally' are not physical entities at all. Points aren't, no. Not in either the laser or moving frames, but the light whose location is represented by those points is still light, the ants are still ants.
> >>>> It obviously moves at sqrt(u^2+v^2) > >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > George, TWLS has been measured and found to be consistent and precise. Exactly what I have been saying throughout. If you are now admitting I was right, I fail to see why you keep claiming it has never been measured.
> That is exactly what the BaTh predicts. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Then why should differently moving observers produce the same value for c, via > Maxwell, Because the constants are, ... well ..., constant?
> when any light beam will approach them at different speeds? > ...you seem very confused. Which part of "constant" escapes you?
> >> Anything that has zero size and no properties must be 'nothing'. > > > >But photons don't have "no properties" so your argument > >fails. > > Well please give us a physical description of their properties. Energy and momentum for example. Been here before?
> >>>That it possesses energy and momentum is what distinguishes > >>>it from 'nothing'. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Define photon properties George. Energy and momentum for example. Been here before?
> >>>Momentum is frame dependent. For your laser, note that > >>>moving the laser will give the usual Doppler effect [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Standard NM. Only to first order.
> >>>> ...so let's stick with arrows. They are more like photons than are > >>>> raindrops. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Any detector positioned to sense the diagonally moving element would merely > detect an infinitesimal blip. Two detectors on the diagonal path a known distance apart each with a partly silvered mirror and photodetector. Use the photodectors to measure the time the light takes hence speed. What's your problem?
> I suppose an approximate answer could be obtained using adjacent diagonals of > finite size. But I can tell you the answer now. It is sqrt(c^2+v^2). That's not what is measured.
> >> No direct measurement of OWLS from a moving source has ever been achieved. > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Clocks at rest can be absolutely synched using Einstein's method. > Just make tAB=tBA. Fine, use that for the test above.
> OWLS = c if source and detector are in the same frame. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Oh for christ's sake George, there is no continuous wave moving up each > infinitesimally wide diagonal. Can't you see that? The wavefront is roughly the same width as the laser aperture. Your concept of describing that as an infinite number of adjacent infinitesimal parts seems to be confusing you.
> >> They all move up diffrent diagonals. > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I did...and it makes no sense at all. Infinitesimal points on a graph do not > constitute 'wavefronts'. The points on the graph aren't infinitesimal, they are purely mathematical points of zero size. They represent the "very very small pieces" of the actual wavefront, or isn't that what you mean, it is what you have been saying.
> >>>Well obviously, the same is true in both frames as your > >>>detector is passing through the beam briefly, but the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > If the green beam was diagonal, the detector would pick up a continuous signal. And you would then have to modulate it to measure its speed, the simplest way being to switch is on for a very short time and measure the flash.
> >>>My suggestion is that you should draw just one as > >>>it can be representative of all. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I suppose I can show dots moving up the green beam in the lower diagram. > I will do that. Cool, that would be a major improvement.
> >> A 'wavefront' is perpendicular to the wave axis. Wavefronts really exist > >> only in the source frame. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I can see those answer to that problem. The fields a skewed in all frames other > than that of the source. they don't move at c. Then you have to throw Maxwell's Equations in the bin. That was what was worrying them.
George
Henri Wilson - 15 Nov 2005 22:22 GMT >> >> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 15:12:11 -0000, "George Dishman" >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >Does that help at all? Each hyphen is a cross >section of a plane of maximum voltage. clever drawing...
but the 'hyphens' are really just points on a graph.
>> >>>> The whole path is moving sideways in the moving frame. >> >>>> George, when you drive past a light pole, does it lean over diagonally? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >Right, that is why polarisation is affected. but there is no continuous diagonal beam which would enable you to check that.
>> >> Each infinitesimal element of an ant (infinitely smaller than a molecule) >> >> follows a diagonal path. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >The ants move diagonally in the moving frame and they are >still ants. The ants bodies remain vertical. The vertical axis of their bodies moves sideways. Did you try moving a vertically held pen sideways George, like I suggested? Even if you move it upwards at the same time, the axis of the pen remains vertical at any instant.
That should be obvious by now.
>> >> The ants take the same time to reach the top no matter who moves past. >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Deriving time wehen speed and distance are >known is not a postulate. Diagonal speed is sqrt(c^2+v^2)
>> >>>As you said of Maxwell's >> >>>Equations, "a solution involves a wave moving at c" [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >I suggest you open a textbook and find out ho Maxwell's >equations are used. George, an infinitesimal point cannot contain any wave of the Maxwellian type.
>> Both waves are symmetrical about an axis which also defines the direction of >> movement. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >The ant is still an ant. and its axis remains vertical. There are no diagonal ants crawling diagonally..
>> >> You 'diagonal field' is skewed. >> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Right, but they do apply to electromagnetic fields so >how are you going to resolve that ;-) George, an infinitesimal point cannot contain any wave of the Maxwellian type.
>> If they did, the speed of the wave would be sqrt(c^2+v^2) > >Nope, the speed is the product of the constants in the >equations. George, an infinitesimal point cannot contain any wave of the Maxwellian type.
>> >> The purple laser beam in my demo represents that. >> >> The green elements are completely different. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >about "the light isn't light anymore" is just >meaningless nonsense. George, hold the pen vertical then move it sideways and upwards. That's what Einstein tried to do.... but he stuffed up because he used spherical raindrops instead of something with an identifiable 'axis'.
>> >> ...and the axis of wave symmetry remains vertical in all frames. >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >representing the wavefront form the diagonal line so they >don't mean anything. The vertical dashed COULD signify individual photons....which have some kind of longitudinal axis about which the maxwellian wave is symmetrical. ..Isn't that called the Poynting Vector?
>> >>>No, scientifically speaking, if we measure it we find >> >>>it has a speed of c whether we understand why or not. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Of course the speed of light has been measured Henri, >what are you raving about. The speed of the diagonally moving indinfitesimal points has never been measured George.
>> >>>You have a religious conviction that Galilean relativity >> >>>should hold and therefore you expect on faith that the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >The ant is still an ant. a vertical ant....in all horiziontally moving frames, at any instant.
That's the point you are missing.,,the 'instant' bit.
If you take a movie shot of ants crawling up a pole while you flash past in your car, do their bodies appear vertical or diagonal on each frame?
>> Physical processes are not observer dependent. > >Right, but some values are, so while Maxwell's Equations >must apply in all frames but the specific values of electric >and magnetic field might differ from frame to frame. George, an infinitesimal point cannot contain any wave of the Maxwellian type.
>> Do the pen experiment again and you will see that vertical objects can move >> sideways without leaning over. > >Einstein didn't say it wouldn't affect the polarisation of the >light Henri, that's what your lean represents. Nobody has tested the polarization of a sideways moving, vertical light beam. There is no actual diagonal beam to test it on.
>> >If you wish to view it that way, that's your choice >> >though I don't see how it will help (unless you intend [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >frames, but the light whose location is represented >by those points is still light, the ants are still ants. and they are still vertical at any instant in all frames.
>> >>>> It obviously moves at sqrt(u^2+v^2)
>> >> You know there has never been such a measurement, George. >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >now admitting I was right, I fail to see why you keep >claiming it has never been measured. George, what you are refering to is not light and its speed has certainly never been measured, either OW or TW..
>> >It wasn't, it was based on Maxwell's Equations, the speed >> >is the product of two measured constants, remember? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Which part of "constant" escapes you? None. The fact that both observers calculate the same value for c from the constants escapes me...since the beam DOES NOT approach them at the same speed.
>> >> Anything that has zero size and no properties must be 'nothing'. >> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Energy and momentum for example. Been here before? Energy and momentum are properties of energy and momentum, not of photons.
The kinetic energy of a car is not a property of the car. It is a contribution to the total ENERGY of the frame in which you measure it.
>> Define photon properties George. > >Energy and momentum for example. Been here before? see above
>> >> well it has never been adequately tested. >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >the photodectors to measure the time the light takes hence >speed. What's your problem? It wouldn't get past the first one because it is infinitesimal.
>> I suppose an approximate answer could be obtained using adjacent diagonals of >> finite size. But I can tell you the answer now. It is sqrt(c^2+v^2). > >That's not what is measured. It's the only way it could be done.
>> >Nor can it ever be measured since a one-way measure >> >requires synchronisation of clocks at the ends and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Fine, use that for the test above. it wont work. infinitesimal points involve infinitesimal energy.
>> >Your short lines moving up the screen are vertical >> >while the wavefronts should be horizontal. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >number of adjacent infinitesimal parts seems to be >confusing you. Consider the laser beam to be infinitesimal in width....or at least much smaller than a wavelength of the light used.
>> I did...and it makes no sense at all. Infinitesimal points on a graph do not >> constitute 'wavefronts'. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >very small pieces" of the actual wavefront, or isn't that what >you mean, it is what you have been saying. Not 'very small' but 'infinitesimal'. Even if the laser beam is wide, only an infinitesimally thin section will move up any diagonal line....far too thin to be a light wave.
>> If the green beam was diagonal, the detector would pick up a continuous signal. > >And you would then have to modulate it to measure its >speed, the simplest way being to switch is on for a very >short time and measure the flash. This is becoming quite ridiculous.
>> I suppose I can show dots moving up the green beam in the lower diagram. >> I will do that. > >Cool, that would be a major improvement. I have done that, have a look.
>> I can see those answer to that problem. The fields a skewed in all frames other >> than that of the source. they don't move at c. > >Then you have to throw Maxwell's Equations in the bin. >That was what was worrying them. Maxwell's equations apply to waves moving in one direction. The waves are symmetrical only in that direction.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 16 Nov 2005 14:10 GMT > >> >> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 15:12:11 -0000, "George Dishman" > >> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > clever drawing... Thanks, I hope it explains why there are no missing hypens so do you now accept the upper diagram is complete.
> but the 'hyphens' are really just points on a graph. Here is the spec of a typical cheap laser pointer:
http://tinyurl.com/abo75
The beam diameter is given as 1.1mm so that is the width represented by the hyphen in this case.
The point on your graph is the centre of my 1.1mm diameter disc.
I think your "infinitesimal elements" are what you get by breaking the disc into a lot of very small pieces but you haven't been very clear about that yet.
> >> How about using spinning spheres eh George.... > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > but there is no continuous diagonal beam which would enable you to check that. There is a nice map of th CMBR showing the turbulent flow of the plasma from the WMAP mission which illustrates this nicely but I haven't found a copy yet. It may only be in the papers, it doesn't seem to be on their site. The fact that the material was moving in various directions doesn't prevent us seeing it, it is still light, but we can get information from the effect on the polarisation.
Well OK, if you want to nitpick, it isn't light, it is microwaves.
> >> >> Each infinitesimal element of an ant (infinitely smaller than a molecule) > >> >> follows a diagonal path. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > The ants bodies remain vertical. The vertical axis of their bodies moves > sideways. The ants move along diagonal paths which must be longer than the corresponding vertical path in the laser frame. The axis of the ants is of no interest, it doesn't influence the path length.
> Did you try moving a vertically held pen sideways George, like I suggested? > Even if you move it upwards at the same time, the axis of the pen remains > vertical at any instant. > > That should be obvious by now. It always was, but it is of no relevance to the length of the line it draws.
> >> >> The ants take the same time to reach the top no matter who moves past. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Diagonal speed is sqrt(c^2+v^2) That's your unproven postulate.
> >> >>>As you said of Maxwell's > >> >>>Equations, "a solution involves a wave moving at c" [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > George, an infinitesimal point cannot contain any wave of the Maxwellian type. The wavefront above for the laser was 1.1mm in diameter. Open a basic textbook and see if you can find out how Maxwell's Equations would predict that would evolve. Breaking it into infinitesimal parts was your choice.
> >> Both waves are symmetrical about an axis which also defines the direction of > >> movement. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > and its axis remains vertical. > There are no diagonal ants crawling diagonally.. Their path length is that of the diagonal, that's all that matters.
> >> >> You 'diagonal field' is skewed. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > George, an infinitesimal point cannot contain any wave of the Maxwellian type. Henri, the 1.1mm diameter wavefront from the laser is part of such a wave. If you cannot handle that using infinitesimal elements, find another way to do your math.
> >> If they did, the speed of the wave would be sqrt(c^2+v^2) > > > >Nope, the speed is the product of the constants in the > >equations. > > George, an infinitesimal point cannot contain any wave of the Maxwellian type. Henri, the 1.1mm diameter wavefront from the laser is part of such a wave. If you cannot handle that using infinitesimal elements, find another way to do your math.
> >> >> The purple laser beam in my demo represents that. > >> >> The green elements are completely different. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > George, hold the pen vertical then move it sideways and upwards. > That's what Einstein tried to do.... No Henri, you have utterly failed to understand what he did. What he siad is that the length of the line drawn by the pen along the diagonal is longer than that drawn vertically. He is of course entirely correct as you have illustrated.
> but he stuffed up because he used > spherical raindrops instead of something with an identifiable 'axis'. He wasn't interested in the polarisation of the light, it doesn't affect his argument in any way.
> >> >> ...and the axis of wave symmetry remains vertical in all frames. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > longitudinal axis about which the maxwellian wave is symmetrical. ..Isn't that > called the Poynting Vector? The Poynting Vector indicates the direction of energy flow. Since the energy emitted at the bottom left of your diagram will be absorbed somewhere at the top right, that vector is diagonal.
> >> >>>No, scientifically speaking, if we measure it we find > >> >>>it has a speed of c whether we understand why or not. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > The speed of the diagonally moving indinfitesimal points has never been > measured George. I said the speed of light, not of "indinfitesimal points" (sic).
> >> >>>You have a religious conviction that Galilean relativity > >> >>>should hold and therefore you expect on faith that the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > That's the point you are missing.,,the 'instant' bit. I'm not missing it at all, I agreed it the first time you said it. I am waiting for you to explain why you think the direction of the axis affects the length of the path.
> If you take a movie shot of ants crawling up a pole while you flash past in > your car, do their bodies appear vertical or diagonal on each frame? I don't care, it doesn't affect the length of the diagonal path.
> >> Physical processes are not observer dependent. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > George, an infinitesimal point cannot contain any wave of the Maxwellian type. The beam (wavefront) is 1.1mm wide for the laser example above. All beams have a finite width Henri.
> >> Do the pen experiment again and you will see that vertical objects can move > >> sideways without leaning over. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Nobody has tested the polarization of a sideways moving, vertical light beam. > There is no actual diagonal beam to test it on. I'll see if I can find the WMAP map. The details of the interaction of moving matter and light are complex, and your ants don't explain it well, but it remains a powerful tool.
> >> >If you wish to view it that way, that's your choice > >> >though I don't see how it will help (unless you intend [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > and they are still vertical at any instant in all frames. How does that affect the path length of the 1.1mm disc shaped wavefronts?
> >> >>>> It obviously moves at sqrt(u^2+v^2) > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > George, what you are refering to is not light and its speed has certainly never > been measured, either OW or TW.. What comes out of a green laser is light Henri, even if you move your hand while holding it.
> >> >It wasn't, it was based on Maxwell's Equations, the speed > >> >is the product of two measured constants, remember? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The fact that both observers calculate the same value for c from the constants > escapes me...since the beam DOES NOT approach them at the same speed. The fact that they find the same values means the speed must be the same. That was exactly Einstein's route from the equations to the postulate.
> >> >> Anything that has zero size and no properties must be 'nothing'. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Energy and momentum are properties of energy and momentum, not of photons. I'm not even going to waste my time on that one.
<snip nonsense>
> >> >Your short lines moving up the screen are vertical > >> >while the wavefronts should be horizontal. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Consider the laser beam to be infinitesimal in width....or at least much > smaller than a wavelength of the light used. Then it would produce spherical wavefronts and wouldn't be a laser at all. The width must be many wavelengths for the beam to have a small dispersion so let's consider the beam to be 1.1mm in diameter.
> >> I did...and it makes no sense at all. Infinitesimal points on a graph do not > >> constitute 'wavefronts'. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Not 'very small' but 'infinitesimal'. Same thing Henri.
> Even if the laser beam is wide, only an infinitesimally thin section will move > up any diagonal line....far too thin to be a light wave. Each circular disc wavefront sweeps out a tube with elliptical cross section with a major axis of 1.1mm. Maxwell's Equations must describe the evolution of that wavefront or they are invalid.
> >> I suppose I can show dots moving up the green beam in the lower diagram. > >> I will do that. > > > >Cool, that would be a major improvement. > > I have done that, have a look. Will do when I get home.
> >> I can see those answer to that problem. The fields a skewed in all frames other > >> than that of the source. they don't move at c. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Maxwell's equations apply to waves moving in one direction. Nope, they apply to the evolution of the fields whether there are waves involved or not and they apply in all frames. Think of a mexican wave in a stadium. You can describe the overall effect using a wave equation but you can also define the behaviour of one person solely in terms of the movement of those around him. You can then produce a wave by defining the starting condition for everyone at some instant and then using the individual behaviour to evolve the next state and so on. That's how they work. A plane wave is just one solution.
George
Jeff Root - 16 Nov 2005 17:48 GMT George typed:
> Here is the spec of a typical cheap laser pointer: > > http://tinyurl.com/abo75 Hey! I walked from here to a point a block away from that business a few years ago when I chased after a glow on the horizon. When I started after it I thought it was about six blocks away. Turned out to be a big grain silo fire six miles away. Kids playing with lasers?? -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Henri Wilson - 16 Nov 2005 21:24 GMT snip
>> >The ants move diagonally in the moving frame and they are >> >still ants. [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] >Maxwell's Equations would predict that would evolve. >Breaking it into infinitesimal parts was your choice. george, I'l try to make this even more simple. You are still have trouble understanding it. Below is a laser beam with a infinitesimally wide diagonal element drawn through it.
/ /
Tell me George, does that element show any tendency to shoot off in the diagonal direction? Of course not! Why? Because it is not a light beam. It is not governed by Maxwell's equations. It is infinitesimal. It is nothing.
>> and its axis remains vertical. >> There are no diagonal ants crawling diagonally.. > >Their path length is that of the diagonal, that's all that matters. There are no diagonal ants crawling diagonally..
>> >Right, but they do apply to electromagnetic fields so >> >how are you going to resolve that ;-) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >of such a wave. If you cannot handle that using infinitesimal >elements, find another way to do your math. See above.
According to you, a laser beam would disperse in all directions, in the source frame. I think you are being deliberately difficult. You know I am right.
>> George, an infinitesimal point cannot contain any wave of the Maxwellian type. > >Henri, the 1.1mm diameter wavefront from the laser is part >of such a wave. If you cannot handle that using infinitesimal >elements, find another way to do your math. The wavefront is horizontal. According to you, a laser beam would disperse in all directions, in the source frame.
>> >> George, hold a pen vertically. Now move you hand sideways. >> > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >along the diagonal is longer than that drawn vertically. He >is of course entirely correct as you have illustrated. What's this 'the diagonal'? There is an infinite number of diagonals involved. ...and of course each one is longer than the vertical. Plain Pythagoras.
>> but he stuffed up because he used >> spherical raindrops instead of something with an identifiable 'axis'. > >He wasn't interested in the polarisation of the light, >it doesn't affect his argument in any way. He didn't have an argument. He had a stupid postulate, still unproven..
>> The vertical dashed COULD signify individual photons....which have some kind of >> longitudinal axis about which the maxwellian wave is symmetrical. ..Isn't that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the energy emitted at the bottom left of your diagram will be >absorbed somewhere at the top right, that vector is diagonal. In the moving frame, an infinte number of infinitesimal amounts of energy move along the infinite number of diagonal lines.
>> >Of course the speed of light has been measured Henri, >> >what are you raving about. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >I said the speed of light, not of "indinfitesimal points" (sic). You claimed above somewhere that the diagonal speed of the points had been measured and found to be c. That is not true and you know it.
>> >> There is NO wave moving along any diagonal. >> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >I don't care, it doesn't affect the length of the diagonal path. It affects what is supposed to be moving along each diagonal.
>> George, an infinitesimal point cannot contain any wave of the Maxwellian type. > >The beam (wavefront) is 1.1mm wide for the laser example >above. All beams have a finite width Henri. I don't care what you laser is. Its beam is made up of an infinitte number of infinitesimally thin vertical lines. Work out what happens to each one of those.
According to you, a laser beam would disperse in all directions, in the source frame.
>> >> Do the pen experiment again and you will see that vertical objects can move >> >> sideways without leaning over. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >interaction of moving matter and light are complex, and >your ants don't explain it well, but it remains a powerful tool. You are trying to change the subject.
>> >Points aren't, no. Not in either the laser or moving >> >frames, but the light whose location is represented [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >How does that affect the path length of the 1.1mm disc >shaped wavefronts? George, I think you are trying to tell me that the wavefronts are lined up like this in the moving frame:
_ _ _ _ _
or this:
\ \ \ \ \
They do neither,
They remain like this:
_ _ _ -> _ _ In all frames.
>> >> >>>> It obviously moves at sqrt(u^2+v^2) >> >> >> >> You know there has never been such a measurement, George. and precise.
>> >Exactly what I have been saying throughout. If you are >> >now admitting I was right, I fail to see why you keep [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >What comes out of a green laser is light Henri, even if >you move your hand while holding it. It is only light in the vertical direction, in all frames.
>> >Which part of "constant" escapes you? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the same. That was exactly Einstein's route from the equations to >the postulate. But we know they are not thsame. The beam approaches the two observers at different speeds.
>> >Energy and momentum for example. Been here before? >> >> Energy and momentum are properties of energy and momentum, not of photons. > >I'm not even going to waste my time on that one. Why not? You have wasted a lot more time worshipping the hoaxer Einstein.
><snip nonsense> Snip what you don't want to hear.
>> >> >Your short lines moving up the screen are vertical >> >> >while the wavefronts should be horizontal.
>> Consider the laser beam to be infinitesimal in width....or at least much >> smaller than a wavelength of the light used. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the beam to have a small dispersion so let's consider the >beam to be 1.1mm in diameter. It matters not how wide the beam is. It still doesn't spontaneously disperse in all diagonal directions as you seem to think it does.
>> >> I did...and it makes no sense at all. Infinitesimal points on a graph do not >> >> constitute 'wavefronts'. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Same thing Henri. Not the same George.
>> Even if the laser beam is wide, only an infinitesimally thin section will move >> up any diagonal line....far too thin to be a light wave. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Maxwell's Equations must describe the evolution of >that wavefront or they are invalid. The wavefront is nothing more than a line on a graph. It is infinitesimally thin and has no light-like properties.
>> >Then you have to throw Maxwell's Equations in the bin. >> >That was what was worrying them. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >behaviour to evolve the next state and so on. That's how they >work. A plane wave is just one solution. According to you, George, a laser beam would spontaneously disperse in all diagonal directions, in the source frame.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 17 Nov 2005 13:51 GMT > snip <snip uncommented parts>
> >> >> >>>As you said of Maxwell's > >> >> >>>Equations, "a solution involves a wave moving at c" [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > / > / So tell me, how does an element of infinitesimal width stretch all the way across a beam which is 1.1mm wide? What you don't seem to follow is that if you are going to analyse the evolution of the wavefront using infinitesimal elements, you have to break the wavefront into an infinite number of such elements and then integrate over the whole set.
> Tell me George, does that element show any tendency to shoot off in the > diagonal direction? The element doesn't move at all, it produces a contribution to the fields in the space around it and you integrate the contributions from all such elements to find the field at some new position. You really should open a textbook sometime.
> Of course not! Why? Because it is not a light beam. It is not governed by > Maxwell's equations. It is infinitesimal. It is nothing. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > There are no diagonal ants crawling diagonally.. We are only interested in the direction of their motion, not their orientation. That direction is diagonal as Einstein said and you illustrated proving him right.
> >> >Right, but they do apply to electromagnetic fields so > >> >how are you going to resolve that ;-) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > According to you, a laser beam would disperse in all directions, in the source > frame. I think you are being deliberately difficult. I think you are deliberately avoiding addressing what I am saying. If you deal with ONLY one point source then it disperses. If you shine a laser on a pinhole much smaller than the wavelengh, then diffraction at the edges gives you spherical waves emanating from the hole. In order to keep the narrow beam, you need a pinhole larger than the wavelength and you have to model the wavefront as a large number of small elements and integrate.
> You know I am right. I can see you don't have any clue how to use Maxwell's Equations and you don't seem to be aware of the relationship between aperture and dispersion.
> >> George, an infinitesimal point cannot contain any wave of the Maxwellian type. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The wavefront is horizontal. In the laser frame that is correct, so your "infinitesimal elements" have to be aligned horizontally and you have to integrate over them.
> According to you, a laser beam would disperse in all directions, in the source > frame. No, according to me, the wavefront from a point source (such as ONE infinitesimal element) would disperse in all directions in the ALL frames. To model a laser you MUST include all the elements across the finite width of the beam in some way.
> >> >> George, hold a pen vertically. Now move you hand sideways. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > What's this 'the diagonal'? The diagonal line being drawn by this single pen you introduced into the discussion.
> There is an infinite number of diagonals involved. > ...and of course each one is longer than the vertical. > Plain Pythagoras. Exactly, and plain Pythogoras is what Einstein was using. I can't believe how much effort you are putting into trying to hide that simple fact.
<snip>
> >> >Of course the speed of light has been measured Henri, > >> >what are you raving about. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You claimed above somewhere that the diagonal speed of the points had been > measured Where? I said the speed of light had been measured.
> and found to be c. That is not true and you know it. TWLS has been measured and found to be c, always, and you know it, and that is what I said.
> >> >> There is NO wave moving along any diagonal. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > It affects what is supposed to be moving along each diagonal. Nope, what comes out of a laser it is still light whether you move your hand or not. I am still waiting for you to explain why it affects the length of the path because if it doesn't it is irrelevant.
> >> George, an infinitesimal point cannot contain any wave of the Maxwellian type. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Its beam is made up of an infinitte number of infinitesimally thin vertical > lines. The field is continuous over the width. Your approach of breaking it into a large number of finite segments is giving you problems.
> Work out what happens to each one of those. By your own argument, none of them exists since they are infinitesimal. That is nonsense of course but if you want to use that argument in the moving frame, it also applies in the laser frame.
> According to you, a laser beam would disperse in all directions, in the source > frame. No, according to Maxwell's Equations, a point source produces spherical wavefronts.
> >> Nobody has tested the polarization of a sideways moving, vertical light beam. > >> There is no actual diagonal beam to test it on. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You are trying to change the subject. Just pointing out that your assertion is nonsense.
> >> >Points aren't, no. Not in either the laser or moving > >> >frames, but the light whose location is represented [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > In all frames. No, what I am saying is that you can integrate over all the inifinitesimal elements to apply Maxwell's Equations (ME) and the result tells you the direction power will flow. If you start with a horizontal wavefront and apply ME then the wavefront will move vertically like this which is obviously wrong:
> _ > _ [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > In all frames. What you will find is that the result in the moving frame becomes like this with each wavefront moving diagonally towards the top right.
> \ > \ > \ -> > \ > \ Try to work out what the wavefronts look like inside the laser as they bounce between the mirrors and you should finally understand.
> >> >> >>>> It obviously moves at sqrt(u^2+v^2) > >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > It is only light in the vertical direction, in all frames. It is light in all frames. The beam is also vertical in all frames. The difference is that the wavefronts are propagating in the diagonal direction.
> >> >Which part of "constant" escapes you? > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > But we know they are not thsame. > The beam approaches the two observers at different speeds. Do we? That is YOUR competing postulate and the point is that it conflicts with Maxwell's Equations where the speed is defined by the constants.
> >> >Energy and momentum for example. Been here before? > >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Why not? Because properties are like adjectives that apply to nouns, you are trying to apply an adjective to an adjective. If I say a brick is hot, then temperature is a property of the brick.
> You have wasted a lot more time worshipping the hoaxer Einstein. > > ><snip nonsense> > > Snip what you don't want to hear. Snip what has no scientific content, like the comment above. If all you can do is toss insults around, you are obviously unable just justify your assertions, you reduce them to religious claims, and there is no point in taling about it any farther.
> >> >> >Your short lines moving up the screen are vertical > >> >> >while the wavefronts should be horizontal. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It matters not how wide the beam is. It still doesn't spontaneously disperse in > all diagonal directions as you seem to think it does. Think about shining a laser onto a pinhole. The width is very important in a classical analysis.
> >> >> I did...and it makes no sense at all. Infinitesimal points on a graph do not > >> >> constitute 'wavefronts'. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Not the same George. Exactly the same Henri, open a textbook on basic calculus.
> >> Even if the laser beam is wide, only an infinitesimally thin section will move > >> up any diagonal line....far too thin to be a light wave. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The wavefront is nothing more than a line on a graph. > It is infinitesimally thin and has no light-like properties. Let me remind you of what you said above:
> The wavefront is horizontal. That horizontal line is merely a mathematical trick, it marks the highest field strength in a region but the field is actually a sine wave filling the volume of the beam. That propagating sine wave is what is called light (both fields of course but I'm keeping it simple here).
> >> >Then you have to throw Maxwell's Equations in the bin. > >> >That was what was worrying them. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > According to you, George, a laser beam would spontaneously disperse in all > diagonal directions, in the source frame. No, according to Maxwell's Equations, the field from any single one of your "infinitesimal elements" would disperse in ALL frames. It is the interference between the infinite number of elements covering the horizontal surface of the wavefront that allows the beam to avoid dispersing.
George
Eric Gisse - 17 Nov 2005 14:56 GMT > > snip > > <snip uncommented parts> [return of the snip]
> > Of course not! Why? Because it is not a light beam. It is not governed by > > Maxwell's equations. It is infinitesimal. It is nothing. f.cking priceless, Henri.
[snip]
> > >> >Which part of "constant" escapes you? > > >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > it conflicts with Maxwell's Equations where the speed is defined > by the constants. I am yet to get formally educated in electromagnetic theory, but all it took for me to believe it was seeing Maxwell's equations reduced to 2 wave equation PDEs in E and B. I guess learning the math long before you see the physics is handy sometimes.
I really fail to understand how Henri can say that his theory satisfies Maxwell's equations *and* allows for a variable speed of light.
[snip]
> > >> >> I did...and it makes no sense at all. Infinitesimal points on a graph do not > > >> >> constitute 'wavefronts'. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Exactly the same Henri, open a textbook on basic calculus. He claims to have a degree in "Applied Mathematics".
Reading Henri's replies is just so pathetically funny.
[snip]
Henri Wilson - 17 Nov 2005 22:20 GMT snip religious propaganda.
>> You claimed above somewhere that the diagonal speed of the points had been >> measured [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >TWLS has been measured and found to be c, always, and >you know it, and that is what I said. You claimed the diagonal speed of the elements was also c.
>> >I don't care, it doesn't affect the length of the diagonal path. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >why it affects the length of the path because if it doesn't >it is irrelevant.
>> I don't care what you laser is. >> Its beam is made up of an infinitte number of infinitesimally thin vertical [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >want to use that argument in the moving frame, it also >applies in the laser frame. I'm afraid you are so hopelessly indoctrinated, your brain has ceased to function freely.
>> According to you, a laser beam would disperse in all directions, in the source >> frame. > >No, according to Maxwell's Equations, a point source produces >spherical wavefronts. I think that was Huygens idea.
Why should it be appropriate for lasers?
They didn't know anythiong about lasers then.
>> >> >Points aren't, no. Not in either the laser or moving >> >> >frames, but the light whose location is represented [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] >the laser as they bounce between the mirrors and >you should finally understand.
>> >What comes out of a green laser is light Henri, even if >> >you move your hand while holding it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >The difference is that the wavefronts are propagating in the >diagonal direction. George, there is no hope for you. Tell me this:
Here are two laser beams:
| / | / | / | / Do you really honestly believe you can make one exactly like the other simply by moving it sideways at the right speed. That is what you are claiming. Can you not see how your acute indoctrination syndrome has turned you into a mental cripple?
>> >> >Which part of "constant" escapes you? >> >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >it conflicts with Maxwell's Equations where the speed is defined >by the constants. It is bloody obvious that if the two observers are in relative motion, no light beam can approach them at the same speed. That is unless you want to tear up the whole of physics as it stands.
>> Snip what you don't want to hear. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >religious claims, and there is no point in taling about it any >farther. I'm giving up on you George. You are a hopeless case.
I have now straightened you out about sagnac and shown why SR is fundamentally wrong from its first assumption. If you are too stubborn to accept the truth, that is not my problem.
>> It matters not how wide the beam is. It still doesn't spontaneously disperse in >> all diagonal directions as you seem to think it does. > >Think about shining a laser onto a pinhole. The width is >very important in a classical analysis. I'm not shining any laser through a pinhole. I'm moving sidways past a laser beam.
Do you really believe the beam give a hoot how fast I am moving?
>> >> Not 'very small' but 'infinitesimal'. >> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Exactly the same Henri, open a textbook on basic calculus. Calculus doesn't work to well with 'very small' increments, George. I'm beginning to realize you know very little about anything.
>> The wavefront is nothing more than a line on a graph. >> It is infinitesimally thin and has no light-like properties. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >light (both fields of course but I'm keeping it simple >here). plain nonsense. Give up George... to save yourself further embarrassment. SR was a flawed attempt to modify aether theory after it was shown that no aether appeared to exist.
>> According to you, George, a laser beam would spontaneously disperse in all >> diagonal directions, in the source frame. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >number of elements covering the horizontal surface of the >wavefront that allows the beam to avoid dispersing. George, when I move past a vertical laser beam, I don't see it suddenly dispersing in all directions.
You are plain dumb!! Like all SRians.
Androcles is rioght. There is no point in aguing with totally indoctrinated people like you.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 18 Nov 2005 14:52 GMT >>> On 16 Nov 2005 06:10:53 -0800, "George Dishman" >>> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> >>> wrote: > > snip religious propaganda. <question replaced>
>>> george, I'l try to make this even more simple. You are still have >>> trouble [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> So tell me, how does an element of infinitesimal width stretch all >> the way across a beam which is 1.1mm wide? Propaganda Henri? I think you just couldn't answer.
>>> You claimed above somewhere that the diagonal speed of the points had >>> been [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You claimed the diagonal speed of the elements was also c. Light moving diagonally is just light and you have accepted that the speed of light has been measured using two-way techniques.
>>> I don't care what you laser is. >>> Its beam is made up of an infinitte number of infinitesimally thin [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I'm afraid you are so hopelessly indoctrinated, your brain has ceased to > function freely. I see you cannot refute my statement.
>>> According to you, a laser beam would disperse in all directions, in the >>> source [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I think that was Huygens idea. That's right, the ME provide a mathematical equivalent to his graphical method.
> Why should it be appropriate for lasers? Because light is classically a wave phenomenon and wave-based methods work until you get to addressing quantum effects.
> They didn't know anythiong about lasers then. Light is still light regardless of the source.
...
>>> George, I think you are trying to tell me that the wavefronts are lined >>> up like [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > by moving it sideways at the right speed. > That is what you are claiming. You said the beam was vertical in all frames and so did I. You said the beam moved sideways and so did I. I make no claims about the diagonal beam and what you say above is not true
> Can you not see how your acute indoctrination syndrome has turned you into > a > mental cripple? I can see you have a problem understanding what I write, or perhaps you prefer to give the impression of misunderstanding since you have no real answer.
>>> >> >Which part of "constant" escapes you? >>> >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > light > beam can approach them at the same speed. I reapeat, that is YOUR competing postulate.
> That is unless you want to tear up the whole of physics as it stands. Physics as it stands has been based on SR for nearly a century. You are going back to physics as it stood before Maxwell's Equations.
>>> Snip what you don't want to hear. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'm giving up on you George. > You are a hopeless case. That's it Henri, run away.
> I have now straightened you out about sagnac ROFL. Henri your own statements are contradictory. See my other replies on Sagnac.
> and shown why SR is fundamentally > wrong from its first assumption. > If you are too stubborn to accept the truth, that is not my problem. I am too intelligent to accept crap, that's your problem.
>>> >> Not 'very small' but 'infinitesimal'. >>> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Calculus doesn't work to well with 'very small' increments, George. Open a book on calculus Henri, I'm not going to teach you.
<snip more evasion by insult>
>>No, according to Maxwell's Equations, the field from any >>single one of your "infinitesimal elements" would disperse [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > George, when I move past a vertical laser beam, I don't see it suddenly > dispersing in all directions. No Henri, perhaps that's because it is "the interference between the infinite number of elements covering the horizontal surface of the wavefront that allows the beam to avoid dispersing."
As you said above, I am just explaining Huygens method to you.
> You are plain dumb!! Like all SRians. > > Androcles is rioght. There is no point in aguing with totally > indoctrinated > people like you. Not if you can't even understand Huygens method, I tend to agree.
George
Henri Wilson - 18 Nov 2005 21:05 GMT >> On 17 Nov 2005 05:51:27 -0800, "George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk>
><question replaced> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Propaganda Henri? I think you just couldn't answer. By 'width' I was refering to the thickness of what is really an elliptical plane about 1.5mm long. It has infinitesimal thickness. It is not light. It is nothing.
>>>TWLS has been measured and found to be c, always, and >>>you know it, and that is what I said. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >accepted that the speed of light has been measured >using two-way techniques. Very funny George.
How would you apply a TWLS technique to measuring the speed of ONE infinitesimal thin plane along an infinitesimally thin diagonal line?
Remember, all you have is a vertical laser beam moving sideways past you.
>> I'm afraid you are so hopelessly indoctrinated, your brain has ceased to >> function freely. > >I see you cannot refute my statement. You are acting dumb George. I think by now you must realise that I'm right.
>> I think that was Huygens idea. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >wave-based methods work until you get to addressing >quantum effects. So where are all these diagonal light beams you imagine are continuously emerging from the sides of a vertical laser beam? That's what you are claiming...according to Huygens and Maxwell, a laser beam will emit wavefronts in all directions.
I don't think that actually happens do you George? I think you are babbling hopelessly in an attempt to prop up your faith..
>> They didn't know anythiong about lasers then. > [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] >did I. I make no claims about the diagonal beam >and what you say above is not true You (and Einstein) claim that a vertical beam in one frame becomes a diagonal one in another. So by the same token, a diagonal beam in one frame should become a vertical one in another.
That of course is ridiculous and you know it.
SR is complete nonsense from the first sentence.
>> Can you not see how your acute indoctrination syndrome has turned you into >> a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >write, or perhaps you prefer to give the impression >of misunderstanding since you have no real answer. I understand perfectly what you are writing of late. It is drivel, aimed a propping up your self-delusion. It has zero scientific merit. You are running from the truth.
>> It is bloody obvious that if the two observers are in relative motion, no >> light >> beam can approach them at the same speed. > >I reapeat, that is YOUR competing postulate. even SR says their closing speeds with the light are different. If that is the case, why should they get the answer c from Maxwell's equation.
>> That is unless you want to tear up the whole of physics as it stands. > >Physics as it stands has been based on SR for nearly >a century. You are going back to physics as it stood >before Maxwell's Equations. No I'm not. ,,and any SRian should be very interested in my question. Your theory has to explain why.
>> I'm giving up on you George. >> You are a hopeless case. > >That's it Henri, run away. I'm not running George, just making better use of my time. there is no point in arguing with the hopelessly indoctrinated.
>> I have now straightened you out about sagnac > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >Open a book on calculus Henri, I'm not going to teach you. Why do you think it is called 'infititesimal calculus'?
><snip more evasion by insult> > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >As you said above, I am just explaining Huygens method to >you. But you claim that ONE diagonal element replaces the vertical beam. What are you actually trying to say George?
>> You are plain dumb!! Like all SRians. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Not if you can't even understand Huygens method, I tend to >agree. Then the laser beam should be dispersing in all directions in its own frame.. It doesn't.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 19 Nov 2005 01:03 GMT [snip]
> >I can see you have a problem understanding what I > >write, or perhaps you prefer to give the impression > >of misunderstanding since you have no real answer. > > I understand perfectly what you are writing of late. It is drivel, aimed a > propping up your self-delusion. Then why do you have such a hard time responding with facts instead of insults and whines about your ignorance?
> It has zero scientific merit. More whining about your ignorance.
> You are running from the truth. "I don't need the facts when I have the TRUTH!"
> >> It is bloody obvious that if the two observers are in relative motion, no > >> light [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > even SR says their closing speeds with the light are different. NO IT DOES NOT. Do you not understand the concept of constant? c` = c, NOT c+v, no matter how many times you whine saying it is true.
Quit saying what SR says when you CLEARLY do not understand it, and when you ADMIT you do not understand it.
> If that is the case, why should they get the answer c from Maxwell's equation. *WHAP*
HIT THAT STRAWMAN
*WHAP* *WHAP* *WHAP*
It is NOT the case.
For the ten thousandth f.cking time, they get c from Maxwell's equation(s! PLURAL! THERE ARE FOUR) by the nature of the solution to the E and B wave equations. If you had *any* understanding of partial differential equations you would understand immediately instead of dragging out your lack of knowledge over years.
> >> That is unless you want to tear up the whole of physics as it stands. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No I'm not. ,,and any SRian should be very interested in my question. LIAR. Bald-faced with pants on fire.
You claim SR and GR are wrong. But, you are incapable of explaining why they are wrong without being intellectually dishonest at least once, so I think you are just incapable of learning the theories of relativity.
I have told you in the past, and have shown evidence for, that Newton has been falsified. You refuse to accept it, because you are still thinking in terms of mid-19th century physics. You refuse to accept any experiment or theory that contradicts your worldview.
> Your theory has to explain why. It does, you just don't accept the answer. Which isn't anyone's problem but yours.
> >> I'm giving up on you George. > >> You are a hopeless case. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'm not running George, just making better use of my time. > there is no point in arguing with the hopelessly indoctrinated. Says the asshat who "doesn't have the time" to provide me with some simple derivations. There is not enough time in the universe for you to learn the mathematics required, I suppose.
I predict you will "killfile" George in short order. I say "killfile" because you "killfilled" me twice before you stopped responding to my posts, I think you are still reading mine.
> >> I have now straightened you out about sagnac > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Why do you think it is called 'infititesimal calculus'? Goddamn you're stupid.
It is absolutely impossible for you to have graduated from an accredited university with a degree in anything mathematicl.
[snip rest of your idiocy]
Jeff Root - 19 Nov 2005 02:01 GMT Eric,
Would you explain why you are posting in this thread? What are you trying to accomplish? Are you succeeding? -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
George Dishman - 19 Nov 2005 12:43 GMT > On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:52:11 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > By 'width' I was refering to the thickness ... Logical :-p
That aside, your "infinitesimal elements" previously were points of infinitesimal volume moving along infinitesimally thin diagonal lines, were they not? This has now become an "infinitesimally wide [thick] diagonal element".
> ... of what is really an elliptical > plane about 1.5mm long. It has infinitesimal thickness. That is because it is just a convenience we invent to help keep track of the motion of the wave. In reality, the field varies as the sine along the beam, remember this:
> >... I'll add a plot of field versus > >distance to the next bit: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > clever drawing... So what you have is a 1.5mm ellipse with a thickness of half a wavelength which is still an arbitrary cut. The thin plane merely identifies the location of the _peak_ of the field. Energy is distributed throughout the volume.
> It is not light. It is nothing. Right, it is a mathematical plane we use only to aid description. The light (E and B fields) fills the volume of the beam.
>>>>TWLS has been measured and found to be c, always, and >>>>you know it, and that is what I said. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > How would you apply a TWLS technique to measuring the speed of ONE > infinitesimal thin plane along an infinitesimally thin diagonal line? Oops, what was "really an elliptical plane about 1.5mm long." just became "an infinitesimally thin diagonal line" again. The beam isn't "infinitesimally thin" in the moving frame Henri, it is close to 1.1mm wide and the volume of the beam is filled with light obeying Maxwell's Equations.
> Remember, all you have is a vertical laser beam moving sideways past you. What you have is a source moving transverse to the detector which is making the measurement. Sound like the Sagnac experiment Henri? You have been at pains to tell me how the source moves transversely in the frame of the mirror ;-)
<statement replaced>
>>>>By your own argument, none of them exists since they >>>>are infinitesimal. That is nonsense of course but if you [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You are acting dumb George. I think by now you must realise that I'm > right. You had to switch above from "elliptical plane" to "an infinitesimally thin diagonal line" to avoid the problem, and for the second time you had to snip what I said. You wouldn't have had to do that if you were right. The beam has finite width in both frames and the volume is filled with light. Mathematical lines tracing some feature like the centre of the beam are mathematical lines in both frames so you can't compare the beam in one frame with the line in the other frame to prove one is light and the other isn't.
>>> I think that was Huygens idea. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > emerging from the sides of a vertical laser beam? That's what you are > claiming... No it isn't Henri. I've corrected you on that several times now. Telling lies won't solve your problem.
> according to Huygens and Maxwell, a laser beam will emit wavefronts > in all directions. > > I don't think that actually happens do you George? > I think you are babbling hopelessly in an attempt to prop up your faith.. I think you are inventing babble that I never said because you cannot address what I really said. My statement was nothing more than the Huygens method.
>>>>What you will find is that the result in the moving >>>>frame becomes like this with each wavefront moving [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > diagonal > one in another. Nope, here is what I drew again, you can see it above:
>>>>What you will find is that the result in the moving >>>>frame becomes like this with each wavefront moving [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>>>> \ >>>>> \ I'll say it yet again to see if it can penetrate: the beam is vertical in the moving frame.
Aside: the ASCII exaggerates the slope, the wavefronts would be almost horizontal.
<snip insults - no content to reply to>
>>> It is bloody obvious that if the two observers are in relative motion, >>> no [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > even SR says their closing speeds with the light are different. From a different frame, correct.
> If that is the case, why should they get the answer c from Maxwell's > equation. Because Maxwell's Equations apply to EM disturbances so the light moves at c. The other object is moving at some speed v and "closing speed" is defined as the difference in whatever other frame you are using. This is simply a question of definitions Henri.
>>> That is unless you want to tear up the whole of physics as it stands. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No I'm not. Yes you are, you are postulating Galilean Relativity and trying to explain light within that framework using a ballistic model for propagation. Maxwell's Equations are like a classical wave theory except that the speed of the medium doesn't appear.
> ,,and any SRian should be very interested in my question. > Your theory has to explain why. "the whole of physics as it stands" is currently based on Lorentz invariance so the question of tearing up physics doesn't arise. You are the one trying to replace it with Galilean Relativity and a Ritzian light model.
>>> I'm giving up on you George. >>> You are a hopeless case. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'm not running George, just making better use of my time. > there is no point in arguing with the hopelessly indoctrinated. I am not "indoctrinated" in 18th century physics, we have long left this stuff behind, but it's interesting to see whether Ritz might have fitted into it.
>>>>> >> Not 'very small' but 'infinitesimal'. >>>>> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Why do you think it is called 'infititesimal calculus'? Because it uses limits of quantites that are not zero as they tend towards zero. If y=f(x) then dy/dx is undefined if dy and dx are identically zero but is defined (with certain limitations on function f(x)) provided they are finite. They are called infititesimal because we work with the asymptotic limits, not the actual finite values.
>><snip more evasion by insult> >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > But you claim that ONE diagonal element replaces the vertical beam. > What are you actually trying to say George? Go back to what you said at the top:
> By 'width' I was refering to the thickness of what is really an elliptical > plane about 1.5mm long. It has infinitesimal thickness. ...
> How would you apply a TWLS technique to measuring the speed of ONE > infinitesimal thin plane along an infinitesimally thin diagonal line? What I am saying is that you get a beam that doesn't disperse if you take the "elliptical plane about 1.5mm long" and apply Huygens.
If instead you use just one "infinitesimal element" you talked of previously which is where the plane of "infinitesimal thickness" intersects the "infinitesimally thin diagonal line" then you have a point source which falsely suggests dispersion.
I am saying that, to analyse the plane as "infinitesimal elements", you have to consider the sum of all the elements that form the plane.
>>> Androcles is rioght. There is no point in aguing with totally >>> indoctrinated people like you. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > frame.. > It doesn't. Right, and you will find that if you consider _all_ the "infinitesimal elements", not just one, which is what I said.
George
Henri Wilson - 21 Nov 2005 04:41 GMT >That is because it is just a convenience we invent >to help keep track of the motion of the wave. In [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >long." just became "an infinitesimally thin diagonal >line" again. No George. I was refereingn toi the movement of the infinitesimally thin plane along the infinitesimally thin diagonal line, which describes its path in the moving frame.
>The beam isn't "infinitesimally thin" in >the moving frame Henri, it is close to 1.1mm wide and >the volume of the beam is filled with light obeying >Maxwell's Equations. The beam is the same width in all frames. It merely APPEARS to move sideways in the moving frame. What moves diagonally is the infinitesimally thin elliptical plane that does not constitute light or anything else.
>>>> I'm afraid you are so hopelessly indoctrinated, your brain has ceased to >>>> function freely. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >avoid the problem, and for the second time you >had to snip what I said. You didn't read what I said. You are totally confused.
>You wouldn't have had >to do that if you were right. The beam has finite [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >frame with the line in the other frame to prove one >is light and the other isn't. OK, let's use a beam of infinitesimal width.
>> So where are all these diagonal light beams you imagine are continuously >> emerging from the sides of a vertical laser beam? That's what you are [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >because you cannot address what I really said. My >statement was nothing more than the Huygens method. Well it doesn't work with a coherent, parallel laser beam.
>> You (and Einstein) claim that a vertical beam in one frame becomes a >> diagonal [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >I'll say it yet again to see if it can penetrate: >the beam is vertical in the moving frame. ..and I repeat, if there were diagonal wavefronts like these, they would be seen in the source frame as well as the movingnframe. There are not.
>Aside: the ASCII exaggerates the slope, the wavefronts >would be almost horizontal. Yes I know what you mean.
><snip insults - no content to reply to> They weren't insults, they were plain truths.
>> even SR says their closing speeds with the light are different. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >difference in whatever other frame you are using. This >is simply a question of definitions Henri. So you agree that the light beam is 'approaching' the two differently moving observers at different speeds even though your theory says they will both MEASURE the OW speed of that beam to be in their own respective frames?
>>>> That is unless you want to tear up the whole of physics as it stands. >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Equations are like a classical wave theory except >that the speed of the medium doesn't appear. They rely on a medium.
>> ,,and any SRian should be very interested in my question. >> Your theory has to explain why. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >physics doesn't arise. You are the one trying to replace >it with Galilean Relativity and a Ritzian light model. It matters not if you assume invariancce of MEASURED light speed. (it has never been done of course) You still have to explain why both observers should derive the same value of c from Maxwell's equation.
>>>> I'm giving up on you George. >>>> You are a hopeless case. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >long left this stuff behind, but it's interesting to see >whether Ritz might have fitted into it. Ritz was 100% correct. If he hadn't died, Einstein would never have become the world's greatest hoaxer.
>>>>>> >> Not 'very small' but 'infinitesimal'. >>>>>> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >because we work with the asymptotic limits, not the >actual finite values. Close George. they are not 'very small' , they are infinitesimal.
>>>> George, when I move past a vertical laser beam, I don't see it suddenly >>>> dispersing in all directions. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >disperse if you take the "elliptical plane about >1.5mm long" and apply Huygens. ..you don't get a beam. You get an infinitie number of different such planes all moving along different diagonal lines. That would make the original beam infinitely bright in the moving frame George.....very clever...
>If instead you use just one "infinitesimal element" you >talked of previously which is where the plane of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >elements", you have to consider the sum of all the elements >that form the plane. I think you have become totally confused George. You are ignoring plain logic. Indoctrination can do that.
>>>Not if you can't even understand Huygens method, I tend to >>>agree. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >_all_ the "infinitesimal elements", not just >one, which is what I said. The beam doesn't change every time an observer moves past it.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Paul B. Andersen - 13 Nov 2005 14:48 GMT > Wavefronts really exist only in the source frame. Quite. When I go out in my boat, the wavefronts disappear as soon as I start moving. Whatever is hitting my boat so hard are not wavefronts, they are only infinitesimal points.
Paul
Henri Wilson - 13 Nov 2005 23:00 GMT >> Wavefronts really exist only in the source frame. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Paul A fine laser beam is not like the ocean surface Paul.
However, in case you are correct, I shall look through my telescope to see if star light is really coming to us via cosmic ships.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Paul B. Andersen - 15 Nov 2005 22:07 GMT >>>Wavefronts really exist only in the source frame. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > A fine laser beam is not like the ocean surface Paul. The light from a laser and a water surface wave have that in common that they both have wave fronts which are physical entities that exist independent of frames of reference.
It is incredible stupid to claim that a physical entity - any physical entity - exists in one frame of reference but not in another.
And what is even more remarkable is that I have to point out to you that the statement: "Wavefronts really exist only in the source frame." is mindless babble. It should be self evident to any sane person.
> However, in case you are correct, I shall look through my telescope to see if > star light is really coming to us via cosmic ships. If you from the cosmic ship Tellus ever look through a telescope, be sure to notice the stellar aberration. Having done so, you can kick and shout: WHATEVER IS COMING FROM THAT STAR, MOVING WITH CHANGING DIRECTION, IS NOT LIGHT, IT IS ONLY INFINITESIMAL POINTS.
That will make you look exactly as intelligent as you are.
Paul
Henri Wilson - 16 Nov 2005 00:47 GMT >>>>Wavefronts really exist only in the source frame. >>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >That will make you look exactly as intelligent as you are. Geez, Paul, you are becoming more amusing every day.
Stars emit light in all directions. A vertical telescope moving sideways will always pick up part of the starlight that moves directly down its centre.
You just don't understand any of this, do you?
>Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Paul B. Andersen - 16 Nov 2005 22:51 GMT >>>>>Wavefronts really exist only in the source frame. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > You just don't understand any of this, do you? Say, Henri. Have you emptied the bottle you owe Androcles? Read what you wrote above when you sober up, and have a good laugh.
Look Henri. Pick a distant star, say 500 LY away. Point your telescope at it, so that the image is at the centre. Measure the absolute angle of your telescope. Repeat 6 month later. The telescope will now point in a direction 22 arcsecs different from the first time.
The parallax is negligible. The light path is the same, nameley a straight line from the star to the Earth. So why are the angle of the light path different? It is caused by the different velocity of the Earth at the two occations. We are observing the star from two different frames of reference. Both frames are moving relative to the star.
Paul
Henri Wilson - 16 Nov 2005 23:04 GMT >>>>>>Wavefronts really exist only in the source frame. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] >two different frames of reference. >Both frames are moving relative to the star. So what? Ligth leaves the star spherically.
This is in no way related to our discussion. You are diverting attention from the fact that SR is proved to be nonsense.
>Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Paul B. Andersen - 17 Nov 2005 15:54 GMT >>>>>>>Wavefronts really exist only in the source frame. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > So what? Ligth leaves the star spherically. Still drunk? Didn't you get it? There is but one light path - the path from the Star to the Earth. (We can neglect the small parallax angle which is only 0.0006 of the aberration angle) It is obviously utterly irrelevant that the star emits light in all other directions that don't hit the Earth, so why the hell are you stating this stupidity?
The only light path of interest is the one that hits the Earth! The _direction_ of that light path is down the middle of our telescope. The direction of that single light path changes throughout the year because the velocity of the frame of reference (Earth) changes throughout the year.
> This is in no way related to our discussion. You are diverting attention from > the fact that SR is proved to be nonsense. It is related to your incredible stupid statements: "Wavefronts really exist only in the source frame." and: "Whatever is moving diagonally isn't light. It is infinitesimal points."
To be consistent, you have to claim: "WHATEVER IS COMING FROM THAT STAR, MOVING WITH CHANGING DIRECTION, IS NOT LIGHT, IT IS ONLY INFINITESIMAL POINTS."
Now Henri, what is it that hits the CCD in our telescope? Is it light? It cannot be, can it? Because whatever moves along paths with different directions in different frames cannot be light, can it?
Paul
Black Knight - 17 Nov 2005 16:15 GMT "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis
Ok, deleted as requested. Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 17 Nov 2005 22:32 GMT >>>Look Henri. >>>Pick a distant star, say 500 LY away. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Didn't you get it? >There is but one light path - the path from the Star to the Earth. Are you under the impression that the star is emitting all its light in one particular direction, as with a narrow laser beam?
>(We can neglect the small parallax angle which is only 0.0006 of > the aberration angle) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >The _direction_ of that light path is down the middle of >our telescope. You really are funny today.
>The direction of that single light path changes throughout the year >because the velocity of the frame of reference (Earth) changes >throughout the year. Very good Paul. You are improving.
>> This is in no way related to our discussion. You are diverting attention from >> the fact that SR is proved to be nonsense. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >"Whatever is moving diagonally isn't light. It is >infinitesimal points." That is right. Of course I was refering to the plotting, in my frame, of the paths of individual 'points' inside a vertical laser beam as I move horizontally past it.
George Dishman is too dumb to understand that but I thought you might have a little more sense.
>To be consistent, you have to claim: >"WHATEVER IS COMING FROM THAT STAR, MOVING WITH CHANGING > DIRECTION, IS NOT LIGHT, IT IS ONLY INFINITESIMAL POINTS." You are quoting me completely out of context and you know it. tat has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic or anything I have said.
>Now Henri, what is it that hits the CCD in our telescope? >Is it light? >It cannot be, can it? >Because whatever moves along paths with different directions >in different frames cannot be light, can it? The star emits a sphere of light Paul. The wavefronts are spherical. Didn't you know that. When my telescope moves sideways, a different radius vector of the sphere goes down the middle of my telescope. What could be more simple? I cannot see why you should have any trouble understanding that.
>Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Paul B. Andersen - 21 Nov 2005 22:48 GMT >>>>Look Henri. >>>>Pick a distant star, say 500 LY away. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Are you under the impression that the star is emitting all its light in one > particular direction, as with a narrow laser beam? Still drunk? Or are you too stupid to get the simple point?
The light that does not hit the CCD in our telescope is of no interest whatsoever. It might as well have been a laser beam, it would make no difference. (The width of the beam would have to be at as wide as the parallax angle, though. But as this is much smaller than the aberration angle, we can forget it.)
Ignore the parallax. We can in our thought example imagine that the star is in the equatorial plane, and that we are observing it when the Sun, Earth and star are all in line. (That means that the star will be behind the Sun at one occasion, but it doesn't matter in principle)
Then we have the picture drawn in solar frame:
* star | | the one and only | light path | | O-> v observer | S | v<-O
At one occasion, the observer is moving to the right, an will have to point his telescope like this:
/ / light path down the tube / ------ Six month later, the observer is moving to the left, and will have to point his telescope like this:
\ \ light path down the tube \ ------
At both occasions, the angle is v/c radians from vertical. v/c = 10^-4 radians = 11 arcsecs
The difference is 22 arcsecs.
>>(We can neglect the small parallax angle which is only 0.0006 of >> the aberration angle) [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > paths of individual 'points' inside a vertical laser beam as I move > horizontally past it. You are evading the point, Henri. There is no important difference from your vertical beam. The observer is moving perpendicular to the light beam from the star that hits the Earth. That light path from the star is "vertical" in our "stationary" solar reference system, which is the same as the "source frame". But the light path that is going down the observer's telescope is at an angle v/c radians from vertical.
So what is it that is moving at an angle down the tube and hitting the CCD? Is it light, or is it just infinitesimal points? How can the CCD detect infinitesimal points?
> George Dishman is too dumb to understand that but I thought you might have a > little more sense. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You are quoting me completely out of context and you know it. > tat has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic or anything I have said. No, I am not. You claimed that the light is moving vertically in the "source frame", and "whatever is moving diagonally in the observer frame is not light."
The light from the star IS moving vertically in the source frame. But our observer have to point is telescope "diagonally" to make the "whatever that is moving" go down his telescope tube.
So what is the "whatever" that is moving diagonally down the tube?
You claim it is not light. So what is it then? Whatever it is, CCDs detects it as if it were light.
>>Now Henri, what is it that hits the CCD in our telescope? >>Is it light? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > down the middle of my telescope. What could be more simple? I cannot see why > you should have any trouble understanding that. Please, Henri. You are not really THIS stupid, are you? :-)
(I am beginning to believe you are. I didn't think it possible!)
Don't you understand that if you had two telescopes going in opposite direction, looking at the same star, they would have to point in opposite directions as they pass each other?
* | 100 LY | / \ / \ O->v<-O
It is the very same one and only light path that has different angles in the two observers' frames.
A little movie for you. The "*" is a photon, or a bit of LIGHT. Two telescope tubes going through each other in opposite directions.
enter X * X tubes / \ / \ / X \ / / \ \ / / \ \ -ccd- -ccd-
\ / \ / X * X going / \ / \ down / X \ / / \ \ -ccd- -ccd-
\ X / and \ / \ / down X * X / \ / \ / X \ -ccd-ccd-
\ \ / / \ X / \ / \ / X * X / \ / \ -ccccd-
\ \ / / \ \ / / \ X / \ / \ / X * X -ccd-
\ \ / / \ \ / / hit \ \ / / ccds \ X / \ / \ / Xc*dX
Our single photon - or piece of LIGHT - goes down both tubes. This single photon has obviously but one path. This single light path is vertical in the screen frame, AND the very same light path is "diagonal" in the two telescope frames.
The photon - or piece of light- is moving vertically in the screen frame, AND the very same photon - or piece of light- is moving diagonally in the telescope frames.
It is obviously mindless babble to claim that the very same physical object both is and isn't light.
Paul
Henri Wilson - 22 Nov 2005 00:47 GMT >>>>>Look Henri. >>>>>Pick a distant star, say 500 LY away. [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > >The difference is 22 arcsecs. I'm not disputing the fact tat you have to tilt the telescope...but you are very confused concerning the path of the beam. It remains vertical.
>>>(We can neglect the small parallax angle which is only 0.0006 of >>> the aberration angle) [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >But the light path that is going down the observer's >telescope is at an angle v/c radians from vertical. That's what a raw amateur would say. The tilted telescope has to move sideways to keep the incoming vertical beam at its centre. The beam, as a whole, is v/c radians from the telescope tilt... which means it is actually vertical...but moving sideways in the observer frame.
Do you know how to move a vertical object sideways Paul?
>So what is it that is moving at an angle down the tube >and hitting the CCD? Is it light, or is it just infinitesimal >points? How can the CCD detect infinitesimal points? It is vertical light moving down the sideways moving tilted tube. That should be obvious to all but raw beginners.
>>>"WHATEVER IS COMING FROM THAT STAR, MOVING WITH CHANGING >>> DIRECTION, IS NOT LIGHT, IT IS ONLY INFINITESIMAL POINTS." [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >You claimed that the light is moving vertically in the "source frame", >and "whatever is moving diagonally in the observer frame is not light." that's correct. And your telescope example shows that I am right.
>The light from the star IS moving vertically in the source frame. >But our observer have to point is telescope "diagonally" to make >the "whatever that is moving" go down his telescope tube. > >So what is the "whatever" that is moving diagonally down the tube? You are forgetting that the tube is tilted...and you are now making a complete fool of yourself.
Try this:
^ v L t======.............................................................u<-b.......---O
You are at O with a gun. You want to fire a bullet radially at velocity u, at a target (t) that lies at the centre of a pipe (L), which is spinning around you at v.
Q1) Is it possible to hit the target if the pipe remains aligned radially? What if you tilt your gun wrt the pipe axis? Q2) If not, at what angle from the radius vector should the pipe be tilted? Q3) How is the concept of 'vertical' defined for you or the pipe?
>You claim it is not light. So what is it then? An infinitesimal element of the vertical beam.
>Whatever it is, CCDs detects it as if it were light. Because the CCD is moving sideways so that it will continuously intercept an infinitesimal element of a DIFFERENT section of the vertical beam in successive infinitesimal time intervals.
>>>Now Henri, what is it that hits the CCD in our telescope? >>>Is it light? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Please, Henri. >You are not really THIS stupid, are you? :-) A raw beginner might think I am stupid...just as a raw beginner like Einstein would think that raindrops fall diagonally when he looks at them through a moving train window.
>(I am beginning to believe you are. > I didn't think it possible!) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > / \ > O->v<-O Yes. That is because the beam is vertical wrt earth's surface and THEY are moving sideways.
>It is the very same one and only light path that has different >angles in the two observers' frames. You fail to see that the successive elements that strike the centre of the telescope do not come from the same infinitesimally narrow section of the vertical beam.
I accept that this might be a bit hard for you.
>A little movie for you. The "*" is a photon, or a bit of LIGHT. >Two telescope tubes going through each other in opposite directions. [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >in the screen frame, AND the very same light path >is "diagonal" in the two telescope frames. ...which proves the photon as moved vertically wrt Earth. Throw away the Earth and put the telescopes on oppositely moving vehicles.
>The photon - or piece of light- is moving vertically >in the screen frame, AND the very same photon - or piece >of light- is moving diagonally in the telescope frames. ...and the telescope is tilted by the same diagonal in the Earth frame.
>It is obviously mindless babble to claim that the very >same physical object both is and isn't light. The CCD continuously detects an infinitesimal element of differnet light beams from the star in each infinitesimal time interval. There is an infinite number of them.
>Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Paul B. Andersen - 23 Nov 2005 15:38 GMT >>>>>>Look Henri. >>>>>>Pick a distant star, say 500 LY away. [quoted text clipped - 129 lines] > It is vertical light moving down the sideways moving tilted tube. > That should be obvious to all but raw beginners. Quite. It is light moving vertically in the frame where the tube is moving sideways. And it is light moving diagonally in the frame where the tube is stationary. That should indeed be obvious to all but raw beginners.
>>>>"WHATEVER IS COMING FROM THAT STAR, MOVING WITH CHANGING >>>>DIRECTION, IS NOT LIGHT, IT IS ONLY INFINITESIMAL POINTS." [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > infinitesimal element of a DIFFERENT section of the vertical beam in successive > infinitesimal time intervals. Come again? :-) Whatever it is that is moving in a continuous stream along the diagonal path down the telescope tube and hits the CCD is not light because?
>>>>Now Henri, what is it that hits the CCD in our telescope? >>>>Is it light? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > would think that raindrops fall diagonally when he looks at them through a > moving train window. A very revealing statement. :-)
The raw beginner consider the ground frame to be absolute. So he will claim that the raindrops are falling vertically even in the rest frame of a train moving in the ground frame.
Our raw beginner is rather naive, isn't he? :-)
>>(I am beginning to believe you are. >> I didn't think it possible!) [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > telescope do not come from the same infinitesimally narrow section of the > vertical beam. No, I don't fail to see that. I never mentioned a "light beam". I said "light path".
The point is that whatever hits the CCD has moved along a diagonal path down the telescope tube. Is it light?
> I accept that this might be a bit hard for you. > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > ...which proves the photon as moved vertically wrt Earth. > Throw away the Earth and put the telescopes on oppositely moving vehicles. The Earth IS the moving vehicle. It is six month between each time the telescope is moving in opposite direction. Both times the photon has moved diagonally wrt Earth.
>>The photon - or piece of light- is moving vertically >>in the screen frame, AND the very same photon - or piece [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > from the star in each infinitesimal time interval. There is an infinite number > of them. So you have confirmed my words:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| If you from the cosmic ship Tellus ever look through | a telescope, be sure to notice the stellar aberration. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | | That will make you look exactly as intelligent as you are. Thanks.
Paul
Henri Wilson - 23 Nov 2005 21:38 GMT >> That's what a raw amateur would say. >> The tilted telescope has to move sideways to keep the incoming vertical beam at [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >the tube is stationary. >That should indeed be obvious to all but raw beginners. Paul, Let me explain:
S | | | | | <-v ________\_____
S is a star. The bottom line represents the horizontal at the Earth's surface. If the leaning telescope moves along the horizontal at v, does that make the starlight lean over diagonally WRT THE EARTH'S HORIZONTAL PLANE?
>>>>>"WHATEVER IS COMING FROM THAT STAR, MOVING WITH CHANGING >>>>>DIRECTION, IS NOT LIGHT, IT IS ONLY INFINITESIMAL POINTS." [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >> Q2) If not, at what angle from the radius vector should the pipe be tilted? >> Q3) How is the concept of 'vertical' defined for you or the pipe? No answers....
>>>You claim it is not light. So what is it then? >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >along the diagonal path down the telescope tube and >hits the CCD is not light because? Paul, let me explain.
Starlight is effectively parallel, right? It sends a broad beam to planet earth....a broad beam that is made up of infinitesimally thin parallel lines.
As the telescope moves sideways, infinitesimal elements of DIFFERENT lines successively strike the centre of the bottom of the telescope.
No 'line' is diagonal in the earth frame. The telescope is tilted.
>>>>>Now Henri, what is it that hits the CCD in our telescope? >>>>>Is it light? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >are falling vertically even in the rest frame of >a train moving in the ground frame. No, he wont exactly think that. He will make the mistake of believing that the time taken for the raindrops to fall a certain vertical distance in the ground frame is dependent on his train speed.
>>>(I am beginning to believe you are. >>> I didn't think it possible!) [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >a diagonal path down the telescope tube. >Is it light? the telescope tube is know to be leaning diagonally wrt the horizontal that defines its direction of movement. The starlight is vertical wrt that horizontal.
| | | _________v->
Does moving the bottom line sideways change the angle between the two lines, Paul?
>> I accept that this might be a bit hard for you. >> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >in opposite direction. >Both times the photon has moved diagonally wrt Earth. I repeat:
| | | _________v->
Does moving the bottom line sideways change the angle between the two lines, Paul? Please answer...
>> The CCD continuously detects an infinitesimal element of differnet light beams >> from the star in each infinitesimal time interval. There is an infinite number [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Thanks. One day you might understand all this.
>Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Paul B. Andersen - 01 Dec 2005 14:06 GMT >>>That's what a raw amateur would say. >>>The tilted telescope has to move sideways to keep the incoming vertical beam at [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > If the leaning telescope moves along the horizontal at v, does that make the > starlight lean over diagonally WRT THE EARTH'S HORIZONTAL PLANE? And that proves that whatever is moving down the telescope tube and hitting the CCD is not light. Right?
>>>>>>"WHATEVER IS COMING FROM THAT STAR, MOVING WITH CHANGING >>>>>>DIRECTION, IS NOT LIGHT, IT IS ONLY INFINITESIMAL POINTS." [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > No answers.... Irrelevancy ignored.
>>>>You claim it is not light. So what is it then? >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > No 'line' is diagonal in the earth frame. The telescope is tilted. So the whatever that is moving down the telescope tube hitting the CCD is not light, but infinitesimal elements of the DIFFERENT lines which the broad beam is made up of.
CCDs don't detect light, they detect infinitesimal elements of different lines from the star to planet Earth. Right?
>>>>>>Now Henri, what is it that hits the CCD in our telescope? >>>>>>Is it light? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > time taken for the raindrops to fall a certain vertical distance in the ground > frame is dependent on his train speed. Do you know of any raw beginners who are this stupid, Henri? :-) I don't.
>>>>(I am beginning to believe you are. >>>>I didn't think it possible!) [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Does moving the bottom line sideways change the angle between the two lines, > Paul? So we can conclude that whatever is moving down the tube and hits the CCD is not light. Right?
It's settled now. CCDs don't detect light, they detect infinitesimal elements of DIFFERENT vertical lines. And that's not light!
> > [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > Paul? > Please answer... Quite. You have proven that CCDs don't detect light, they detect infinitesimal elements of DIFFERENT vertical lines. And that's not light!
>>>The CCD continuously detects an infinitesimal element of differnet light beams >>>from the star in each infinitesimal time interval. There is an infinite number [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > One day you might understand all this. I understand it perfectly well. You have been explaining it over and over. You claim that CCDs don't detect light, they detect infinitesimal elements of DIFFERENT vertical lines. And that's not light! Or is it?
Paul
Henri Wilson - 01 Dec 2005 21:13 GMT >>>>It is vertical light moving down the sideways moving tilted tube. >>>>That should be obvious to all but raw beginners. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >tube and hitting the CCD is not light. >Right? You are funny, Paul. The movement of the telescope doesn't affect the light rays from the star. How could it?
If the telescope is 1nm wide, its aperture will continuously cut across different rays of the star's overall beam. So what travels down the middle will be a series of (finite) elements from different rays. Each element possesses an amount of light anergy. Each element that moves down the diagonally leaning telescope moves vertically wrt the Earth's horizontal. Even a tusselad should be able to work that out.
>>>>>The light from the star IS moving vertically in the source frame. >>>>>But our observer have to point is telescope "diagonally" to make [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >Irrelevancy ignored. Do you believe that everything which proves you wrong is irelevant?
>>>>Because the CCD is moving sideways so that it will continuously intercept an >>>>infinitesimal element of a DIFFERENT section of the vertical beam in successive [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >hitting the CCD is not light, but infinitesimal elements of >the DIFFERENT lines which the broad beam is made up of. Well, actually, they are finite because the CCD will have a finite aperture. LIGHT energy is continuously impinging on the CCD.
>CCDs don't detect light, they detect infinitesimal >elements of different lines from the star to planet Earth. >Right? Basically yes... the elements would be infinitesimal if the telescope and the CCD were also infinitesimal. In practice of course, they are finite in size.
>>>>>>The star emits a sphere of light Paul. The wavefronts are spherical. Didn't you >>>>>>know that. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Do you know of any raw beginners who are this stupid, Henri? :-) >I don't. A fellow named Einstein was precisely that stupid.
>>>>>(I am beginning to believe you are. >>>>>I didn't think it possible!) [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >and hits the CCD is not light. >Right? You are being deliberately dumb, surely.
>It's settled now. >CCDs don't detect light, they detect infinitesimal elements >of DIFFERENT vertical lines. >And that's not light! You are being deliberately dumb, surely.
>>>>>A little movie for you. The "*" is a photon, or a bit of LIGHT. >>>>>Two telescope tubes going through each other in opposite directions. [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] >they detect infinitesimal elements of DIFFERENT vertical lines. >And that's not light! I think I have proved that the lack of iodine in Norwegian drinking water inhibits brain cell growth.
>>>>The CCD continuously detects an infinitesimal element of differnet light beams >>>>from the star in each infinitesimal time interval. There is an infinite number [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >And that's not light! >Or is it? Of course it is bloody light. In practice, the bloody things aren't infinitesial.
>Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Jerry - 04 Dec 2005 08:13 GMT > You are funny, Paul. > The movement of the telescope doesn't affect the light rays [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > leaning telescope moves vertically wrt the Earth's horizontal. > Even a tusselad should be able to work that out. For a believer in ballistic theory, you make some incredibly ignorant statements that are contrary to ballistic theory premises. Consider a single (ahem) "ballistic particle" of light moving vertically down. Earth is moving to the right.
/ */ / / / / / /
/ / / */ / / / /
/ / / / / */ / /
/ / / / / / / */
Each "ballistic particle" that moves down the diagonally leaning telescope moves diagonally wrt the Earth's horizontal. Even a Henri Wilson should be able to work that out.
Jerry
Henri Wilson - 04 Dec 2005 21:37 GMT >> You are funny, Paul. >> The movement of the telescope doesn't affect the light rays [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >horizontal. Even a Henri Wilson should be able to work >that out. Poor girl.......but we know that females are deficient in spatial ability.
>Jerry | | | ______________>
If the horizontal line moves sdeways, does its angle with vertical line change?
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Paul Mays - 05 Dec 2005 01:48 GMT No particle , insert wave .. and non-balistic at that...
> >> You are funny, Paul. > >> The movement of the telescope doesn't affect the light rays [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Henri Wilson - 05 Dec 2005 02:37 GMT >No particle , insert wave .. and non-balistic at that... What's that supposed to mean?
>> On 4 Dec 2005 00:13:21 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >> HW. >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Androcles - 05 Dec 2005 08:52 GMT >>No particle , insert wave .. and non-balistic at that... > > What's that supposed to mean? He can't spell "ballistic", of course. Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 05 Dec 2005 09:50 GMT >>>No particle , insert wave .. and non-balistic at that... >> >> What's that supposed to mean? > >He can't spell "ballistic", of course. Yeh! Typical SRian I'd say...can't think, can't spell, can't reason....
Could he be a surprise late entry in the 'idiot of the year' award?
>Androcles. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Androcles - 05 Dec 2005 10:56 GMT >>>>No particle , insert wave .. and non-balistic at that... >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Could he be a surprise late entry in the 'idiot of the year' award? Possible. When they scream "wave" it usually indicates something. Too soon to tell. Bet you one bottle of Ozzie wine to one bottle of Glenlivet he's an aetherialist.
Androcles, discoverer of planets and inventor of light accelerators.
donstockbauer@hotmail.com - 05 Dec 2005 11:03 GMT Androcles, discoverer of planets and inventor of light accelerators.
*****************
Oh? Discoverer of planets? Remover of thorns? Changer of aliases every second or two?
Have a nice day.
Paul B. Andersen - 05 Dec 2005 13:31 GMT >>>>>It is vertical light moving down the sideways moving tilted tube. >>>>>That should be obvious to all but raw beginners. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > The movement of the telescope doesn't affect the light rays from the star. > How could it? But whatever hits the CCD must have travelled down the tube. How could it not? The tube IS leaning.
> If the telescope is 1nm wide, its aperture will continuously cut across > different rays of the star's overall beam. So what travels down the middle will [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > wrt the Earth's horizontal. > Even a tusselad should be able to work that out. But it takes a Henri Wilson to figure out that whatever is travelling down the leaning tube isn't light, but only a series of finite elements from different rays.
BTW, Henri. How big elements does the telescope chop off each ray?
>>>>>>The light from the star IS moving vertically in the source frame. >>>>>>But our observer have to point is telescope "diagonally" to make [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > Well, actually, they are finite because the CCD will have a finite aperture. > LIGHT energy is continuously impinging on the CCD. So whatever is moving down the telescope tube is not light, but it is LIGHT energy? :-)
>>CCDs don't detect light, they detect infinitesimal >>elements of different lines from the star to planet Earth. >>Right? > > Basically yes... the elements would be infinitesimal if the telescope and the > CCD were also infinitesimal. In practice of course, they are finite in size. So? Does that make the whatever that is travelling down the tube light, or is it only LIGHT energy, not light?
>>>>>>>The star emits a sphere of light Paul. The wavefronts are spherical. Didn't you >>>>>>>know that. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > A fellow named Einstein was precisely that stupid. I see. You belive that Einstein claimed that the time taken for the raindrops to fall a certain vertical distance in the ground frame is dependent on his train speed. :-)
Your stupidity never cease to amaze.
But you have evaded the point, haven't, you?
Why is the train observer wrong when he say that the raindrops are falling diagonally?
Is the whatever that are falling diagonally not raindrops, but infinitesimal elements of water?
>>>>>>(I am beginning to believe you are. >>>>>>I didn't think it possible!) [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > You are being deliberately dumb, surely. You have for a long time in a lot of postings claimed that whatever is moving down the telescope tube and which is detected by the CCDs isn't light.
So why am I dumb when I agree?
>>>>>>A little movie for you. The "*" is a photon, or a bit of LIGHT. >>>>>>Two telescope tubes going through each other in opposite directions. [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > I think I have proved that the lack of iodine in Norwegian drinking water > inhibits brain cell growth. Meaning what, Henri? Haven't you proved that CCDs don't detect light? What do they detect then? Is the whatever that is moving diagonally down the telescope tube light after all?
>>>>>The CCD continuously detects an infinitesimal element of differnet light beams >>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Of course it is bloody light. > In practice, the bloody things aren't infinitesial. Really, Henri?
So you have eventually understodd that whatever travels diagonally in the moving observer's rest frame is light.
It was about time.
And you have probably already forgotten it.
Paul
Henri Wilson - 05 Dec 2005 21:55 GMT >>>>>Quite. >>>>>It is light moving vertically in the frame where [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >How could it not? >The tube IS leaning. Who said it didn't. The tube is leaning therefore what goes down hte middle moves vertically wrt the earth's surface.
>> If the telescope is 1nm wide, its aperture will continuously cut across >> different rays of the star's overall beam. So what travels down the middle will [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >is travelling down the leaning tube isn't light, >but only a series of finite elements from different rays. Only a real idiot would not see that...'rays' being the representation of the star light as a large number of very narrow parallel lines.
>BTW, Henri. >How big elements does the telescope chop off each ray? If you are considering finite time intervals, it depends on aperture size and speed of course...and their cross section is a parallelogram, obviously.
>>>>Paul, let me explain. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >So whatever is moving down the telescope tube >is not light, but it is LIGHT energy? :-) Of course.
>>>CCDs don't detect light, they detect infinitesimal >>>elements of different lines from the star to planet Earth. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Does that make the whatever that is travelling down the tube >light, or is it only LIGHT energy, not light?
| \ | \ | \ | \ | \<- Paul, when the 1 nm wide tilted telescope cuts the vertical ray, the ray continues on regardless, minus a short section. The 'short section' is joined by similar short sections of subsequent rays, all with their vibration axis vertical.
You might want to invoke Huygens' idea that such a combination constitutes a ray moving diagonally at c. There is no justification for that. If the telescope had infinitesimally thin walls and was open at the bottom, each element would join its original ray as though nothing happened.
>>>>>The raw beginner consider the ground frame >>>>>to be absolute. So he will claim that the raindrops [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >not raindrops, but infinitesimal elements of >water? Basically yes. ..and each moves along a different diagonal.
My previous diagram explains it all...
| | | | | ____________>
Moving the horizontal line sideways doesn't change the angle between the two.
>>>>>>>Don't you understand that if you had two telescopes going in >>>>>>>opposite direction, looking at the same star, they would have to [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > >So why am I dumb when I agree? What moves down the telescope tube has its vibration axis pointing vertically. Like I said, if hte telescope was an open ended pipe, each element would emerge from the bottom and rejoin its original ray as though nothing happened.
>>>>>>>A little movie for you. The "*" is a photon, or a bit of LIGHT. >>>>>>>Two telescope tubes going through each other in opposite directions. [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] >Is the whatever that is moving diagonally down the telescope tube >light after all? The CCDs are sensitive to light energy. Because we have a finite system, it is fair to say that the CCD is detecting finite elements of light.
However, consider this again:
| \ | \ | \ | \ | \<-c/2 Take a very thin walled and open ended pipe and lean it over at arctan0.5. Move it at c/2 across a downward pointing laser beam. What goes down the middle? What is the direction of its 'axis'? What comes out the end?
>>>>One day you might understand all this. >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >So you have eventually understodd that whatever travels diagonally >in the moving observer's rest frame is light. It is NOT a conventional light beam moving at c. The vibration axes of its component elements are all aligned vertically. It does not obey Maxwell's equations. Relative to the telescope, it moves at sqrt(c^2+v^2).
>It was about time. > >And you have probably already forgotten it. > >Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Jerry - 06 Dec 2005 03:04 GMT > Who said it didn't. > The tube is leaning therefore what goes down hte middle moves > vertically wrt the earth's surface. If you run quickly through vertically falling rain, then what strikes your face and gets the front of your clothing wet moves vertically with respect to your head, right?
Jerry
Henri Wilson - 06 Dec 2005 08:34 GMT >> Who said it didn't. >> The tube is leaning therefore what goes down hte middle moves [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >your face and gets the front of your clothing wet moves vertically >with respect to your head, right? It moves vertically wrt my direction vector no matter how fast I run.
Is that so difficult?
>Jerry HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Jerry - 07 Dec 2005 02:45 GMT > >> Who said it didn't. > >> The tube is leaning therefore what goes down hte middle moves [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Is that so difficult? You therefore believe in a preferred frame.
Jerry
Henri Wilson - 07 Dec 2005 05:24 GMT >> >> Who said it didn't. >> >> The tube is leaning therefore what goes down hte middle moves [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >You therefore believe in a preferred frame. A 'direction' is not a frame.
| | | _____________o=^^^o <-__
The vertical line remains vertical wrt the car's horizontal no matter how fast it travels. The car hits the vertically falling raindrops because it is moving horizontally. Each infinitesimal point inside each raindrop approaches the car diagonally but no whole raindrop moves down ONE infinitesimally thin diagonal line.
get it?
>Jerry HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Jerry - 07 Dec 2005 06:18 GMT > >> >> Who said it didn't. > >> >> The tube is leaning therefore what goes down hte middle moves [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >> > >> Is that so difficult? You are ascribing a physical reality to "rays" that simply does not exist. Whether you consider a light beam to comprise a group of photons or a group of waves, the "ray" is nothing more than a line indicating the direction in which the photons or waves appear to be going, and this direction is observer-dependent.
> >You therefore believe in a preferred frame. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > get it? You are speaking complete nonsense.
If each infinitesimal point inside each raindrop approaches the car diagonally, then each raindrop moves down a finite thickness diagonal column towards the car, as seen by the car.
Jerry
Henri Wilson - 07 Dec 2005 20:36 GMT >> >> >If you run quickly through vertically falling rain, then what strikes >> >> >your face and gets the front of your clothing wet moves vertically [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >a line indicating the direction in which the photons or waves appear >to be going, and this direction is observer-dependent. No it isn't. The DIRECTION of the beam as a whole remains constant, irrespective of observer movement. The beam can move sideways in the observer frame.
>> >You therefore believe in a preferred frame. >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >You are speaking complete nonsense. Takes one to recognise it.
>If each infinitesimal point inside each raindrop approaches the car >diagonally, then each raindrop moves down a finite thickness >diagonal column towards the car, as seen by the car. ..so what causes the raindrops to fall a they do?
Does a moving car somehow change their paths?
>Jerry HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Jerry - 08 Dec 2005 10:38 GMT > >> >> >If you run quickly through vertically falling rain, then what strikes > >> >> >your face and gets the front of your clothing wet moves vertically [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > The DIRECTION of the beam as a whole remains constant, irrespective > of observer movement. Direction according to whom? Some absolute observer?
> The beam can move sideways in the observer frame. > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Does a moving car somehow change their paths? Of course not. But the observed velocity (speed, direction) of the raindrops depends on who is doing the observing.
REPEAT: When you state, "The DIRECTION of the beam as a whole remains constant, irrespective of observer movement.", my question is, "Direction according to whom?"
Jerry
Henri Wilson - 08 Dec 2005 22:41 GMT >> No it isn't. >> The DIRECTION of the beam as a whole remains constant, irrespective >> of observer movement. > >Direction according to whom? Some absolute observer? No Jerry.
The axis of field symmetry... Maxwell's model. It points in the same direction in all frames.
>> The beam can move sideways in the observer frame. >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >Of course not. But the observed velocity (speed, direction) >of the raindrops depends on who is doing the observing. If they were perfectly spherical, it would be hard to not reach that conclusion. However if one considers object with obvious 'axes' such an machine gun bullets fired vertically downwards froim a stationary helicopter, the picture is different. To the moving car, the each bullet axis remains vertical even though elements of the bullet follow adjcent diagonal paths. Also, the bullets remain vertically aligned in the car frame.
So the bullets are all still aligned normal to the car's 'horizontal' ..ie vertical.
As I said to Paul, hold a pen vertically...now move it sideways. It doesn't lean over. It is a vertical object moving sideways. A light BEAM is much the same...it is like a solid object.
>REPEAT: When you state, "The DIRECTION of the beam as a >whole remains constant, irrespective of observer movement.", >my question is, "Direction according to whom?" Maxwell. _|___<-
Vertical is vertical no matter how the horizontal line moves.
>Jerry HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Jerry - 09 Dec 2005 01:08 GMT > >> No it isn't. > >> The DIRECTION of the beam as a whole remains constant, irrespective [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The axis of field symmetry... Maxwell's model. > It points in the same direction in all frames. First of all, Maxwell's theory is inconsistent with ballistic theory. So don't go around trying to cite Maxwell in support of your idiocy.
Second, your understanding of Maxwell's theory is colored by fanciful misinterpretation and a long-standing, proven lack of math skills. I bet you can't tell me the difference between a div and a grad, and probably think a curl is something that you set in hair. Even -I- know what they are and how to apply them in electromagnetic theory, and I assure you that I am the farthest thing from being a physics student.
You are utterly hopeless.
Jerry
Henri Wilson - 09 Dec 2005 09:19 GMT >> >> No it isn't. >> >> The DIRECTION of the beam as a whole remains constant, irrespective [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >You are utterly hopeless. poor girl.
>Jerry HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
jgreen@seol.net.au - 09 Dec 2005 04:17 GMT > > >> >> >If you run quickly through vertically falling rain, then what strikes > > >> >> >your face and gets the front of your clothing wet moves vertically [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > whole remains constant, irrespective of observer movement.", > my question is, "Direction according to whom?" The REAL question is, how can so many DHR's equate their DELUSIONS with TRUTH; and the truth is, it matters not a jot WHO looks at what- if the raindrops are going towards earth center, THAT is where they will strike, regardless of what MISTAKEN understanding the observer has. He is WRONG, get it?
Jim G c'=c+v
Jerry - 07 Dec 2005 15:38 GMT > >> Who said it didn't. > >> The tube is leaning therefore what goes down hte middle moves [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Is that so difficult? Let me change the scenario somewhat so that you can see how utterly ridiculous your position is. Instead of light from a distant star, consider an interstellar gas cloud.
You are standing on the surface of an airless planet which is traveling at 0.9c to the right through the gas cloud.
O <---------- <---------- radiation /|\ <---------- radiation M <--------- <---------- radiation -----planet surface -------------------------
You are bombarded by a lethal dose of fast moving protons and alpha particles (hydrogen and helium). Shortly before you die, you cry out, "This gas cloud is motionless with respect to my direction vector no matter how fast the planet moves."
Jerry
Henri Wilson - 07 Dec 2005 20:38 GMT >> >> Who said it didn't. >> >> The tube is leaning therefore what goes down hte middle moves [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >direction vector no matter how fast the planet >moves." That is a totally unrelated scenario and one that has a very simple answer.
The problem we are discussing involves motions at right angles.
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe
It isn't a virus.
>Jerry HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Paul B. Andersen - 06 Dec 2005 22:43 GMT >>>>>>Quite. >>>>>>It is light moving vertically in the frame where [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > The tube is leaning therefore what goes down hte middle moves vertically wrt > the earth's surface. What moves diagonally down the tube moves vertically? Wilsonian logic? :-)
>>>If the telescope is 1nm wide, its aperture will continuously cut across >>>different rays of the star's overall beam. So what travels down the middle will [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Only a real idiot would not see that...'rays' being the representation of the > star light as a large number of very narrow parallel lines. You are babbling. If you consider the light to be a plane wave, that wave propagates diagonally in the telescope/ground frame. The whole wave and every part of it is moving diagonally.
If you consider the light to be a shower of photons, every single photon moves diagonally in the telescope/ground frame.
You have indeed to be a real idiot not to see that.
>>BTW, Henri. >>How big elements does the telescope chop off each ray? > > If you are considering finite time intervals, it depends on aperture size and > speed of course...and their cross section is a parallelogram, obviously. You are babbling. There are of course no "elements from different rays", the lines are in your imagination only.
I will try to draw it for you. Let us consider the light to be a bunch of photons. Or think of raindrops if you like.
Each * is a photon (or raindrop), the line beneath it shows the direction in which it is moving.
In one frame, it looks like this: (imagine it extended infinitely both vertically and horizontally)
* * * * * * * * * * * * | | | | | | | | | | | | * * * * * * * * * * * * | | | | | | | | | | | | * * * * * * * * * * * * | | | | | | | | | | | | * * * * * * * * * * * * | | | | | | | | | | | | * * * * * * * * * * * * | | | | | | | | | | | | * * * * * * * * * * * * | | | | | | | | | | | |
All the photons are moving vertically.
In another frame, the very same photons moves like this at the very same time: (Two different snapshots of the same scenario. All the photons are in the same instant position, but their velocity have another direction. )
* * * * * * * * * * * * / / / / / / / / / / / / * * * * * * * * * * * * / / / / / / / / / / / / * * * * * * * * * * * * / / / / / / / / / / / / * * * * * * * * * * * * / / / / / / / / / / / / * * * * * * * * * * * * / / / / / / / / / / / /
All the photons are moving diagonally.
Why do you insist that the photons belonging to the same "ray" are those arranged along a vertical line? Why not consider those arranged along the diagonal along which they are moving to belong to the same "ray"?
You claim to be a "true relativist". So which of the frames should define "the direction of the ray"?
Of course two telescopes stationary in the respective frames would not catch the same photons (or the same part of the wave). So what?
It is idiocy beyond belief to say that only one of them catches light, while the other does not. And who is to say which of them will catch "elements of different rays", and which is catching the same ray?
If we redefine what we call "horizontal" (an arbitrarily selected reference direction), the photons may move vertically in the latter frame, while they are moving diagonally in the former frame.
Nothing physical has changed by redefining an arbitrary reference.
>>>>>Paul, let me explain. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 275 lines] > does not obey Maxwell's equations. Relative to the telescope, it moves at > sqrt(c^2+v^2). You ARE living in Wonderland, are you not? :-)
I find it amazing that you are unable to see that the directon of any velocity vector is frame dependent.
When something - whatever that something might be - moves "vertically" in one frame, the _very same velocity vector_ is not vertical in any frame moving horizontally with the respect to the first.
That goes for raindrops, bullets, light, accoustic waves - anything!
And of course the raindrops, bullets, light and accoustic waves remain raindrops, bullets, light and accoustic waves regardless from which frame you observe them.
It is indeed an incredible weird idea that a physical object can exist in one frame of reference, but not in another.
Henri's mind works in mysterious ways. :-)
Paul
Henri Wilson - 07 Dec 2005 00:31 GMT >>>>>>Paul, Let me explain: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >What moves diagonally down the tube moves vertically? >Wilsonian logic? :-) You're losing it Paul. You can't even read properly now!
>>>>If the telescope is 1nm wide, its aperture will continuously cut across >>>>different rays of the star's overall beam. So what travels down the middle will [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >You have indeed to be a real idiot not to see that. Only a real idiot would not see where your logic breaks down.
__________________wave front
_____________\ <-v
The vertical lines represent parallel light coming from a star to Earth's horizontal surface. The wave fronts are also horizontal.
...now, move a diagonal open-ended pipe across the vertical lines so it intersects the lines in sequence. Even YOU should be able to see that a little piece of each line goes down the centre of the diagonal pipe. It emerges from the other end and resumes its place in the original line. At no time does any part of the light beam move diagonally wrt the Earth's surface. At no time does it ever move at any vertical speed other than the original one. Only a real idiot would argue with that.
>>>BTW, Henri. >>>How big elements does the telescope chop off each ray? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >There are of course no "elements from different rays", >the lines are in your imagination only. The whole vertical beam from the star can be regarded as consisting of an infinite number of lines of infinitesimal width.
>I will try to draw it for you. >Let us consider the light to be a bunch of photons. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > >All the photons are moving diagonally. No. They are still moving vertically wrt the horizontal.
Try firing lead shot from a vertical machine gun. To a moving observer, the shot will move diagonally in his frame.
Now fire lead shot with a vertical hole through it. To a moving observer, the shot will move diagonally BUT THE HOLES WILL ALL REMAIN VERTICAL. WHAT IS MORE, ALL THE HOLES WILL REMIAN VERTICALLY ALIGNED SO THAT ONE COULD SEE LIGHT THROUGH THEM IS ONE HAD THE RIGHT GEAR.
>Why do you insist that the photons belonging >to the same "ray" are those arranged along >a vertical line? >Why not consider those arranged along the diagonal >along which they are moving to belong to the same "ray"? Because my pipe illustration above shows they rejoin their original rays in sequence. So what goes down the pipe is made of short sections of a sequence of rays. It cannot be construed as a single light ray because its fields are skewed wrt the axis of the telescope. Maxwell's waves which move at c are symmetrical around that line.
>You claim to be a "true relativist". >So which of the frames should define "the direction of the ray"? The Earth's surface is horizontal. The rays are vertical. Observer movement doesn't change their angle wrt the Earth's surface.
>Of course two telescopes stationary in the respective frames >would not catch the same photons (or the same part of the wave). [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >And who is to say which of them will catch "elements of different rays", >and which is catching the same ray? Surely you are being deliberately stupid now...
>If we redefine what we call "horizontal" (an arbitrarily selected >reference direction), the photons may move vertically in the latter >frame, while they are moving diagonally in the former frame. > >Nothing physical has changed by redefining an arbitrary reference. But my 'holey lead shot' example shows where you are wrong about that.
There IS a physical change. The holes aren't diagonal in the moving frame.
>>>So? >>>Does that make the whatever that is travelling down the tube [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> The 'short section' is joined by similar short sections of subsequent rays, all >> with their vibration axis vertical.
>>>Your stupidity never cease to amaze. >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> >> Moving the horizontal line sideways doesn't change the angle between the two.
>>>>You are being deliberately dumb, surely. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> Like I said, if hte telescope was an open ended pipe, each element would emerge >> from the bottom and rejoin its original ray as though nothing happened. Did you agree with that?
>> The CCDs are sensitive to light energy. Because we have a finite system, it is >> fair to say that the CCD is detecting finite elements of light. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >in one frame, the _very same velocity vector_ is not vertical in any >frame moving horizontally with the respect to the first. That is true. The velocity vector represents the velocity at an infinitesimal point, for instance the C of G of a thin vertical iron rod..
Can you not see that each element of each molecule of that rod has a different diagonal velocity vector? Ca you not see that what goes up any one of those diagonals is not an iron rod.
>That goes for raindrops, bullets, light, accoustic waves - anything! > >And of course the raindrops, bullets, light and accoustic waves remain >raindrops, bullets, light and accoustic waves regardless from which >frame you observe them. BUT EACH ELEMENT GOES UP A DIFFERENT DIAGONAL.
>It is indeed an incredible weird idea that a physical object >can exist in one frame of reference, but not in another. > >Henri's mind works in mysterious ways. :-) Mysterious enough to understand that observer movement does not affect an external object.
>Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Paul B. Andersen - 07 Dec 2005 22:46 GMT >>>>>>>Paul, Let me explain: >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 306 lines] > Mysterious enough to understand that observer movement does not affect an > external object. Indeed. That's the very point. The motion of the observer does not affect the observed object in any way, so the light is obviously light regardless of which observer is observing it. But the motion of the observer will affect the _velocity_ of the object in the observer's frame. So the very same object (light) is moving at different velocities (directions) in different frames.
I find it amazing that you are unable to understand this simple and obvious fact, which is true in Galilean relativity as well as Lorentzian relativity.
But I will have to accept that you don't, and probably never will.
Your stupidity never cease to amaze.
Paul
Henri Wilson - 08 Dec 2005 22:51 GMT >> BUT EACH ELEMENT GOES UP A DIFFERENT DIAGONAL. >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >So the very same object (light) is moving at different >velocities (directions) in different frames. No Paul. Maxwell's EM theory shows that the E and B fields are symmetrical about an AXIS. The associated wave move at c along that axis only. It says nothing about any waves in any other direction. You are very confused and deluded.
A 'stationary beam of light' exists only in the source frame. In any frame it is a 'sideways moving beam of light'.
The beam direction is not observer dependent. It is set by Maxwell.
>I find it amazing that you are unable to understand >this simple and obvious fact, which is true in Galilean [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Your stupidity never cease to amaze. I am truly amazed that no matter how many times simple physical facts are explained to you, they never penetrate your iodine deficient Norwegian brain..
>Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Eric Gisse - 09 Dec 2005 00:50 GMT [snip blather]
> No Paul. Maxwell's EM theory shows that the E and B fields are symmetrical > about an AXIS. The associated wave move at c along that axis only. > It says nothing about any waves in any other direction. > You are very confused and deluded. You presume to talk about Maxwell's equations yet you refuse to prove, using them, that your theory satisfies Maxwell's equations.
Amazing.
[snip blather]
Henri Wilson - 09 Dec 2005 09:20 GMT >[snip blather] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Amazing. Poor boy. ....will never pass first year...
>[snip blather] HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Eric Gisse - 09 Dec 2005 10:17 GMT > >[snip blather] > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Poor boy. > ....will never pass first year... As usual, you make assumptions that turn out to be false. I have passed first year physics, and mathematics. How many people who can't pass first year physics can explain to you what a Bessel function is, or what the Laplace transform is?
Now, back on subject, why do you refuse to prove that your theory does not satisfy Maxwell's equations?
Maxwell's equations reduce to two partial differential equations in E and B. They are in fact, wave equations. You do know what the wave equation is, right Henri?
All you have to do is show me how a wave can have a velocity c+v depending on the observer. That is all you have to do. If you ask, I will even work you through to the wave equation and the solutions from start to finish.
> >[snip blather] > > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Henri Wilson - 09 Dec 2005 21:13 GMT >> >[snip blather] >> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >first year physics can explain to you what a Bessel function is, or >what the Laplace transform is? Laplace transforms may be easy to use but they are not easy to explain.
>Now, back on subject, why do you refuse to prove that your theory does >not satisfy Maxwell's equations? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >will even work you through to the wave equation and the solutions from >start to finish. I would normally not bother to reply but since you keep making the same stupid mistake I will, just this once.
So tell me Goosey, if the wave's speed is not specified relative to its source, what the hell is its reference?
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Eric Gisse - 09 Dec 2005 22:58 GMT > >> >[snip blather] > >> > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > I would normally not bother to reply but since you keep making the same stupid > mistake I will, just this once. Until next time.
> So tell me Goosey, if the wave's speed is not specified relative to its source, > what the hell is its reference? Look, we know that the only way for Maxwell's equations to remain valid is through special relativity. If you assume Maxwell's equations to be true, you *HAVE* to accept special relativity.
The 2 curl equations transform into 2 wave equations in E and B when you take the curl and use the appropriate identities. The nature of the wave equation only allows for solutions that propogate at c, not c-v or c+v. This part doesn't come from special relativity, but PDE theory - something I am sure you don't have umbrage with because it never concerned you until this moment.
If you accept Maxwell's equations and reject special relativity and replace it with Galilean relativity you can have the situation where particles are traveling *faster* than the speed of light. Plus, there is that little guage invariance thing that only works with special relativity and nothing else.
> > > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Henri Wilson - 10 Dec 2005 22:33 GMT >> >All you have to do is show me how a wave can have a velocity c+v >> >depending on the observer. That is all you have to do. If you ask, I [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >something I am sure you don't have umbrage with because it never >concerned you until this moment. Your problem gooose is that you pick up a few big words and think you know all about the subject.
Maxwell's equations need LET to work.
They worked before Einstein was born.
>If you accept Maxwell's equations and reject special relativity and >replace it with Galilean relativity you can have the situation where >particles are traveling *faster* than the speed of light. Plus, there >is that little guage invariance thing that only works with special >relativity and nothing else. uninformed crap ignored...
...no hope for this youth....
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Eric Gisse - 10 Dec 2005 23:32 GMT > >> >All you have to do is show me how a wave can have a velocity c+v > >> >depending on the observer. That is all you have to do. If you ask, I [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Your problem gooose is that you pick up a few big words and think you know all > about the subject. How would you know? You refuse to discuss the mathematics so you have no way of knowing if I actually understand what I am talking about.
> Maxwell's equations need LET to work. Same mathematics as SR, though different theories.
You have stated many times you believe your theory is consistant with Maxwell's equations, yet you harp about how unphysical SR/LET are. Do you not think about the consequences of what you say?
> They worked before Einstein was born. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > ...no hope for this youth.... How would you know? You refuse to discuss anything quantitatively.
Here, I'll give you something to start with.
Take the curl of both the curl equations of the 4 Maxwell equations.
Use obvious vector identity, which myself and others have mentioned and which is available in a cursory google search about electromagnetic theory.
Observe the two 3-dimensional wave equations in E and B.
For the sake of ease, assume one spatial dimension.
You get E_tt = c^-2*E_xx, and B_tt = c^-2*B_xx
Now. What else do we need to solve these two wave equations?
> HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Henri Wilson - 11 Dec 2005 21:19 GMT >> >> >All you have to do is show me how a wave can have a velocity c+v >> >> >depending on the observer. That is all you have to do. If you ask, I [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > >Now. What else do we need to solve these two wave equations? so what?
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Eric Gisse - 11 Dec 2005 22:28 GMT > >> >> >All you have to do is show me how a wave can have a velocity c+v > >> >> >depending on the observer. That is all you have to do. If you ask, I [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > so what? I thought you understood Maxwell's equations? The reason I am going through this with you is because you refuse to do it, probably because you know the answer contradicts your theory.
Well, the 2 other equations put constraints on E and B making them orthogonal to eachother - I am not ignoring them, I just don't need them. The two wave equations are really the same wave equation, which has a well-known solution.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/dAlembertsSolution.html
Now, Henri. You have a solution to Maxwell's equations in hand for a simple case.
Now, you have all the tools you need put right in your lap for you to show me how Maxwell's equations allow for the speed of light to be dependant on the velocity of the observer. That is all I want you to do.
> HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Henri Wilson - 12 Dec 2005 07:39 GMT >> >Now. What else do we need to solve these two wave equations? >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >dependant on the velocity of the observer. That is all I want you to >do. Speed of light wrt what, geesey?
That point in space where the constants were measured?
How fast is the point going, Geesey?
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Eric Gisse - 12 Dec 2005 21:33 GMT > >> >Now. What else do we need to solve these two wave equations? > >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Speed of light wrt what, geesey? You tell me, Henri. The wave equation is right there.
> That point in space where the constants were measured? You tell me, Henri. The wave equation is right there.
> How fast is the point going, Geesey? You tell me, Henri. The wave equation is right there.
I have given you all the mathematics you need.
> HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Henri Wilson - 12 Dec 2005 22:33 GMT >> >Now, you have all the tools you need put right in your lap for you to >> >show me how Maxwell's equations allow for the speed of light to be [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >I have given you all the mathematics you need. If an aether exists, yes.
Poor boy! 150 years behind the times.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Eric Gisse - 12 Dec 2005 23:42 GMT > >> >Now, you have all the tools you need put right in your lap for you to > >> >show me how Maxwell's equations allow for the speed of light to be [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Poor boy! 150 years behind the times. Maxwell's equations are entirely valid in free space.
I am only about 50 years behind the times because I am not using the tensorial representation of Maxwell's equations, but you wouldn't know that because you don't know jack about sh.t.
Looks like you just don't care about physics, Henri. You babble on and on about Maxwell's equations but when push comes to shove you refuse to use them because of some nonexistant "aether". What a farce.
> HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Paul B. Andersen - 12 Dec 2005 09:33 GMT > "Paul B. Andersen" WROTE: >>The motion of the observer does not affect the observed [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It says nothing about any waves in any other direction. > You are very confused and deluded. I find it amazing that it is possible to fail to understand that _any_ velocity vector generally changes direction when it is transformed from one frame of reference to another. That is true whether you use the Galilean or the Lorentz transform.
But I will have to accept that nothing is so simple that Henri cannot fail to understand it.
> A 'stationary beam of light' exists only in the source frame. In any frame it > is a 'sideways moving beam of light'. Right. So the propagation vector is along the beam in the source frame only, but has an angle to the beam in other frames.
Obvious, no?
> The beam direction is not observer dependent. It is set by Maxwell. Right in Galilean relativity. The propagation vector (velocity vector) is however observer dependent.
Obvious, no?
>>I find it amazing that you are unable to understand >>this simple and obvious fact, which is true in Galilean [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I am truly amazed that no matter how many times simple physical facts are > explained to you, they never penetrate your iodine deficient Norwegian brain. Quite. Your failure to understand how velocities transform prove my brain deficient.
Obvious, no?
Paul
Henri Wilson - 12 Dec 2005 20:36 GMT >> "Paul B. Andersen" WROTE: >>>The motion of the observer does not affect the observed [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >That is true whether you use the Galilean or the Lorentz >transform. We aren't talking about velocity vectors.
I was refering to Maxwell's 'wave axis of symmetry'.
>But I will have to accept that nothing is so simple >that Henri cannot fail to understand it. I'm afraid this is way above you.
>> A 'stationary beam of light' exists only in the source frame. In any frame it >> is a 'sideways moving beam of light'. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Obvious, no? The propagation of WHAT? .....and at what speed?
>> The beam direction is not observer dependent. It is set by Maxwell. > >Right in Galilean relativity. >The propagation vector (velocity vector) is however >observer dependent. The direction of the beam is not observer dependent.
>Obvious, no? Obvious The direction of a light pole is not observer dependent either.
>>>I find it amazing that you are unable to understand >>>this simple and obvious fact, which is true in Galilean [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Obvious, no? I know how they transform. They don't remain at c.
>Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Paul B. Andersen - 12 Dec 2005 21:47 GMT >>>"Paul B. Andersen" WROTE: >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > I was refering to Maxwell's 'wave axis of symmetry'. We are talking about how the velocity of light transforms. Velocity is a vector. Didn't you know?
>>But I will have to accept that nothing is so simple >>that Henri cannot fail to understand it. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > The propagation of WHAT? Of LIGHT. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/PropagationVector.html
> .....and at what speed? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The direction of the beam is not observer dependent. Can't you read? I said: RIGHT. The propagation vector is however observer dependent.
Why do you keep repeating what I have never disputed?
>>Obvious, no? > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I know how they transform. > They don't remain at c. Fine. So you know that according to the Galilean transform, both the direction AND the magnitude of the velocity of light is observer dependent.
(In the real world, the speed of light is invariant, but the point we are discussing now is that the direction of the velocity of light blatantly obvious is observer dependent even in Galilean relativity.)
It's settled then. Or will you keep claiming that light isn't light if the observer isn't stationary in the source frame?
Paul
Henri Wilson - 12 Dec 2005 22:49 GMT >>>>"Paul B. Andersen" WROTE: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >Velocity is a vector. >Didn't you know? A light beam defines a direction in space. A laser beam for instance, has only one velocity vector.
It doesn't have a 'transform' in another frame.
>>>But I will have to accept that nothing is so simple >>>that Henri cannot fail to understand it. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >Why do you keep repeating what I have never disputed? It is hard to follow what you are saying.
>>>Obvious, no? >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >both the direction AND the magnitude of the velocity >of light is observer dependent. No. 'direction' is not a good word. ....and every observer knows that light leaves its source at c.
>(In the real world, the speed of light is invariant, >but the point we are discussing now is that the direction [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Or will you keep claiming that light isn't light >if the observer isn't stationary in the source frame? A beam of light is the same beam whether or not anyone looks at it.
>Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Androcles - 12 Dec 2005 23:51 GMT >>>>>"Paul B. Andersen" WROTE: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > A light beam defines a direction in space. > A laser beam for instance, has only one velocity vector. Does it? I thought you said TWLS = OWLV.
> It doesn't have a 'transform' in another frame. Sure it does. It's velocity is c+v in another frame. The transform between frames is c' = c+v.
>>>>But I will have to accept that nothing is so simple >>>>that Henri cannot fail to understand it. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >>> >>>>>The beam direction is not observer dependent. It is set by Maxwell. "It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena." Sounds like the tusselad is disagreeing with Einstein.
>>>>Right in Galilean relativity. >>>>The propagation vector (velocity vector) is however [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >>both the direction AND the magnitude of the velocity >>of light is observer dependent. Science, according to the tusselad, should be subjective. The stick in water really is bent. Obviously. We can SEE it is. We OBserve it. It is OBvious. OBjectivity has no role in science.
> No. > 'direction' is not a good word. What's wrong with it? 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
> ....and every observer knows that light leaves its source at c. OBjectively. Tusselad wants to be SUBjective. He can only measure the subjective arrival, not the emission.
>>(In the real world, the speed of light is invariant, >>but the point we are discussing now is that the direction [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Henri Wilson - 13 Dec 2005 08:00 GMT >>>We are talking about how the velocity of light transforms. >>>Velocity is a vector. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Does it? I thought you said TWLS = OWLV. In any one frame it does. You should know that.
>> It doesn't have a 'transform' in another frame. > >Sure it does. It's velocity is c+v in another frame. >The transform between frames is c' = c+v. Ah! I was actually talking about the direction of the vector not the size of it.
>>>> The propagation of WHAT? >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >not appear to be inherent in the phenomena." >Sounds like the tusselad is disagreeing with Einstein. Tusselad is probably suffering from acute cold at the moment. Maybe the blood is not getting up to the top.
>>>> I know how they transform. >>>> They don't remain at c. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >We OBserve it. It is OBvious. >OBjectivity has no role in science. Moving observers can change the properties of objects. Ask any SRian.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Androcles - 13 Dec 2005 12:04 GMT >>>>We are talking about how the velocity of light transforms. >>>>Velocity is a vector. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > In any one frame it does. You should know that. Trivial case, not relevant. In general c+v <> -c+v. Forcing v to zero is pathetic, and even then c+0 <> -c+0.
>>> It doesn't have a 'transform' in another frame. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of > it. Trivial case. We all know how to point. <shrug>
>>>>> The propagation of WHAT? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Tusselad is probably suffering from acute cold at the moment. > Maybe the blood is not getting up to the top. Well, it IS a fact that Maxwell's equations became f.cked with MMX. Einstein never did fix them, so they remain as they are in the text books. Maxwell got the Gauss and Faraday equations right, but scrood up on Ampere. Even that is right -- but only in a medium. The permittivity of a substance is measurable. The permittivity of vacuum is not. epsilon0 is the assumed permittivity of aether. Changing "aether" to "free space" is drivel. <shrug> Free space has zero permittivity, the speed of light is UNDEFINED which means that is is UNAFFECTED by free space. It IS affected by a medium such as air, water, glass etc.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/maxeq.html
"Integral form in the absence of magnetic or polarizable media: I. Gauss' law for electricity wrong. II.Gauss' law for magnetism right. III. Faraday's law of induction right. IV. Ampere's law wrong."
I. and IV. contain magnetic or polarizable aether.
The tusselad will never see it, he doesn't have a text book to go by and nobody bothered after Einstein's time machine fantasy drivel was popular. They WANT to believe in time travel. Wow, let's all get to distant planets without getting older! Wormholes will help. Let's all go through the fabric of the spacetime continuum, whatever that is, Einstein said we could. Warped space, Flash Gordon, Superman, Batman, Spiderman, photon torpedoes, beam me up Scottie. It's all kiddy sh.t. The guy peddled dreams in a Klein bottle. Tusselad is just another dream peddler. Reality has nothing to do with it. The reality is we (that's YOU and I and Kennaugh and Sekerin and a scant few others) can beef up interplanetary communication with a light accelerator, which is needed NOW for Spirit and Opportunity on Mars, Cassini and Huyghens at Saturn. Einstein prevented that from being developed, the bastards took all the money for building super colliders. The politicians are not responsible, they are not physicists. Build a sagnac2.exe, H. You were almost there.
>>>>> I know how they transform. >>>>> They don't remain at c. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Paul B. Andersen - 13 Dec 2005 21:47 GMT >>>>>"Paul B. Andersen" WROTE: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 114 lines] > > A beam of light is the same beam whether or not anyone looks at it. I can only repeat: I find it amazing that it is possible to fail to understand that _any_ velocity vector generally changes direction when it is transformed from one frame of reference to another. That is true whether you use the Galilean or the Lorentz transform.
But I will have to accept that nothing is so simple that Henri cannot fail to understand it.
I don't need any further confirmation of my words.
Paul
Henri Wilson - 14 Dec 2005 19:56 GMT >> No. >> 'direction' is not a good word. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >That is true whether you use the Galilean or the Lorentz >transform. You can plot the path of an infinitesimal element of a light beam in any frame.
The beam as a whole doesn't 'transform' any more than a light pole does.
>But I will have to accept that nothing is so simple >that Henri cannot fail to understand it. > >I don't need any further confirmation of my words. How's the temperature over your way? Is the blood to thick to reach your brain?
26C here today.
>Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Jeff Root - 22 Nov 2005 05:50 GMT > Please, Henri. > You are not really THIS stupid, are you? :-) And I don't believe you are as stupid as you seem.
Henri's intelligence has dropped significantly compared to what it was several weeks ago. At the same time, his own estimation of his intelligence and confidence in his abilities have increased. I take these as indications that he is in the manic phase of bipolar disorder.
Arguing with him is like arguing with a dog over who gets a bone. Logic and reason are irrelevant. Henri believes whatever he wants to believe. He has no control over what he wants to believe. His beliefs are driven by his mental illness, not by intelligence.
Once the manic phase has ended, his intelligence will undoubtedly return to its former level. He will probably also feel like a complete failure again, as depression takes over.
> A little movie for you. The "*" is a photon, or a bit of > LIGHT. Two telescope tubes going through each other in > opposite directions. Very nice illustration!
Henri replied to it:
> You fail to see that the successive elements that strike > the centre of the telescope do not come from the same > infinitesimally narrow section of the vertical beam. If you really want to continue arguing with a mental illness, you need to compare the varying angle of the telescope relative to the angular diameter of the star. Henri thinks the telescope is pointing at different parts of the star over the course of a year, although he doesn't realize that that is what he thinks. He's right that the light paths are different at different times of year, but doesn't see that those different paths can't account for the 22 arcsecond difference in angle of the telescope.
Unfortunately, he can't follow quantitative arguments, so your best bet would be to put the numbers in a geometric construction. Of course, his mental illness will still reject it anyway. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Androcles - 22 Nov 2005 07:49 GMT >> Please, Henri. >> You are not really THIS stupid, are you? :-) [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > -- Jeff, in Minneapolis Kin I see the movie, kin I, kin I? Go on, show me the movie. I wanna see the movie.... wahhhhh..... I wanna see the movie! Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 22 Nov 2005 20:15 GMT >>> Please, Henri. >>> You are not really THIS stupid, are you? :-) [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >I wanna see the movie.... wahhhhh..... I wanna see the movie! >Androcles. This one's a right moron A.
...angular diameter of a star....!! What's that?
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Androcles - 22 Nov 2005 22:56 GMT >>>> Please, Henri. >>>> You are not really THIS stupid, are you? :-) [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > ...angular diameter of a star....!! > What's that? He's not much good at math or physics, I'll grant you that. However, he's not far wrong when it comes to diagnosing your manic phase of bipolar disorder, I've noticed it too.
This one is right on the money: "Arguing with [Wilson] is like arguing with a dog over who gets a bone. Logic and reason are irrelevant. Henri believes whatever he wants to believe. He has no control over what he wants to believe. His beliefs are driven by his mental illness, not by intelligence."
"Unfortunately, he can't follow quantitative arguments, so your best bet would be to put the numbers in a geometric construction. Of course, his mental illness will still reject it anyway."
The same is true of George Hammond.
I'm not a trained psychiatrist, but even a blind squirrel can smell a nut.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 22 Nov 2005 23:32 GMT >>>>> Please, Henri. >>>>> You are not really THIS stupid, are you? :-) [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > >The same is true of George Hammond. When the argument is hopelesly lost, SRians resort to either prayer or ridicule.
>I'm not a trained psychiatrist, but even a blind squirrel can smell a nut. Well put grandpa on the carousel....
>Androcles. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Androcles - 23 Nov 2005 03:11 GMT >>>>>> Please, Henri. >>>>>> You are not really THIS stupid, are you? :-) [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > Well put grandpa on the carousel.... http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/research/laser/graphics/zerodorblock1.jpg
I'd like to, just to prove he sees no shift, but he'll slide off, mate, I don't dare start it turning. It makes him giddy, too. Maybe we could put a camera on it... they work fine in racing cars. http://www.sergent.com.au/nzgp.html You ask, you are closer than me. Androcles.
Black Knight - 17 Nov 2005 05:31 GMT "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis
Ok. Anything to oblige. Andersen, you have convinced me. Your stupidity IS so gigantic that you do not understand why your statement is nonsense. Please don't forgive me for not having doubted that. I'm sure it will happen again.
Androcles.
Paul B. Andersen - 17 Nov 2005 13:30 GMT > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Androcles. Ouch! You really got me there, Androcles.
Since you say so, I am sure my statement must have been nonsense. But which statement are you referring to? Would you quote it please, so we can laugh at it together?
Paul
Black Knight - 17 Nov 2005 14:13 GMT "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis
Ok. Anything to oblige. Andersen, you have convinced me. Your stupidity IS so gigantic that you do not understand why your statement is nonsense. Please don't forgive me for not having doubted that. I'm sure it will happen again.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 17 Nov 2005 22:34 GMT >"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Please don't forgive me for not having doubted that. >I'm sure it will happen again. This latest effort of his really epitomizes that stupidity.
I seriously believe that the Norwegian water supplies lack the level of iodine required for normal brain development.
>Androcles. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Black Knight - 18 Nov 2005 02:10 GMT >>"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe I'm just having a dig at his willful ignorance in snipping my explanation of Sagnac and his stupid insistence that my statement was false. He has "deletethis" in his email address to guard against spammers automatically gathering lists, little realizing spyware has replaced the technique. That why the increase in firewalls and popup stoppers. So I did as he asked and deleted.
Raindrops fall vertically. ............./|/..../ /..../ /.. ............/ /..../ /..../ /... .........../ /..../ /..../ /.... ........../ /..../ /..../ /..... ........./ /..../ /..../ /...... ......../ /..../ /..../ /....... ......./ /..../ /..../ /........ ....../ /..../|/..../ /......... ...../ /..../ /..../ /.......... ..../ /..../ /..../ /........... .../ /..../ /..../ /............ ../ /..../ /..../ /............. ./ /..../ /..../ /.............. / /..../ /..../ /............... /..../ /..../|/................ /..../ /..../ /................. A moving drainpipe has to lean over to catch vertical raindrops. I can't see why you would argue that point with him, but I'm staying out of it.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 18 Nov 2005 21:08 GMT >>>"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis >>> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >I can't see why you would argue that point with him, but I'm >staying out of it. In the case of starlight, a vertical tube catches a slighty diagonal beam along its central axis..
>Androcles. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Androcles - 18 Nov 2005 22:10 GMT >>>>"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis >>>> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > along > its central axis.. I can't see what the difference is or why anyone would argue the point.
|\|....|.|....|.|.. |.|....|.|....|.|.. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] |.|....|.|....|\|.. |.|....|.|....|.|.. Androcles.
Black Knight - 16 Nov 2005 00:53 GMT >>>>Wavefronts really exist only in the source frame. >>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > That will make you look exactly as intelligent as you are. OK, Andersen, you have convinced me. Your stupidity IS so gigantic that you do not understand why your statement is nonsense. Please don't forgive me for not having doubted that. It will happen again. Androcles.
George Dishman - 30 Oct 2005 13:59 GMT Continued ...
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:50:41 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: ...
>>>>>>>>http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/speed.gif >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > you > wont improve on what I have presented. _Your_ visualisation is incomplete. I'm sure you can include what's missing if you think about it. You are visualising the ends of the paths correctly but not thinking about what happens between. In the mirror frame, the paths become curved and the speed is not constant.
>>> It is exactly the same as the conventional explanation. >>> The path lengths are different and the light speed remains c everywhere. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > hits the mirror. > In the mirror frame that is c. That's true bu you can't ignore what happens along the path because the total time taken depends not just on the speed at the ends but at every point.
>>>>Sorry Henri, I don't respond to accusations of what other >>>>people might have said. I know Paul understands SR and [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > In TWLS experiments with no moving parts. Sorry Henri, the Sagnac experiment measures the speed from a moving source and also gives c.
> ...and according to the BaTh, in such experiments TWLS = OWLS = c. > So you and many others are right.... but for the wrong reasons. > The value of the universal constant 'c' has been accurately established > using > TWLS experiments. It has also been established that it is isotropic and isotropic plus TWLS gives you OWLS.
>>>>>>> The part of the beam that goes from the source to the centre of the >>>>>>> mirror travels at c towards that centre no matter how the apparatus [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > OWLS > as the light actually hits the mirror. That is c. Not in the lab frame, it is c in the mirror frame. Both my comments related to that frame. However, you are still wrong in that to calculate the time, you need to know the speed at all points along the path.
>>>>> It always travels at c relative to the (moving) point representing the >>>>> centre [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > You saw my diagram. The path lengths are obviously different in both > diirections. So are the speeds. Using the mirror frame, either rotating or non-rotating, will require you to integrate variable speed along curved paths.
>>>>> The path lengths are differnet in either direction ..just as in the >>>>> conventional explanation. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > the SR explanation is really an aether one. Please stop wasting my time with that nonsense, the speed of the lab relative to the aether does not appear in SR nor do any of the aether effects on instruments. In fact aether theory is incapable of giving a true explanation and relies on the fact that all aether effects cancel out so that it can borrow the SR analysis by using the Lorentz Transforms.
> Following my 'revelation', it now appears that the BaTh is the only > plausible > explanation. BaT doesn't provide any explanation whatsoever, it gives a null prediction.
>>>>> The source revolves around the first mirror. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > actually > hits the mirror. Again, you will get a wrong answer if you do that.
>>> In the former, the source does not move or rotate. >>> In the latter, the source moves in a circle. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > light > from each member wrt the next remains c. You often say you are happy to accept things that are obviously wrong. Apply the Galilean transforms and see for yourself.
>>>>Yes, that is exactly what I showed in this diagram: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I think it is wrong. It says the same as you have been up to now, that the speed at the ends is c.
>>> the true situation is at: >>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/george1.jpg [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the > same point in each case) Rotate the slanted line until it is parallel to the horizontal one. You are only rotating the diagram, I'm not suggesting any change to the experiment. Then slide the diagram up until the lines coincide and you get my diagram. We are saying the same thing but I drew mine in a frame based on the midpoint of the path to emphasise the symmetry.
>>> The yellow beam is supposed to be collimated and coherent....but it will >>> always have a little deviation and dispersion. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > think > you will find that it explains your question. No, we are talking about the time from one mirror to the next. The reflection is assumed to be instantaneous. To get time you divide path length by speed, or integrate delta times along infinitesimal elements of the path dividing by the speed at that element. You need to do that consistently, dividing distance in one frame by speed in another gives meaningless numbers.
>>>>No, you have now proved that it predicts a null result. >>>>The speed is c and the path in that frame is unchaged [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > But the mirror moves slightly while the light is in flight. Only transverse, not radial. That was your point. The whole thing is messy in these mirror frames.
>>>>What you have stated is exactly what I drew on that >>>>diagram and it is dated 1st Feb, 2004. You finally [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the > mirror. You can't do that if you want to know the time taken. If I leave home at 30mph and arrive at work at that speed, it doesn't mean I will take 50 minutes to cover the 25 miles. The roads outside the towns are much faster.
> In the lab frame that mirror is moving at 45 wrt the beam. If the reflection is presumed to be instantaneous, only the speed along the path matters. The end result must always be the same as in the simpler lab frame and that is a null prediction, so although speeds vary and paths curve in the mirror frames, we know before we start that all effects must cancel.
George
Jeff Root - 30 Oct 2005 15:53 GMT > The reflection is assumed to be instantaneous. Is that actually the case? Even if there is an extremely tiny delay, it is something that would have been measured by hoards of researchers and optical engineers, under a vast range of conditions. Yet I'm not aware of what the actual case is. I'd say I'm horribly ignorant. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Jerry - 30 Oct 2005 16:52 GMT > > The reflection is assumed to be instantaneous. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > vast range of conditions. Yet I'm not aware of what the > actual case is. I'd say I'm horribly ignorant. We can make a rough estimate of the reflection delay. Think of gold leaf, gold pounded so thin that it is almost transparent. Light penetrates the surface of a bar of gold roughly the thickness of gold leaf (on the order of 0.1 micron) before being coherently re-radiated (i.e. reflected). A rough estimate of the reflection delay would therefore be on the order of 3x10^-16 seconds.
Whatever the figure, it's not relevant to the analysis of the Sagnac experiment, being unaffected by rotation. Why do you ask?
Jerry
Jeff Root - 31 Oct 2005 01:44 GMT Jerry replied to Jeff Root:
>> > The reflection is assumed to be instantaneous. >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > of the Sagnac experiment, being unaffected by rotation. > Why do you ask? I asked because it would appear to be of fundamental importance in understanding the behavior of light, and I don't know the answer. My asking has nothing to do with the Sagnac experiment or this thread in general.
However, your suggestion of the delay caused by the optical depth of a gold surface isn't at all what I had in mind. I see no reason to assume that any reflection is instantaneous, although all reflections I've personally observed have been indistinguishable from instantaneous. If there *is* a small delay, I would expect it to be material-dependant and well-known.
It occurs to me now that a search on "index of reflection" might turn up what I want, as I vaguely recall seeing that term in some list of material properties. (In addition to the familiar "index of refraction".) -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Jeff Root - 31 Oct 2005 14:32 GMT In a few quick searches, I found no explanation of the term "index of reflection", although Google turned up a large number of matches. Wikipedia had no entry for it, Eric Weisstein's Treasure Troves of Science had no entry, no dictionary in a multi-dictionary search had an entry. The term *does* seem to mean something, but I doubt that it's what I'm looking for. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Henri Wilson - 30 Oct 2005 22:12 GMT >Continued ... > >> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:50:41 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk>
>>>>>In that case you haven't actually tried to do it, >>>>>you are just saying you did. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >mirror frame, the paths become curved and the speed >is not constant. In the TABLE frame, the CLOSING SPEED between the beam and the moving mirror is c, all the way from the source. The beam travels in a straight line from the source. The travel length is greater than the source/mirror distance. For the opposite beam, the distance is shorter.
There is your answer. The BaTh is not refuted by sagnac. It predicts exactly the same fringe shift as aether theories, of which SR is a pathetic subset.
>>while Ritz says it is modifed by the motion of the >>>source. If they differ in one frame, they must differ [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >that all aether effects cancel out so that it can >borrow the SR analysis by using the Lorentz Transforms. I will not waste any more time on this George. If you refuse to recognize truth when it stares at you then there is nothing more I can do.
>> I am content to acept that no matter how the table rotates, the speed of >> light [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >are obviously wrong. Apply the Galilean transforms >and see for yourself. In the table frame, the closing speed between the beam and the moving mirrors is always c. that is all that matters. The paths lengths of the opposite beams are different. End of topic.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 31 Oct 2005 21:20 GMT <snip my stuff on the mirror frame>
> In the TABLE frame, the CLOSING SPEED between the beam and the moving > mirror is > c, all the way from the source. Two cars driving along the road, the first moving at 30m/s and the second moving at 40m/s, closing speed 10m/s. The first has a head start of 200m. The second car catches the first when the first car has moved 600m and the second has travelled 800m.
To find the time, you divide the separation at the start by the closing speed, 200 / 10 = 20s. "Closing speed" is the rate at which the separation is decreasing. What you try to do below is divide the 600m by 10m/s which gives you the wrong answer.
> The beam travels in a straight line from the source. The travel length is > greater than the source/mirror distance. > For the opposite beam, the distance is shorter. No. To get the time taken, you use the separation between the source and mirror at the instant the light is emitted. That is simply the distance measured when the table is not rotating. That distance is unchanged by the rotation and as you said the closing speed is always c so the time is also unchanged by rotation.
You have again proved that Ritz predicts a null result.
<snip irrelevant aether comments>
> I will not waste any more time on this George. > If you refuse to recognize truth when it stares at you then there is > nothing > more I can do. I am happy to accept what you have again proved, Ritz predicts a null result for Sagnac.
<snip previous mirror frame points>
> In the table frame, the closing speed between the beam and the moving > mirrors > is always c. > that is all that matters. Right, and that gives a null prediction.
> The paths lengths of the opposite beams are different. No, see the example of the cars above to learn how to use closing speed correctly.
> End of topic. OK.
George
Henri Wilson - 31 Oct 2005 23:00 GMT ><snip my stuff on the mirror frame> >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >as you said the closing speed is always c so the time is >also unchanged by rotation. No. 'c' is the closing speed of the beam and the next mirror, the direction of which is 45 degrees. The beam is not the horizontal one. It is angled slightly downwards to meet the mirror in its new position. The distance is greater than in the non-rotating case.
>You have again proved that Ritz predicts a null result. George, at what speed (in the table frame) is the light reflected from the first mirror towards the next mirror?
><snip irrelevant aether comments> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I am happy to accept what you have again proved, Ritz >predicts a null result for Sagnac. It does not...and stop repeating something you would like to be true but isn't. I realize you are trying desperately to convince yourself but you aren't impressing me.
I now think it might predict a fringe shift of 1/root2 times the classical one. That would be near enough to the same.
><snip previous mirror frame points> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Right, and that gives a null prediction. No the path lengths are distinctly different in either direction.
>> The paths lengths of the opposite beams are different. > >No, see the example of the cars above to learn how to use >closing speed correctly. That is a linear example. Sagnac involves 45 degrees.
>> End of topic. > >OK. > >George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 01 Nov 2005 20:18 GMT > On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 20:20:03 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > direction of > which is 45 degrees. So far we agree.
> The beam is not the horizontal one. It is angled slightly > downwards to meet the mirror in its new position. No, the "new position" is the 600m figure in the car example. You have to use the distance to the mirror at the instant when the light is emitted, not when the light will be reflected, if you choose to use closing speed.
> The distance is greater than > in the non-rotating case. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > George, at what speed (in the table frame) is the light reflected from the > first mirror towards the next mirror? I thought we had agreed that several times before. Perhaps I wasn't clear so I'll go through it again in more detail. In Ritzian theory, the light is emitted at some speed greater than c from the source. The speed can be found by taking the magnitude of the vector sum of the mirror velocity and a vector of magnitude c whose direction is such that the light eventually reaches the detector.
>><snip irrelevant aether comments> >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It does not...and stop repeating something you would like to be true but > isn't. I will if you will. I am just clarifying the consequences of the corrected version of what you wrote.
> I realize you are trying desperately to convince yourself but you aren't > impressing me. > > I now think it might predict a fringe shift of 1/root2 times the classical > one. > That would be near enough to the same. Not near enough, you need to get it within about one part per million IIRC from one of the web pages we discussed some time ago. I'll try to find the reference again if I can.
>><snip previous mirror frame points> >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > That is a linear example. Sagnac involves 45 degrees. The distance is to the point of reflection at the instant the light is emitted, the consequence of the motion of the mirror is included in using closing speed so if you adjust the distance too, you double count its effect.
George
Henri Wilson - 01 Nov 2005 23:42 GMT >> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 20:20:03 -0000, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk>
>>>Two cars driving along the road, the first moving at 30m/s >>>and the second moving at 40m/s, closing speed 10m/s. The [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >the light will be reflected, if you choose to use >closing speed. George, now give your leading car a sideways speed component as well as the 30 m/s instantaneous speed component in the direction of the second car. The second car has to point diagonally to reach the first. It takes longer than 20 seconds to catch it and moves more than 800 metres.
Thus the travel distance of the light beam is the hyponenuse of the triangle. the closing speed is c. ...and the path lengths are different for the opposing beams.
>> The distance is greater than >> in the non-rotating case. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >vector of magnitude c whose direction is such that the light >eventually reaches the detector. I would say that in the mirror frame, the light arrives at c and is therefore reflected at c....which makes it the same situation as light from the source towards the first mirror.
>>>I am happy to accept what you have again proved, Ritz >>>predicts a null result for Sagnac. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I will if you will. I am just clarifying the consequences >of the corrected version of what you wrote. You car analogy was plainly wrong. You have to move the leading car sideways as well as forward.
>> I realize you are trying desperately to convince yourself but you aren't >> impressing me. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >discussed some time ago. I'll try to find the reference >again if I can. I should imagine ring gyros are calibrated empirically anyway.
>>>> In the table frame, the closing speed between the beam and the moving >>>> mirrors [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >mirror is included in using closing speed so if you adjust >the distance too, you double count its effect. No your car example was wrong. Try again.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Jeff Root - 02 Nov 2005 00:22 GMT Henri,
Do you feel much more energetic and more in control of things now than you did a few weeks ago? -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Henri Wilson - 02 Nov 2005 21:23 GMT >Henri, > >Do you feel much more energetic and more in control of >things now than you did a few weeks ago? Go away. This is too hard for you.
> -- Jeff, in Minneapolis HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Androcles - 03 Nov 2005 02:22 GMT | >Henri, | > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | Go away. | This is too hard for you. LOL! I see you are getting used to the idiocy that pervades usenet, H. I'm a little more agressive, I tell 'em to f.ck off, but I'm telling 'em with the same frustration you are. These days I automatically killfile just about anyone with an IQ less than 50, then I never see them. It greatly reduces the number of posts I ever see and bother to reply too. If it isn't math or physics, why bother ? Androcles. Sometimes I feel like a partial success. The least useful thing I have done is proved Wilson wrong.
Henri Wilson - 03 Nov 2005 10:34 GMT >| >Henri, >| > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Androcles. >Sometimes I feel like a partial success. The least useful thing I have done is proved Wilson wrong. But Wilson's theory is almost the same as your own.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Androcles - 03 Nov 2005 11:03 GMT | >| >Henri, | >| > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] | | But Wilson's theory is almost the same as your own. I don't have a theory, H.
Androcles. Sometimes I feel like a partial success. The least useful thing I have done is proved Wilson wrong.
Henri Wilson - 03 Nov 2005 23:02 GMT >| >LOL! I see you are getting used to the idiocy that pervades >| >usenet, H. I'm a little more agressive, I tell 'em to f.ck off, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Androcles. >Sometimes I feel like a partial success. The least useful thing I have done is proved Wilson wrong. Is that the same Wilson who accepts the existence of the planet "Androcles" orbiting Algol?
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Jeff Root - 03 Nov 2005 03:01 GMT Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root:
>> Henri, >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Go away. > This is too hard for you. I think you understood what I was getting at.
The question was intended to be diagnostic of your mental illness. Although you didn't co-operate, your posts of the last couple of weeks are clear enough that, for the first time, I can be pretty sure that you have bipolar disorder. The change in your recent posts indicates that you have entered the manic phase.
The good news is that bipolar disorder can often be successfully controlled with proper medical care.
When the manic phase ends, and you feel depressed again, recall this suggestion: See a physician, and tell him about your depression. Your friends and family will be thrilled to know that at last you are doing something to help yourself. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Henri Wilson - 03 Nov 2005 10:46 GMT >Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > -- Jeff, in Minneapolis Iodine deficiency has been recognized as the main cause of cretinism in the world. Its effect is to stop brain cells from growing property. The whole population of Tibet, for instance, has an IQ that is about 15% lower than average due to iodine deficiency in high altitude water and soils.
I suspect that it is this problem which afflicts all Einsteinian relativists. Although the complaint begins in the womb, my suggestion to all Einstein worshippers is that they try to make amends by either eating plenty of seafood or using iodised salt extensively. Maybe one day they might even catch up to the rest of us.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 06 Nov 2005 10:31 GMT > On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 19:18:26 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > than 20 > seconds to catch it and moves more than 800 metres. This is perhaps getting away from the point a bit but it might help to clear this up. Closing speed is meaningful when one object is following the same path as another but is some distance behind, for example cars on a race track. You can measure the distance not along the straight line between cars but along the path. Think of two cars each holding constant speed but on a winding mountain road. Closing speed is then the rate at which that length is decreasing. If you take the initial separation and divide by the closing speed, you get the time for the second car to catch the first.
> Thus the travel distance of the light beam is the hyponenuse of the > triangle. > the closing speed is c. ...and the path lengths are different for the > opposing > beams. Henri, the mirror is moving in a circle relative to the source so the length is no greater even though there is a transverse component.
>>> The distance is greater than >>> in the non-rotating case. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>vector of magnitude c whose direction is such that the light >>eventually reaches the detector. I agree what you say next, do you agree what I say above?
> I would say that in the mirror frame, the light arrives at c and is > therefore > reflected at c....which makes it the same situation as light from the > source > towards the first mirror. I agree but your previous question was "(in the table frame)".
>>>>I am happy to accept what you have again proved, Ritz >>>>predicts a null result for Sagnac. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You car analogy was plainly wrong. > You have to move the leading car sideways as well as forward. You missed that the motion of the target mirror is circular hence there is no increase of distance in the source frame. There is an increase in the table frame of course.
>>> I realize you are trying desperately to convince yourself but you aren't >>> impressing me. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I should imagine ring gyros are calibrated empirically anyway. The maximum range of calibration would be orders of magnitude smaller though, there is no way you can get away with such a large error.
>>>>> In the table frame, the closing speed between the beam and the moving >>>>> mirrors [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > No your car example was wrong. Try again. The motion of the mirror in the source frame is at a fixed radius so the distance doesn't change.
George
Henri Wilson - 06 Nov 2005 22:41 GMT >> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 19:18:26 -0000, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk>
>>>> No. 'c' is the closing speed of the beam and the next mirror, >>>> the direction of which is 45 degrees. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >by the closing speed, you get the time for the second car >to catch the first. Don't try to wriggle out by changing the subject.
Your initial example only considered the speed component along the line joining the two cars. If you introduce a sideways components as well, as in the sagnac, you get an entirely difffernet result.
>> Thus the travel distance of the light beam is the hyponenuse of the >> triangle. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >source so the length is no greater even though there is >a transverse component. Let's go back to the non-rotating table frame.
Here, the beam moves at very nearly c+v/root2v towards the mirror''s new position when the beam arrives. After each reflection, it continues at c+v/root2 wrt the table. The second beam moves at c-v/root2 towards the third mirror's new position.
This approach gives a similar answer to your classical analysis except that the fringe shift should be about 35% of the 'aether prediction', (I think).
Since the gyros are calibrated empirically, I don't think the difference would be noticed.
>>>I thought we had agreed that several times before. Perhaps >>>I wasn't clear so I'll go through it again in more detail. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >hence there is no increase of distance in the source frame. >There is an increase in the table frame of course. Yes. I am reverting to the table frame now.
We should be looking at travel times around the loop rather than distance traveled.
>> I should imagine ring gyros are calibrated empirically anyway. > >The maximum range of calibration would be orders of >magnitude smaller though, there is no way you can get >away with such a large error. the 'error' is about 65%, quite easy to live with. It isn't really an error.
>>>The distance is to the point of reflection at the instant >>>the light is emitted, the consequence of the motion of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >The motion of the mirror in the source frame is at a fixed >radius so the distance doesn't change. your car example was still wrong.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
george@briar.demon.co.uk - 07 Nov 2005 13:36 GMT > >> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 19:18:26 -0000, "George Dishman" > >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Don't try to wriggle out by changing the subject. You introduced the idea of using "closing speed" Henri, not me.
> Your initial example only considered the speed component along the > line joining the two cars. If youconsider how closing speed is defined as I explained above, you should understand why.
> If you introduce a sideways components as > well, as in the sagnac, you get an entirely difffernet result. No you don't because ...
> >Henri, the mirror is moving in a circle relative to the > >source so the length is no greater even though there is > >a transverse component. > > Let's go back to the non-rotating table frame. OK, I'll reply separately then.
George
george@briar.demon.co.uk - 07 Nov 2005 13:59 GMT > >> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 19:18:26 -0000, "George Dishman" > >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> ...
> Let's go back to the non-rotating table frame. > > Here, the beam moves at very nearly c+v/root2v towards the mirror''s new > position when the beam arrives. After each reflection, it continues at > c+v/root2 wrt the table. The second beam moves at c-v/root2 towards the third > mirror's new position. You have an extra "v" in the first formula, just a typo I assume. Barring that, you have this part correct.
> This approach gives a similar answer to your classical analysis except that the > fringe shift should be about 35% of the 'aether prediction', (I think). No, you are forgetting that, in the non-rotating table frame, the detector moves during the time the light is moving. The distance in c+v/sqrt(2) direction will be increased while that in the c-v/sqrt(2) direction is decreased. The fractional change in distance is the same as the change of speed hence times are unaffected.
> Since the gyros are calibrated empirically, I don't think the difference would > be noticed. Electronic components are generally to 1% of non-critical functions. Any error greater than than would be noticed. For scientific measurements, calibration must be independent of the measurement and errors would need to be several orders of magnitude lower to go unnoticed. Ring lasers can measure to 10^-11 rad/s I believe. The rotation of the Earth is about 10^-5 so an error of one part per million would easily show up.
> >>>I thought we had agreed that several times before. Perhaps > >>>I wasn't clear so I'll go through it again in more detail. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > >I agree what you say next, do you agree what I say above? Henri, can you confirm the above please, I didn't think it was contentious but you seem to be avoiding it. Your use of 1/sqrt(2) above seems to follow this.
> >> I would say that in the mirror frame, the light arrives at c and is therefore > >> reflected at c....which makes it the same situation as light from the source > >> towards the first mirror. > > > >I agree but your previous question was "(in the table frame)". ...
> >> You car analogy was plainly wrong. > >> You have to move the leading car sideways as well as forward. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Yes. I am reverting to the table frame now. In that case, please answer above so we can have an agreed starting point.
> We should be looking at travel times around the loop rather than distance > traveled. Definitely, the difference between the two path times is what is measured.
> >> I should imagine ring gyros are calibrated empirically anyway. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > the 'error' is about 65%, quite easy to live with. It isn't really an error. Anything over about 10^-6 is going to put you outside the experimental verification, possibly even tighter.
> >>>The distance is to the point of reflection at the instant > >>>the light is emitted, the consequence of the motion of the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > your car example was still wrong. No, my car analogy explained what "closing speed" means. If you think the conclusion was wrong, it was your attempt to use closing speed which was an inappropriate method. I can agree with that in the multiple mirror setup since the light, source/detector and mirrors don't follow the same path but it is perfectly correct for the fibre gyro setup where the light follows a circumferential path.
George
Henri Wilson - 08 Nov 2005 00:14 GMT >> >> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 19:18:26 -0000, "George Dishman" >> >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >direction is decreased. The fractional change in distance is the >same as the change of speed hence times are unaffected. There is another consideration that I (and you) have omitted. The ray that moves diagonally from the source to the point where the mirror is located on its arrival DOES NOT start out heading in that direction. In the table frame, the whole beam appears to move at 45 degrees, like the green beam in my demo.
I'll have to think about this a bit more before I enlarge on it. Can't draw it here.
>> >> No your car example was wrong. Try again. >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >it is perfectly correct for the fibre gyro setup where the light >follows a circumferential path. You used 'closing component in the direction of the line joining the two cars'. You have to move the leading car diagonally at 45 deg. Then your figures will be different.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 09 Nov 2005 21:25 GMT > >> >> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 19:18:26 -0000, "George Dishman" > >> >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > The ray that moves diagonally from the source to the point where the mirror is > located on its arrival DOES NOT start out heading in that direction. You may have missed it, I didn't. That was one point of my answer to your question that I asked you to consider:
> > >>>I thought we had agreed that several times before. Perhaps > > >>>I wasn't clear so I'll go through it again in more detail. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Henri, can you confirm the above please, I didn't think it > was contentious but you seem to be avoiding it. Can you say if you agree with my statement of the behaviour.
> In the table frame, the whole beam appears to move at 45 degrees, like the > green beam in my demo. We aren't interested in "the beam" but individual wavefronts. Think of the links on the chainsaw in your other analogy.
> I'll have to think about this a bit more before I enlarge on it. > Can't draw it here. You need to think about the path of an individual representative wavefront. Each subsequent one just follows the same relative path but from a starting point farther round the circumference.
> >> >> No your car example was wrong. Try again. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > You used 'closing component in the direction of the line joining the two cars'. There is no "component", it isn't a vector or even a speed in the conventional sense. Have another read of what I said before and see if you can get the idea, I've edited it slightly to try to make it clearer:
Closing speed is meaningful when one object is following the same path as another but is some distance behind, for example cars on a race track. You measure the distance not along the straight line between the cars but along the path they have to travel along the track. Or think of the two cars each holding constant speed but on a winding mountain road. Closing speed is then the rate at which that distance between them is decreasing, the numerical difference between their individual ground speeds, not the vector difference. If you take the initial separation and divide by the closing speed, you get the time for the second car to catch the first.
> You have to move the leading car diagonally at 45 deg. > Then your figures will be different. No, if the first car is moving at 30m/s and the second is following the same path at 40m/s then their separation measured _along_the_track_ decreases by 10m each second. This applies OK to the circular path in an iFOG but isn't really applicable to the discrete mirror case.
George
Henri Wilson - 09 Nov 2005 22:22 GMT >You may have missed it, I didn't. That was one point of my answer >to your question that I asked you to consider: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >just follows the same relative path but from a starting >point farther round the circumference. Nah!
>> >No, my car analogy explained what "closing speed" means. >> >If you think the conclusion was wrong, it was your attempt to [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > take the initial separation and divide by the closing speed, you > get the time for the second car to catch the first.
>> You have to move the leading car diagonally at 45 deg. >> Then your figures will be different. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >second. This applies OK to the circular path in an iFOG >but isn't really applicable to the discrete mirror case. I wouldn't agree it applies to an iFOG because that really involves an infinite number of 'mirrors'.
You can still use it in the four mirror system but you have to accomodate the sideways movement.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 09 Nov 2005 22:36 GMT >>You may have missed it, I didn't. That was one point of my answer >>to your question that I asked you to consider: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> >>Can you say if you agree with my statement of the behaviour. So do you agree Henri?
Henri Wilson - 10 Nov 2005 08:18 GMT >>>You may have missed it, I didn't. That was one point of my answer >>>to your question that I asked you to consider: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >So do you agree Henri? Don't know yet.
The problem becomes more complicated every time I look at it.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Henri Wilson - 10 Nov 2005 20:31 GMT >>>> > >>>I thought we had agreed that several times before. Perhaps >>>> > >>>I wasn't clear so I'll go through it again in more detail. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >So do you agree Henri? Consider this.
You are driving along a road at v and your passenger wants to shoot a duck that is sitting on the ground 500 metres to your left. Where does he aim? Where does he aim if the duck appears at 45 degree forward?
Where does he aim if the duck flies off at v and exactly 90 degrees away from the road ?
____________v<-car /gun
\/ v Duck
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Black Knight - 11 Nov 2005 04:25 GMT > On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 22:36:36 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > HW. Message rating several casks. Androcles.
George Dishman - 11 Nov 2005 14:17 GMT >>> On 9 Nov 2005 13:25:38 -0800, "George Dishman" >>> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > \/ v > Duck You have it in a nutshell Henri. The only thing you missed is that the speed of the bullet is known relative to the gun but I'm sure you realise that. Now look at what I said. I'll change some terms to make it appropriate to your analogy:
The speed [of the bullet across the ground] can be found by taking the magnitude of the vector sum of the [gun] velocity [over the ground] and a vector of magnitude [bullet speed relative to the gun] whose direction is such that the [bullet] eventually reaches the [duck].
I think that is pretty good agreement, don't you?
George
Henri Wilson - 11 Nov 2005 22:46 GMT >>>> On 9 Nov 2005 13:25:38 -0800, "George Dishman" >>>> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >I think that is pretty good agreement, don't you? That is right.... and according to the BaTh, the time taken for a photon to reach the mirror is constant even though the path length changes.
But sagnac does not refute the Bath for this reason.
Under Bath, wavelength does not change with source speed. One can imagine the wavecrests being connected by tiny rods.
Since the path lengths are different in both directions of sagnac, (the duck example shows that) the number of wavelengths between the source and the mirror is not the same in each beam... The number varies with table rotation speed.
That'll make you think...
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Black Knight - 12 Nov 2005 04:49 GMT > On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:17:16 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > HW. Message rating several casks. Androcles.
George Dishman - 12 Nov 2005 10:35 GMT > On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:17:16 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > to > reach the mirror is constant even though the path length changes. Actually the path length doesn't change. Consider that the car is chasing the duck round a roundabout. If their motion is at radius R from the centre, you could tie a string of length R*sqrt(2) between the duck and the car.
> But sagnac does not refute the Bath for this reason. > > Under Bath, wavelength does not change with source speed. One can imagine > the > wavecrests being connected by tiny rods. Possibly but I'm going to lay aside thinking about that for the moment and use your first statement: "the time taken for a photon to reach the mirror is constant". Consider the situation when the table is not rotating. A wavecrest is emitted from the source, split into two equal parts, and they then proceed round the mirrors in opposed directions. The path lengths are obviously equal so the travel times are equal and the wavecrests arrive at the detector simultaneously. That means the peaks add and you get maximum brightness on the detector. You get minimum when the wavecrest along one path coincides with the arrival of a trough of along the other path and the signals always cancel.
Now start the table turning. Since the travel times are unchanged, the wavecrests still arrive simultaneously and you still get the same brightness.
The same argument applies to the next pair of wavecrests which arrive a "tiny rod-length" later.
> Since the path lengths are different in both directions of sagnac, (the > duck [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That'll make you think... I'll give it some thought later (I have too much to do and still owe you several replies) but it doesn't change the phase relationship of the arriving crests so doesn't affect the detector output. You still have a null result but I think your understanding of why that is the case is much better.
George
Henri Wilson - 12 Nov 2005 21:40 GMT George, George, George.
I have finally woken up to your (and MY) complete misinterpretation of the problem.
We have both been arguing about whether or not the fringes will move during constant angular rotation...and of course they don't.
We should only be considering what happens during angular ACCELERATION !!!!!!
That is when the two path lengths change. That is when more 'wavelengths' fit into one path than the other. That is when fringes move.
Path lengths chaneg because each mirror accelerates slightly as light from the previous one is in flight. Small second order effect, you say. No way! It is the whole basis of operation.
Actually, you have shown that the BaTh does what it should do. It expects NO fringe shifts under constant rotation.
BUT!!!! The standard SR explanation says that there WILL BE a continuous fringe shift during steady rotation.
Sagnac proves SR to be wrong!!!
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Black Knight - 13 Nov 2005 00:02 GMT > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:35:04 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Sagnac proves SR to be wrong!!! Oh look... I prove it, so drunken Wilson says "Message rating several casks" f.cking jealous abo...
Androcles.
bz - 13 Nov 2005 02:15 GMT > George, George, George. > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Sagnac proves SR to be wrong!!! So, you are saying that BaT predicts the fringes will shift during a- acceleration and return to original position when contant a-velocity is reached while SR predicts the fringes will move during acceleration and maintain a constant position when a constant velocity is reached?
In otherwords BaT predicts return to original position upon ceasation of acceleration while SR predicts return to original position upon ceasation of rotation.
If I understand the implications, it should be easy to tell the difference.
Also, a light ring gyro should measure angular acceleration rather than angular position.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Eric Gisse - 13 Nov 2005 04:20 GMT [snip]
> If I understand the implications, it should be easy to tell the difference. You should have seen by now that Henri has zero interest in testing his theory.
[snip]
bz - 13 Nov 2005 08:58 GMT > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You should have seen by now that Henri has zero interest in testing his > theory. Negative.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson - 13 Nov 2005 23:28 GMT >> [snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Negative. Idiot. Learn the facts.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Black Knight - 14 Nov 2005 00:55 GMT >>> [snip] >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > HW. Message rating: several casks. Androcles.
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu - 13 Nov 2005 09:06 GMT In article <Xns970D1E95F2849WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139>, bz <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> writes:
>"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in >news:1131855605.794683.277520@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Negative. Imaginary.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Henri Wilson - 13 Nov 2005 23:28 GMT >In article <Xns970D1E95F2849WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139>, bz <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> writes: >>"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> >Imaginary. Idiot. Learn the facts.
>Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, >meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Black Knight - 14 Nov 2005 00:55 GMT >>In article <Xns970D1E95F2849WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139>, bz >><bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> writes: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > HW. Message rating: several casks. Androcles.
The Ghost In The Machine - 14 Nov 2005 01:00 GMT In sci.physics, HW@..(Henri Wilson) <HW@> wrote on Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:28:41 GMT <31jfn1546p3ru42u224idk8pkur7l4ktf1@4ax.com>:
>>In article <Xns970D1E95F2849WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139>, bz <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> writes: >>>"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Idiot. Learn the facts. And these are....?
Point us at a website. One possibility, for instance, is
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm
which apparently contemplates a c'=c+v hypothesis when it comes to binary stars. It's far from proof and doesn't even begin to contemplate various easily observed artifacts such as spectrographic data; nor does it have any actual data to speak of.
But it's a start.
[.sigsnip]
 Signature #191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
Black Knight - 14 Nov 2005 02:54 GMT > In sci.physics, HW@..(Henri Wilson) > <HW@> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > But it's a start. $1,000,000,000,000 in your pocket is no money to speak of, but it's a penny for every photon in the light from V 1493 Aql... merely a start. Some of us know when we are wealthy. Androcles.
The Ghost In The Machine - 14 Nov 2005 05:00 GMT In sci.physics, Black Knight <Androcles@castle.edu> wrote on Mon, 14 Nov 2005 02:54:14 GMT <q%Sdf.23782$MD5.10477@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>> In sci.physics, HW@..(Henri Wilson) >> <HW@> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > Some of us know when we are wealthy. > Androcles. OK. Any other stars that show this c'=c+v phenom? This is only one out of a million.
 Signature #191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
Black Knight - 14 Nov 2005 12:42 GMT > In sci.physics, Black Knight > <Androcles@castle.edu> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > OK. Any other stars that show this c'=c+v phenom? This is only > one out of a million. Nova Herculis 1934. Algol. d-Ceph. Polaris. What do you want, a list of all known variables? READ Sekerin. Look at diagram 2, its as simple as it could be. Slow light passes fast light if the start of the race is far enough away.
*I* predicted V1493 Aql in 1987, I just didn't know when or where it would happen. I predict another just like it, too.
Some of us work with REAL, EXISTING data, others go hunting for black holes where bright green flying elephants lay their eggs. That's the difference between a scientist and a fuckwit.
Androcles.
The Ghost In The Machine - 15 Nov 2005 06:00 GMT In sci.physics, Black Knight <Androcles@castle.edu> wrote on Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:42:35 GMT <%C%df.15005$Es4.5533@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>> In sci.physics, Black Knight >> <Androcles@castle.edu> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > Polaris. > What do you want, a list of all known variables? Plus orbital parameters and such, if you like. :-P
> READ Sekerin. Look at diagram 2, its as simple > as it could be. Slow light passes fast light > if the start of the race is far enough away. That is the c'=c+v hypothesis, yes.
> *I* predicted V1493 Aql in 1987, I just didn't know when or where it would > happen. I predict another just like it, too. > > Some of us work with REAL, EXISTING data, others go hunting > for black holes where bright green flying elephants lay their eggs. > That's the difference between a scientist and a fuckwit. Anything particularly wrong with the list at
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/relativity/binpulstable.html ?
:-) I'll admit I'm going to have to find the actual data but it's clear there's some interesting stars out there.
> Androcles.
 Signature #191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
Black Knight - 15 Nov 2005 12:41 GMT > In sci.physics, Black Knight > <Androcles@castle.edu> [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > Plus orbital parameters and such, if you like. :-P We might have had those by now if some idiot hadn't made up a fairy story about time in 1905.
>> READ Sekerin. Look at diagram 2, its as simple >> as it could be. Slow light passes fast light [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/relativity/binpulstable.html ? Yes, there is a question mark against every mass. Fuckin' waste of time putting in the column.
There is only one entry < 1000 ly. Another fuckin' waste of time.
I want "Plus orbital parameters and such, if you like. :-P"
I do not want "according to my theory" crap from you, Henri Wilson or Albert Einstein. Evidence and sanity, please.
> :-) > > I'll admit I'm going to have to find the actual data but it's > clear there's some interesting stars out there. Not a ghost of a chance of understanding sticks in water are not really bent just because they look bent, I suppose? Didn't think so.
Androcles.
donstockbauer@hotmail.com - 15 Nov 2005 12:49 GMT Not a ghost of a chance of understanding sticks in water are not really bent just because they look bent, I suppose? Didn't think so.
******************
They are bent if you stick an actually bent stick in the water.
The Ghost In The Machine - 15 Nov 2005 15:00 GMT In sci.physics, donstockbauer@hotmail.com <donstockbauer@hotmail.com> wrote on 15 Nov 2005 04:49:09 -0800 <1132058949.576411.92810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
>> Not a ghost of a chance of understanding sticks in water are not really >> bent just because they look bent, I suppose? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > They are bent if you stick an actually bent stick in the water. He is referring to the common illusion that when a whole straight stick stuck into a tank of water, when viewed from above the surface of the water, the stick appears bent, if not broken, into two parts.
This is similar to, apparently, his view that we are looking at an illusion of the Universe, which only appears to work as though GTR is true. In this view, c'=c+v, which is after all consistent with all Earthly observations at low v, holds sway. Stars such as Aql1493 appear to confirm this view. (Other stars confirm GR.)
Why he and H. Wilson disagree is not clear to me; both hold this general view, though Black Knight suggests he wants to be neutral and hold no preferred theory, while suggesting (if I'm reading him correctly) that we are all holding a massively corrupt variant of physics theory by using SR/GTR in such things as particle acceleration, GPS calibration, and astronomical observation. The first two of course require large sums of money; the last isn't quite as expensive and the average Joe can easily procure a telescope -- and wouldn't have too much trouble procuring a water jug, some electronics, and a photodetector as well, for measurement of incoming muons, superluminal or otherwise. Another possibility is energizing the plates of an old airgap capacitor until it sparks on occasion -- a primitive Geiger counter.
This view is also consistent with MMX, which was only really designed to show the absolute velocity in a rigid luminiferous aether, where light therein travels at c relative to the aether. MMX cannot tell the difference between
- lightspeed is c relative to everyone regardless of motion (SR/GTR) - lightspeed is c relative to everyone if motion is confined to non-accelerated motion only - lightspeed is c relative to the source only (Galilean relativity) - lightspeed is always vertical relative to its propagation and therefore does something rather peculiar (Seto)
though in the last case one might ask whether MMX will show anything at all, in light of the motion of gas molecules in the light source.
In any event, he appears to follow in the footsteps of Sekerin, and will also suggest superluminal muons, which is perfectly logical in this view though as yet unconfirmed by Earthly experiments. However, H. Wilson has a simple method around this: particles in such experiments are pushed around by EM radiation and therefore can't travel faster than light when pushed thereby.
The main question here would be whether one can tell the diff between two Earth-accelerated 500 MeV protons colliding and two Earth-accelerated 7 TeV protons colliding. Regrettably, I have no data on either one. If one *can* tell the difference the EM "particle energy speed limit" is effectively ruined. One can also work around this using various target experiments -- e.g., throw subluminal protons at a wax target and measure the speed of electrons knocked out thereby, somewhat a la Rutherford. The curvature of the path in a cloud chamber should be more than sufficient, and one might not even need the wax; a proton could collide with a water molecule instead.
A quick Google coughed up this reference of an experiment apparently done in 1935, and published in 1935-03-18:
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v47/i7/p573_1 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.47.573 URL: http://link.aps.org/abstract/PR/v47/p573 Collisions of High Energy Protons in Hydrogen by Milton G. White, Department of Physics, University of California
Not horribly surprising, really; it's an obvious experiment. However, I can't get at the results -- they require subscription to the American Physical Society journal.
It is not clear whether the Black Knight shares this workaround, or not.
Particles such as Oh My God, which had 51 J of energy (for a proton, muon, or pi meson that's a whallop!) suggest that the Universe isn't limited by the "EM particle energy speed limit". Such particles are rare but are easily measured in detectors such as SuperKamiokande, which is basically a very large tank of ultrapure water surrounded by light detectors.
SR has no "EM energy limit", of course; all particles simply cannot travel faster than light, no matter how much energy is thrown at the problem.
 Signature #191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
Henri Wilson - 15 Nov 2005 22:37 GMT >In sci.physics, donstockbauer@hotmail.com ><donstockbauer@hotmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] >cannot travel faster than light, no matter how much energy >is thrown at the problem. I actually read all that Ghost. I don't know why!
Here's a thought. Take a thick block of very clear glass (or prefereably crystal) cool it to 100K degrees or less and shine a beam of light through it . According to your friends, light speed remains c between atoms but takes time to be absorbed and re-emitted by each one. This gives the impression that light is being slowed... and hence 'refractive index'.
Now heat the crystal to as fairly high temprerature. One would expects the thermal atomic speeds to disperse the beam by a considerable amount. On might expect strange doppler effects too.
Do you know if this has been tried? .
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
The Ghost In The Machine - 16 Nov 2005 07:00 GMT In sci.physics, HW@..(Henri Wilson) <HW@> wrote on Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:37:19 GMT <g7okn19vabrf5vujm4g5angs7p12o37a26@4ax.com>:
>>In sci.physics, donstockbauer@hotmail.com >><donstockbauer@hotmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 110 lines] > Take a thick block of very clear glass (or prefereably crystal) > cool it to 100K degrees Are you referring to -173 degrees Celsius or 100,000 degrees Kelvin? I'm assuming the former (the Sun is at 5800K or so and is gaseous; obviously glass won't be much of a block at that temperature).
> or less and shine a beam of light through it . > According to your friends, light speed remains c between atoms > but takes time to be absorbed and re-emitted by each one. Oh, how I wish it *were* that simple! The trouble is that an atom has a very fuzzy boundary.
> This gives the impression that light > is being slowed... and hence 'refractive index'. Light *is* being slowed, and differentially so, it turns out; otherwise we wouldn't be able to produce rainbows by prisms.
> Now heat the crystal to as fairly high temprerature. One would expects the > thermal atomic speeds to disperse the beam by a considerable amount. On might > expect strange doppler effects too. > > Do you know if this has been tried? Presumably gas chromatographs show an effect at high temperatures. I'd have to look, though.
> . > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
 Signature #191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
Black Knight - 16 Nov 2005 15:08 GMT > In sci.physics, HW@..(Henri Wilson) > <HW@> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>>> >>>> They are bent if you stick an actually bent stick in the water. What a stupid f.cking troll!
>>>He is referring to the common illusion that when a whole >>>straight stick stuck into a tank of water, when viewed >>>from above the surface of the water, the stick appears >>>bent, if not broken, into two parts. And you need to explain that to the c.nt? Tell him to dip his arm in the water up to his elbow. On second thoughts, why bother? He's too stupid to understand the basics anyway.
>>>This is similar to, apparently, his view that we are >>>looking at an illusion of the Universe, which only appears [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> >>>Why he and H. Wilson disagree is not clear to me; I don't hold with h-aether, overly complex expanations of the very simple sagnac effect and Wilson Cool Heavies.
both hold
>>>this general view, though Black Knight suggests he wants to >>>be neutral and hold no preferred theory, while suggesting >>>(if I'm reading him correctly) that we are all holding a >>>massively corrupt variant of physics theory by using SR/GTR >>>in such things as particle acceleration, GPS calibration, >>>and astronomical observation. Yep.
>>>The first two of course >>>require large sums of money; the last isn't quite as >>>expensive and the average Joe can easily procure a >>>telescope -- and wouldn't have too much trouble procuring >>>a water jug, some electronics, and a photodetector as well, >>>for measurement of incoming muons, superluminal or otherwise. You can't measure the speed of a horse at the finish line from a photograph. You can only determine which horse won from its synchronous position and the requirement that all horses travel the same distance and leave the starting gate synchronously. In the muon-photon horse race the muon wins.
>>>Another possibility is energizing the plates of an old >>>airgap capacitor until it sparks on occasion -- a primitive >>>Geiger counter. Again, a snapshot of a horse race at the finish line. There is no way to tell if the winning horse left later and ran faster, or even if it started at the gate. There is no way to determine the speed of an Indy car if you do it by putting up a toll booth on the track 100 feet from the finish line, and that's what you are doing with scintillators.
>>>This view is also consistent with MMX, which was only >>>really designed to show the absolute velocity in a rigid [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >>>In any event, he appears to follow in the footsteps of >>>Sekerin, Bullshit. Sekerin was the other side of the Iron Curtain. I created my program before I heard of Sekerin.
>>> and will also suggest superluminal muons, which is >>>perfectly logical in this view though as yet unconfirmed >>>by Earthly experiments. Nature has done the experiment. Learn to read Nature. The Aurora Borealis and Aurora Australis are Cherenkov radiation. http://www.tiger.latrobe.edu.au/aurora.html I said that in 1989, but that newsgroup (Compuserve) no longer exists. AOL swallowed it. It stank anyway. I may even have been polite back then :-)
>>>However, H. Wilson has a simple >>>method around this: particles in such experiments are >>>pushed around by EM radiation and therefore can't travel >>>faster than light when pushed thereby. That was me as the Google record will show. Wilson picked up on it. I used the analogy of a baseball. It cannot be thrown faster than the pitcher's arm can move. A line of pitchers across the continent will never move the baseball faster than the speed of the fastest arm.
>>>The main question here would be whether one can tell >>>the diff between two Earth-accelerated 500 MeV protons [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > I'm assuming the former (the Sun is at 5800K or so and is gaseous; > obviously glass won't be much of a block at that temperature). Sheesh... "They are bent if you stick an actually bent stick in the water." "Are you referring to -173 degrees Celsius or 100,000 degrees Kelvin?" I think your assumption may be justified in this case.
>> or less and shine a beam of light through it . >> According to your friends, light speed remains c between atoms [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> This gives the impression that light >> is being slowed... and hence 'refractive index'. Actually... refraction MAY just be diffraction by the molecular lattice.
Snell's law n.sin(theta) (refraction) looks a lot like d.sin(theta) (diffraction). Just an hypothesis to investigate, but consider the x-velocity of a car in a turn. It's s.cos(theta) where s is the speed. The y-velocity is s.sin(theta).
> Light *is* being slowed, and differentially so, it turns out; > otherwise we wouldn't be able to produce rainbows by prisms. Is it? How does a diffraction grating slow the light? Why do electrons diffract?
>> Now heat the crystal to as fairly high temprerature. One would expects >> the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Presumably gas chromatographs show an effect at high temperatures. > I'd have to look, though. Looking is good. I do a lot of that, then I think about what I've seen. We call that observation, investigation and explanation... or science. What we try to avoid is dumb explanations, and we NEVER dream up theories and then go looking for bright green flying elephants or black holes for their nests. That's phuckwittery, not science.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 16 Nov 2005 21:40 GMT >> In sci.physics, HW@..(Henri Wilson) >> <HW@>
>>>>However, H. Wilson has a simple >>>>method around this: particles in such experiments are [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >will never move the baseball faster than the speed of the fastest >arm. Also tell him that a golf ball can travel a lot faster than the club head because energy is momentarily stored and released in the elastic face during the impact...similarly in tennis.
Atmospheric muons are produced in similar elastic collisions. Consequently, they can travel much faster than the cosmic rays that produce them. The cosmic rays themselves can also be traveling at >c wrt Earth.
>>> I actually read all that Ghost. >>> I don't know why! [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >"Are you referring to -173 degrees Celsius or 100,000 degrees Kelvin?" >I think your assumption may be justified in this case. Ghost DOES say some funny things occasionally..
>>> or less and shine a beam of light through it . >>> According to your friends, light speed remains c between atoms [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Actually... refraction MAY just be diffraction by the molecular lattice. In a crystal yes ..but what about liquids?
>Androcles. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Henri Wilson - 13 Nov 2005 23:28 GMT >[snip] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >[snip] Idiot. Learn the facts.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Black Knight - 14 Nov 2005 00:55 GMT >>[snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > HW. Message rating: several casks. Androcles.
Eric Gisse - 14 Nov 2005 02:10 GMT > >[snip] > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Idiot. Learn the facts. I have.
You are a whiny little bitch who is promoting a theory that is inconsistant with reality.
Every time the inconsistancy is pointed out to you, you invent yet another ad-hoc explanation to cover it.
When you are asked to show how you obtain any of your results, you stamp your feet and cry how "obvious" it is. Like a little goddamn baby.
You aren't a physicist. Physicists who are honest about promoting a new theory bend over backwards to satisfy people, they don't get a high-and-mighty attitude and claim the results are obvious and then tell those questioning him to "use your brain".
You aren't a mathematician. You are incapable of showing results from your theory as you have been asked to do many times over the years.
I am sure you will reply with another indignant response that shows exactly my point, and then you will insult my education.
> HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe > > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". bz - 14 Nov 2005 04:34 GMT >>[snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Idiot. Learn the facts. Present facts. Present equations, unless you are afraid of them.
What, according to BaT, should the sagnac do at a constant angular velocity? How should it act during angular acceleration.
How about 'according to SR'?
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+nanae@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu
Henri Wilson - 13 Nov 2005 23:28 GMT >> George, George, George. >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >Also, a light ring gyro should measure angular acceleration rather than >angular position. Idiot. Learn the facts.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Black Knight - 14 Nov 2005 00:55 GMT >>> George, George, George. >>> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > HW. Message rating: several casks. Androcles.
bz - 17 Nov 2005 13:24 GMT ....
You said it.
>>> Actually, you have shown that the BaTh does what it should do. It >>> expects NO fringe shifts under constant rotation. IOW, no position change (back to zero).
>>> BUT!!!! >>> The standard SR explanation says that there WILL BE a continuous >>> fringe shift during steady rotation. IOW, a constant position change. (offset remains constant).
>>> Sagnac proves SR to be wrong!!! >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Idiot. Learn the facts. tiodI.
Facts are that in a BaT universe, the sagnac device would only show fringe shift when accelerating. Fringes would go back to zero when velocity was constant.
YOU said it correctly. Now you are backpeddling.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson - 17 Nov 2005 22:44 GMT >You said it. > >>>> Actually, you have shown that the BaTh does what it should do. It >>>> expects NO fringe shifts under constant rotation. > >IOW, no position change (back to zero). 'Shifts] = verb.
We have cleared up the terminiology. 'Shift' is ambiguous, either noun or verb.
Fringe 'displacement' is the amount it has moved from the zero rotation position. Fringe 'movement' describes the transient state between fixed displacements. So my statement should strictly be, "According to the BaTh, fringes are displaced but not moving during constant rotation".
>>>> BUT!!!! >>>> The standard SR explanation says that there WILL BE a continuous >>>> fringe shift during steady rotation. > >IOW, a constant position change. (offset remains constant). I don't think that's what SR says. According to SR, the wavelength changes due to doppler effects and the number of wavecrests in each path will remain constant no matter how the path length changes (during acceleration)
So Sagnac refutes SR.
>Facts are that in a BaT universe, the sagnac device would only show fringe >shift when accelerating. Fringes would go back to zero when velocity was >constant. That is not what I said. You confused the voun with the nerb.
>YOU said it correctly. Now you are backpeddling. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 13 Nov 2005 11:52 GMT > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:35:04 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > during > constant angular rotation...and of course they don't. Actually they do, that's exactly how fibre gyros work. The output is proportional to the angular velocity. That is why these devices are such important evidence and precisely why I have taken the trouble of bringing them to your attention.
> We should only be considering what happens during angular ACCELERATION > !!!!!! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > is > the whole basis of operation. Acceleration is a more complex subject, involving Doppler at the source, Doppler at the receiver and the temporary lack of cancellation due to the flight time delay between.
> Actually, you have shown that the BaTh does what it should do. It expects > NO [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Sagnac proves SR to be wrong!!! If the output was proportional to acceleration then you would be right. In fact the output is exactly what SR predicts, it is proportional to the angular velocity in actual devices and experiments.
George
Henri Wilson - 13 Nov 2005 23:27 GMT >> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:35:04 -0000, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >and precisely why I have taken the trouble of bringing >them to your attention. George, a few months ago, you (or maybe it was Paul) went to great trouble to explain to me that fringes shift only during angular acceleration. Gyros indicate total rotation by continuously integrating the rate of fringe shift with time.
Are you now saying this is wrong?
>> We should only be considering what happens during angular ACCELERATION >> !!!!!! [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >at the source, Doppler at the receiver and the temporary >lack of cancellation due to the flight time delay between. When acceleration occurs, path lengths vary. The number of wavelengths in each path changes. Fringes MOVE.
It matters not whether the beam moves at c or c+v.
During constant rotation, including zero, there is no fringe movement.
>> Actually, you have shown that the BaTh does what it should do. It expects >> NO [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >predicts, it is proportional to the angular velocity in >actual devices and experiments. The output is given in degrees rotation from zero angle. That is calculated via a time integral during acceleration.
I think you and your colleagues should learn a few facts.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Black Knight - 14 Nov 2005 00:54 GMT > On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:52:57 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > > HW. Message rating: several casks. Amdrocles.
George Dishman - 14 Nov 2005 13:19 GMT > >> George, George, George. > >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Are you now saying this is wrong? I am sticking to what we both agreed. There had been some talk earlier but we revised this around the 11th October. See your message, ID:
a4cok15ekbocc95d6ahg68foum9hm082hn@4ax.com
[Henri wrote:]
>[George wrote:] >>[Henri wrote:] [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > (Yes I thought that's what came up before. Just checking). The formula for the Sagnac effect is:
delta_t = 4Aw/(c^2-(wR)^2)
where where w is the angular speed. For wR << c that simplifies to:
delta_t = 4Aw / c^2
so the output is proportional to the angular speed, not the acceleration.
> >Acceleration is a more complex subject, involving Doppler > >at the source, Doppler at the receiver and the temporary [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > During constant rotation, including zero, there is no fringe movement.
>From page 6 of the comprehensive reference Jerry posted:
"Sagnac's polygonal interferometer was mounted on a turntable. It had an area of 0.0860 m^2, a rotation rate of order 2 Hz, and the resulting fractional fringe shift 0.07 +/- 0.01."
> >> Actually, you have shown that the BaTh does what it should do. > >> It expects NO fringe shifts under constant rotation. Exactly.
> >> BUT!!!! > >> The standard SR explanation says that there WILL BE a continuous fringe [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The output is given in degrees rotation from zero angle. That is calculated via > a time integral during acceleration. Angle turned is the integral of angular speed. There is a single integration to get the heading from the raw signal which is proportional to speed, not acceleration.
> I think you and your colleagues should learn a few facts. Facts:
1) Ritz predicts no fringe shift for constant angular speed.
2) Sagnac measured a fringe shift of 0.07 at constant rate of 2Hz (120rpm) compared to non-rotating.
3) The experiment measures the speed of light from the moving source and it turns out to be unchanged from that in the non-rotating situation.
George
Henri Wilson - 14 Nov 2005 21:18 GMT >> >> George, George, George. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >so the output is proportional to the angular speed, >not the acceleration. That's correct. But the fringes only move during acceleration.
>> >Acceleration is a more complex subject, involving Doppler >> >at the source, Doppler at the receiver and the temporary [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >a single integration to get the heading from the raw >signal which is proportional to speed, not acceleration. Yes George. The fringe shift is proportional to speed BUT IT OCCURS ONLY DURING ACCELERATION.
>> I think you and your colleagues should learn a few facts. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >George Sorry George, you have it all wrong.
The fringes DO NOT move during constant rotation. They are displaced by a constant amount. You said this yourself on for instance,12th October.
"""""
>> George, if a sagnac is rotating at constant angular speed, Do the fringes >> move >> continuously or remain steady but offset? > >The latter, steady but with an offset proportional >to the speed of rotation." """""
The displacement arises from the path length change that occurs DURING ACCELERATION. The number of 'wavelengths' in each path changes ONLY during acceleration. The amount of shift signifies a rotation rate. Integrate that over very short time intervals and you have a fairly accurate measurement of the total angle of rotation from zero.
You should be able to see now, (from the duck shoot experiment) that virtually the same path length difference occurs whether you use c or c + v.....it differs by only c/(c+v)
With a FoG, the path length is greatly increased for higher accuracy.
So Sagnac DOES NOT refute the BaTh.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Paul B. Andersen - 14 Nov 2005 22:26 GMT >>>>>George, George, George. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > Yes George. The fringe shift is proportional to speed BUT IT OCCURS ONLY DURING > ACCELERATION. Of course they MOVE only during angular acceleration. But that's not how Sagnac is used. The fringes are at different positions when the ring is rotating compared to when it is not.
That means that the number of wavelengths are not the same in both directions when the ring is rotating.
The BaT predicts that the fringes should be in the same position. The BaT is falsified.
>>>I think you and your colleagues should learn a few facts. >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > constant amount. > You said this yourself on for instance,12th October. Exactly. But the BaT predicts no displacement. You don't have to consider what happens during the acceleration.
BTW, it is pretty obvious what the BaT predicts should happen during constant acceleration, though. It is that the fringes should be displaced by an amount proportional to the acceleration. But as soon as the acceleration stops and the rotation is constant, the fringes should move back to their original position.
That's not what happens. The BaT is falsified.
> """"" > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ACCELERATION. The number of 'wavelengths' in each path changes ONLY during > acceleration. This is mumbo jumbo. The displacement arises because the number of wavelengths in opposite directions around the ring are different when the ring rotates, and the difference is proportional to the angular velocity. The difference is caused by the rotation, not by the acceleration. Of COURSE the fringes have to move to get in a different position when the angular velocity changes, but the acceleration is not the cause of the displacement.
The BaT predicts no displacement. The BaT is falsified.
> The amount of shift signifies a rotation rate. Integrate that over very short > time intervals and you have a fairly accurate measurement of the total angle of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > So Sagnac DOES NOT refute the BaTh. It blatantly obvious does.
Paul
Henri Wilson - 14 Nov 2005 23:16 GMT >>>>>>George, George, George. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] >The BaT predicts that the fringes should be in the same >position. The BaT is falsified. Absolute crap. Wavelength is 'fixed' according to BaTh.
Path length change is all that matters. The BaTh expectation of the number of wavelengths contained in a path is only (c+v)/c different from the SRian/aetherian one....ie, negligible.
>>>>I think you and your colleagues should learn a few facts. >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >But the BaT predicts no displacement. >You don't have to consider what happens during the acceleration. Crap. The BaTh predicts virtually the same as your own stupid theory. See my 'duck shooting' example (yesterday's post).
The path lengths increase/decrease during acceleration because the receiving mirror has moved more than it would under steady rotation during the transit time of the light. Whether c or c+v is used makes bugger all difference. Wavelength remains unbchanged in the BaTh whatever the rotation.
>BTW, it is pretty obvious what the BaT predicts should happen >during constant acceleration, though. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >That's not what happens. >The BaT is falsified. That is uninformed and unadulterated rubbish. According to the BaTh, the path length difference between both beams is dependent solely on rotation speed.
Therefore fringe displacement remains constant at constant angular velocity.
>> """"" >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >when the ring rotates, and the difference is proportional >to the angular velocity. That is correct.
>The difference is caused by the rotation, not by the acceleration. That is obviously NOT correct. The difference is roughly proportional to the rotation but is caused by acceleration. The """difference in path lengths"""" changes ONLY DURING acceleration...for reasons I laid out in my yesterday's post.
>Of COURSE the fringes have to move to get in a different position >when the angular velocity changes, but the acceleration is not >the cause of the displacement. Sorry Paul, the difference in path lengths changes only during acceleration.
The difference in path lengths does not change during periods of constant rotation.
>The BaT predicts no displacement. >The BaT is falsified. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >It blatantly obvious does. Paul, when you work out how and when path lengths actually change (in a four mirror sagnac), come cringing back to me with an apology.
>Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Paul B. Andersen - 15 Nov 2005 15:05 GMT >>>Yes George. The fringe shift is proportional to speed BUT IT OCCURS ONLY DURING >>>ACCELERATION. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Absolute crap. Wavelength is 'fixed' according to BaTh. Indeed.
> Path length change is all that matters. The phase difference between the two waves is all that matters. Of course all theories will agree on what the difference in the path length of the two opposing waves is. (At least to a first order approximation). But according to the ballistic theory, the wave going the longest path will go faster than the wave going the shorter path, so the phase difference will remain the same.
> The BaTh expectation of the number of wavelengths contained in a path is only > (c+v)/c different from the SRian/aetherian one....ie, negligible. So you know the answer!
The BaT say the number of wavelengths contained in the path around the Sagnac ring is always S/lambda, while SR/ether say that it is (S/lambda)(c+v)/c, where S is the circumference of the ring. So you are right, the difference is the factor (c+v)/c.
But it isn't negligible, of course. It is the difference between no effect and the Sagnac effect.
The Sagnac effect is that the difference in time for the light to go around the circle in opposite directions is: delta_t = 4Aw/c^2. If we for simplicity let the Sagnac ring be circular with radius r, this can be written: delta_t = 4*pi*r*v/c^2, where v is the peripheral velocity. This means that the change in time for one of the waves is: delta_t = 2*pi*r*v/c^2 = S*v/c^2 where S is the circumference. The light will use the time t = S/c to go around the stationary ring. So it will use the time: t+delta_t = (S/c)*(1+v/c) to go around the rotating ring. This translates to the number of wavelengths around the ring: n = (t+delta_t)/T = (t+delta_t)*f = (t+delta_t)*c/lambda n = (S/lambda)*(1+v/c)
The difference in number of wavelengths will thus be: delta_n = 2*(S/lambda)*(v/c)
and the phase difference is: delta_phi = 4*pi*(S/lambda)*(v/c)
The reason why this is detectable is obviously that S/lambda is a big number. That's how interferometers work.
>>>The fringes DO NOT move during constant rotation. They are displaced by a >>>constant amount. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Crap. The BaTh predicts virtually the same as your own stupid theory. > See my 'duck shooting' example (yesterday's post). Quite. The difference is only the Sagnac effect.
> The path lengths increase/decrease during acceleration because the receiving > mirror has moved more than it would under steady rotation during the transit > time of the light. Right. So the fringes are in a different position during the acceleration.
> Whether c or c+v is used makes bugger all difference. It makes all the difference.
I think we can consider it settled now. You know that the difference between the BaT and SR is the factor (c+v)/c.
Your error was believing this difference to be negligible. It isn't, because it IS the Sagnac effect.
So the difference between the BaT and SR is that the former predicts no Sagnac effect while the latter predicts the Sagnac effect.
> Wavelength remains > unbchanged in the BaTh whatever the rotation. Indeed. For a while, it puzzled me a little why you keep repeating this. But I think I understand why. You think this proves that the number of wavelengths contained in the longer path and in the shorter path must be different. But that is nonsese, of course. Wavelength is the distance between two point on the wave with equal phase _at the same time_. Buth "path length" is the distance from one point at one time to another point _at a later time_.
When we say "the number of wavelength contained in the path", we mean the number of cycles the wave has passed through from where it started to where it ends. Remember that it is the phase of the wave that is of importance.
Do I have to explain your logical flaw in greater detail?
>>BTW, it is pretty obvious what the BaT predicts should happen >>during constant acceleration, though. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > That is uninformed and unadulterated rubbish. But nevertheless it is correct.
> According to the BaTh, the path length difference between both beams is > dependent solely on rotation speed. Of course. How could it be otherwise? All theories agree on that.
> Therefore fringe displacement remains constant at constant angular velocity. Does not follow. The BaT predicts that the wave going the longest path will go faster than the wave going the shorter path, so the phase difference will remain the same.
>>>""""" >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > That is correct. D = Kw
>>The difference is caused by the rotation, not by the acceleration. > > That is obviously NOT correct. The difference is roughly proportional to the > rotation but is caused by acceleration. The """difference in path lengths"""" > changes ONLY DURING acceleration...for reasons I laid out in my yesterday's > post. You are babbling.
D = kw for any dw/dt D is causes by w, not by dw/dt
dD/dt = K*dw/dt.
The CHANGE of the displacement is caused by the acceleration. The displacement is caused by the rotation.
>>Of COURSE the fringes have to move to get in a different position >>when the angular velocity changes, but the acceleration is not >>the cause of the displacement. > > Sorry Paul, the difference in path lengths changes only during acceleration. So the change of the displacement is caused by the acceleration.
> The difference in path lengths does not change during periods of constant > rotation. So the constant displacement cannot be caused by the non existing acceleration.
What the hell is the point with this idiocy?
Paul
Paul B. Andersen - 15 Nov 2005 21:17 GMT >> According to the BaTh, the path length difference between both beams is >> dependent solely on rotation speed. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Does not follow. Sorry, that DOES follow. What does NOT follow is that the displacement depend on the rotation, because:
> The BaT predicts that the wave going the longest path > will go faster than the wave going the shorter path, > so the phase difference will remain the same. So according to the BaT, there will be no displacement.
But there is. The BaT is falsified.
Paul
Henri Wilson - 15 Nov 2005 23:21 GMT >>>>Yes George. The fringe shift is proportional to speed BUT IT OCCURS ONLY DURING >>>>ACCELERATION. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >the shorter path, so the phase difference will remain >the same. At constant rotational speeds, the fringe displacement IS constant. The phase difference remains the same. The BaTh IS fully supported.
>> The BaTh expectation of the number of wavelengths contained in a path is only >> (c+v)/c different from the SRian/aetherian one....ie, negligible. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >The reason why this is detectable is obviously that S/lambda >is a big number. That's how interferometers work. Very good Paul, you have shown that phase difference remains constant and there is no fringe movement during periods of constant rotational speed. That supports the BaTh and refutes SR.
>>>>The fringes DO NOT move during constant rotation. They are displaced by a >>>>constant amount. >>>>You said this yourself on for instance,12th October. Actually George said that.
>>>Exactly. >>>But the BaT predicts no displacement. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >So the fringes are in a different position during >the acceleration. Not correct. The fringes are in the process of moving during angular acceleration.
>> Whether c or c+v is used makes bugger all difference. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >You know that the difference between the BaT and SR >is the factor (c+v)/c. that's the difference in THE DIFFERENCE of path lengths according to SR and BaTh. ie, negligible!!!
>Your error was believing this difference to be negligible. >It isn't, because it IS the Sagnac effect. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Wavelength is the distance between two point on the wave >with equal phase _at the same time_. Hypothetically speaking, one could connect 1um rods between the wavecrests of 1um light. The rods are rigid and never change absolute length. The number in each path length is L/Lambda irrespective of wave speed. The question is, "how does that number change?"
>But "path length" is the distance from one point at one >time to another point _at a later time_. Yes you could say that ...but I don't know why time is involved. A length is a length.
>When we say "the number of wavelength contained in the path", >we mean the number of cycles the wave has passed through >from where it started to where it ends. No I don't. I mean the actual number of wavelengths contained in that path length. Speed is not important.
>Remember that it is the phase of the wave that is of importance. If the number changes then so does the phase relationship at the end. Say there are 1000 wavelengths in one arm and 990 in the other. Bothe waves are in phase when they meet.
Now change the rotation angle by accelerating slightly and decelerating. The path lengths change. The number of wavelengths in each is now 996 and 995.2.
Fringes have moved by four fringe widths and are out of phase when they meet.
>Do I have to explain your logical flaw in greater detail? This is quite amusing. I am enjoying it immensely.
>>>BTW, it is pretty obvious what the BaT predicts should happen >>>during constant acceleration, though. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >But nevertheless it is correct. Paul I have gone to the trouble of drawing what actually happens in a sagnac.
>> According to the BaTh, the path length difference between both beams is >> dependent solely on rotation speed. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >will go faster than the wave going the shorter path, >so the phase difference will remain the same. At constant rotation yes. That is what happens. SR is falsified. The BaTh is supported.
>>>This is mumbo jumbo. >>>The displacement arises because the number of wavelengths [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >You are babbling. You are very amusing.
>D = kw for any dw/dt >D is causes by w, not by dw/dt We'll see.
>dD/dt = K*dw/dt. > >The CHANGE of the displacement is caused by the acceleration. >The displacement is caused by the rotation. The displacement is the integrated effect of path length change during acceleration during which time the number of wavelengths in each path changes. The number remains constant if there is NO angular acceleration.
>>>Of COURSE the fringes have to move to get in a different position >>>when the angular velocity changes, but the acceleration is not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >So the change of the displacement is caused by the acceleration. Yes.
>> The difference in path lengths does not change during periods of constant >> rotation. > >So the constant displacement cannot be caused by the non existing acceleration.
>What the hell is the point with this idiocy? Paul, I will give you a clue with my 'duck shooting' analogy.
See: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg
You are driving your car eastward at v. There is a duck located exactly SE of you, flying southward also at exactly v. You want to shoot it.
Q1) Where do you aim your gun? Q2) where do you aim your gun if the duck decides to accelerate at 'a'?
Q3) How far does you bullet travel in either case?
In my diagram, YOU are initially at A and the duck is at C.
I'll let you work out the rest. It is self explanatory. When you have, you will understand why sagnac supports the BaTh and (possibly) refutes SR.
>Paul PS: I do not advocate the shooting of ducks.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Black Knight - 15 Nov 2005 02:25 GMT >> On 14 Nov 2005 05:19:05 -0800, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 208 lines] > > Paul Sagnac blatantly obviously disproves SR. You snipping the explanation blatantly obviously proves you are a useless phuckwitted tusselad. Androcles.
Jeff Root - 14 Nov 2005 23:41 GMT > The fringe shift is proportional to speed BUT IT OCCURS > ONLY DURING ACCELERATION. Henri, this was precious! Your ability to see only what you want to see and totally ignore reality is breathtaking. Re-read the short sentence quoted above and try to figure out how it contradicts itself. It is really comical! -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Henri Wilson - 15 Nov 2005 00:55 GMT >> The fringe shift is proportional to speed BUT IT OCCURS >> ONLY DURING ACCELERATION. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > -- Jeff, in Minneapolis You failed to appreciate that the word 'shift' can be both a noun and a verb.
The fringe shift (noun) is proportional to speed but the fringe shift (verb) OCCURS ONLY DURING ACCELERATION.
Maybe the purists would suggest that I should have phrased it as "the shifting of fringes".........
However I don't think you have the intelligence to understand the finer points of this anyway.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Black Knight - 15 Nov 2005 02:50 GMT >>> The fringe shift is proportional to speed BUT IT OCCURS >>> ONLY DURING ACCELERATION. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > HW. Message rating: 1/2 a syringe. Androcles.
Jerry - 15 Nov 2005 03:06 GMT > >> The fringe shift is proportional to speed BUT IT OCCURS > >> ONLY DURING ACCELERATION. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The fringe shift (noun) is proportional to speed but the fringe shift (verb) > OCCURS ONLY DURING ACCELERATION. ...and the the total, steady-state fringe shift remains non-zero after acceleration has ended and the Sagnac apparatus is undergoing steady-state rotation. Otherwise fiber-optic gyros wouldn't work.
Since fiber optic gyros -do- work, BaT is falsified.
Jerry
Henri Wilson - 15 Nov 2005 04:16 GMT >> >> The fringe shift is proportional to speed BUT IT OCCURS >> >> ONLY DURING ACCELERATION. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Since fiber optic gyros -do- work, BaT is falsified. You are just as stupid as the rest.
Why don't you work out WHY the fringes shift during angular acceleration... instead of whining.
You will soon see that it make no difference whether you use c or c+v. The path lengths change by the same amounts...and it is path length that determines how many wavelengths fit into each path. Wavelength DOES not change according to the BaTh.
Sagnac probably refutes SR because that theory requires a wavelength change during rotational acceleration ...which would prevent any fringe movement..
>Jerry HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Paul B. Andersen - 15 Nov 2005 15:39 GMT >>>The fringe shift is proportional to speed BUT IT OCCURS >>>ONLY DURING ACCELERATION. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > However I don't think you have the intelligence to understand the finer points > of this anyway. It probably takes a very special kind of intelligence to understand the fine point that "IT OCCURS" refers to an occurring verb. :-)
Henri, isn't this a bit too stupid even for you?
Why not simply admit that you wrote something else than you meant, in stead of trying to save your obviously self contradicting statement in such a stupid way?
Paul
Henri Wilson - 15 Nov 2005 23:44 GMT >>>>The fringe shift is proportional to speed BUT IT OCCURS >>>>ONLY DURING ACCELERATION. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >in stead of trying to save your obviously self contradicting statement >in such a stupid way? What I wrote was quite OK. You are confusing 'occurs' with 'exists'.
My statement correctly states, "fringe DISPLACEMENT is proportional to rotational speed but FRINGE MOVEMENT occurs only during rotational acceleration".
The sagnac continuously integrates 'instantaneous fringe movements' during periods of acceleration, to obtain a meaningful fringe displacement or shift, (noun) which indicates current rotation angle from a calibrated zero. .
>Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 15 Nov 2005 22:13 GMT >>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:52:57 -0000, "George Dishman" >>> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > That's correct. > But the fringes only move during acceleration. Right.
>>> >Acceleration is a more complex subject, involving Doppler >>> >at the source, Doppler at the receiver and the temporary [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > DURING > ACCELERATION. That's wrong but from other messages I think it was more a question of wording, there is a shift (displacement) at all speeds but the displacement only changes during acceleration. Barring that confusion between shift as a noun and a verb, I believe we are in agreement so far.
>>> I think you and your colleagues should learn a few facts. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Sorry George, you have it all wrong. Well so far you have not said anything that differs from my view.
> The fringes DO NOT move during constant rotation. They are displaced by a > constant amount. That is correct. Item 2 above says the same, the amount the fringes have moved, or shifted or been displaced, however you want to put it, was constant at 7% of the fringe spacing in Sagnac's experiment at 120rpm.
> You said this yourself on for instance,12th October. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>to the speed of rotation." > """"" Yep, and you seem to agree with that above. As I say, no difference in views so far.
<I'll swap the next two sentences of your reply.>
> The amount of shift signifies a rotation rate. Integrate that over very > short > time intervals and you have a fairly accurate measurement of the total > angle of > rotation from zero. Yep, again that is entirely correct and exactly what I said earlier, still no difference in views. However ...
> The displacement arises from the path length change that occurs DURING > ACCELERATION. You need to explain that Henri. If the displacement occurs only during acceleration then there should be no displacement whenrunning at constant speed, but you just agreed there was a constant (non-zero) displacement at constant speed.
> The number of 'wavelengths' in each path changes ONLY during > acceleration. I'm less concerned about your ideas on the mechanism at this stage, we might get to that later.
> You should be able to see now, (from the duck shoot experiment) that > virtually [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So Sagnac DOES NOT refute the BaTh. Henri Wilson - 16 Nov 2005 01:01 GMT >>>Angle turned is the integral of angular speed. There is >>>a single integration to get the heading from the raw [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >Well so far you have not said anything that differs >from my view. Maybe we settle on using 'displacement' instead of 'shift' the noun... and 'fringe movement' instead of 'shift' the verb.
>> The fringes DO NOT move during constant rotation. They are displaced by a >> constant amount. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Yep, and you seem to agree with that above. As I say, >no difference in views so far. except what you said in 1) above.
Ritz predicts a constant fringe displacement but no fringe movement when there is constant rotational speed.
><I'll swap the next two sentences of your reply.> > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >whenrunning at constant speed, but you just agreed there was >a constant (non-zero) displacement at constant speed. The 'current displacement' is a reflection of the integrated instantaneous path length changes during period of acceleration, no matter how small. Path length vary ONLY during acceleration. So does the number of wavelengths in each beam.
>> The number of 'wavelengths' in each path changes ONLY during >> acceleration. > >I'm less concerned about your ideas on the mechanism at >this stage, we might get to that later. Read what I said to Paul A and study my duck shooting diagram:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg
PS: I don't advocate the shooting of ducks.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Jerry - 16 Nov 2005 02:31 GMT > Ritz predicts a constant fringe displacement but no fringe movement when there > is constant rotational speed. constant = 0. Ritz theory is falsified.
Jerry
Henri Wilson - 16 Nov 2005 06:13 GMT >> Ritz predicts a constant fringe displacement but no fringe movement when there >> is constant rotational speed. > >constant = 0. Ritz theory is falsified. silly girl.
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg
>Jerry HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 16 Nov 2005 05:07 GMT [snip blather]
'round and 'round we go, when we stop nobody knows....
Fox, J.G., Am J Phys, "Evidence Against Emission Theories," 33, 1-17, (1965)
George Dishman - 16 Nov 2005 19:41 GMT > Maybe we settle on using 'displacement' instead of 'shift' the noun... and > 'fringe movement' instead of 'shift' the verb. Better but I think something like "change of displacement" than 'fringe movement' would keep it consistent.
Henri, I think much of the last few days discussion has been a result of the confusion over these terms. I'll repost your message of the 12th and then retype it as I understood your meaning using "displacement". See what you think. I'll address your specific points separately.
-- you typed ... --
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:omncn19cle09dml5jjtgdc7ib6bcsuvh0l@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:35:04 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Sagnac proves SR to be wrong!!! -- I took that to mean (edited lines marked with asterisks) ... --
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:omncn19cle09dml5jjtgdc7ib6bcsuvh0l@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:35:04 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I have finally woken up to your (and MY) complete misinterpretation of the > problem. * We have both been arguing about whether or not the fringes will BE DISPLACED
> during constant angular rotation...and of course they don't. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That is when the two path lengths change. > That is when more 'wavelengths' fit into one path than the other. * That is when fringes ARE DISPLACED.
> Path lengths chaneg because each mirror accelerates slightly as light from > the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Actually, you have shown that the BaTh does what it should do. It expects > NO * fringe DISPLACEMENT under constant rotation.
> BUT!!!! * The standard SR explanation says that there WILL BE a CONSTANT fringe * DISPLACEMENT during steady rotation.
> Sagnac proves SR to be wrong!!! George
Henri Wilson - 16 Nov 2005 21:45 GMT >> Maybe we settle on using 'displacement' instead of 'shift' the noun... and >> 'fringe movement' instead of 'shift' the verb. [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > >George Sorry George, you cannot win an argument by confusion.
What I said originally was what I meant. Your 'translation' is completely wrong.
Thsi must be very hard for you to take, I know.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 16 Nov 2005 20:10 GMT > On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:13:25 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > there > is constant rotational speed. Well we seem to be back to where we were last week before you said "I have finally woken up to your (and MY) complete misinterpretation of the problem."
I have been showing you for months that Ritz predicts no fringe displacement at constant angular speed while you have been trying to explain how it did. I fail to see what you think your sudden insight was.
>><I'll swap the next two sentences of your reply.> >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > path > length changes during period of acceleration, no matter how small. There is no physical mechanism to perform such an integration. There is an integrator in devices to change the angular speed returned as the output into a change of heading but that requires a speed related output to start with.
To avoid further confusion, suppose the table is turning at one speed, then for a while it accelerates and finally it runs at a constant but higher speed. Draw a graph of the angular speed and we get this:
_________ / / ^ __________/ | speed | ______________________
------> time
> Path length vary ONLY during acceleration. So does the number of > wavelengths in > each beam. Careful with the wording. Do you mean the path lengths differ from each other or from the non-rotating value? Do you mean path lengths only CHANGE during acceleration?
>>> The number of 'wavelengths' in each path changes ONLY during >>> acceleration. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg It is a bit too simplistic because you have drawn straight lines so it must be in the inertial frame. In that frame you have c'=c+kv so the time is a combination of factors that you cannot see from that diagram alone.
> PS: I don't advocate the shooting of ducks. Christmas is coming, how about geese? I like your analogy for the four mirror case so let's look in a bit more detail. First add a goose following the car and another hunter shooting back at it:
<- Car * / \guns
| / \ ^ v * + * | Duck Goose
The "+" in the middle indicates the centre of the roundabout and all are at equal distance R form that and moving at the same speed, V, in the directions indicated by the arrows.
Now add a large sheet of paper stretched between the duck, the car and the goose. The guns are fired simultaneously and the lead bullets just skim the surface of the paper leaving a drawn line.
Obviously if V = 0, both lines are straight and of length R * sqrt(2). The bullets leave the guns at the same speed relative to the guns so they take equal times to reach their targets, hitting simultaneously.
When V > 0 and constant, tell me what the lines on the paper will look like, are they straight or curved? If curved are they farther from the centre or closer to it at the midway point (I think one of each)? The bullets still leave the guns at the same speed they did before but do they still hit the birds simultaneously?
I told you my answers to this some months ago but I'm interested to see how you now relate this to your comments on acceleration.
George
Henri Wilson - 16 Nov 2005 21:59 GMT >>>>>> George, if a sagnac is rotating at constant angular speed, Do the >>>>>> fringes [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >you have been trying to explain how it did. I fail to >see what you think your sudden insight was. These bright ideas come to me in my sleep George.
>>>Yep, again that is entirely correct and exactly what I >>>said earlier, still no difference in views. However ... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >into a change of heading but that requires a speed >related output to start with. The former is an automatic phyical integration. (number of wavelengths in the path) The latter is electronic.
>To avoid further confusion, suppose the table is >turning at one speed, then for a while it accelerates [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >differ from each other or from the non-rotating value? >Do you mean path lengths only CHANGE during acceleration? Yes, the latter... each path length changes only during acceleration. You should be able to work that out yourself.
>>>> The number of 'wavelengths' in each path changes ONLY during >>>> acceleration. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >combination of factors that you cannot see from >that diagram alone. It is the non-rotating frame.
Naturally I have shown 'vt' to be a lot longer than it would be in practice. For small time intervals and minute velocities, you can ignore the curvature.
>> PS: I don't advocate the shooting of ducks. > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > >George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 18 Nov 2005 15:19 GMT > On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:10:04 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > These bright ideas come to me in my sleep George. That might explain it.
>>>>Yep, again that is entirely correct and exactly what I >>>>said earlier, still no difference in views. However ... [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Yes, the latter... each path length changes only during acceleration.
>>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg In that case you are wrong if I understand your diagram. When the rotation is at constant speed, the path length is also constant at the length of line AD or roughly:
L' = L + v * t / sqrt(2)
When the rotation is at constant acceleration, the path length is also constant at the length of line AE or roughly:
L' = L + (v * t + a * t^2 / 2) / sqrt(2)
_________ / / ^ __________/ | speed | ______________________
------> time
Your diagram predicts there would be an output like this:
__ | | ^ | | | output | | | | | __________|__|________
------> time
Guess what, I agree with that conclusion.
There is no method to provide physical integration because the number of wavelengths in the path does not affect the time difference between wavefront arrivals in the two beams which is what produces the output.
Actually I think your diagram is oversimplified but we can go with it for the moment, it is close enough.
> You should be able to work that out yourself. Last time I did that you said:
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:s0ann1t3dehvf72e9gk5ov2j54u6m4i373@4ax.com...
> Your 'translation' is completely wrong. and since what you said above conflicts with your statement that you think you can explain Sagnac, it was essential to check.
> Naturally I have shown 'vt' to be a lot longer than it would be in > practice. > For small time intervals and minute velocities, you can ignore the > curvature. Sure, no problem. My ASCII sketches show exaggerated slopes on wavefronts as well but they all serve their purpose.
George
Henri Wilson - 18 Nov 2005 21:21 GMT >> On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:10:04 -0000, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 113 lines] > ------> > time No it doesn't.
Assume that fringe movement is +ve for +ve acceleration and -ve for -ve acceleration. There is no -ve acceleration in the above diagram showing a +ve speed change..
Therefore fringe displaement moves in only one direction during the acceleration period. It doesn't suddenly revert ot zero when acceleration ceases.
SO: _________ | ^ | | output | | | __________|__________
------> time
Is the correct result.
>Guess what, I agree with that conclusion. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >arrivals in the two beams which is what produces >the output. The 'change in fringe displacement' is effectively an integration of the path length increase during the acceleration period.
>Actually I think your diagram is oversimplified but >we can go with it for the moment, it is close enough. It shows what happens during a constant acceleration. In practice, acceleration would vary with time.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 19 Nov 2005 10:18 GMT > On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:19:11 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>>>>>>>The latter, steady but with an offset proportional >>>>>>>>to the speed of rotation." <Background trimmed>
>>>>Careful with the wording. Do you mean the path lengths >>>>differ from each other or from the non-rotating value? [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > There is no -ve acceleration in the above diagram showing a +ve speed > change..
> Therefore fringe displaement moves in only one direction during the > acceleration period. The fringes ARE DISPLACED in only one direction during theacceleration period as shown by your diagram. When the acceleration is zero, the factor a t^2 / 2 is zero so there is zero displacement, not zero rate-of-change of displacement.
> It doesn't suddenly revert ot zero when acceleration ceases. Your diagram says it does, if 'a' is zero then the length difference is zero.
> SO: > _________ [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Is the correct result. Let's add a negative acceleration period:
_________ / \ / \ ^ __________/ \______ | speed | _______________________________
------> time
Your diagram predicts there would be an output like this:
__ +ve | | ^ | | | output | | | 0 ________|__|__________________ | | ------> | | time | | -ve |__|
This is basically a graph of the "a t^2 / 2" factor.
>>There is no method to provide physical integration >>because the number of wavelengths in the path does [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > path > length increase during the acceleration period. No, the fringe displacement is a t^2 / 2 as you show in your diagram.
>>Actually I think your diagram is oversimplified but >>we can go with it for the moment, it is close enough. > > It shows what happens during a constant acceleration. In practice, > acceleration > would vary with time. Indeed. I can't show a quadratic start and end to each period of acceleration but if I could the resulting output would look like this:
+ve __ / \ / \ / \ 0 ___/ \_______ _____ \ / \ / \ / -ve \__/
Since the acceleration is changing, you now have to understand the 'a' in your diagram to be the mean acceleration during the flight time.
George
Henri Wilson - 21 Nov 2005 04:54 GMT >>>In that case you are wrong if I understand your diagram. >>>When the rotation is at constant speed, the path length [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > >This is basically a graph of the "a t^2 / 2" factor. How are you defining 'output'.
I'm using 'output' to mean 'fringe displacement' from the central (non-rotating) position. Maybe you are using it as rotation angle.
In either case, I think I disagree with you.
Fringes move only during acceleration periods. If a +ve acceleration is followed by an identical -ve one, the rotation speed is back to where it was....and so is fringe displacement.
>>>There is no method to provide physical integration >>>because the number of wavelengths in the path does [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >No, the fringe displacement is a t^2 / 2 as you show >in your diagram. Yes, I suppose that its right. It is proportional to the path length difference of the two beams..
>>>Actually I think your diagram is oversimplified but >>>we can go with it for the moment, it is close enough. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >understand the 'a' in your diagram to be the mean >acceleration during the flight time. yes, something like that.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
jgreen@seol.net.au - 22 Nov 2005 09:34 GMT The sagnac is "zeroed" to read the fringe at 12 o'clock, with the airframe travelling north, OK? When the plane alters course (to say NE), the fringe is logged at (say) 2 o'clock, as an accelleration (in rotation of the craft) took place. Now the observed fringe shift will REMAIN at 2 o'clock, UNLESS a reverse rotation takes place. It was the change of direction (read rotational accelleration) which caused the alteration to the shift position. I predict that, in ACCORDANCE with c'=c+v, while the plane maintains the NE heading, there will be no FURTHER shift (2 o'clock maintained) The end
Jim G c'=c+v (G'day George---------just watching :-) )
Henri Wilson - 22 Nov 2005 20:18 GMT >The sagnac is "zeroed" to read the fringe at 12 o'clock, with the >airframe travelling north, OK? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >maintained) >The end That's exactly what I am saying, too.
George, out of pure desperation, tried to make he fringe movement proportional to da/dt.
>Jim G >c'=c+v >(G'day George---------just watching :-) ) HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 22 Nov 2005 21:00 GMT >>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 10:18:10 -0000, "George Dishman" >>> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > That's exactly what I am saying, too. What???? Are you now saying the output is proportional to the change in heading? That means no integrators are needed where yesterday we were arguing whether it was one or two! Are you sure you haven't misread what Jim said?
> George, out of pure desperation, tried to make he fringe movement > proportional to da/dt. "fringe displacement proportional to dv/dt (=a)" please Henri. Your phrasing isn't wrong but let's not get confused over verbs and nouns again.
George
Henri Wilson - 22 Nov 2005 22:26 GMT >>>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 10:18:10 -0000, "George Dishman" >>>> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >What???? Are you now saying the output is proportional >to the change in heading? George, you are becoming progressiveley more confused. The output is proportional to rotation speed.
>That means no integrators are >needed where yesterday we were arguing whether it was >one or two! Are you sure you haven't misread what Jim >said? You have misread both Jim and me. I agree with what Jim said. The fringe displacement changes only during an acceleration period.
>> George, out of pure desperation, tried to make he fringe movement >> proportional to da/dt. > >"fringe displacement proportional to dv/dt (=a)" please >Henri. Your phrasing isn't wrong but let's not get >confused over verbs and nouns again. George, according to your diagrams, you believe fringe movement is proportional to da/dt and not a..
In other words, you believe the fringe moves back to zero every time the RATE OF acceleration decreases.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 22 Nov 2005 23:00 GMT > On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:00:01 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > I agree with what Jim said. > The fringe displacement changes only during an acceleration period. Jim said "Now the observed fringe shift will REMAIN at 2 o'clock, UNLESS a reverse rotation takes place."
If the output is proportional to rotation speed, the fringe displacement is zero for any constant heading.
>>> George, out of pure desperation, tried to make he fringe movement >>> proportional to da/dt. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > proportional > to da/dt and not a.. Which is the same as we both said above, I only changed the wording to use the term "displacement" as you suggested.
> In other words, you believe the fringe moves back to zero every time the > RATE > OF acceleration decreases. No, I am saying Ritz predicts displacement is proportional to angular acceleration which is what you said above, "fringe movement proportional to da/dt" assuming you mean 'change of displacement' when you say 'movement'.
If Jim used 'fringe displacement' it would clear up what he meant.
George
Henri Wilson - 22 Nov 2005 23:57 GMT >>>> That's exactly what I am saying, too. >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >If the output is proportional to rotation speed, the >fringe displacement is zero for any constant heading. Oh! OK. I don't agree with Jim on that one. I didn't realize that Jim's plane had experienced both a positive and a negative acceleration. The fringe shift will indeed go back to zero during no rotation periods.
>>>> George, out of pure desperation, tried to make he fringe movement >>>> proportional to da/dt. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >"fringe movement proportional to da/dt" assuming you mean >'change of displacement' when you say 'movement'. No you are confusing da/dt with dv/dt
>If Jim used 'fringe displacement' it would clear up what >he meant. No I think Jim's terminology was wrong there..
When the plane stays at 2 o'clock, the fringe displacement is zero. However the FINAL output will read a constant rotation angle, determined by electronic integration (with time) of the previous rotation speed history.
That's probably what Jim meant.
'Output' should refer to the actual angular displacement from zero, as finally indicated on some kind of dial. 'Displacement' should always be use as a noun, the passive situation. Thus 'fringe displacement' is the position of the fringes in relation to the calibrated zero. 'Fringe movement' describes how fringe displacement is in the process of changing value.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
jgreen@seol.net.au - 23 Nov 2005 05:27 GMT > > On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:00:01 -0000, "George Dishman" > > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > George Verb or noun?Displacement indicating motion, or position (stationary after motion)? There is "displacement" occurring while the airframe rotates, and the (new position) "displacement" (eg 2 o'clock). It seems that your sagnac has additional electronic gadgetry which defaults the 2 o'clock to 12 o'clock, once the new heading stabilises.
Jim G c'=c+v
Henri Wilson - 23 Nov 2005 21:49 GMT >> > On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:00:01 -0000, "George Dishman" >> > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> >> > wrote:
>> No, I am saying Ritz predicts displacement is proportional >> to angular acceleration which is what you said above, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Jim G >c'=c+v Yes Jim, we must get our definitions right or we talk at cross purposes.
I suggest we use: OUTPUT: The final reading on some kind of instrument of current rotation angle from the calibrated zero. (static or dynamic) DISPLACEMENT or SHIFT: the distance between current fringe position and the zero position. (static) FRINGE MOVEMENT: the actual transient process when fringes are changing displacement. (dynamic)
The fact is, fringes remain displaced but static during periods of constant rotation speeds. The amount of displacement is proportional to rotation speed. Movement occurs only during periods of acceleration.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
jgreen@seol.net.au - 24 Nov 2005 08:01 GMT > >> > On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:00:01 -0000, "George Dishman" > >> > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > rotation speeds. The amount of displacement is proportional to rotation speed. > Movement occurs only during periods of acceleration. Sounds overly complicated to me. The addition of the rotational velocity of an airframe to c is VERY small. The rotation of the sagnac (650rpm whatever), which is enhanced by the mirroring, magnifies this difference, resulting in a situation where the position where the beams interdict becomes discernible. Sagnac WORKS! It is the interpretation of WHY it works is the issue.
Jim G c'=c+v
> HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe > > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". Henri Wilson - 24 Nov 2005 21:19 GMT >> >> > On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:00:01 -0000, "George Dishman" >> >> > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >where the position where the beams interdict becomes discernible. >Sagnac WORKS! It is the interpretation of WHY it works is the issue. You are a bit behond us Jim. It is turning out to be a very complicated problem.
>Jim G >c'=c+v HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Androcles - 25 Nov 2005 04:04 GMT >>> >> > On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:00:01 -0000, "George Dishman" >>> >> > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:rpbco1tmnpkfvr2l6qdih790e6d6n3fqi1@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:02:54 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Light initially travels at c wrt its source. Einstein apparently knew > it.... Of course he knew it, and it travels at c-v wrt the mirror. OWLtime = x/(c-v), OWLspeed = c-v.
Then it travels back to the source.
OtherWLtime = -x/(v-c), OtherWLspeed = v+c.
TWLtime = -x/(v-c) + x/(v+c)
One way light SPEED = total distance moved / total time taken. Total distance moved is Source (A) to Mirror (B) = x Total time taken is x/(c-v).
Two Way light SPEED = total distance light moved / total time taken. Total distance moved is Source (A) to Source (A) = 0. TWLS = 0.
> but he also knew he could derive more money and fame from his 'hoax'. You are losing it, you old goat. Get a brain retread next time you have your ears lowered. t = -x/(v-c) will NEVER be equal to x/(v+c)
Androcles Sometime I'm a complete success. Wilson did NOT EVER come close to proving Einstein wrong, Wilson is a crank, a gullible sucker taken in by Einstein. TWLS <> OWLS.
Henri Wilson - 25 Nov 2005 09:41 GMT >>>> >> > On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:00:01 -0000, "George Dishman" >>>> >> > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 122 lines] >Einstein wrong, Wilson is a crank, a gullible sucker taken in by Einstein. >TWLS <> OWLS. f.cking old pisspot....
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Androcles - 25 Nov 2005 11:21 GMT >>>>> >> > On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:00:01 -0000, "George Dishman" >>>>> >> > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 137 lines] > > f.cking old pisspot.... Answer the math, drunken Wabo. Calling me names without being able to do the math is a tusselad stunt. You are a now a troll as well as a phuckwit.
Androcles.
Sometimes I'm a partial success. The least useful thing I have ever done is proven Wilson wrong. Wilson did NOT EVER come close to proving Einstein wrong, Wilson is a crank, a gullible sucker taken in by Einstein. TWLS <> OWLS.
jgreen@seol.net.au - 27 Nov 2005 08:13 GMT > >> >> > On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:00:01 -0000, "George Dishman" > >> >> > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > You are a bit behond us Jim. > It is turning out to be a very complicated problem. Is "behond" a Wilsonism, or a typo? Is it "behind" or "beyond" Get back to basics. I presume, after all the argi between you and George, that he would have sent you his sagnac animation (demo of why it works) What I could never pin down, were the FIXED; airframe, earth, or hirdygirdy. The reference point in time AND position, could not be determined, from the information (as regards the emission and receival of the light)
Jim G c'=c+v
Henri Wilson - 27 Nov 2005 20:46 GMT >> You are a bit behond us Jim. >> It is turning out to be a very complicated problem. > >Is "behond" a Wilsonism, or a typo? >Is it "behind" or "beyond" Maybe you are 'behind' in some areas and 'beyond' in others.
>Get back to basics. I presume, after all the argi between you and >George, that he would have sent you his sagnac animation (demo of why >it works) Actually I sent it to him. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac1.exe
George seems to have disappeared since I sent him my latest sagnac animation. That's not surprising. It shows clearly why the sagnac DOES NOT refute the BaTh.
>What I could never pin down, were the FIXED; airframe, earth, or >hirdygirdy. >The reference point in time AND position, could not be determined, from >the information >(as regards the emission and receival of the light) It is a very complicated problem The SR (actually LET) analysis is vastly oversimplified and wrong.
What my demo shows is that two opposite beams which leave the first 45 mirror at right angles DO NOT meet up at the same point even though the BaTh says their travel times are equal (in the opoosite directions).
>Jim G >c'=c+v HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
jgreen@seol.net.au - 27 Nov 2005 22:42 GMT > >> You are a bit behond us Jim. > >> It is turning out to be a very complicated problem. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Actually I sent it to him. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac1.exe Explorer blocks it from me (citing secrity)
> George seems to have disappeared since I sent him my latest sagnac animation. > That's not surprising. It shows clearly why the sagnac DOES NOT refute the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > at right angles DO NOT meet up at the same point even though the BaTh says > their travel times are equal (in the opoosite directions). Neither would bullets fired from identical guns. DHR's get so involed with the magic of "c", that the don't realise that they USE magic, in order to SHOW it!
Jim G c'=c+v
Eric Gisse - 27 Nov 2005 23:25 GMT > > >> You are a bit behond us Jim. > > >> It is turning out to be a very complicated problem. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Explorer blocks it from me (citing secrity) It does not surprise me that not only that you use internet explorer, but that you are unable circumvent a security warning.
[snip]
Henri Wilson - 28 Nov 2005 03:04 GMT >> >> You are a bit behond us Jim. >> >> It is turning out to be a very complicated problem. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Explorer blocks it from me (citing secrity) Just change your security settings temporarily. ..tools/internet options/advanced
>> George seems to have disappeared since I sent him my latest sagnac animation. >> That's not surprising. It shows clearly why the sagnac DOES NOT refute the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >Jim G >c'=c+v HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
donstockbauer@hotmail.com - 28 Nov 2005 03:09 GMT "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
*************************
Well, you're still young. Perhaps a stint in the Peace Corps??????
George Dishman - 28 Nov 2005 20:34 GMT >> >> You are a bit behond us Jim. >> >> It is turning out to be a very complicated problem. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Neither would bullets fired from identical guns. See Henri's analogy about the car and the duck. If you want to hit the duck, you aim ahead. The duck doesn't care about near misses and the detector isn't affected by light that doesn't hit it.
> DHR's get so involed > with the magic of "c", that the don't realise that they USE magic, in > order to SHOW it! Keep wishing Jim, Santa's coming.
George
jgreen@seol.net.au - 29 Nov 2005 02:09 GMT > >> >> You are a bit behond us Jim. > >> >> It is turning out to be a very complicated problem. [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Keep wishing Jim, Santa's coming. (sigh) He doesn't love me ;-( For years I've been asking for an explanation on HOW light from the Xmas candles strike me at the SAME speed, when I walk from one toward another. Disappointment year after year................... .............and so little to ask for................
ref sagnac: the whole shebang constitutes the equipment; airframe, opticals, and spinning turntable. It is the relationship between these and the STARTING rotation of the lot, and the observed fringe displacements, which are at issue. nb: Starting rotation being the airframe on the tarmac, sagnac spinning at an agreed rate/sec which will not alter according to the onboard clock checking rotations/sec, and the position of the fringe marked zero.
Jim G c'=c+v
George Dishman - 29 Nov 2005 13:43 GMT > > > DHR's get so involed > > > with the magic of "c", that the don't realise that they USE magic, in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > (sigh) He doesn't love me ;-( I know. In this Sagnac discussion, you can see the speed is determined without first assuming it.
> For years I've been asking for an explanation on HOW light from the > Xmas candles strike me at the SAME speed, when I walk from one toward > another. Disappointment year after year................... > .............and so little to ask for................ The trouble is that you look at the wrapping paper and don't like the pattern so you never open the box. I've tried to explain it to you a few times but you never try to understand, you just nitpick. Nobody can force understanding onto you Jim, you have to make the effort - open the present and look inside. If you want to discuss it again I'll be happy to do that but if you aren't prepared to try, there's no point.
> ref sagnac: the whole shebang constitutes the equipment; airframe, > opticals, and spinning turntable. I think perhaps you are confusing two things. Sometimes Henri and I talk about "the Sagnac experiment". In that, there is a turntable in a lab and the light source and detector are mounted on the table. Some optics allows the fringes to be seen in the lab but after they have been formed.
In the other case, we are discussing the iFOG devices you and I looked at last year. These can be mounted in vehicles or planes but there is no turntable as such. The vehicle or airframe itself plays the part of the turntable. The components are rigidly fixed to the chassis.
> It is the relationship between these > and the STARTING rotation of the lot, and the observed fringe > displacements, which are at issue. Not really, we know that the relationship is that the fringe displacement is a measure of the rotation rate, not the heading.
There is another type of device called a ring laser gyro where the fringes act more like the needle on a compass and indicate heading but we aren't discussing that type of device at all.
The question is the mechanism that produces the shift in your Ritzian model when applied to iFOGs because a straightforward analysis says the fringes should NOT be displaced when turning at constant rate and we know they are.
> nb: Starting rotation being the airframe on the tarmac, sagnac spinning > at an agreed rate/sec which will not alter according to the onboard > clock checking rotations/sec, and the position of the fringe marked > zero. No, when the aircraft is sitting on the tarmac, it is rotating once per day along with the Earth. There is no turntable in the aircraft, the device is bolted straight onto the airframe.
George
Androcles - 28 Nov 2005 00:44 GMT www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac1.exe
Your beams don't hit the centre of the mirror, Henri. :-) You told me that was a requirement, and called me a pisspot. Don't they teach square roots in Oz, Henri? Why don't your beams hit the centre of the mirror, Henri?
Actually, you are almost exactly on the money, WELL DONE! But only almost, Henri. A tiny modification, if you would, please.
Instead of allowing the red beam to continue on, reflect it back to meet the oncoming blue beam.
Right /
\\ | /wrong \\ | / \\ | / \\ | x \\ | / \\| / \|/ | /| / | / |
The overlap is the fringe shift, H. The red beam is the faster, and it is the one with the longer wavelength. It completes a greater distance in the same time, as it must (and don't argue with me when I know I'm right) Put the fourth mirror in, Gord, and we'll be pals once more. Androcles
Henri Wilson - 28 Nov 2005 08:08 GMT > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac1.exe > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >The overlap is the fringe shift, H. Well, actually the 'source' in my program is really a 45 degree mirror that splits the initial beam and causes the two to start out at exactly 90 apart. After traveling around the other three mirors, the red and blue beams unite after one passes through the 'source mirror' and the other is reflected.
>The red beam is the faster, and it is the one with the longer wavelength. It is faster ...but it takes the same time to complete the path (I agree with George on that) and I SAY its wavelength doesn't change.
>It completes a greater distance in the same time, as it must >(and don't argue with me when I know I'm right) But you are not right. George finally convinced me I was wrong about that. The travel time between each pair of mirrors is the same for both beams, even though they travel in opposite directions..
To understand why the fringes move during a rotational speed change, we have to delve right into the basics of fringe formation in interferometers....and I have come to the conclusion that that is not easy...
The SR (aether) analysis is a joke. FoGs supposed to obey SR IF the refractive index of glass is ignored.
Funny that! 1/1.35 is quite close to 1/sqrt2 !!!!!
...they are joking, surely.
>Put the fourth mirror in, Gord, and we'll be pals once more. Yes I should. The fourth mirror is a 45 half-silvered one.
..and we'll always be pals when we have to unite against the common enemy.
...even if you are a pommie pisspot...
>Androcles HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Androcles - 28 Nov 2005 09:03 GMT >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac1.exe >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > splits the initial beam and causes the two to start out at exactly 90 > apart. Yeah, you should tell the folks at http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/research/laser/index.shtml they don't know what they are doing, Wabo. Get gormless George to help, he's as f.cking stupid as you, ya dense bastard. Good graphics, pity you know f.ck-all about simulations and change the equipment physicists use, you almost had me convinced you were sane for a moment! I should have known better, of course.
> After traveling around the other three mirors, the red and blue beams > unite > after one passes through the 'source mirror' and the other is reflected. After passing around the FOUR mirrors 1,000,000 times as the turntable rotates once, one ray has completed 1,000,001 cycles and the other ray 999,999. Of course I don't expect you to simulate that, you know f.ck-all about simulation and even if you did it would only confuse the poor bloody student trying to understand Sagnac. It might be an excellent simulation if the light made 2 or 3 cycles per turntable revolution, though. Typical Wabo, shoots from the hip and hits his own foot. I'm sure the folks at Canterbury Ring will have a good laugh at your simulated http://www.claytonbailey.com/potatogun.htm compared to their http://www.bobtuley.com/images/ak47g339.gif Hitting you own foot won't hurt much with a pop gun.
>>The red beam is the faster, and it is the one with the longer wavelength. > > It is faster ...but it takes the same time to complete the path (I agree > with > George on that) and I SAY its wavelength doesn't change. Looks to me like it went past the finish line in YOUR simulation, but then, I'm not as drunk as you and George. Where did the extra length come from? Fuckin' time dilation? You can SAY what you like, it's your own simulation that proves you wrong, pisspot. Didn't they teach you v = d/t in abo school?
>>It completes a greater distance in the same time, as it must >>(and don't argue with me when I know I'm right) > > But you are not right. Goodbye, lower than a phuckwit. Androcles. "Wino Wabo Wilson is a complete failure. Sometimes I'm a partial success. The least useful thing I have ever done is proven Wino Wabo Wilson Wrong. Wino Wabo Wilson did NOT EVER come close to proving Einstein wrong. Wino Wabo Wilson is a crank, a gullible sucker taken in by Einstein and phuckwit Dishman. TWLS <> OWLS. Wino Wabo Wilson doesn't even believe his own simulation."
Henri Wilson - 28 Nov 2005 21:38 GMT >> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:44:34 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep>
>Wino Wabo Wilson doesn't even believe his own simulation." A, George and I are considering a four mirror sagnac interferometer. As a man of your experience and knowledge of physics would know, one mirror is half-silvered and tilted at 45 degrees. Light goes around the circuit only once. The observer focuses an eyepiece on the 45 mirror where fringes are formed.
O | /---<->--/--S
| | | | | | | | \---<->--/
We are discussing whether or not the BaTh predicts that fringes will be displaced sideways by different amounts when the apparatus is rotating at different speeds.
George has pointed out that, according to the BaTh, the travel times around the loop in both directions is independent of rotation speed. To the first order level, I agree, even though the path lengths differ during rotation.
The travel time between the source and first mirror is given by distance/light speed. That turns out to be D/c for small rotation speeds. (light from the source moves at c+(v/sqrt2) towards the first mirror and the distance increases by the same proportional amount.) If it is assumed that light is reflected from the other mirrors at the incident speed relative to the mirror, then the travel times around the loop in both directions turns out to be constant.
George has argued that the fringe pattern should therefore not be affected by changes in speed. He had me worried for a while until I found that the two opposing beams DO NOT meet at the same point on the 45 mirror on the return leg. They have been displaced sideways wrt each other.
My next task is to explain to George why fringes are formed at all. Then I have to explain to him that if one beam is moved sideways, the phasing of the two meeting beams will be altered and the fringe pattern will also move sideways by a similar amount. We are really only interested in the phasing at each point across the 45 mirror.
Light rays that start out 90 deg apart DO NOT reunite at the same point.
George, who like you has superior knowledge of physics and optics, will immediately realize that I am correct and that the BaTh is NOT refuted by Sagnac. In fact the effect has nothing whatsoever to do with relativity or aether theories either.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Androcles - 29 Nov 2005 02:10 GMT >>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:44:34 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > mirror is > half-silvered and tilted at 45 degrees. Baloney. "The familiar mechanical gyroscope with its rotating wheels is now seeing competition from the laser gyroscope, another application of the versatile laser. In the laser gyroscope, the two counterrotating laser beams travel around a closed circuit or ring, which is usually rectangular or triangular. Such a laser gyro is referred to commonly as a ring laser gyroscope." http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1985/may-jun/shaw1.jpg> Light goes around the circuit only> once.You are writing a teaching aid, not designing the real thing. <shrug>> The observer focuses an eyepiece on the 45 mirrorThese mirrors are not 45 degrees, there is no human observer. http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1985/may-jun/shaw1.jpg However, that is not a good teaching aid, so continue wth 45 degrees where fringes are> formed.>> O> |> /---<->--/--S> | |> | |> | |> | |> \---<->--/>> We are discussing whether or not the BaTh predicts that fringes will be> displaced sideways by different amounts when the apparatus is rotating at> different speeds.Plant a camera in a racing car, the world goes by the car. That's simplePoR.Same applies to Sagnac. Put the camera on the turntable, the observer goesby.Ever seen the sun cross the sky? You are standing on an 8,000 mile diameterturntable. Get used to the PoR, it's where modern science began.Put a fibre optic ring around the equator and watch from the sun.Or put your four mirrors in geosynchronous orbit. That's Sagnac.Your job is to explain to students the PoR, they don't understand it,using Sagnac, which proves Einstein was wrong.f.ck George, he's a idiot. Explain to intelligent students, not morons.> George has pointed out that, according to the BaTh, the travel timesaround> the loop in both directions is independent of rotation speed. To the first> order level, I agree, even though the path lengths differ during rotation.>> The travel time between the source and first mirror is given bydistance/light> speed. That turns out to be D/c for small rotation speeds. (light from the> source moves at c+(v/sqrt2) towards the first mirror and the distanceincreases> by the same proportional amount.)Get used to the PoR. The light travels around the fibre optic ring at c onEarth, at c+/-v as seen from the sun.The Moon orbits the Earth, as seen from the Earth, with a constantspeed (or almost, if were a circular orbit), and with a varying speedas seen from the Sun or from Mars.Get use to the PoR, Sagnac depends on it. It is not an approximationto the first order for small quantities as Einstein claims, it is EXACTa Sagnac proves. The velocity of light in empty space, c, is the approximation for small v.Get used to the PoR. George does not understand the PoR, he's toostupid and has been indoctrinated. If you want to teach him, show him,don't argue with him, and DON'T argue with me.> If it is assumed that light is reflected from the other mirrors at theincident> speed relative to the mirror, then the travel times around the loop inboth> directions turns out to be constant.Don't make assumptions. You'll not convince anyone with assumptions,the PoR is an axiom. You have the ability with your program to spinthe world around the turntable, and an excellent example ishttp://www.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection1.htmlwhere you can turn the geo frame on and off.Turn OFF "Show traces", "Connection" and "Reverse", turn ON"Geo frame", slow the animation down as far as it will go.Watch the point of closest approach the satellite makes with the Moon.You'll see it precesses. Butikov didn't contrive that, it is what theprogram predicts. That is why the orbit of Mercury precesses,and Einstein thought he had some great achievement with GR.He didn't.It is also an example of how to program correctly without putting yourown assumptions in and why I'd rate Butikov as excellent, your programsneed work. They are useless if you have built in assumptions.Get used to the PoR.Einstein has f.cked up physics by teaching his garbage to the West,the Russians and Asians are going to piss all over the West, theywere cut off from the idiot Einstein by the cold war and by their ownlagging technology.f.cking Nobel Prizes go to Princeton, not Moscow. Hulse and Taylorwrote a load of sh.t, YOUR discovery of apparent time stretching was right on the money. You beat me to it, pity you didn't Sekerin,but that's life.>> George has argued that the fringe pattern should therefore not be affectedby> changes in speed. He had me worried for a while until I found that the two> opposing beams DO NOT meet at the same point on the 45 mirror on thereturn> leg. They have been displaced sideways wrt each other.Well done. It is not the centre of the mirror. Tell George to take a hike,he's confused and he's an idiot. As long as you program what happensand not what you think should happen you'll be fine.>> My next task is to explain to George why fringes are formed at all.Forget George. Finish the program then stuff it to him.I've emailed fringe shift to you.> Then I have> to explain to him that if one beam is moved sideways, the phasing of thetwo> meeting beams will be altered and the fringe pattern will also movesideways by> a similar amount. We are really only interested in the phasing at eachpoint> across the 45 mirror.>> Light rays that start out 90 deg apart DO NOT reunite at the same point.>> George, who like you has superior knowledge of physics and optics, will> immediately realize that I am correct and that the BaTh is NOT refuted by> Sagnac.George needs to learn the PoR.> In fact the effect has nothing whatsoever to do with relativity or aether> theories either.Yes it does, it is based on the PoR. Galileo and Copernicus knew what they were doing, so do you.A big city lawyer went duck hunting in rural Texas.He shot and dropped a bird, but it fell into a farmer's field on theother side of a fence.As the lawyer climbed over the fence, an elderly farmer drove upon his tractor and asked him what he was doing.The litigator responded, "I shot a duck and it fell in this field, and nowI'm going to retrieve it."The old farmer replied, "This is my property, and you are not coming overhere."The indignant lawyer said, "I am one of the best trial attorneys in theUnited States and, if you don't let me get that duck,I'll sue you and take everything you own.The old farmer smiled and said," Apparently, you don't know how wesettle disputes in Texas.We settle small disagreements like this with the "Three Kick Rule."The lawyer asked, "What is the Three Kick Rule?"The Farmer replied, "Well, because the dispute occurs on my land,first I kick you three times and then you kick me three times and so onback and forth until someone gives up."The attorney quickly thought about the proposed contest and decided thathe could easily take the old codger. He agreed to abide by the local custom.The old farmer slowly climbed down from the tractor and walked up tothe attorney.His first kick planted the toe of his heavy steel toed work boot into thelawyer's groin and dropped him to his knees.His second kick to the midriff sent the lawyer's last meal gushing fromhis mouth. The lawyer was on all fours when the farmer's third kick to hisrear end sent him face first into a fresh cow pie.The lawyer summoned every bit of his will and managed to get to his feet.Wiping his face with the arm of his jacket, he said, "Okay, Now it's myturn." The old farmer smiled and said,"Naw, I give up. You can have the duck."Androcles.
George Dishman - 28 Nov 2005 20:41 GMT > FoGs supposed to obey SR IF the refractive index of glass is ignored. > > Funny that! 1/1.35 is quite close to 1/sqrt2 !!!!! > > ...they are joking, surely. You misunderstand Henri, it's a fairly minor point. What you might expect is that, if you designed your setup to give a 1 volt output for 1 radian/second with a light path in vacuum, you might then get 1.35 volt at that speed if you use glass in the path. It turns out the refractive index cancels out which is a little surprising but if you do the math, that's what it tells you.
The fundamental difference is that Ritz says you get an output ("fringe displacement") proportional to acceleration while SR says it is proportional to speed and the latter is what happens in real life.
George
George Dishman - 28 Nov 2005 20:31 GMT >>> You are a bit behond us Jim. >>> It is turning out to be a very complicated problem. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > That's not surprising. It shows clearly why the sagnac DOES NOT refute the > BaTh. Nah, holiday party season has started :-) This is my first night in since Wednesday.
>>What I could never pin down, were the FIXED; airframe, earth, or >>hirdygirdy. Jim, I gave you links to a photo of the board in one of the KVH devices a year or so ago. It's since gone obsolete and I can't see an equivalent now but the construction is very simple. The light source and the detector are a single silicon device and it is connected to the end of a coil of optical fibre. Imagine taking a light bulb (laser diode actually) and gluing a photo sensor on one side and both ends of a loop of fishing line on the other. Half the light goes into each end of the line and comes out the other, travels across the bulb and hits the sensor. Now roll up the loop of line, put the whole lot in a box and it looks like this
http://www.kvh.com/pdf/DSP-4000_6.04.pdf
The diagram on page two shows the parts in more detail:
http://www.kvh.com/pdf/ECoreTech.pdf
The "hirdygirdy" or "carousel" is the airframe, the box is bolted to it and the light source, fibre and sensor are all fixed inside the box so it has "no moving parts" in the conventional sense.
George
George Dishman - 28 Nov 2005 20:16 GMT >> >> > On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:00:01 -0000, "George Dishman" >> >> > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Sounds overly complicated to me. It came from a post where Henri used "fringe shift" to mean the static displacement at the beginning of a sentence and later meant shift as in movement of the fringes. It took a few days to sort out the confusion and using "fringe displacement" avoids the ambiguity.
> The addition of the rotational velocity of an airframe to c is VERY > small. The rotation of the sagnac (650rpm whatever), which is enhanced > by the mirroring, magnifies this difference, resulting in a situation > where the position where the beams interdict becomes discernible. > Sagnac WORKS! The output you get from iFOG devices is also well documented, they give a signal that tells you the rate of turn, not the present heading. You need an extra bit if electronics called an integrator to figure out the heading.
> It is the interpretation of WHY it works is the issue. Exactly, but you need to understand WHAT it does before you can argue about WHY it does it. That's where you have a little catching up to do.
George
George Dishman - 22 Nov 2005 20:41 GMT >> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 10:18:10 -0000, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > rotational accelleration) which caused the alteration to the shift > position. Jim, it's clear you didn't try to work out what would happen from the structure of the equipment. Interferometric devices have no means of storing the location in this way. In fact your description is quite a good match for a ring laser gyro where the standing wave essentially stays at a fixed orientation and fringes could be counted to indicate the change of direction, but there is no similar wave in the iFOG design.
In your example, from North to North-east is a change of 45 degrees. Suppose that happens smoothly over a period of 10 seconds.
What actually happens is that while the plane is flying constantly north, there is no signal on the primary output which is the rate of turn. When the plane starts changing direction, the output would go to a voltage that indicates 4.5 degrees per second. Once the plane is moving North-east and is heading in a straight line, the output goes back to zero. That is, the output is proportional to the rate of change of heading. To get the bearing, you put that signal through something called an integrator.
> I predict that, in ACCORDANCE with c'=c+v, while the plane > maintains the NE heading, there will be no FURTHER shift > (2 o'clock maintained) Your prediction is not only wrong, it is obviously impossible to even derive that prediction from the equipment design, you are obviously just guessing.
The prediction from SR for constant rate of turn based on the known structure of the device matches what actually happens.
The discussion between Henri and I is as follows:
I said that the prediction based on Ritz's model (what you call "c'=c+v") for a constant rate of turn is no output. Henri was arguing for that it predicts an output proportional to speed, the same as SR.
Lately Henri has prompted discussion of the effect of _varying_ rate of turn. Having looked at that, I agree with the diagram he drew which showed no output for constant rate of turn but an output proportional to the rate at which it varied, the angular acceleration.
Henri is interpreting the same diagram differently, saying that it again suggests an output proportional to speed (rate of turn).
The reason we differ is because the diagram doesn't have a way of showing the speed of the light, it only shows the path lengths. This is his diagram:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg
George
George Dishman - 22 Nov 2005 09:51 GMT > On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 10:18:10 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > I'm using 'output' to mean 'fringe displacement' from the central > (non-rotating) position. Maybe you are using it as rotation angle. Well strictly it would be the voltage out of the equipment but that is derived from the photodiode and that is really the same as fringe displacement.
> In either case, I think I disagree with you. Possibly, but below you say "Yes, I suppose that its right. It is proportional to the path length difference." and later "yes, something like that." so I don't see how you disagree. This next paragraph appears to be in conflict with those later agreements.
You need to clarify this for me because if "the fringe displacement is a t^2 / 2 as you show in your diagram." then the fringes are _displaced_ while a is non-zero, i.e. "during acceleration periods" rather than moving.
George
> Fringes move only during acceleration periods. > If a +ve acceleration is followed by an identical -ve one, the rotation [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > yes, something like that. Henri Wilson - 22 Nov 2005 20:24 GMT >> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 10:18:10 -0000, "George Dishman"
>>>>> L' = L + v * t / sqrt(2) >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 135 lines] >> difference >> of the two beams.. Well, George, it certainly isn't obvious that the fringe displacement is at^2/2. In fact it probably is NOT. You can forget the '/2' anyway because the effect is doubled.
>>>>>Actually I think your diagram is oversimplified but >>>>>we can go with it for the moment, it is close enough. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> >> yes, something like that. 'a' IS the acceleration during flight time. Where is the problem?
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Sue... - 22 Nov 2005 20:34 GMT > >> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 10:18:10 -0000, "George Dishman" > [quoted text clipped - 170 lines] > > 'a' IS the acceleration during flight time. Where is the problem? << Well, that was where the mistake was, there was no field. It was just that when you shook one charge, another would shake later. There was a direct interaction between charges, albeit with a delay. The law of force connecting the motion of one charge with another would just involve a delay. Shake this one, that one shakes later. The sun atom shakes; my eye electron shakes eight minutes later, because of a direct interaction across.
Now, this has the attractive feature that it solves both problems at once. >> --Richard P. Feynman - Nobel Lecture Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1965 http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html
> HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe > > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". Henri Wilson - 22 Nov 2005 22:27 GMT >> >> yes, something like that. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1965 >http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html We're talking about sagnac.
get off the hard stuff.....
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 22 Nov 2005 21:00 GMT > On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 09:51:18 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 145 lines] > Well, George, it certainly isn't obvious that the fringe displacement is > at^2/2. Then why say "Yes, I suppose that its right." when I said " the fringe displacement is a t^2 / 2 ..." and why are you now disputing what your own sketch shows?
> In fact it probably is NOT. You can forget the '/2' anyway because the > effect is doubled. Sure, a fixed factor of 2 isn't important when we are both using the term "proportional to". I was just trying to keep faithful to the text on your diagram so you could see where I got it from.
In fact it is slightly more complex because the speed change that cancels the "vt" term also divides the "at^2" part but again it's a small factor of the order of 1/(1+L*sqrt(1/2)/vt), but this is really unnecessary nitpicking.
>>>>>>Actually I think your diagram is oversimplified but >>>>>>we can go with it for the moment, it is close enough. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > 'a' IS the acceleration during flight time. Where is the problem? No problem at all, I agree, that would be the output from the device if Ritz were correct, hence Ritz is falsified.
Henri, I really think you need to get clear in your mind how you think your diagram gives something other than acceleration as the cause of fringe displacement.
George
Henri Wilson - 22 Nov 2005 22:42 GMT >> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 09:51:18 -0000, "George Dishman"
>>>> Fringes move only during acceleration periods. >>>> If a +ve acceleration is followed by an identical -ve one, the rotation [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >and why are you now disputing what your own sketch >shows? I'm wasn't saying it was wrong. I was just pointing out that it was not OBVIOUS. Anyway it IS wrong. Look at the diagram again. The path length change is AE-AD which, for small angles is at^2/(2root2)
>> In fact it probably is NOT. You can forget the '/2' anyway because the >> effect is doubled. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >factor of the order of 1/(1+L*sqrt(1/2)/vt), but >this is really unnecessary nitpicking. Anyway, you left out the 1/root2.
>>>>>>>Actually I think your diagram is oversimplified but >>>>>>>we can go with it for the moment, it is close enough. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >other than acceleration as the cause of fringe >displacement. What are you talking about? Read what Jim Greenfielfd said.
The fringe displacement only changes during an acceleration. If acceleration varies with time, the fringe movement automatically integrates that. It fringes stay where they are when the acceleration ceases.
That means the output is constant during constant rotation and is determined by that rotation speed.
Your logic has gone astray George.... maybe you are working too hard.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 22 Nov 2005 23:12 GMT > On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:00:21 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > I'm wasn't saying it was wrong. I was just pointing out that it was not > OBVIOUS. OK.
> Anyway it IS wrong. Look at the diagram again. > The path length change is AE-AD which, for small angles is at^2/(2root2) OK. That is still proportional to the acceleration.
dL = k * a where k = t^2 / (2 * root(2))
>>> In fact it probably is NOT. You can forget the '/2' anyway because the >>> effect is doubled. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Anyway, you left out the 1/root2. I quoted your diagram, either way it remains proportional which is what matters, when a=0 the term is zero regardless of the sqrt(2).
>>>>>>>>Actually I think your diagram is oversimplified but >>>>>>>>we can go with it for the moment, it is close enough. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > What are you talking about? Your diagram shows that, if a=0, the path length is only changed by the vt term. That is what I am saying
> Read what Jim Greenfielfd said. I read him as saying the fringes stay displaced when moving on a constant heading of north-east which doesn't match either of our views.
> The fringe displacement only changes during an acceleration. The fringe displacement is determined by the path length difference. Your diagram shows that termm as 1/2at^2 so if a=0 then path length difference=0 therefore fringe displacement is zero.
> If acceleration > varies with time, the fringe movement automatically integrates that. There is no integrator.
> It fringes stay where they are when the acceleration ceases. Not according to your diagram.
> That means the output is constant during constant rotation and is > determined by > that rotation speed. > > Your logic has gone astray George.... maybe you are working too hard. There is no logic involved at all Henri, I am just quoting your own page back at you. If you don't like it, redraw it.
George
Henri Wilson - 23 Nov 2005 00:07 GMT >> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:00:21 -0000, "George Dishman"
>>>> Well, George, it certainly isn't obvious that the fringe displacement is >>>> at^2/2. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >proportional which is what matters, when a=0 the >term is zero regardless of the sqrt(2). OK
>>>>>>>>>Actually I think your diagram is oversimplified but >>>>>>>>>we can go with it for the moment, it is close enough. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >Your diagram shows that, if a=0, the path length is >only changed by the vt term. That is what I am saying OK
>> Read what Jim Greenfielfd said. > >I read him as saying the fringes stay displaced when >moving on a constant heading of north-east which doesn't >match either of our views. Yes I accept he was wrong for the reasons stated in the other message.
>> The fringe displacement only changes during an acceleration. > >The fringe displacement is determined by the path length >difference. Your diagram shows that termm as 1/2at^2 so >if a=0 then path length difference=0 therefore fringe >displacement is zero. yes. If v =0 then displacement is zero. (But the electronically integrated output is not. It shows angle turned)..
>> If acceleration >> varies with time, the fringe movement automatically integrates that. > >There is no integrator. Path length is the integrated result.
>> The fringes stay where they are when the acceleration ceases. > >Not according to your diagram. You are confusing 'acceleration ceases' with 'rotation ceases'.
When acceleration ceases, v is larger than it was and vt is therefore longer than it was.
>> That means the output is constant during constant rotation and is >> determined by [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >quoting your own page back at you. If you don't like >it, redraw it. Maybe we should start all over again.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 28 Nov 2005 20:07 GMT > On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 23:12:16 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 106 lines] > > yes. If v =0 then displacement is zero. I said no displacement when a=0, not when v=0. You said "OK" to the reason behind this above but this is just for the record, I'll come back to this later as it needs a clean start as you say at the bottom.
> (But the electronically integrated output is not. It shows angle turned).. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You are confusing 'acceleration ceases' with 'rotation ceases'. No confusion, I have just reached a different conclusion from you. All the details are below.
> When acceleration ceases, v is larger than it was and vt is therefore > longer > than it was. I know but since v is larger, the fact the path length is longer need not mean that the time of flight is greater. In fact it remains the same.
>>> That means the output is constant during constant rotation and is >>> determined by [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Maybe we should start all over again. I'll see if I can start from the beginning then, maybe some aspect is slipping past without you noticing. I am still just trying to get you to see the consequences of your own drawing though, I'm not introducing anything new.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg
Path length at rest is distance L from point A to point C in time t. The light moves at speed c so
t = L/c.
When the table is rotating at constant speed, light is emitted at point A but the table moves a distance vt from point C to point D while the light is in transit. I'll add a single quote to indicate the values for this case where they differ from the static situation.
The speed of the light in the direction you have shown has been increased by Ritz to
c' = c + v/sqrt(2)
where v is the tangential speed of the source. The path length increases to
L' = L + vt'/sqrt(2)
and of course
t' = L'/c'
Remember we are interested in the difference between the two paths and the other has been shortened but the light slowed. The results are symmetrical so I'll only do the maths for one. (Just use -v instead of v for the other.)
To save typing, note that v appears with sqrt(2) in both so let
V = v/sqrt(2)
so:
c' = c + V
L' = L + Vt'
Solve for t':
t' = L'/c'
c't' = L'
Substituting c' and L' we get:
(c + V)t' = (L + Vt')
ct' + Vt' = L + Vt'
ct' = L
t' = L/c
t' = t
So constant speed rotation produces no change to the time taken for the light to travel the increased path length, the increased speed compensates. That means no fringe displacement because the displacement is determined by the time difference between the forward and backward paths. They are both equal (at t) when the table is stationary so the are still equal when it is rotating at constant speed.
Notice also that the sqrt(2) factor affects both the path length and the boost in speed through the geometry so a different number of mirrors would give a different factor but it would still cancel out.
Now consider the case with acceleration. Definitions are critical here because v is now a function of time, it is increasing linearly. I'll add double quotes for this case.
At some instant, a wavefront is emitted from the source. At that time, the tangential speed of the source is v. The trick here is that the light keeps the same speed once it is emitted while the table is accelerating hence as before
c" = c + V
so
c" = c'
When the light is in transit for time t", the table speeds up by a factor of
dv = a t"
The average increase during t" is half that so the distance by which the table moves more than the constant speed case is
dL = (a t" / 2) t"
The path length shown on the diagram is given by
L" = L + Vt" + a t"^2 / 2
Obviously
t" = L"/c"
t" = (L' + dL) / c'
t" = L'/c' + dL/c'
t" = t + dt
where
dt = (a t"^2 / 2) / c'
That is what you should expect when you realise that, if a=0, we are back to the previous situation and the Ritzian change to the speed of the light cancels the effect of the Vt" term as it did before.
For the other path however, the acceleration _decreases_ the path length so this time we do not get cancellation and there is going to be a fringe displacement that depends on the acceleration. The displacement as a fraction of a fringe is the ratio of the time difference to the period. If the frequency of the source light is F then the period is P = 1/F and the displacement is given by
D = 2 dt / P
D = 2 F dt
D = [2 F t"^2 / c'] a
For v << c, dt << t so the result is proportional to the acceleration.
For this speed profile:
_________ / \ / \ ^ __________/ \_________ | speed | __________________________________
------> time
Ritz predicts this fringe displacement:
__ +ve | | ^ | | | displacement | | | 0 _______| |_______ ________ | | ------> | | time | | -ve |__|
George
Henri Wilson - 28 Nov 2005 23:15 GMT >> Yes I accept he was wrong for the reasons stated in the other message. >> [quoted text clipped - 133 lines] >so a different number of mirrors would give a different >factor but it would still cancel out. Yes I have now done these calculations myself and I think you are right, if we ignore second order effects and make certain assumptions about the way light reflects from each mirror.
>Now consider the case with acceleration. Definitions >are critical here because v is now a function of time, [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > L" = L + Vt" + a t"^2 / 2 (How about L" = L + Vt" + A t"^2 / 2, where A=a/sqrt2)
>Obviously > > t" = L"/c" (To first order only. L is not constant... but the 2nd order effect is very small.)
> t" = (L' + dL) / c' > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Ritzian change to the speed of the light cancels the >effect of the Vt" term as it did before. OK so far. (apart from the a/sqrt2)
>For the other path however, the acceleration _decreases_ >the path length so this time we do not get cancellation >and there is going to be a fringe displacement that >depends on the acceleration. I don't think that is right George. The V terms still cancel but the A terms for both directions still add...so we get double the effect.
Maybe I'm missing something here.
>The displacement as a >fraction of a fringe is the ratio of the time difference [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > >George That's all very well George. ..but quite irrelevant in light of my latest findings.
We have to go right back to basics about why fringes are formed at all.
You know how to make 'line fringes' rather than circular ones using an 'optical wedge'.. ..so let's use line fringes.
If the beams are perfectly parallel and coherent, they will alternatively reinforce or destructively interfere when they unite at the final surface and lines will appear.
Now, what I have shown with my demo: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac1.exe is that rays that start out at exactly 90 apart, do not reunite at the same point on the final mirror surface. Yet the fringe pattern is caused by rays that DO unite at the same points.
So what is actually happening is that rays that DO reunite at the same point are NOT those which started out exactly 90degrees apart. The source beam is of course not perfectly parallel and has rays going in all possible diagonal directions within its confines.
So we have to calculate the difference in travel times of these very slightly diagonal rays that DO meet. This is NOT the same as simply moving one beam sideways at exactly the same angle. We can then see how a relative sideways displacement will in fact result in a velocity dependent fringe displacement.
What I am saying is pretty complicated and difficult to analyse.
I hope I have described it adequately
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 29 Nov 2005 21:46 GMT > On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 20:07:21 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: ...
>>> Maybe we should start all over again. >> [quoted text clipped - 120 lines] > > (How about L" = L + Vt" + A t"^2 / 2, where A=a/sqrt2) Yes, you are correct. It reduces the amplitude of the signal you would get according to Ritz but doesn't change the logic, the predicted result is still proportional to acceleration, not speed.
>>Obviously >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > very > small.) No, it is exact. L" and c" are specific values for any particular wavefront so the time taken is the distance divided by the speed.
The values of L" and c" for the the next wavefront will both be greater but these equations hold for each individually. It is not until later that it is shown that t" = t and then we can conclude that t" is the same for all wavefronts. At this stage it might have a different value in each case.
>> t" = (L' + dL) / c' >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > OK so far. (apart from the a/sqrt2) Excellent, we agree entirely.
>>For the other path however, the acceleration _decreases_ >>the path length so this time we do not get cancellation [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Maybe I'm missing something here. You misread me somehow, what I said was the same, there IS going to be a fringe displacement. Maybe I wasn't clear enough but we are in complete agreement.
>>The displacement as a >>fraction of a fringe is the ratio of the time difference [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > That's all very well George. ..but quite irrelevant in light of my latest > findings. Perhaps, but it's taken months to get to the point where we agree it so I want to make sure it is noted. I don't want to have to come back and do this all again next year.
Having arrived at the point where we share a view on the path length analysis, I'm happy to move on to look at the next point you raise.
> We have to go right back to basics about why fringes are formed at all. > > You know how to make 'line fringes' rather than circular ones using an > 'optical > wedge'.. ..so let's use line fringes. They aren't really the same Henri, lines are produced by a lateral displacement for sources at equal path length whereas in the Sagnac the circular fringes are produced by sources in line at different distances from the screen.
> If the beams are perfectly parallel and coherent, they will alternatively > reinforce or destructively interfere when they unite at the final surface > and > lines will appear. For line fringes, if they are perfectly parallel, you get no fringes, the signals maintain constant phase across the screen. I think it would be better to stick with the actual Sagnac configuration where you do get fringes if the beams are parallel but from different distances. I'll maybe sketch that if I get some time later in the week.
> Now, what I have shown with my demo: > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac1.exe [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > slightly > diagonal rays that DO meet. Yes, again I agree that. In fact that was the important point I was making at the beginning of the month:
>>In Ritzian theory, the light is emitted at some speed greater >>than c from the source. The speed can be found by taking the >>magnitude of the vector sum of the mirror velocity and a >>vector of magnitude c whose direction is such that the light >>eventually reaches the detector. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> This is NOT the same as simply moving one beam > sideways at exactly the same angle. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I hope I have described it adequately You have described it very well indeed.
There are two aspects, the first, the effect of the slight offset itself, is already handled by your diagram but I've marked up a copy to make it more obvious:
http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/sagnac.gif
When the table is turning at constant speed, it is light emitted in the A-D direction that hits the detector at D instead of light emitted in the A-C direction when the table is stationary. The consequence is the vt term which we have agreed above is cancelled by the effect of the boost in speed from c to c'.
The other aspect is a possible change in the angle between the beams. To sort that out, start by thinking about the car, the duck and the goose:
> .. I like your > analogy for the four mirror case so let's look in a [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > simultaneously and the lead bullets just skim the > surface of the paper leaving a drawn line. When nothing is moving, the guns shoot at 45 degrees to a radial line from the centre.
When all are moving anti-clockwise as shown, the leading gun must aim ahead of the duck so shoots at less than 45 degrees (shown as "44") while the other gun must shoot at more than 45 degrees, shown as 46.
The key here is that the angle between the guns remains 90 degrees because one increases while the other decreases.
Now look at your animation
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac1.exe
When it finishes, the enlargement shows that both beams must move slightly anti-clockwise, and by the same amount, to hit the detector. That means that angle between them will stay the same.
Once re-combined by the beam splitter, if they started parallel when the table isn't turning then they remain parallel when it is. The fringes must be purely a result of the changed path lengths and Ritz cannot explain that.
Remember also that in the iFOG case, we are measuring the actual time delay of the modulating waveform on the signal. There is no fringe pattern produced, the sensor only ever measures the intensity at the centre.
George
Henri Wilson - 30 Nov 2005 09:09 GMT >> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 20:07:21 -0000, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 231 lines] >I don't want to have to come back and do this all >again next year. I will have a good look at this before I agree 100%.
There seems to be something logically wrong here.
>Having arrived at the point where we share a view on >the path length analysis, I'm happy to move on to look [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >produced by sources in line at different distances >from the screen. I have never seen the fringes in a sagnac interferometer. are you certain that circular fringes are used. It doesn't matter all that much because whatever method is used to measure fringe displacement will focus on a fairly straight section anyway.
>> If the beams are perfectly parallel and coherent, they will alternatively >> reinforce or destructively interfere when they unite at the final surface [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >get no fringes, the signals maintain constant phase >across the screen. That's right. That's why in the MMX, one mirror can be slightly tilted to make an optical wedge. In that case, the beams meet with sinusoidally varying phase differences across the final screen.
Frankly, I'm not quite sure how circular fringes are formed in either interferometer. If the beams were both perfectly parallel and coherent, there should be no phase difference at any point across the whole viewing area. I suppose if one considers that the two uniting wavefronts are spherical rather than flat, one gets a type 'Newton's rings' pattern...but why aren't the wavefronts flat?
>I think it would be better to stick >with the actual Sagnac configuration where you do get >fringes if the beams are parallel but from different >distances. I'll maybe sketch that if I get some time >later in the week. If you are going to use spherical wavefronts with different diameters, I already don't like it. I was under the impression that the two sagnac paths were equal.
>> Now, what I have shown with my demo: >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac1.exe [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >above is cancelled by the effect of the boost in >speed from c to c'. It is for path from the source to the first mirror anyway. I'm not completely convinced about what happens to the subsequent sections.
>The other aspect is a possible change in the angle >between the beams. To sort that out, start by [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >remains 90 degrees because one increases while the >other decreases. There is a bit of a trap here. You have to consider the velocity of the gun as the bullet is fired. The two angles are not quite symetrical about 45 deg.
In my diagram, I have represented those components by F-D and G-E. If you draw them on your diagram in the two directions, you will see what I mean.
So the angle does not remain at exactly 90.
>Now look at your animation > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >George George, I'll try to draw what I'm trying to say. Use fixed pitch fonts.
Consider two beams meeting each other as in a sagnac. They alternatively reinforce and destruct across the screen where they meet. The +'s mark the points where the beams reinforce and bright fringes appear. (It could be a section of a circular fringe pattern)
+ + + + + | | | | | -> | | | | | _____|_|_|_|_| _____|_|_|_|/| _____|_|_|_/|| _____|_|_|/||| _____|_|_/||||^ _____|_|/|||||| _____|_/|||||| _____|/||||||| ||||||||| |||||||||
Q1) Why do fringes form at all? Q2) If one beam is moved sideways by half a fringe, what happens to the fringe pattern? Q3) If the two beams reunite at not quite 90 degrees and their path lengths are slightly different, what happens to the fringe pattern. Q4) What other alternatives are there?
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 30 Nov 2005 20:08 GMT > On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:46:57 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 188 lines] >>I wasn't clear enough but we are in complete >>agreement. <snip my bit on "fringe displacement">
>>>>For this speed profile: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>>> ------> >>>> time Ritz predicts this time difference between the beams:
>>>> __ >>>> +ve | | ^ [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I will have a good look at this before I agree 100%. OK, I had gone a little farther than the numbers above warranted. I have deleted the translation to fringe displacement since that depends on understanding the interference aspects which we are still discussing below. The difference between the time taken to travel from source to detector over the two paths is what is given by the equations above so you should find that easier to agree, the derivation is all there.
> There seems to be something logically wrong here. Intuitively, think of grandpa and the kids on the carousel. If they run round it at equal speed relative to the surface, they will get back to him at the same time regardless of the speed of rotation.
If you want to analyse the accelerated case, put the kids on roller skates and have grandma on the ground give the carousel an extra push after the kids are on their way. The skates mean their speed relative to the ground doesn't change once they have started, but grandpa's speed changes so he meets one child before the other.
>>When the table is turning at constant speed, it is >>light emitted in the A-D direction that hits the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > completely > convinced about what happens to the subsequent sections. Point A can be the source and C/D can be the first mirror, or A can be the first mirror and C/D the second and so on, the analysis applies to each leg. Obviously the total times are just multiplied by four.
I'll stop there in this reply and see if we can agree up to here. I have some stuff on interferometers that I'll post later tonight, time permitting. I'm out every night from tomorrow to Saturday so might not get a chance to reply again until Sunday.
George
Henri Wilson - 30 Nov 2005 20:37 GMT >> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:46:57 -0000, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk>
>>>> Maybe I'm missing something here. >>> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >given by the equations above so you should find that >easier to agree, the derivation is all there. I'm not certain about what happens at each reflection.
>> There seems to be something logically wrong here. > >Intuitively, think of grandpa and the kids on the >carousel. If they run round it at equal speed relative >to the surface, they will get back to him at the same >time regardless of the speed of rotation. Ah! But there is a difference.
Let's say the kids run around at the same speed as the carousel. One kid remains in the one spot. He feels no centrifugal force. The other has four times the C.F.
Have you considered that light might experience something similar? In which case, the two beams will experience some kind of effect that is related to ABSOLUTE rotation.
>If you want to analyse the accelerated case, put the >kids on roller skates and have grandma on the ground [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >grandpa's speed changes so he meets one child before >the other. Yes. OK.
>>>When the table is turning at constant speed, it is >>>light emitted in the A-D direction that hits the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >second and so on, the analysis applies to each leg. >Obviously the total times are just multiplied by four. What happens at each reflection is far from obvious George. ..but for the moment I will agree with you..
>I'll stop there in this reply and see if we can agree >up to here. I have some stuff on interferometers that >I'll post later tonight, time permitting. I'm out >every night from tomorrow to Saturday so might not get >a chance to reply again until Sunday. We have a lot to think about. The 'centrifugal force' idea for a start.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 30 Nov 2005 22:34 GMT > On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:08:22 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > I'm not certain about what happens at each reflection. Obviously that depends on your understanding of Ritzian theory. I can se two possibilities, one being that the speed of the reflected light is the same as that of the incident light and the other being that it is absorbed and re-emitted at c relative to the mirror. Luckily in our case, both interpretations give the same result because the relative speed of the incident light is c. If you come up with a third interpretation then you would have to work out the conequences.
>>> There seems to be something logically wrong here. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Have you considered that light might experience something similar? Well not specifically but yes there is a similar effect, it is just "radiation pressure". The light will push the mirrors outwards very slightly. In the case of the discrete mirrors we examine above, the light travels in straight lines so there is no effect between reflections.
Anyway supppose the radiation pressure caused some tiny outward movement of the mirrors (or expansion of the fibre loop in an iFOG), the increased path length still affects both beams equally. That's the beauty of the experiment, both beams traverse the same path in opposite directions so most effects like this cancel.
In reality, thermal expansion will be far larger than radiation pressure effects but the principle still applies.
> In which case, the two beams will experience some kind of effect that is > related to ABSOLUTE rotation. Exactly, they experience the same effect but you are looking for opposite effects on the beams.
>>If you want to analyse the accelerated case, put the >>kids on roller skates and have grandma on the ground [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > What happens at each reflection is far from obvious George. For the two obvious interpretations, the rules of reflection are just what we are used to, angle of reflection equals angle of incidence since the speeds are both c relative to the mirror.
> ..but for the moment I will agree with you.. That's good. It's based on sound physics but please do continue to check to see if there is any part you doubt, I'm happy to come back to it if you think you have found a problem.
>>I'll stop there in this reply and see if we can agree >>up to here. I have some stuff on interferometers that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > We have a lot to think about. > The 'centrifugal force' idea for a start. Nah, that's trivial. Interference is the next tricky bit.
George
George Dishman - 30 Nov 2005 23:39 GMT > On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:46:57 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> >>> wrote: <continued>
>>Having arrived at the point where we share a view on >>the path length analysis, I'm happy to move on to look [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > that > circular fringes are used. Yes.
There's a photo of the output from a Michelson interferometer without the 'wedge' offset half way down this page:
http://www.3dimagery.com/michelsn.html
They use the circular pattern to align the system, any angle between the paths moves the centre of the circle off the screen.
In the Sagnac configuration, both beams reflect around _all_ the mirrors so any angle applied to one mirror affects both beams, hence you are going to get a circular pattern. The page below explains in more detail.
> It doesn't matter all that much because whatever method is used to measure > fringe displacement will focus on a fairly straight section anyway. Well as I have mentioned a few times, in an iFOG the fringes aren't measured at all, but in the lab experiment they can be. You just measure the radius of the fringes so as you say it isn't too different. However the fact that the fringes are circular tells you a lot about the geometry that is responsible for the effect.
>>> If the beams are perfectly parallel and coherent, they will >>> alternatively [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Frankly, I'm not quite sure how circular fringes are formed in either > interferometer. OK, this page explains it though it isn't particularly well written:
http://www.phy.davidson.edu/StuHome/cabell_f/diffractionfinal/pages/Michelson.htm
One way of thinking of it is that, if the plates are exactly parallel, you get circles. If they are at an angle, the centre of the circles is pushed far off to the side and you basically see arcs which are very close to straight lines.
Again there are photos near the bottom.
> If the beams were both perfectly parallel and coherent, there > should be no phase difference at any point across the whole viewing area. > I suppose if one considers that the two uniting wavefronts are spherical > rather > than flat, one gets a type 'Newton's rings' pattern...but why aren't the > wavefronts flat? The formation is very similar to Newton's rings the fringes are at such an angle that the distance between the images of the mirror is a multiple of the wavelength when measured along the slope.
>>I think it would be better to stick >>with the actual Sagnac configuration where you do get [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > already don't like it. > I was under the impression that the two sagnac paths were equal. When it is stationary, they are. They must be because the paths are actually the same, the light just goes round in opposite drections. The change in path length comes from the effects of motion - back to the diagram:
http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/sagnac.gif
One path is increased while the other is decreased though according to Ritz it should be only acceleration that causes a change, not rotation at constant speed.
Think of the images of the source seen through the two paths. At rest we get one source illuminating a screen:
<-- L --> | S + |
source screen
L is the total path length, four times that in the diagram of the single leg. When the system is still, you get uniform phase across the whole screen so no fringes.
When motion causes a change in the lengths of dL (again four times the value in the diagram of the single leg) we get interferenece:
<-- L --> | S | S' + |
<->|<-> dL dL
In the lab experiment you see circular fringes on the screen. In an iFOG, the intensity at the "+" sign is measured and depends on the phase. As we discussed before, it is actually the ampltude of the modulation that is used so it's an AC signal which can be amplified with accurately known gain hence a small fraction of a fring shift can be measured but that's an engineering detail.
This Java applet let's you play with the effect although it's a bit tricky at low values of separation.
http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/mcintyre/applets/michelson/michel.html
It also illustrates the difference for an iFOG. They don't count fringes, they have a photodiode measuring the intensity at the centre. Think of it as being just the pixel at the centre of the white cross. A graph of the value is shown to the right of the simulated view.
<snip bit dealt with in earlier reply>
>>The other aspect is a possible change in the angle >>between the beams. To sort that out, start by [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > There is a bit of a trap here. > You have to consider the velocity of the gun as the bullet is fired. That is aberration.
> The two angles are not quite symetrical about 45 deg. No, it decreases the 44 figure and increases the 46 figure so the total is still 90 degrees.
> In my diagram, I have represented those components by F-D and G-E. > If you draw them on your diagram in the two directions, you will see what > I > mean. I removed them in my copy because you are counting the effect twice. The diagram is drawn in the lab frame so the motion of the source affects the speed of the light at launch. The light is emitted at point A. The source is moving towrds B but once launched that doesn't matter. In the lab frame the target is moving vertically downwards from C towrds D, not diagonally from C to G. (The latter would be the case in the source frame.)
> So the angle does not remain at exactly 90. If you think about it, you will see it does. Bottom line we agreed was that the light must hit the detector to have an effect. The paths needed for that to happen are shown on the Java I did some time ago
http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/SagnacAngles.html
>>Now look at your animation >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > ||||||||| > ||||||||| Actually, what you have drawn gives uniform phase but I understood your earlier descriptions.
> Q1) Why do fringes form at all? Similar to Newton's rings but the separation is produced by the effect of motion on the path lengths.
> Q2) If one beam is moved sideways by half a fringe, what happens to the > fringe > pattern? Nothing. I think you mean what happens if one image of the source is moved rather than the beam. In that case you start to change to parabolic fringes.
> Q3) If the two beams reunite at not quite 90 degrees and their path > lengths are > slightly different, what happens to the fringe pattern. You would get vertical lines.
This is why it is significant that the fringes are circular, it means both images of the source must lie on a line perpendicular to the screen and passing through the centre of the circular pattern but at different distances from the screen.
> Q4) What other alternatives are there? There are many different interferometer designs out there but in the Sagnac experiment, the fact that the same mirrors participate in both paths means the beams are forced to be parallel giving circular fringes and when the equipment is rotated they remain circular but the radius changes as shown in the applet.
http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/mcintyre/applets/michelson/michel.html
Play around with it for a bit, it should help you follow some of what I am saying.
George
George Dishman - 03 Dec 2005 10:08 GMT > On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:46:57 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote:
> Frankly, I'm not quite sure how circular fringes are formed in either > interferometer. If the beams were both perfectly parallel and coherent, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > than flat, one gets a type 'Newton's rings' pattern...but why aren't the > wavefronts flat? Henri, I just realised you may be forgetting the effect of the eyepiece. Planes waves passing along the paths are focussed to a point by that. Otherwise there wouldn't be anything in the system to determine the centre of the circular pattern where you have an extended source and flat mirrors.
George
Henri Wilson - 03 Dec 2005 20:51 GMT >> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:46:57 -0000, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >circular pattern where you have an extended source and >flat mirrors. No I hadn't forgotten the eyepiece, I know it plays a role. In effect, it focusses on the source via both paths.
...but I still cannot see why fringes are formed if both beams are perfectly parallel and coherent.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Dastardly Fiend - 04 Dec 2005 04:37 GMT > ...but I still cannot see why fringes are formed if both beams are > perfectly > parallel and coherent. Oh, for heaven's sake, H, you've f.cking modelled it, Sagnac1.exe! Total path length of red ray > total path length of blue ray, IN YOUR MODEL. N, the number of wavecrests, is the same of each path! I emailed the addition of two sine waves to you.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 04 Dec 2005 20:51 GMT >> ...but I still cannot see why fringes are formed if both beams are >> perfectly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Total path length of red ray > total path length of blue ray, IN YOUR MODEL. >N, the number of wavecrests, is the same of each path! But the travel times are the same. It is the sideways displacement of each beam that somehow causes the interference pattern.
>I emailed the addition of two sine waves to you. That still doesn't explain how circular fringes are formed.
It isn't as simple as you make out. Your model would give only complete black or white...no line fringes.
>Androcles. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Henri Wilson - 16 Nov 2005 22:01 GMT >Christmas is coming, how about geese? I like your >analogy for the four mirror case so let's look in a [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > >George George, my diagram shows all.
the BaTh is fully supported by sagnac.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Jerry - 13 Nov 2005 12:58 GMT > George, George, George. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > We have both been arguing about whether or not the fringes will move during > constant angular rotation...and of course they don't. Huh?
http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/packard/Competition/Gyros/LaserRingGyro /Steadman/StedmanReview1997.pdf
Jerry
Henri Wilson - 13 Nov 2005 23:17 GMT >> George, George, George. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Jerry Load of crap. Why don't you read papers before you recommend them to others?
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Black Knight - 14 Nov 2005 00:54 GMT >>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:35:04 -0000, "George Dishman" >>> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > HW. Message rating: several casks. Amdrocles.
Paul B. Andersen - 15 Nov 2005 22:48 GMT >>George, George, George. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/packard/Competition/Gyros/LaserRingGyro /Steadman/StedmanReview1997.pdf Hm. Be aware that a ring laser is quite different from a Sagnac ring. In a Sagnac ring, the source (laser) and the detector is fixed to the ring. The phase difference between the two waves depend on the angular velocity, but the phase difference is constant at a constant rotation. That is, the fringe does not move, it is the position of the fringe that give the information about the rotation. A fibre-optic gyro is a Sagnac ring.
But a ring laser is just that - a laser arranged as a ring. (Actually a square or a triangle). In a normal laser, a wave is bouncing back and forth between two parallel mirrors. So there are two waves going in opposite directions within the laser. We get a standing wave pattern, like a pearl necklace, within the laser. In a ring laser, there are also two waves going in opposite directions within the laser, and we get the same standing wave pattern. But this time, the "necklace" have no ends, it is a ring. Note that there is no localized source; the whole ring is lasing. The important point is that if the apparatus is rotated, the "necklace" will NOT rotate along. So the detector, which is fixed to the apparatus and rotating along with it, can actually "see" the "pearls" in the "necklace" passing by. So in a ring laser, the phase difference between the opposing waves are continuously changing. Or the fringes are moving with a speed proportional to the rotation, if you like.
The problem with the fibre-optic gyro is that to measure the rotation, you have to compare the position of the fringes to their position when the gyro was not rotating. So the gyro must be calibrated when the gyro is known not to rotate. (Not very easy on a rotating Earth). And the calibration will drift with temperature, etc.
The ring laser do not have this problem. (Of course it has to be collimated to lase at all. But any laser must.) Because of its very principle, it is inherently more precise that the fibre-optic gyro.
That's why ring lasers are used in the inertial navigation system in planes. These gyros are so sensitive that when the INS is started, it takes only ten minutes before it has have figured out how the plane is oriented. It does that by comparing the rotation around the three axes due to the rotation of the Earth.
Paul
Black Knight - 16 Nov 2005 03:57 GMT >>>On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:35:04 -0000, "George Dishman" >>><george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > Paul OK, Andersen, you have convinced me. Your stupidity IS so gigantic that you do not understand why your statement is nonsense. Please don't forgive me for not having doubted that. I'm sure it will happen again.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 16 Nov 2005 05:21 GMT >>>George, George, George. >>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >waves are continuously changing. Or the fringes are moving >with a speed proportional to the rotation, if you like. Are you sure of that?
>The problem with the fibre-optic gyro is that to measure >the rotation, you have to compare the position of the fringes >to their position when the gyro was not rotating. >So the gyro must be calibrated when the gyro is known not >to rotate. (Not very easy on a rotating Earth). And >the calibration will drift with temperature, etc. It is easy to compensate for those.
>The ring laser do not have this problem. >(Of course it has to be collimated to lase at all. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >by comparing the rotation around the three axes due >to the rotation of the Earth. That isn't very clear.
I don't htink we will discuss ring lasers becasue they might operate on an entirely different principle to the four mirror type. FoGs are similar but effectively have an infinitie number of mirrors which reflect at infinitesimal angle. We aren't going to get anywhere multiplying zero by infinity.
So let's just stick with the four mirror sagnac eh?
I think by now you will have realised that it fully supports the BaTh and probably refutes SR.
Poor old George has spent years proving that according to the BaTh, fringes will not move during constant rotation. That is of course what happens.
>Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 16 Nov 2005 20:14 GMT > Poor old George has spent years proving that according to the BaTh, > fringes > will not move during constant rotation. That is of course what happens. No, George has been patiently explaining to you why Ritz predicts that the fringes will not be displaced from the non-rotating pattern by rotation at constant speed.
You knew that a week ago but this whole acceleration sidetrack seems to have confused you. Anyway, have a look at the car, duck and goose and see what you make of it.
George
Henri Wilson - 16 Nov 2005 22:05 GMT >> Poor old George has spent years proving that according to the BaTh, >> fringes [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >from the non-rotating pattern by rotation at constant >speed. No you haven't. You have shown that the fringes shold not MOVE during constant rotation, according to the BaTh. That is what happens. You have proved the BaTh to be consistent with sagnac.
>You knew that a week ago but this whole acceleration >sidetrack seems to have confused you. Anyway, have a >look at the car, duck and goose and see what you make >of it. It's a diversion.
You know that the fringes only change their displacement during acceleration. My diagram shows why. The path length change only during acceleration, not during constant rotation.
The fringe 'displacement' at any instant is the integrated effect of all previous ACCELERATIONS.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 18 Nov 2005 15:31 GMT > On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:14:17 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > constant > rotation, according to the BaTh. Go back and read all those weeks of messages again, they all prove there is NO DISPLACEMENT at constant angular velocity in Ritz. As you can see in my other reply, your own diagram confirms that though I think you need to consider this more carefully, it isn't really that simple.
> That is what happens. You have proved the BaTh > to be consistent with sagnac. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You know that the fringes only change their displacement during > acceleration. Correct, by a constant amount while the acceleration is present, and since it is proportional to the acceleration, it goes back to zero if the speed subsequently becomes constant again.
> My diagram shows why. The path length change only during acceleration, not > during constant rotation. Careful with your wording Herni, your diagram shows the path length ARE CHANGED during constant acceleration from their values during constant velocity.
> The fringe 'displacement' at any instant is the integrated effect of all > previous ACCELERATIONS. There is no physical mechanism involved that could integrate the difference in arrival times of wavecrests. The actual path times don't directly produce an output.
George
Henri Wilson - 18 Nov 2005 21:47 GMT >> On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:14:17 -0000, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote:
>> No you haven't. You have shown that the fringes shold not MOVE during >> constant [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >own diagram confirms that though I think you need to >consider this more carefully, it isn't really that simple. I have thought about it a great deal.
I should imagine that in a four mirror sagnac, fringe movement would be quite small. In a FoG with many turns, a much longer path length is provided and hence much greater fringe movement. This is detected by focussing the fringe pattern onto a narrow slit and counting the alternate dark/light fluctuations. I'm not sure how fringe direction is monitored but it would be.
Now, during an acceleration period, 50 such pulses might be counted. When the acceleration ceases, the visible fringe might not be exactly in the centre of the slit...and I assume there is a way of determining that offset...because it is essential for accuracy..... since the offset is integrated electronically with time to obtain total rotation angle.
I think you and Andersen are omiting a factor of (2-Root2) when you claim that the displacement should return to zero during constant rotation, according to the BaTh...In fact, the travel time around each path is not the same.
>> That is what happens. You have proved the BaTh >> to be consistent with sagnac. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >it goes back to zero if the speed subsequently becomes >constant again. Haha. So you apply an acceleration that slowly approaches zero. During that time, the fringes move in one direction only. Do you really think they suddenly flip right back to the starting point when the acceleration ceases?
That's nonsense George.
>> My diagram shows why. The path length change only during acceleration, not >> during constant rotation. > >Careful with your wording Herni, your diagram shows the >path length ARE CHANGED during constant acceleration from >their values during constant velocity. The path lengths remain constant during constant rotation. During a period of acceleration, I think the path length is CONTINUALLY increasing. I too have been working on that point. It's not all that simple.
>> The fringe 'displacement' at any instant is the integrated effect of all >> previous ACCELERATIONS. > >There is no physical mechanism involved that could integrate >the difference in arrival times of wavecrests. The actual >path times don't directly produce an output. During an acceleration, the two beams continuosly 'beat'. Even Androcles get's it right occasionally. The beats are counted. The count IS really an integration of the path length change (or, more correctly, the number of wavelengths in each path)
The count itself (fringe diplacement) is also electronically integrated to give total rotation angle.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 20 Nov 2005 10:23 GMT > On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:31:03 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > small. In a FoG with many turns, a much longer path length is provided and > hence much greater fringe movement. That's true, you can use more turns in the fibre coil, but it is still quite small.
> This is detected by focussing the fringe > pattern onto a narrow slit and counting the alternate dark/light > fluctuations. There is no slit or counter. A photodiode is used but the displacement is only a fraction of a fringe. The photodiode measures the brightness of the light which depends on the phase shift between the beams or to put it another way, which part of the pattern, a light or dark band, falls on the detector.
> I'm not sure how fringe direction is monitored but it would be. That's actually the clever bit, the source is modulated so that the output is the product of a sine wave with the cosine produced by the interference. It means there is a sign change at the zero rotation point but gives the sensitivity of an interferometer. That's slightly different from the lab experiment version where fringes can be seen and counted as you suggest but the physical principles are the same, it's an engineering solution to the question of directional ambiguity.
Given that the displacement is a fraction of a fringe and generally has a sine curve, the current in the photodiode is roughly proportional to the fringe displacement, or technically to the phase difference between the two beams.
Phase difference is 2 * pi times time difference over the period or 2 * pi * frequency * delta_t.
The shift is actually much smaller but:
> Now, during an acceleration period, 50 such pulses might be counted. The displacement is proportional to the acceleration so "As the acceleration smoothly increases, 50 such pulses might be counted."
> When the > acceleration ceases, ... "As the acceleration smoothly decreases, 50 such pulses would be counted but in the opposite direction." so that, once the speed returned to zero, the counter would also read zero.
> ... the visible fringe might not be exactly in the centre of > the slit > and I assume there is a way of determining that offset...because it > is essential for accuracy..... The offset would have been present before the acceleration and could be calibrated out in the factory. Only long term drift or temperature sensitivity causes a problem.
> since the offset is integrated electronically > with time to obtain total rotation angle. No, the output from what you say above if integrated would give speed since it is proportional to acceleration.
> I think you and Andersen are omiting a factor of (2-Root2) when you claim > that > the displacement should return to zero during constant rotation, according > to > the BaTh...In fact, the travel time around each path is not the same. A factor of root two applied to zero is still zero but I am prepared to consider there might be a root two scale factor difference, I haven't looked at it in detail. There is a fundamental difference between an output proportional to speed as predicted by SR and an output proportional to acceleration as predicted by Ritz which makes a factor of 0.7 of lesser significance at the moment.
>>> That is what happens. You have proved the BaTh >>> to be consistent with sagnac. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > time, the > fringes move in one direction only. Yes, they slowly approach zero because their displacement is proportional to the acceleration.
> Do you really think they suddenly flip right back to the starting point > when > the acceleration ceases? > > That's nonsense George. It is indeed.
>>> My diagram shows why. The path length change only during acceleration, >>> not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The path lengths remain constant during constant rotation. And the speeds remain constant at c+v and c-v so the times are equal.
> During a period of acceleration, I think the path length is CONTINUALLY > increasing. That's not what your diagram shows. For CONSTANT acceleration, the path lengths are constant and changed from the non-accelerating length by an amount you show as 1/2 a t^2.
> I too have been working on that point. It's not all that simple. Trust your diagram then.
>>> The fringe 'displacement' at any instant is the integrated effect of all >>> previous ACCELERATIONS. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > get's > it right occasionally. During a _change_ of acceleration, they beat. When the acceleration becomes constant, the stop beating at take a stable value of phase shift at the value they had at that time.
> The beats are counted. That would be an electronic integration which would give speed.
You could imagine that this is how commercial units work (it isn't) but that wouldn't apply to the lab experiment. Remember in the original experiment of Sagnac, he saw a shift of 7% of a fringe while the table was turning at 120rpm. What you are describing would be that he counted 0.07 fringes during the acceleration phase and the displacement returned to zero once constant speed was achieved.
> The count IS really an integration of the path length > change (or, more correctly, the number of wavelengths in each path) Yes but counting would have to be done as part of the electronics, it is not inherent in the physical process.
> The count itself (fringe diplacement) is also electronically integrated to > give > total rotation angle. That would be a second integration.
George
Henri Wilson - 21 Nov 2005 05:49 GMT >> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:31:03 -0000, "George Dishman"
>> I should imagine that in a four mirror sagnac, fringe movement would be >> quite [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >That's true, you can use more turns in the fibre >coil, but it is still quite small. Are you sure?
>> This is detected by focussing the fringe >> pattern onto a narrow slit and counting the alternate dark/light [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >or to put it another way, which part of the pattern, >a light or dark band, falls on the detector. that's what I meant. It counts the light and dark pulses. It probably also senses 'fractions of fringe.'
>> I'm not sure how fringe direction is monitored but it would be. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >engineering solution to the question of directional >ambiguity. I don't quite see how the beam is modulated but I'll believe you.
>Given that the displacement is a fraction of a fringe >and generally has a sine curve, the current in the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >direction." so that, once the speed returned to >zero, the counter would also read zero. It would read what it read before the acceleration, not zero.
>> ... the visible fringe might not be exactly in the centre of >> the slit [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the factory. Only long term drift or temperature >sensitivity causes a problem. By 'offset' I meant 'fringe displacement'.
>> since the offset is integrated electronically >> with time to obtain total rotation angle. > >No, the output from what you say above if integrated >would give speed since it is proportional to >acceleration. Wait I think we are talking about different things here George.
The integration of fringe displacement with time gives total angle moved during that time.
>> I think you and Andersen are omiting a factor of (2-Root2) when you claim >> that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >predicted by Ritz which makes a factor of 0.7 of >lesser significance at the moment. The output, as in 'fringe displacement' is still proportional to rotation speed according to Ritz.
>>>Correct, by a constant amount while the acceleration is >>>present, and since it is proportional to the acceleration, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Yes, they slowly approach zero because their >displacement is proportional to the acceleration. No george. Their CHANGE of displacement occurs DURING acceleration. They slowly approach their new position.
>> Do you really think they suddenly flip right back to the starting point >> when [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >It is indeed. Good.
>>>> My diagram shows why. The path length change only during acceleration, >>>> not [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >And the speeds remain constant at c+v and c-v so the times >are equal. what about the (2-root2) factor?
>> During a period of acceleration, I think the path length is CONTINUALLY >> increasing. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Trust your diagram then. You are probably right. ...but you seem to believe the path lengths revert to their old values after the acceleration ceases. They don't. Each rotation speed has a different path length. You are ignotring the 'vt' term.
>>>> The fringe 'displacement' at any instant is the integrated effect of all >>>> previous ACCELERATIONS. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >at take a stable value of phase shift at the value >they had at that time. That's right...meanwhile the number of fringes moved (including the partial bit at the end) has been counted.
>> The beats are counted. > >That would be an electronic integration which would >give speed. It gives change in speed.
A second continuous integration of instantaneous displacement with time gives the rotation angle from zero.
>You could imagine that this is how commercial units >work (it isn't) but that wouldn't apply to the lab [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >acceleration phase and the displacement returned to >zero once constant speed was achieved. I dont think that would be accurate enough for any practical purpose. I'm sure fringes move a lot more in multi turn FoGs.
>> The count IS really an integration of the path length >> change (or, more correctly, the number of wavelengths in each path) > >Yes but counting would have to be done as part of the >electronics, it is not inherent in the physical process. The path length change effectively integrates acceleration. No need for electronics.
>> The count itself (fringe diplacement) is also electronically integrated to >> give >> total rotation angle. > >That would be a second integration. yes.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 21 Nov 2005 14:40 GMT > >> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:31:03 -0000, "George Dishman" > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Are you sure? Yes, but it isn't too important as you'll see later, our disagreement lies elsewhere. Consider that Sagnac used an area of nearly a square metre and got a shift of 0.07 of a fringe at 120rpm. iFOGs tend to be in a box a few cm across and can just about sense the rotation of the Earth. That implies they are measuring about 10^-6 of a fringe at the low end up to maybe a few percent of fringe at their highest rate.
> >> This is detected by focussing the fringe > >> pattern onto a narrow slit and counting the alternate dark/light [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > It counts the light and dark pulses. It probably also senses 'fractions of > fringe.' My understanding is that they always work in the fraction of a fringe regime. The number of turns needed to work the way you suggest at low rates would be in the billions.
However, if you understand 'counts the light and dark pulses' as just a way to extend the range beyond the fraction of a fringe region then it is functionally the same so as I said, not too important. You have to be careful not to get this out of place though, later you treat this counter as if it was integrating the signal, essentially you are introducing an extra integration into the electronics that isn't there
If it worries you, the key might be for you to consider how you would determine the rate if you switch the equipment on while the vehicle is turning. You don't know how many counts away from zero you are at that time.
> >> I'm not sure how fringe direction is monitored but it would be. > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I don't quite see how the beam is modulated but I'll believe you. There are some web sites that give a rough outline but I've only seen one with any details, I'll post it if I can find it again. Basically they use a piezo crystal clamped onto the fibre.
> >Given that the displacement is a fraction of a fringe > >and generally has a sine curve, the current in the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > It would read what it read before the acceleration, not zero. Yes but see next.
> >> ... the visible fringe might not be exactly in the centre of > >> the slit [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > By 'offset' I meant 'fringe displacement'. By 'offset' I meant 'the residual measured fringe displacement when the angular speed is actually zero'. It will always exist due to voltage offsets in DC amplifiers and leakage on AC signals so will need to be cancelled out by some calibration procedure. I think if you look back at the last two paragraphs, we are really saying the same thing.
> >> since the offset is integrated electronically > >> with time to obtain total rotation angle. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Wait I think we are talking about different things here George. Sort of.
> The integration of fringe displacement with time gives total angle moved during > that time. That's right, but also the integration of acceleration would give the speed. Where we disagree, perhaps, is whether the fringe displacement is a function of the speed, the acceleration or a bit of both. Again, this will become clearer later.
> >> I think you and Andersen are omiting a factor of (2-Root2) when you claim > >> that [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > The output, as in 'fringe displacement' is still proportional to rotation speed > according to Ritz. That's where we disagree. See below.
> >>>Correct, by a constant amount while the acceleration is > >>>present, and since it is proportional to the acceleration, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > No george. Their CHANGE of displacement occurs DURING acceleration. > They slowly approach their new position. Again see below.
> >> Do you really think they suddenly flip right back to the starting point > >> when [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > what about the (2-root2) factor? Consider it within the calculation of v. You need to look at the duck, the car and the goose to resolve the quantitative aspect but that's probably of lesser importance at the moment.
> >> During a period of acceleration, I think the path length is CONTINUALLY > >> increasing. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the acceleration ceases. > They don't. _That's_ where we differ !
> Each rotation speed has a different path length. You are ignotring the 'vt' > term. Not ignoring it, the path length changes as you say but the your diagram is drawn in the lab frame so the speed is not c, it is also modified. That was the point I have been making for months, the speed and path length changes to the two paths are equal but opposite (+vt versus -vt, c+kv versus c-kv) so that factor cancels. You are right about the acceleration though and I though that was what you had realised a week or so ago when you posted:
>> George, George, George. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> We have both been arguing about whether or not the fringes will >> move during constant angular rotation...and of course they don't.
> >>>> The fringe 'displacement' at any instant is the integrated effect of all > >>>> previous ACCELERATIONS. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > That's right...meanwhile the number of fringes moved (including the partial bit > at the end) has been counted. Careful, as I said above I don't believe there is a counter, just the fractional part detector, but let's look at what would happen if there were a counter.
As the acceleration build up to the constant value, there is a beat which is counted, the fractional part being added. (The counter would increment each time the fractional part rolled over.) While the acceleration is constant, the displacement is constant so the counter output is constant. While the acceleration decreases to zero, the fringes would pass in the other direction so the couter would need to decrease until it should be back at zero when the rotational reaches zero.
The output of that counter would therefore be a digital indication of the acceleration, not the speed.
One point Henri, in this part you seem to have lost the "vt" term which you mention above. I think you need to consider just which of the terms is responsible for the output here, it's quite fundamental.
> >> The beats are counted. > > > >That would be an electronic integration which would > >give speed. Actually I was wrong there, the first counter gives acceleration, a separate integrator is needed to get speed and a second to get angle turned.
> It gives change in speed. Both integrators need to have an initial value placed in them.
> A second continuous integration of instantaneous displacement with time gives > the rotation angle from zero. Exactly.
> >You could imagine that this is how commercial units > >work (it isn't) but that wouldn't apply to the lab [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I dont think that would be accurate enough for any practical purpose. > I'm sure fringes move a lot more in multi turn FoGs. Well see the numbers above.
> >> The count IS really an integration of the path length > >> change (or, more correctly, the number of wavelengths in each path) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The path length change effectively integrates acceleration. No need for > electronics. That's not what you described above where the fringe counter is supposedly doing the integration.
> >> The count itself (fringe diplacement) is also electronically integrated to > >> give total rotation angle. > > > >That would be a second integration. > > yes. I think we are thinking along very similar lines, the difference between us is really in the detail, unless you want to go back to sayig the acceleraton term is a transient and it is the "vt" part on your diagram that is responsible for the output.
George
Henri Wilson - 21 Nov 2005 23:12 GMT >> >That's true, you can use more turns in the fibre >> >coil, but it is still quite small. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >about 10^-6 of a fringe at the low end up to maybe a >few percent of fringe at their highest rate. I can't find a decent description of a FoG anywhere.
I was under the impression that path lengths were pretty high, maybe 1000 metres or so..
>> >> This is detected by focussing the fringe >> >> pattern onto a narrow slit and counting the alternate dark/light [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >needed to work the way you suggest at low rates >would be in the billions. I cannot see how any kind of acceptable accuracy would be achieved if only fractions of fringes were measured. I don't know how the source would be kept sufficiently stable for one thing. Also the detector would be quite temperature sensitive.
>However, if you understand 'counts the light and >dark pulses' as just a way to extend the range [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >know how many counts away from zero you are at >that time. Point taken. It would have to be on all the time...or reset from some arbitrary zero.
>> It would read what it read before the acceleration, not zero. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> and I assume there is a way of determining that offset...because it >> >> is essential for accuracy.....
>> Wait I think we are talking about different things here George. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >acceleration or a bit of both. Again, this will become >clearer later. I say the fringe displacement (noun) is a function of speed. Changes in displacement occur DURING acceleration. The rate of change is a function of acceleration.
>> The output, as in 'fringe displacement' is still proportional to rotation speed >> according to Ritz. > >That's where we disagree. See below.
>> No george. Their CHANGE of displacement occurs DURING acceleration. >> They slowly approach their new position. > >Again see below.
>> >> I too have been working on that point. It's not all that simple. >> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >paths are equal but opposite (+vt versus -vt, c+kv versus c-kv) >so that factor cancels. I think you are trying to say that even though the path lengths of the two beam change during acceleration and remain changed by a constant amount during constant rotation, the travel time of light in each beam is always the same.
I say it is slightly different but constant.... and so there is a no fringe movement during constant rotation.
The number of wavelengths in each path is different (you claim only fractionally, no matter)
>You are right about the acceleration >though and I though that was what you had realised a week [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >rolled over.) While the acceleration is constant, the >displacement is constant so the counter output is constant. No George. You are confusing constant acceleration with constant speed.
>While the acceleration decreases to zero, the fringes would >pass in the other direction so the couter would need to >decrease until it should be back at zero when the rotational >reaches zero. No that is not right. If the acceleration is +ve, the fringes move one way. It matters not whether the magnitude of that acceleration is increasing or decreasing. You are claiming the fringe ''''movement'''' is a function of da/dt. I would like to see your proof.
>The output of that counter would therefore be a digital >indication of the acceleration, not the speed. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >just which of the terms is responsible for the output here, >it's quite fundamental. The at^2/2 is responsible for fringe movement. The vt is responsible for fringe displacement during constant rotation.
>> >> The beats are counted. >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Both integrators need to have an initial value placed in them. yes
>> A second continuous integration of instantaneous displacement with time gives >> the rotation angle from zero. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Well see the numbers above. Like I said, I can't find a decent description of FoGs and their design features. ....Nothing much on google.
>> >> The count IS really an integration of the path length >> >> change (or, more correctly, the number of wavelengths in each path) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >That's not what you described above where the fringe >counter is supposedly doing the integration. It registers the answer.
>> >> The count itself (fringe diplacement) is also electronically integrated to >> >> give total rotation angle. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >to sayig the acceleraton term is a transient and it is the "vt" >part on your diagram that is responsible for the output. See my comment above about da/dt Let's clear that up.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 22 Nov 2005 10:08 GMT >>> On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 10:23:12 -0000, "George Dishman" >>> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I can't find a decent description of a FoG anywhere. This isn't bad. I've seen a more detiled one but didn't bookmark it.
http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~bauer/habil_online/node11.html#sagnac1
I'm pushed for time at the moment so I'll answer more fully tonight.
> I think you are trying to say that even though the path lengths of the two > beam > change during acceleration and remain changed by a constant amount during > constant rotation, the travel time of light in each beam is always the > same. Yes.
I'll just answer one other point because it's quick and you might need some time to consider:
>>One point Henri, in this part you seem to have lost the "vt" >>term which you mention above. I think you need to consider [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The at^2/2 is responsible for fringe movement. > The vt is responsible for fringe displacement during constant rotation. Consider: if "vt is responsible for fringe displacement during constant rotation" then the change of v with time already provides the movement, the a(t^2)/2 factor is an _additional_ offset on top of that which would be _constant_ during constant acceleration.
I won't be able to do that in ASCII since it involves two different slopes so try it for yourself for this speed profile:
_________ / \ / \ ^ __________/ \_________ | speed | __________________________________
------> time
George
Henri Wilson - 22 Nov 2005 20:32 GMT >>>> On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 10:23:12 -0000, "George Dishman" >>>> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~bauer/habil_online/node11.html#sagnac1 Doesn't tell us anything about path lengths.
>I'm pushed for time at the moment so I'll answer more >fully tonight. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > >George I think you need more time. You are becoming MORE confused than ever.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 22 Nov 2005 21:04 GMT > On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:08:49 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Doesn't tell us anything about path lengths. No, it exlains the use of the modulator which is what we were talking about when you said you couldn't find any description of how it worked.
>>I'm pushed for time at the moment so I'll answer more >>fully tonight. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > I think you need more time. > You are becoming MORE confused than ever. I only quoted your own words Henri. Plot them and see what they produce because you clearly haven't fully realised the consequences yet.
George
Henri Wilson - 22 Nov 2005 22:45 GMT >> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:08:49 -0000, "George Dishman"
>>>This isn't bad. I've seen a more detiled one but didn't >>>bookmark it. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >we were talking about when you said you couldn't find >any description of how it worked. Yes, that's quite a neat idea.
>>>I'm pushed for time at the moment so I'll answer more >>>fully tonight. [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >see what they produce because you clearly haven't >fully realised the consequences yet. You are totally confused about what I said.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 22 Nov 2005 23:21 GMT > On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:04:50 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > You are totally confused about what I said. http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg
If you think I am confused by your drawing, answer this question and it will clear it up.
Your diagram shows the length from C to E for constant acceleration as "vt + 1/2 a t^2", right? Apply that to the example speed profile and what do you get?
George
Henri Wilson - 23 Nov 2005 00:11 GMT >> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:04:50 -0000, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote:
>>>>>Consider: if "vt is responsible for fringe displacement >>>>>during constant rotation" then the change of v with [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >acceleration as "vt + 1/2 a t^2", right? Apply that to >the example speed profile and what do you get? Your speed profile has identical + and - accelerations. You end up at the starting speed. The fringe displacement returns to the original, determined by v.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
donstockbauer@hotmail.com - 23 Nov 2005 00:15 GMT "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Let's hear the details.
George Dishman - 28 Nov 2005 17:29 GMT > On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 23:21:43 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Your speed profile has identical + and - accelerations. Yes.
> You end up at the starting speed. Yes.
> The fringe displacement returns to the original, determined by v. Not quite, the graph is taken from your diagram which shows path length, not fringe displacement, so you would be right if you said "The path length returns to the original, determined by v."
However, the interesting part is what happens _during_ the acceleration. Here is the answer assuming infinite jerk (instantaneous change of acceleration, I can't do a realistic one in ASCII):
. /| / | / |_______ | | | | ^ __________| | _________ | path length \ | | ______________________\ |_________ \| ------> ' time
Check for yourself, it is just a plot of what is on your diagram. Remember "t" is the time it takes a wavefront to travel from source to detector so is essentially a constant, not the usual time coordinate. I tend to use capitals for specific values but I've stayed with the notation from your drawing.
George
Henri Wilson - 28 Nov 2005 23:21 GMT >> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 23:21:43 -0000, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > >George All this is now insignificant in light of my latest findings.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 04 Dec 2005 01:24 GMT [snip]
> All this is now insignificant in light of my latest findings. About once a year someone spends serious time trying to teach you something. This year's effort went to sh.t, just like last year's and the previous year's. It is unfortunate George went to all that effort and you learned nothing.
> HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe > > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". George Dishman - 22 Nov 2005 21:44 GMT ...
>>> It counts the light and dark pulses. It probably also senses 'fractions >>> of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > kept > sufficiently stable for one thing. The source is a semiconductor laser so highly stable in the short term and slow variation has negligible impact since the one laser is split to create the two beams.
> Also the detector would be quite temperature > sensitive. Temperature drift affects leakage current so would be a slow DC shift in the measured signal. If you look at the page on the modulator, it uses a "phase-sensitive lock-in amplifier set to the first harmonic of the modulation frequency" so is unaffected by DC, they are measuring the amplitude of an AC component.
>>> Wait I think we are talking about different things here George. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Changes in displacement occur DURING acceleration. > The rate of change is a function of acceleration. That conflicts with your diagram as I read it but as I pointed out when you first posted it, it only gives the path lengths and doesn't take account of the c+kv speed part which also influences path times:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg
>>> Each rotation speed has a different path length. You are ignotring the >>> 'vt' [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > fringe > movement during constant rotation. OK but that's what we have been arguing over for months, you are now going back to what we were saying before you brought the question of acceleration into it.
> The number of wavelengths in each path is different (you claim only > fractionally, no matter) Erm, no I have never mentioned the number of waves in the path, it has almost no influence. The output depends on the time difference between the two halves of the signal getting to the detector and not the actual time taken from their emission.
>>As the acceleration build up to the constant value, there >>is a beat which is counted, the fractional part being added. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No George. > You are confusing constant acceleration with constant speed. No, I'm not confusing them, I am saying your words are wrong but your diagram is right. The diagram shows what I say above.
>>While the acceleration decreases to zero, the fringes would >>pass in the other direction so the couter would need to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No that is not right. If the acceleration is +ve, the fringes move one > way. Not according to your diagram. It says the path length is increased by vt+1/2at^2 and we know the vt part is cancelled by the Ritzian speed change (c+kv) so the path length is altered by 1/2at^2 which is constant, and the path length determines the fringe displacement.
> It > matters not whether the magnitude of that acceleration is increasing or > decreasing. > You are claiming the fringe ''''movement'''' is a function of da/dt. > I would like to see your proof. Let's stick with the term we agreed, I am saying fringe displacement is proportional to dv/dt. My proof is your diagram where dv/dt is called "a" and is in the "1/2at^2" term. I have already spent months showing you the "vt" part is cancelled by the speed change, or think of the carousel analogy which shows it nicely, or do "the duck, the car and the goose" diagram. All of them prove it.
>>The output of that counter would therefore be a digital >>indication of the acceleration, not the speed. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The at^2/2 is responsible for fringe movement. > The vt is responsible for fringe displacement during constant rotation. See my earlier post on that.
>>> >> The beats are counted. >>> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > yes Bu&*&&*r. Now you are back to agreeing with me.
>>> A second continuous integration of instantaneous displacement with time >>> gives [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > features. > ....Nothing much on google. Well the page I gave you has al the main features. There is another but I think the only thing it added was that telecomms laser diodes have built-in photodiodes for power management which are used instead of a discrete device but the principles and equations are as shown. What more are you looking for?
>>> >> The count IS really an integration of the path length >>> >> change (or, more correctly, the number of wavelengths in each path) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > It registers the answer. OK, that would be correct but now look at the description on the page I cited. There is no counter and no fringes, the signal is being measured as the amplitude of a 5.05MHz signal used in the modulator.
>>> >> The count itself (fringe diplacement) is also electronically >>> >> integrated to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > See my comment above about da/dt > Let's clear that up. Yes please, that is fundamental. Please consider what I said in the earlier post, try plotting your "vt+1/2at^2" from the diagram using this profile.
> _________ > / \ [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ------> > time Thirty seconds with the back of an envelope should show you what I am saying. I can't draw it easily so help me out here Henri.
George
Henri Wilson - 22 Nov 2005 23:29 GMT >... >>>> It counts the light and dark pulses. It probably also senses 'fractions [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] >of the signal getting to the detector and not the >actual time taken from their emission. Consider this. No rotation. ..path lengths equal...100000000 wavlengths in each path (let's say). Short period of acceleration... one path increases to 100000000.1 wavelengths...the other decreases to 99999999.9....fringes have moved 0.2 fringe widths.
They don't go back to zero just because the acceleration ceases. You see to think they do. This also proves the travel times around each path cannot be equal under constant c+v, as you claim.
>>>As the acceleration build up to the constant value, there >>>is a beat which is counted, the fractional part being added. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >wrong but your diagram is right. The diagram shows what >I say above. It matters not whether the acceleration is constant or not. If it is +ve, the path lengths will diverge, if -ve, they come together.
>>>While the acceleration decreases to zero, the fringes would >>>pass in the other direction so the couter would need to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >altered by 1/2at^2 which is constant, and the path length >determines the fringe displacement. Why do you say "1/2at^2 is constant"? The value of t signifies the end of the acceleration period. During that time, the path lengths diverge by at^2/root2 (for constant a otherwise (integral a(t)dt)^2/root2).
>> It >> matters not whether the magnitude of that acceleration is increasing or [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >diagram where dv/dt is called "a" and is in the "1/2at^2" >term. George please try to understand the difference between fringe 'displacement' and fringe 'movement'. The former is the static situation, measured from zero, the latter the process of actually moving.
The fringe displacement is proportional to v, not dv/dt. That means they DO NOT move during constant v.
The rate of fringe movement is proportional to a (and maybe a secondary effect) The change in fringe displacement after an acceleration period is proprtional to the change in v.
>I have already spent months showing you the "vt" >part is cancelled by the speed change, or think of the >carousel analogy which shows it nicely, or do "the duck, >the car and the goose" diagram. All of them prove it. You haven't proved that at all. You forgot the root2 again. I say the travel times around the two paths are 'rotation speed' dependent. they have to be.... because the number of wavelengths in each path is speed dependent and wavelength doesn't change under BaTh.
>>>The output of that counter would therefore be a digital >>>indication of the acceleration, not the speed. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >See my earlier post on that. It was very confused.
>>>Both integrators need to have an initial value placed in them. >> >> yes > >Bu&*&&*r. Now you are back to agreeing with me. All integrators need an initial reference value.
>>>> A second continuous integration of instantaneous displacement with time >>>> gives [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >device but the principles and equations are as shown. >What more are you looking for? Number of fibre turns, path length and typical fringe displacements.
>>>That's not what you described above where the fringe >>>counter is supposedly doing the integration. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the signal is being measured as the amplitude of a 5.05MHz >signal used in the modulator. Yes, I'm not sure how that works.
>> See my comment above about da/dt >> Let's clear that up. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >show you what I am saying. I can't draw it easily so >help me out here Henri. All you have drawn is an increase in speed to a constant followed by an identical decrease which bring it back to the starting point. the output is zero becasue there has been no net rotation.
During the diagonal sections, the fringes will move the same amount in opposite directions. During the constant v section in the middle, the fringes will be displaced and the output will indicate the rate of rotation.
Where is your problem?.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 28 Nov 2005 21:08 GMT > On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:44:45 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote:
>>> I think you are trying to say that even though the path lengths of the >>> two [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > say). > Short period of acceleration... I'm assuming you next talk about the time after the speed has stabilised at the new value:
> one path increases to 100000000.1 > wavelengths...the other decreases to 99999999.9.... OK.
> fringes have moved 0.2 fringe widths. No. One path has increased in length but the light is moving faster due to Ritz so the time taken is as before. The other path has shortened but the light is moving slower and again the time taken is as before. The two beams arrive in sync so there is no fringe displacement.
> They don't go back to zero just because the acceleration ceases. You see > to > think they do. See my other post where I show that your diagram requires that they do.
> This also proves the travel times around each path cannot be equal under > constant c+v, as you claim. Again see the more detailed post where I show that t' = t.
>>>>As the acceleration build up to the constant value, there >>>>is a beat which is counted, the fractional part being added. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > It matters not whether the acceleration is constant or not. > If it is +ve, the path lengths will diverge, if -ve, they come together. According to Ritz, the displacement is proportional to the acceleration at all times whether it is constant or not (for reasonable values, i.e. where it isn't fast enough to create an event horizon).
>>>>While the acceleration decreases to zero, the fringes would >>>>pass in the other direction so the couter would need to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Why do you say "1/2at^2 is constant"? > The value of t signifies the end of the acceleration period. No, that value is the time for wich the light is travelling. The speed of the light is set according to Ritz at the moment it is emitted. The extra path length (compared to the situation of constant speed at the value the table had when the light was emitted) is dependent on how much the table accelerates while the light is "in the air". It increases by dv = at.
Later emissions start at progressively faster speeds as the table accelerates but that speeds up the light too. Only the Vt term in the path length depends on the actual speed, and that is cancelled out by the Ritzian boost.
> During that time, the path lengths diverge by at^2/root2 (for constant a > otherwise (integral a(t)dt)^2/root2). That's about right though see my other post which shows why the root(2) also gets cancelled.
>>> It >>> matters not whether the magnitude of that acceleration is increasing or [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > zero, > the latter the process of actually moving. That is the sense in which I am using them.
> The fringe displacement is proportional to v, not dv/dt. In reality, yes. According to SR, yes. According to Ritz, no. Ritz says the fringe displacement should be proportional to the acceleration. Ritz is wrong.
> That means they DO NOT move during constant v. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You haven't proved that at all. You forgot the root2 again. See my other post where I do all the math. The sqrt(2) cancels out and the speed boost exactly cancels the path length increase for the constant speed situation.
> I say the travel times around the two paths are 'rotation speed' > dependent. > they have to be.... because the number of wavelengths in each path is > speed > dependent and wavelength doesn't change under BaTh. Don't just "say" Henri, opinion carries no weight. Show your math as I have done.
>>>>The output of that counter would therefore be a digital >>>>indication of the acceleration, not the speed. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > It was very confused. Too much history and back quoting perhaps. I have redone it froma scratch.
>>>>Both integrators need to have an initial value placed in them. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > All integrators need an initial reference value. I know, but you are trying to convince me that Ritz only calls for ONE intgrator because it gives an output proportional to speed while I an saying it needs TWO to determine heading because the output is proportional to acceleration, and you just said "both"
>>>>> A second continuous integration of instantaneous displacement with >>>>> time [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Number of fibre turns, path length and typical fringe displacements. Number of turns and path length is too detailed for ordinary documents (I already wrote this in another reply). "Fringe displacements" won't be mentioned since there are no fringes, there is a synchronous demodulator measuring the amplitude of the signal from the optical modulator.
>>>>That's not what you described above where the fringe >>>>counter is supposedly doing the integration. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Yes, I'm not sure how that works. Which part, the synchronous demodulator?
>>> See my comment above about da/dt >>> Let's clear that up. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > opposite > directions. The "vt" part does that but the "at^2/2" part adds a further fixed offset.
> During the constant v section in the middle, the fringes will be displaced > and > the output will indicate the rate of rotation. > > Where is your problem?. I wanted you to consider how the value compares during the periods of acceleration. Too late, I gave you the answer in an earlier reply.
George
Henri Wilson - 28 Nov 2005 23:24 GMT >> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:44:45 -0000, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 303 lines] > >George Yes OK you were right.
Trouble is, the rays that have the same travel times aren't the ones that meet at the same points. We must only consider those that DO reunite at the same points.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 29 Nov 2005 20:38 GMT > On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:08:30 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: >>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:44:45 -0000, "George Dishman" >>> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> >>> wrote: I think I've snipped to get the essential points, my apologies if you think it is inaccurate, there was far too much history.
>>>>> I think you are trying to say that even though the path lengths of the >>>>> two beam change during acceleration and remain changed by a constant [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>>>saying before you brought the question of >>>>acceleration into it. ...
>>>>> You are claiming the fringe ''''movement'''' is a function of da/dt. >>>>> I would like to see your proof. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>>diagram where dv/dt is called "a" and is in the "1/2at^2" >>>>term. ...
>>>>> See my comment above about da/dt >>>>> Let's clear that up. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > at the same points. > We must only consider those that DO reunite at the same points. Your diagram already copes with that. I have added two wavefronts in colour to illustrate the point:
http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/sagnac.gif
Think of them as arcs centred on A or farther away for a laser source.
The red line C-C' is the wavefront when it hits the detector at point C when the table is not turning. The blue line D-D' is the wavefront when it hits the detector at point D when the table is turning at constant speed. Note that your existing lines show the two rays, A-C and A-D.
Consider the constant speed case: the light that would have hit the detector at C is at C' when the wavefront reaches D and misses the detector. In the non-rotating case photons moving along the A-D ray miss the detector.
George
donstockbauer@hotmail.com - 29 Nov 2005 20:49 GMT Going for the gold: this post ups the count to 1162.
Have a nice day.
What's a troll?????????
George Dishman - 03 Dec 2005 11:14 GMT >>> Like I said, I can't find a decent description of FoGs and their design >>> features. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Number of fibre turns, path length and typical fringe displacements. I can't give you a definitive answer but we can get an order-of-magnitude estimate by inference.
This explains that technique and also gives a frequency which is probably typical. For stability they commercial product probably uses an AT cut crystal and they typically run in the low megahertz range:
http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~bauer/habil_online/node11.html#phaseshift
"The modulation is most effective if tau is half of the period time of the modulation ..."
Tau is the light time round the fibre.
"in our experiments this setting is 5.05 MHz."
A frequency of 5.05MHz is a wavelength of 59.4m so their loop had a total length of about 29.7m.
http://www.kvh.com/pdf/DSP3000_5.04.pdf
The DSP-3000 has the dimensions 3.5" x 2.3" x 1.3" so the fibre coil must have a diameter of less than 3cm allowing 1.5mm for the box thickness, that's a circumference of about 9.4cm.
The two equipments are different but if the device used 5.05MHz modulation, that would imply 315 turns.
Each turn has area of 7.1 cm^2 so 315 turns gives a total area of 2227 cm^2. It is equivalent to a single loop of diameter 53.3 cm or a square set of mirrors at the periphery of a turntable of radius 66.7cm.
The KVH spec says the maximum rotation rate is 100 degrees/second for the analog output. I'll let you work out whether that is multiple fringes or a fraction of a fringe.
It's not perfect by any means but it should give you a reasonable idea of the magnitude of the numbers.
George
Henri Wilson - 03 Dec 2005 21:20 GMT >>>> Like I said, I can't find a decent description of FoGs and their design >>>> features. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >loop of diameter 53.3 cm or a square set of mirrors >at the periphery of a turntable of radius 66.7cm. I cannot see why you consider loop area to be the important factor. It is fibre length that you need to know. That is about 10 metres....equivalent to a four mirror sagnac with 2.0 metre diagonals.
>The KVH spec says the maximum rotation rate is >100 degrees/second for the analog output. I'll let >you work out whether that is multiple fringes or a >fraction of a fringe. That will depend on which theory I use. The peripheral speed is around 3 m/sec.
Using your aether theory (alias SR) that the light speed is c and not c/n or (c+v/root2)/n....the travel time around the path is 3.3E-8 secs, during which the periphery moves 10^-7 m.....now double that for the two paths. = 2E-7 m or 0.2 microns. ~1/3 of a wavelength.
>It's not perfect by any means but it should give you >a reasonable idea of the magnitude of the numbers. > >George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 04 Dec 2005 17:14 GMT > On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 11:14:22 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: ...
>>I can't give you a definitive answer but we can get >>an order-of-magnitude estimate by inference. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > I cannot see why you consider loop area to be the important factor. Because the output is proportional to the enclosed area:
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
> It is fibre > length that you need to know. That is about 10 metres....equivalent to a > four > mirror sagnac with 2.0 metre diagonals. Imagine a fibre folded in half and laid in a straight line. Obviously there would be no difference. It's not just length that matters but the integral of a factor involving the radius along the length. It works out to be the area.
>>The KVH spec says the maximum rotation rate is >>100 degrees/second for the analog output. I'll let [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Using your aether theory (alias SR) Very funny Henri. It always amuses me that you can't resist showing that you haven't a clue about SR. I suggest you read the last three paragraphs of this page:
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath169/kmath169.htm
Aether theories struggle with Sagnac, SR has no problem at all.
> that the light speed is c and not c/n or > (c+v/root2)/n.... According to SR, the speed is c/n in the rotating frame or c/n + v(1-n^2)/sqrt(2) in the lab frame.
On the above page you'll find the maths that shows the effect is proportional to area for any arbitrary polygon of mirrors and a less detailed explanation of why the time difference is independent of the refractive index.
> the travel time around the path is 3.3E-8 secs, during which > the periphery moves 10^-7 m.....now double that for the two paths. > = 2E-7 m or 0.2 microns. > ~1/3 of a wavelength. Unless I have an error in my arithmetic, the time difference between the two paths is:
dt = 4Aw/c^2 ~ 1.73*10^-17s
c dt = 5.18 nm
For 600nm light which you assumed, the fraction is 0.0086 of a wavelength. For such low values, sin(x) ~ x so the output of the detector would be proportional to the angular speed (according to SR and in reality, proportional to the angular acceleration according to Ritz).
George
Henri Wilson - 04 Dec 2005 21:33 GMT >> On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 11:14:22 -0000, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > >http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm according to your theory, OK.
>> It is fibre >> length that you need to know. That is about 10 metres....equivalent to a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >involving the radius along the length. It works out to >be the area. according to your theory, OK.
>>>The KVH spec says the maximum rotation rate is >>>100 degrees/second for the analog output. I'll let [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath169/kmath169.htm Obviously written by a relativist.
>Aether theories struggle with Sagnac, SR >has no problem at all. Except that it would result in NO fringes at all. The whole image would be uniform in colour. Incidentally, your theory say 'light moves at c in a vacuum'. In the SR analysis of sagnac, what is the reference for that speed? Is it the "point in absolute space where the source was when the light was emitted?"
...it's quite amusing really.
You people have no idea that you are merely preaching LET.
>> that the light speed is c and not c/n or >> (c+v/root2)/n.... [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >SR and in reality, proportional to the angular >acceleration according to Ritz). But of course we know differently now, don't we George.
We know that the rays which take the same travel time according to Ritz, do NOT end up on the same point on the image. Therefore they are not the ones which determine the state of the interference pattern at all.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Jerry - 05 Dec 2005 13:26 GMT > >> I cannot see why you consider loop area to be the important factor. > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > according to your theory, OK. Henri, re-work your Sagnac simulation so that the light path is an elongated rectangle of zero width, zero area, i.e.
|=====================================| You have converted the Sagnac interferometer into an MMX interferometer, which is not sensitive to rotation by ANY theory, Lorentz, SR, aetheric, BaT...
Jerry
Jerry - 05 Dec 2005 14:50 GMT > > >> I cannot see why you consider loop area to be the important factor. > > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > You have converted the Sagnac interferometer into HALF of an MMX interferometer
> an MMX interferometer, which is not sensitive to rotation > by ANY theory, Lorentz, SR, aetheric, BaT... Sorry, typo.
Jerry
Jerry - 05 Dec 2005 14:51 GMT > > >> I cannot see why you consider loop area to be the important factor. > > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > You have converted the Sagnac interferometer into HALF of an MMX interferometer
> an MMX interferometer, which is not sensitive to rotation > by ANY theory, Lorentz, SR, aetheric, BaT... Sorry, typo.
Jerry
Henri Wilson - 05 Dec 2005 20:16 GMT >> >> I cannot see why you consider loop area to be the important factor. >> > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >MMX interferometer, which is not sensitive to rotation >by ANY theory, Lorentz, SR, aetheric, BaT... Are you trying to tell me that the number of turns of the optic fibre is not important in the result?
I don't think you know anything about the sagnac effect.
>Jerry HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Jerry - 05 Dec 2005 20:35 GMT > Are you trying to tell me that the number of turns of the optic fibre is not > important in the result? > > I don't think you know anything about the sagnac effect. N turns allows you to enclose N times the effective area in the same limited enclosure. But the math is very clear about the proportionality between area and magnitude of observed effect.
Why did Michelson enclose a 1100 by 2100 foot field for his demo in the Michelson-Gale experiment, rather than simply bounce the light in a narrow closed loop of, say, 1 x 3200 feet?
Jerry
Henri Wilson - 05 Dec 2005 23:11 GMT >> Are you trying to tell me that the number of turns of the optic fibre is not >> important in the result? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >limited enclosure. But the math is very clear about the proportionality >between area and magnitude of observed effect. Like I said, only because v=w.r
>Why did Michelson enclose a 1100 by 2100 foot field for his demo >in the Michelson-Gale experiment, rather than simply bounce the >light in a narrow closed loop of, say, 1 x 3200 feet? see http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau/fizeau.stm
>Jerry HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
George Dishman - 05 Dec 2005 14:19 GMT > >> On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 11:14:22 -0000, "George Dishman" > >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > according to your theory, OK. True, but according to your theory dt=0 for constant speed.
The formula on that page is empirically proven too and I suspect if you work through Ritz you will find any effect is proportional to the area too. In fact you explain why in another post:
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:rn97p1lh5hom3b79j4jh64oqec9d1ct7jh@4ax.com...
> >... Mathematically, the sensitivity the device > >turns out to be directly proportional to the area. > > Only because v=w.r. Exactly. The speed depends on r and so does the length of the path (circumference of a circular loop or perimeter of an inscribed square) so the overall effect is expected to go as the square of the radius.
> You still multiply by the number of turns. That's the direct way to do it of course, work out dt for a single turn of radius 15mm and then multiple by 315 turns. I expect you to get the same as for a single loop of radius 15*sqrt(315) mm but you can check that for yourself.
> >> It is fibre > >> length that you need to know. That is about 10 metres....equivalent to a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > according to your theory, OK. Indeed, but as we have seen, Ritz says dt depends on the acceleration. Other than that I expect it still to be proportional to the area for the reasons given above.
> >>>The KVH spec says the maximum rotation rate is > >>>100 degrees/second for the analog output. I'll let [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >> That will depend on which theory I use. > >> The peripheral speed is around 3 m/sec. For a single loop of a 30mm diameter coil, v=26mm/s.
> >> Using your aether theory (alias SR) > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Except that it would result in NO fringes at all. The whole image would be > uniform in colour. Well done, I kept telling you there were no fringes in an iFOG. A photodiode measures the intensity which varies because dt produces a phase difference. When you add two sine waves, you get an amplitude that depends on the phase difference.
I'll explain how the fringes are formed in the lab version separately, I'm out of time now.
> Incidentally, your theory say 'light moves at c in a vacuum'. In the SR > analysis of sagnac, what is the reference for that speed? Is it the "point in > absolute space where the source was when the light was emitted?" There's no point wasting time on asides Henri, if you want to understand SR, you'll need to make the effort.
> ...it's quite amusing really. > > You people have no idea that you are merely preaching LET. It is amusing, you have no concept of anything other than LET and Ritz, just like Sagnac.
> >> that the light speed is c and not c/n or > >> (c+v/root2)/n.... [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > But of course we know differently now, don't we George. The difference beteen your figure and mine is roughly sqrt(315) which is explained by the bit about area above so I think in general we will agree once you work out a single loop and multiply by 315. Bottom line is that we both think dt is only a fraction of a cycle ("fringe") so counting dark/light transitions is not the way the devices work. In fact the analogue output is just an amplified version of the demodulator signal.
> We know that the rays which take the same travel time according to Ritz, do NOT > end up on the same point on the image. > Therefore they are not the ones which determine the state of the interference > pattern at all. I think you missed some of my replies at the end of last week, I already pointed out that your diagram that we used to derive t'=t includes that effect:
> > Yes OK you were right. > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > In the non-rotating case photons moving along the > A-D ray miss the detector. George
Henri Wilson - 05 Dec 2005 21:01 GMT >> >>>Each turn has area of 7.1 cm^2 so 315 turns gives a >> >>>total area of 2227 cm^2. It is equivalent to a single [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >the acceleration. Other than that I expect it still to be >proportional to the area for the reasons given above. I think you and the standard 'SR' explanation are completely wrong. I go back to my earlier claim that light has a 'built-in gyro' in the form of an axis, which doesn't particulalrly want to change angle.
>> >>>The KVH spec says the maximum rotation rate is >> >>>100 degrees/second for the analog output. I'll let [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >When you add two sine waves, you get an amplitude >that depends on the phase difference. At least we agree on something.... ...but what about a four mirror system?
>I'll explain how the fringes are formed in the lab version >separately, I'm out of time now. I'll bet you can't even explain why fringes are formed even in the MMX.
>> Incidentally, your theory say 'light moves at c in a vacuum'. In the SR >> analysis of sagnac, what is the reference for that speed? Is it the "point in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >you want to understand SR, you'll need to make >the effort. Don't run for cover with your tail between your legs George.
According to aether theories all observers will measure OWLS to be c in their respective frames. It will actually move at c wrt the point in the absolute aether where he happens to be at the instant of emission...but to him it moves at c wrt himself.
You use that exact concept in your analysis...that there exist 'absolute points in space'.
>> ...it's quite amusing really. >> >> You people have no idea that you are merely preaching LET. > >It is amusing, you have no concept of anything other >than LET and Ritz, just like Sagnac. Yoiu don't like it when the truth about SR is revealed do you George. It is just rehashed aether theory.
>> >> that the light speed is c and not c/n or >> >> (c+v/root2)/n.... [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >output is just an amplified version of the demodulator >signal. I still can't see how the use of a modulated beam provides a more sensitive system...but no matter.
>> We know that the rays which take the same travel time according to Ritz, do NOT >> end up on the same point on the image. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >> In the non-rotating case photons moving along the >> A-D ray miss the detector. If the beam is exactly parallel, why are there beams traveling in different directions anyway? That is the important question...along with the relative travel times of those which DO meet at the same points.
This is a rather difficult problem. My animation 'sagnac.exe' is wrong in that it shows the rays heading for the centres of the next mirrors. They should be aimed at the points where the centres will be when the rays arrive...not easy to animate...but I will try.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
George Dishman - 08 Dec 2005 13:59 GMT > >> >>>Each turn has area of 7.1 cm^2 so 315 turns gives a > >> >>>total area of 2227 cm^2. It is equivalent to a single [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > I go back to my earlier claim that light has a 'built-in gyro' in the form of > an axis, which doesn't particulalrly want to change angle. If you can ever derive some equations that predict fringes in the Sagnac interferometer setup when not rotating, then we can consider whether they would be displaced when it ewas rotating. In the meantime, let's stick to the subject of Ritz's theory.
> >> >>>The KVH spec says the maximum rotation rate is > >> >>>100 degrees/second for the analog output. I'll let [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > >For a single loop of a 30mm diameter coil, v=26mm/s. So what displacement do you find for 315 loops Henri?
> >> >Aether theories struggle with Sagnac, SR > >> >has no problem at all. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > At least we agree on something.... > ...but what about a four mirror system? For a plane wave source, the same thing, and in the MMX. It is the extra parts, the lenses and screens that produce the fringe system.
> >I'll explain how the fringes are formed in the lab version > >separately, I'm out of time now. > > I'll bet you can't even explain why fringes are formed even in the MMX. I've already given you likns to several pages that explain it. I had assumed i wouldn't have to spell it out for you but I will if you haven't grasped it yet. The details vary a little depending on the configuration of course. I'm out tonight, Friday and Saturday nights but I might get some time during the day.
> >> Incidentally, your theory say 'light moves at c in a vacuum'. In the SR > >> analysis of sagnac, what is the reference for that speed? Is it the "point in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Don't run for cover with your tail between your legs George. Don't try that bullshit with me Henri, I've been on Usenet much too long. We are talking about the Sagnac experiment in this thread. If you want to learn about SR, reply to my post of 2nd Sept.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/msg/75f05646b8cd1bec
I'm still waiting for a reply to that so if anyone "ran for cover with their tail between their legs", it was you. The end part of the post addresses your question.
...
> >> >> the travel time around the path is 3.3E-8 secs, during which > >> >> the periphery moves 10^-7 m.....now double that for the two paths. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > I still can't see how the use of a modulated beam provides a more sensitive > system...but no matter. It is a practical thing, the dark current in a photodiode drifts with temperature so trying to measure the intensity as a DC signal would be very inaccurate unless the temperature could be controlled to impractical tolerance. AC interference (such as mains pickup or 400Hz in an aircraft) would also be a problem. The modulator means the signal of interest is at several MHz so diode DC drift is no longer a problem and RFI shielding is much more effective.
In addition, the modulating frequency is chosen such that the signal changes polarity at zero speed. The raw interference is a cosine near zero so direction is ambiguous. Because the modulator is asymettric 9at one end of the loop) the modulation is a sine curve and what is measured by the photodiaode is the product of the two functions.
> >> We know that the rays which take the same travel time according to Ritz, do NOT > >> end up on the same point on the image. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > If the beam is exactly parallel, why are there beams traveling in different > directions anyway? The answer is because of a diffuser or diverging lens in the source must most web pages don't give any details, they just say "light source" or similar like these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect http://bednorzmuller87.phys.cmu.edu/demonstrations/optics/interference/demo328.html
This one shows the diverging lens:
http://www.3dimagery.com/michelsn.html
If you remove that lens, the laser will only illuminate a spot in the centre so whether there are fringes at a significant radius cannot be seen. In fact the fringes would change too since the laser appears to be a source almost at infinity whereas the lens gives an apparent source at the focal point (which lies between the laser and the lens). In this arrangement the fringe generation is similar to Newton's rings. Think of keeping the lens but add an iris so that only light close to the axis is passed to the screen and you'll see what I mean.
The other approach is to use a 'point' source (e.g. sodium lamp) and focus that onto a diffusing screen with a lens. That screen is then the "extended source" which is the original arrangement. At the eypiece, you see an image of the diffuser through the telescope but if you look off-axis, the cosine of the angle alters the distance between images through the two paths so you get interference.
You might like to consider the graphs on this page especially at the point where the path difference goes through zero:
http://www.optics.arizona.edu/jcwyant/JoseDiaz/MichelsonInterferometerFringes.htm
> That is the important question...along with the relative travel times of those > which DO meet at the same points. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > centres of the next mirrors. They should be aimed at the points where the > centres will be when the rays arrive...not easy to animate...but I will try. It may not be as hard as you think. Note the distance by which the beams miss the detector. It is w*r*t where w is the angular speed, r is the radius and t is the time the light takes to make the circuit. You can find the angle subtended at the centre by dividing that distance by the radius (radians of course). The error is shared between the legs so just offset your initial launch angle by quarter of the angle subtended and they should then hit the detector.
George
Henri Wilson - 08 Dec 2005 22:27 GMT >> I think you and the standard 'SR' explanation are completely wrong. >> I go back to my earlier claim that light has a 'built-in gyro' in the form of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >it ewas rotating. In the meantime, let's stick to the subject >of Ritz's theory. That's the very question I asked you to answer. WHY ARE FRINGES FORMED IN A FOUR MIRRROR SAGNAC?
>> >> >>>The KVH spec says the maximum rotation rate is >> >> >>>100 degrees/second for the analog output. I'll let [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >So what displacement do you find for 315 loops Henri? It depends on the theory one uses.
>> >> >Aether theories struggle with Sagnac, SR >> >> >has no problem at all. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >course. I'm out tonight, Friday and Saturday nights >but I might get some time during the day. When you have some time, look at http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau/fizeau.stm
>> >> Incidentally, your theory say 'light moves at c in a vacuum'. In the SR >> >> analysis of sagnac, what is the reference for that speed? Is it the "point in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >cover with their tail between their legs", it was you. The >end part of the post addresses your question. George, your theory talks about "light moving at c wrt the point where the source is".
It is independent of source speed.
So please explain what is the magic property of this space that causes light to move at c wrt that point and NOT wrt the source?
If you want to hide from the question then I must assume you have been preaching aether theory all along.
>> I still can't see how the use of a modulated beam provides a more sensitive >> system...but no matter. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >at several MHz so diode DC drift is no longer a problem and >RFI shielding is much more effective. So it really relies on a constant slope of the photodiode curve.....yes I suppose that is better than DC.
>In addition, the modulating frequency is chosen such that the >signal changes polarity at zero speed. The raw interference is >a cosine near zero so direction is ambiguous. Because the >modulator is asymettric 9at one end of the loop) the modulation >is a sine curve and what is measured by the photodiaode is the >product of the two functions. OK, I vaguely get the picture.
>> >> The red line C-C' is the wavefront when it hits the >> >> detector at point C when the table is not turning. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >the lens but add an iris so that only light close to the >axis is passed to the screen and you'll see what I mean. When I made MY interferometer, we didn't have lasers so I used a collimator. this was supposed to produce parallel and coherent light, presumeably by passing a beam through a pinhole then expanding it again. I doubt if it was peectly parallel and that was why fringes a re formed. I gather the diverging lens in the laser model (above reference) also produced non parallel light and therefore interference fringes.
The same principle operates in sagnac. If the beam is perfectly parallel, no finges are formed. In practice, the beam has enough divergence to create fringes....although the reason is still not blatantly obvious.
>The other approach is to use a 'point' source (e.g. sodium >lamp) and focus that onto a diffusing screen with a lens. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >between images through the two paths so you get >interference. We didn't use a separate diffusing screen...but there might have been one in the collimator.
>You might like to consider the graphs on this page >especially at the point where the path difference goes >through zero: > >http://www.optics.arizona.edu/jcwyant/JoseDiaz/MichelsonInterferometerFringes.htm Quite good.
I cannot see why fringes wouldn't be formed with only one diverging beam, if it was 100% coherent.
>> That is the important question...along with the relative travel times of those >> which DO meet at the same points. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >by quarter of the angle subtended and they should then >hit the detector. But then they don't start out 90 degrees apart.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
George Dishman - 09 Dec 2005 15:47 GMT >>> On 5 Dec 2005 06:19:18 -0800, "George Dishman" >>> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > A > FOUR MIRRROR SAGNAC? No need to shout Henri, especially when the answer was at the bottom of the post.
>>> >> >>>The KVH spec says the maximum rotation rate is >>> >> >>>100 degrees/second for the analog output. I'll let [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > It depends on the theory one uses. Ritz.
>>> >> >Aether theories struggle with Sagnac, SR >>> >> >has no problem at all. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > When you have some time, look at > http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau/fizeau.stm I didn't see any explanation of why there are fringes in the MMX on that page to compare with what I gave. The historical summary is handy but the rest is pretty clueless really.
>>> >> Incidentally, your theory say 'light moves at c in a vacuum'. In the >>> >> SR [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > light to > move at c wrt that point and NOT wrt the source? I gave you the answer in detail in August and you ran away. I'm not going to waste my time repeating it. Respond to the above if you want to resurrect the conversation.
>>> I still can't see how the use of a modulated beam provides a more >>> sensitive [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > So it really relies on a constant slope of the photodiode curve.....yes I > suppose that is better than DC. The quantum efficiency, how many charge carriers are produced per incident photon, is reasonably constant over the life of the device and independent of environmental factors in the short term.
>>In addition, the modulating frequency is chosen such that the >>signal changes polarity at zero speed. The raw interference is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > OK, I vaguely get the picture. Good. Practical commercial implementations are often much more complex than lab experiments but as long as you follow the concepts we can probably work with that.
>>> >> The red line C-C' is the wavefront when it hits the >>> >> detector at point C when the table is not turning. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > passing a beam through a pinhole then expanding it again. I doubt if it > was peectly parallel and that was why fringes are formed. Imperfect wavefronts won't produce fringes, it would just reduce the contrast slightly (fuzzy fringes).
OK, here's my understanding of how it works omitting the mirrors to simplify the drawings. A point source 'S' such as a pinhole produces spherical wavefronts 'w' giving diverging rays:
S w *<)
Add a lens 'L' with the source at the focus and you get plane wavefronts and parallel rays giving uniform illumination on a screen 'C':
S L w C *<() | |
(That's used in a Twyman interferometer.)
Send the plane wavefronts to another lens before the screen and you get a point of light, basically an image of the pinhole:
S L w L C *<() | ()>|
Add a diffuser after the first lens and you get an image of the diffuser on the screen. You need to refocus the second lens slightly to the diffuser rather than at infinity:
S L w D L C *<() | | ()>|
This page gives fairly good descriptions of both Michelson and Twyman and explains how the fringes are formed in the Michelson case (first diagram):
http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/optics421/modules/m5/Interferometers.htm
This applet lets you play with spacings and also choose between the Michelson and Twyman arrangements
http://www.ub.es/javaoptics/applets/michelEn.jnlp
Note that as you said the screen is uniformly illuminated in the Twyman format.
The usual Sagnac configuration is a bit like a rotating Michelson in that the same mechanism is responsible for the fringes but with the loop of mirrors of course. The fringes are displaced because the path length change introduces an extra phase shift.
The iFOG configuration is more like the Twyman with the photodiode measuring the intensity but in the form of the AC modulation as we discussed before. The intensity varies solely because of the dependence of the arrival times on the speed of rotation.
> I gather the diverging lens in the laser model (above reference) also > produced non parallel light and therefore interference fringes. No. The diverging lens lets the laser illuminate the whole screen. The fringes are created because there are two different path lengths from the apparent point source at the focal point of the lens. In this case it is more like Newton's Rings. Try this page:
http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/waves/interference/twoSource/TwoSourceInte rference1.html
You can drag the sources. Put one in the middle and the other a little to the left of it. Move it very gently left or right to change the separation and see how the waves either add or cancel on the right hand edge of the box. In 3D there would be circular fringes on that face for two point sources.
> The same principle operates in sagnac. If the beam is perfectly parallel, > no [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > We didn't use a separate diffusing screen...but there might have been one > in the collimator. Yes, I expect that was the case.
>>You might like to consider the graphs on this page >>especially at the point where the path difference goes [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I cannot see why fringes wouldn't be formed with only one diverging beam, > if it was 100% coherent. As long as you have a path difference between the images of the source, you will get fringes but try putting the two sources on the page at the same point.
http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/waves/interference/twoSource/TwoSourceInte rference1.html
Now you just get waves hitting the edge of the screen, uniform illumination.
>>> That is the important question...along with the relative travel times of >>> those [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > But then they don't start out 90 degrees apart. Try it and see. I think you'll find you have to offset both beams in the same direction so they remain at 90 degrees. Remember this:
http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/SagnacAngles.html
Obviously the angles are grossly exaggerated but it illustrates the point. Move the slider to one end and both beams are far from the original 45 degree angles but they remain perpendicular.
George
Henri Wilson - 09 Dec 2005 21:05 GMT >>>If you can ever derive some equations that predict fringes >>>in the Sagnac interferometer setup when not rotating, then [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Ritz. In light of the fact that rays that start out 90 apart do not reunite at the same point during rotation, I don't know the answer.
I am quite certain however, that the classical explanation is wrong.
>>>> >> >Aether theories struggle with Sagnac, SR >>>> >> >has no problem at all. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >The historical summary is handy but the rest is pretty >clueless really. Did you read about sagnac......
>>>I'm still waiting for a reply to that so if anyone "ran for >>>cover with their tail between their legs", it was you. The [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Respond to the above if you want to resurrect the >conversation. You gave me the aether answer.
>> When I made MY interferometer, we didn't have lasers so I used a >> collimator. [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > >http://www.ub.es/javaoptics/applets/michelEn.jnlp That's a good one....
>Note that as you said the screen is uniformly >illuminated in the Twyman format. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >because the path length change introduces an >extra phase shift. it depends on the type of source. If the rays are perfectly parallel as in the Twyman, the screen should be uniform with no rotation. However I'm not sure as to why it should NOT remain uniform DURING rotation.
If the rays are slightly diverging from the source as in the Michelson, then fringes of hte 'thin film' type should form on the screen. However the situation is very complicated during rotation because if the different sideways displacements.
>The iFOG configuration is more like the Twyman >with the photodiode measuring the intensity but >in the form of the AC modulation as we discussed >before. The intensity varies solely because of >the dependence of the arrival times on the speed >of rotation. Well I'm not convinced that is the sole reason.
>> I gather the diverging lens in the laser model (above reference) also >> produced non parallel light and therefore interference fringes. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >point source at the focal point of the lens. In >this case it is more like Newton's Rings. That would not be true if the laser beam was perfectly parallel and coherent (in phase right across). No fringes would occur, as with the Twyman.
>Try this >page: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >hand edge of the box. In 3D there would be circular >fringes on that face for two point sources. I understand
>> The same principle operates in sagnac. If the beam is perfectly parallel, >> no [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >images of the source, you will get fringes but try >putting the two sources on the page at the same point. Actually fringes ARE formed on a distant screen when a beam passes through a pinhole.
>http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/waves/interference/twoSource/TwoSourceInte rference1.html > >Now you just get waves hitting the edge of the screen, >uniform illumination. Yes, there is virtually only one source.
>>>> That is the important question...along with the relative travel times of >>>> those [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >and both beams are far from the original 45 degree >angles but they remain perpendicular. Yes... but the distance between mirrors is all over the place. What assumptions did you make about reflected angle?
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
George Dishman - 10 Dec 2005 00:32 GMT > On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 15:47:34 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: Much snipped as there is no disagreement about most of the topics now.
>>>>> >> >>>The KVH spec says the maximum rotation rate is >>>>> >> >>>100 degrees/second for the analog output. I'll let [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the > same point during rotation, I don't know the answer. The rays do still start out at 90 degrees and also still arrive at 90 degrees. See at the bottom.
> I am quite certain however, that the classical explanation is wrong. It isn't, it gives the correct answer. Even if you could show Ritz worked, we would then have two accurate methods of prediction.
>>>>> >I'll explain how the fringes are formed in the lab version >>>>> >separately, I'm out of time now. >>>>> >>>>> I'll bet you can't even explain why fringes are formed even in the >>>>> MMX. You lost your bet ;-)
>>>>I've already given you links to several pages that >>>>explain it. I had assumed I wouldn't have to spell it [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Did you read about sagnac...... I hadn't because the question was the explanation of formation of fringes in the MMX. I just had a look and you can see what I mean about "clueless". He starts "The experiments of Sagnac in 1913 and Michelson-Gale in 1925, proved an embarrassment for special relativity, requiring the full force of general relativity to explain their results." That's complete nonsense, you've seen how trivial it is with SR here
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
He then goes on to give what he calls the "Galilean solution". In fact if you look at his eqn (13), it says:
tau = 2 pi / c
so he assumes the speed is c. This is in fact the SR solution, the Galilean version would have to take the speed of the lab through the aether into account. The guy is using SR and doesn't even know it.
>>Note that as you said the screen is uniformly >>illuminated in the Twyman format. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > If the rays are perfectly parallel as in the Twyman, the screen should be > uniform with no rotation. The difference between Michelson and Twyman is that Michelson uses a diffuser as an extended source like this:
source images lens screen a|| || b|| | || /\ | c|| ( ) |c' || \/ |b' || |a' ||
Light from c is focused to c', etc. I've shown two vertical lines representing the diffuser as "source images" because you see it through both paths but at slightly different distances. If the light at c' is a bright fringe then the extra path difference along the slightly slanting line from b to b' produces a dark fringe and for the ray from a to a' it is again bright. The key is that each point, a b and c, is a source emitting in all directions (well mostly towards the screen but you get the idea, it's not a laser beam).
> However I'm not sure as to why it should NOT remain > uniform DURING rotation. Michelson has fringes when static due to the variation of path length difference with the angle of the ray. The extra phase shift introduced by rotation at constant speed (in the Sagnac configuration using an extended source and mirrors) causes a displacement of the fringes.
Twyman has no fringes, just uniform light but at an intensity controlled by the phase shift caused by the path difference. An iFOG also has no fringes, just an intensity measurement. The intensity varies due to the extra phase shift when rotating.
> If the rays are slightly diverging from the source as in the Michelson, > then > fringes of hte 'thin film' type should form on the screen. However the > situation is very complicated during rotation because if the different > sideways > displacements. Sideways displacement of the wavefront has no effect. Your diagram shows that nicely or here's mine
http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/sagnac.gif
If you rotate the red line about point A, it obviously has no effect, it's an arc of a circle centred at A anyway.
>>The iFOG configuration is more like the Twyman >>with the photodiode measuring the intensity but [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Well I'm not convinced that is the sole reason. We know interference happens and it explains all of the effect.
>>> I gather the diverging lens in the laser model (above reference) also >>> produced non parallel light and therefore interference fringes. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > coherent > (in phase right across). No fringes would occur, as with the Twyman. Right.
>>Try this >>page: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I understand Cool. That answers the next question:
>>> I cannot see why fringes wouldn't be formed with only one diverging >>> beam, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > a > pinhole. Yes, the diffraction at the edge of the pinhole serves the same role as the diverging lens.
>>http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/waves/interference/twoSource/TwoSourceInte rference1.html >> >>Now you just get waves hitting the edge of the screen, >>uniform illumination. > > Yes, there is virtually only one source. That means in the iFOG, you get a maximum for no rotation and it must fall symmetrically on either side, i.e. for rotation in either direction. Hence the need to add the modulator to resolve the directional ambiguity.
>>>>It may not be as hard as you think. Note the distance >>>>by which the beams miss the detector. It is w*r*t where [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Yes... but the distance between mirrors is all over the place. > What assumptions did you make about reflected angle? Well the incident and reflected speeds are the same (=c) so the incident and reflected angles must be the same, just the usual rule. However you don't even need to make that assumption. Each leg of the path is identical so the angle between the beams must be the same so each reflection must take up quarter of the overall angle by which the return point is to be displaced in order to hit the detector.
George
Henri Wilson - 10 Dec 2005 22:27 GMT >Much snipped as there is no disagreement about most >of the topics now. There is still considerable disagreement.
>>>>>So what displacement do you find for 315 loops Henri? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >you could show Ritz worked, we would then have >two accurate methods of prediction. I reckon the whole effect is more to do with rotation of the wave 'axis of symmetry' than with path length differences.
Your classical explanation is just the aether one. "Light moves at c wrt the 'point in space' where the source happens to be."
Maybe we should all start looking for the 'aether' again.
>>>>>> I'll bet you can't even explain why fringes are formed even in the >>>>>> MMX. > >You lost your bet ;-) You had to look it up.
>>>> When you have some time, look at >>>> http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau/fizeau.stm [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm LET.
>He then goes on to give what he calls the "Galilean >solution". In fact if you look at his eqn (13), it [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >account. The guy is using SR and doesn't even know >it. ...and you are using LET and don't even know it..
>>>Note that as you said the screen is uniformly >>>illuminated in the Twyman format. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >in all directions (well mostly towards the screen >but you get the idea, it's not a laser beam). Yes, It is has rays in all possible angles within the (diverging) beam itself. The fringes are due to the 'thin film' effect.
>> However I'm not sure as to why it should NOT remain >> uniform DURING rotation. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >source and mirrors) causes a displacement of >the fringes. Well, that is the question.
>Twyman has no fringes, just uniform light but >at an intensity controlled by the phase shift >caused by the path difference. An iFOG also >has no fringes, just an intensity measurement. >The intensity varies due to the extra phase >shift when rotating. That would be because the fibres are thin enough to virtually ensure that all enclosed rays are parallel.
>> If the rays are slightly diverging from the source as in the Michelson, >> then [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >obviously has no effect, it's an arc of a circle >centred at A anyway. I think that's an over simplification. Do that over the three mirrors and you will get a path length difference. The problem is to draw lines that reunite at the same point on the final screen.. ...these are the ones that determine the light intensity there.
>>>The iFOG configuration is more like the Twyman >>>with the photodiode measuring the intensity but [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >We know interference happens and it explains all >of the effect. There could easily be two ways of arriving at the same answer.
>>>> I gather the diverging lens in the laser model (above reference) also >>>> produced non parallel light and therefore interference fringes. [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >direction. Hence the need to add the modulator >to resolve the directional ambiguity. OK. clever....
>>>Obviously the angles are grossly exaggerated but it >>>illustrates the point. Move the slider to one end [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >same (=c) so the incident and reflected angles >must be the same, just the usual rule. I used that in my demo but don't accept it outright. The mirror is moving at 45 degrees wrt the beam.
>However >you don't even need to make that assumption. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >angle by which the return point is to be >displaced in order to hit the detector. I don't even think we can be 100% sure of that. There is an accumlating angular change for one thing.
The only thing I am certain of now is that Sagnac is not simple.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
George Dishman - 11 Dec 2005 10:55 GMT > On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 00:32:09 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > There is still considerable disagreement. If you think I snipped anything relevant that is still disputed, please bring it back. I only intended to remove agreed portions and side issues. I'll trim more on the same basis.
>>> I am quite certain however, that the classical explanation is wrong. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I reckon the whole effect is more to do with rotation of the wave 'axis of > symmetry' than with path length differences. Rotation about an 'axis of symmetry' has no effect by definition. Regardless of that, there is no such phenomena in Ritz's theory. You are of course entitled to try to come up with your own new alternative. Let me know if you ever achieve that.
>>>>>>> I'll bet you can't even explain why fringes are formed even in the >>>>>>> MMX. >> >>You lost your bet ;-) > > You had to look it up. I always knew how the fringes were formed, what I looked up was just existing web pages that illustrated it in a way I thought would get it across in the way I wanted. Anyway the important part is the smilie and I am happy to admit I wasn't familiar with the Twyman version until I went looking. I'm not into scoring points but I like to set the record straight when people get personal. No offence taken though.
>>The difference between Michelson and Twyman is that >>Michelson uses a diffuser as an extended source like [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > itself. > The fringes are due to the 'thin film' effect. Exactly. Note that the pattern across the screen isn't just a linear row of straight fringes, it is a complex pattern. Compare the curves on this page
http://www.optics.arizona.edu/jcwyant/JoseDiaz/MichelsonInterferometerFringes.htm
with the photograph on this
http://bednorzmuller87.phys.cmu.edu/demonstrations/optics/interference/demo328.html
Compare the close fringe spacing at the edges with the much wider first fringe. By potting that pattern and working back, you can show that it results from a combination of the geometrically generated phase shift pattern over the screen and determine the thickness of the 'thin film' effect unambiguously. That thickness of course relates to the transit time difference in the Sagnac configuration.
>>> However I'm not sure as to why it should NOT remain >>> uniform DURING rotation. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Well, that is the question. Not really. Unlike a simple regular fringe pattern, there is additional information in the circular pattern in the form of the variation of fringe width with radius which means the geometry is uniquely determined.
>>Twyman has no fringes, just uniform light but >>at an intensity controlled by the phase shift [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > all > enclosed rays are parallel. Yes, it essentially samples the centre of the pattern but since there is no lens at the exit to return the plane waves to a point, you get are sampling a uniform illumination anyway.
>>Sideways displacement of the wavefront has no >>effect. Your diagram shows that nicely or here's [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I think that's an over simplification. > Do that over the three mirrors and you will get a path length difference. Nope, three times zero is still zero. However I'll come back to this later as I really need to answer your questions below before addressing this.
> The problem is to draw lines that reunite at the same point on the final > screen.. > ...these are the ones that determine the light intensity there. That part isn't a problem, see below.
>>>>Obviously the angles are grossly exaggerated but it >>>>illustrates the point. Move the slider to one end [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > at 45 > degrees wrt the beam. You misunderstand, when I said the speeds were the same and "=c", that is in the mirror frame. As discussed, it's c+v/sqrt(2) in the lab frame. Relative to the mirror the incident and reflected speeds are both c so the incident and reflected angles must be equal.
Even if they weren't, it doesn't help you. Consider one leg like this:
______ /\ / \ s d
's' can be the source (first pass through the splitter) or the previous mirror, d can be the detector (second pas through the splitter). Now imagine the incident and reflected angles are slightly different. To get from s to d, the beam now gets reflected at a point slightly offset from the midpoint I've shown, say by dx. That increases the length of one path by dx/sqrt(2) but increases the other path by the same amount. To explain Sagnac, you need to _increase_both_ by that amount. That only happens if the direction of the shift of the reflection point is perpendicular to the mirror.
>>However >>you don't even need to make that assumption. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I don't even think we can be 100% sure of that. We can, simply from symmetry. If you draw this diagram:
\|/ --+--
You can't tell which mirror I am illustrating. All the incident parameters are identical in each case so the behaviour must be identical too. You only require that the physics is repeatable
> There is an accumlating angular change for one thing. Yes but the mirrors move between each reflection so there is also an accumulating table rotation. At constant speed, the mirrors rotate and move equal amounts in equal times. The relation of the light beam to the mirror is identical at each reflection. The angular change must therefore accumulate at one quarter for each leg which is how you can solve for the launch angle in your program.
So let's summarise a bit and then I can answer your point about lateral movement of the ray within the beam.
We know from static experiments that light exhibits "interference" phenomena between two phase-related sources such as two images of the same source. The intensity is simply related to the phase difference and relative intensities.
In Sagnac, we measure an intensity change at the centre of the pattern which means a phase difference, but there is no geometrical aspect to produce that. That suggests there must be a path length change and the rest of the pattern over the screen also changes in a manner that agrees with a path length change but not a geometry change. In other words the fringes remain circular but of changed radius rather than say the whole pattern moving sideways.
The amount of intensity change at the centre (or fringe displacement farther out) tells us the ratio of the path length change 'dP' to the wavelength, and we know the wavelength so the measurement tells us the value of dP. That is for two beams and four legs per beam so the length change per leg 'dL' is dP/8, it must be the same for each leg by symmetry.
Looking at our diagram
http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/sagnac.gif
in time t, a wavefront reflected from point A on the mirror will reach point C' when the table is not turning where point C' is at the same distance from A as C.
Ritz says that the wavefront will reach arc D-D' in the same time t'=t when the table is rotating at any constant peripheral speed v.
Now consider this version:
http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/sagnac.gif
The length A-D must be L' = c' t + dL where c' is the unknown speed of the light from the moving source which we are trying to measure.
The distance dL can be calculated from the measured intensity change or fringe displacement and the known wavelength. Say the fringe displacement is a fraction 'k' of a fringe and the wavelength is lambda, then:
dL = k/ * lambda
c' = (L + v * t / sqrt(2)) - k / 8 * lambda
That value is the same as c to within the experimental error.
You don't need to worry about the lateral shift because the location of point C' is simply one of the results of the measurement.
George
Henri Wilson - 11 Dec 2005 21:16 GMT >> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 00:32:09 -0000, "George Dishman"
>>>Much snipped as there is no disagreement about most >>>of the topics now. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >with your own new alternative. Let me know >if you ever achieve that. It largely depends on what happens during the reflections from moving mirrors.
Maxwell's derivation of c assumes the two waves are symmetrical about an axis. If they are not symmetrical, I would say the wave propagation speed is NOT c. If the rays that reunite in a rotating sagnac aren't at 90 degrees when they start out, their sped around the loop will not be the same.
>>>>>>>> I'll bet you can't even explain why fringes are formed even in the >>>>>>>> MMX. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >like to set the record straight when people get >personal. No offence taken though. I still reckon there is a basic difference between the fringe formation of a rotating sagnac and that of a stationary MMX or non-rotating sagnac.
>>>The difference between Michelson and Twyman is that >>>Michelson uses a diffuser as an extended source like [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >That thickness of course relates to the transit time >difference in the Sagnac configuration. No I don't agree. I say that, during rotation, there is a more important factor than simple path length difference.
>> Well, that is the question. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >to return the plane waves to a point, you get >are sampling a uniform illumination anyway. ...and I maintain that the phase shifts have something to do with different speeds of the two beams, due to changing angles.
>>>Sideways displacement of the wavefront has no >>>effect. Your diagram shows that nicely or here's [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] >happens if the direction of the shift of the >reflection point is perpendicular to the mirror. I understand what you are trying to say but I don't think you are right. I think it is a lot more complicated than that.
>>>However >>>you don't even need to make that assumption. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >each case so the behaviour must be identical too. >You only require that the physics is repeatable The incident angle is NOT identical at each mirror. The angular change accumulates. I don't see that you can assume refleted angle and incident angle are equal when the mirror is moving sideways.
>> There is an accumlating angular change for one thing. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >how you can solve for the launch angle in your >program. Well, I'll have to try to program this, with all the possible options included. I'm a bit busy at the moment but am determined to get to the bottom of this.
>So let's summarise a bit and then I can answer >your point about lateral movement of the ray [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >same source. The intensity is simply related >to the phase difference and relative intensities. Yes. We can be pretty certain that the standard MMX explanation also applies to a non-rotating sagnac.
>In Sagnac, we measure an intensity change at >the centre of the pattern which means a phase [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >remain circular but of changed radius rather >than say the whole pattern moving sideways. Well I say there might also be a speed change around the loop. I am speculating that the 'wave axis' does peculiar things during reflection from a moving mirror.
>The amount of intensity change at the centre >(or fringe displacement farther out) tells [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >D-D' in the same time t'=t when the table is >rotating at any constant peripheral speed v. I'm not even sure you can assume that, even for very small angles. The reflected speed could depend on angle...so the wavefront might not be parallel to D-D'.
>Now consider this version: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the moving source which we are trying to >measure. I don't get that.
Why doesn't L'=c't...= L+dL...?
>The distance dL can be calculated from the >measured intensity change or fringe [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >shift because the location of point C' is >simply one of the results of the measurement. No understand....
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
George Dishman - 12 Dec 2005 13:55 GMT > >> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 00:32:09 -0000, "George Dishman" > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > It largely depends on what happens during the reflections from moving mirrors. Well Ritz is the same as classical theory except for the emission speed so the rules for mirrors can be found using Huygens in general. In Sagnac, the incident and reflected speeds are equal so the usual rule applies .
> Maxwell's derivation of c assumes the two waves are symmetrical about an axis. That's nonsense, are you perhaps confusing the wave solution with the equations?
> If they are not symmetrical, I would say the wave propagation speed is NOT c. The equations say all changes propagate at c (regardless of symmetry).
> If the rays that reunite in a rotating sagnac aren't at 90 degrees when they > start out, their sped around the loop will not be the same. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I still reckon there is a basic difference between the fringe formation of a > rotating sagnac and that of a stationary MMX or non-rotating sagnac. The process that produces the fringes in the non-rotating case must still exist when rotating. That process accounts fully for the observed pattern when rotating. If you want to propose an alternative, it has to deal with both cases. That's the way science works Henri, some experiments constrain our models in such a way that we can use those models as tools for analysing other experiments.
> >... Note that the pattern across the screen > >isn't just a linear row of straight fringes, it [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I say that, during rotation, there is a more important factor than simple path > length difference. Say what you like, it is a fact that the shape of the curve matches that predicted by the application of the static interference rules to the dynamic situation.
> >>>Twyman has no fringes, just uniform light but > >>>at an intensity controlled by the phase shift [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > ...and I maintain that the phase shifts have something to do with different > speeds of the two beams, ... We already did the maths that showed t' = t so there is no phase shift due to the speeds.
> ... due to changing angles. Changing the angles at which the beams reach the detector doesn't change the phase difference either. You need to explain which angles you are talking about and how they produce a phase change because classical physics (which Ritz inherited) doesn't produce a phase shift any way I can see.
> >>>> What assumptions did you make about reflected angle? > >>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > I understand what you are trying to say but I don't think you are right. Then show an error in what I said. I do ocassionally make mistakes but it's a simple application of Pythagoras so you should be able to show where I went wrong easily.
> I think it is a lot more complicated than that. > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > The incident angle is NOT identical at each mirror. The angular change > accumulates. So does the rotation of the mirrors. I already said this below.
> I don't see that you can assume refleted angle and incident angle are equal > when the mirror is moving sideways. The angles are the same in the mirror frame (in which the mirror is not translating) and it isn't an assumption, it is a result from applying Huygens method which still applies in Ritz as long as you take any speed change into account.
> >> There is an accumlating angular change for one thing. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Well, I'll have to try to program this, It is the basis of the equations I used for this
http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/SagnacAngles.html
> with all the possible options included. > I'm a bit busy at the moment but am determined to get to the bottom of this. Good, it's only geometry so you should be able to decide whether you agree or not quite easily.
> >So let's summarise a bit and then I can answer > >your point about lateral movement of the ray [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Well I say there might also be a speed change around the loop. There _is_ a speed change, the v/sqrt(2) bit we discussed earlier, but we also worked the math and showed the two are matched so that t' = t hence no phase change.
> I am speculating that the 'wave axis' does peculiar things during reflection > from a moving mirror. I have no idea what you mean by 'wave axis'. There is no such thing in general unless you are talking about a circular beam, but Idon't see how the shape of the cross section has any relevance.
> >The amount of intensity change at the centre > >(or fringe displacement farther out) tells [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > The reflected speed could depend on angle...so the wavefront might not be > parallel to D-D'. Apply Huygens and see what you get then.
> >Now consider this version: > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Why doesn't L'=c't...= L+dL...? In time t, the light moves c't by definition. We know the beams arrive out of step and the amount is a fraction of a wavelength which I call dL. At time t after leaving point A, it has moved c't and is short of the detector by dL hence the sum of c't and dL must equal the distance from A to D, L'.
> >The distance dL can be calculated from the > >measured intensity change or fringe [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > No understand.... Which bit? Let me see if I can summarise: if we know the dimensions of the setup and we find dL from the fringe shift (or intensity change) then we can work out c' so Sagnac allows us to measure the speed of the light emitted by the moving source when the table is rotating compared to the speed when at rest. Lateral shift of the ray within the beam is of no consequence because only the linear distances come into the calculation.
The experimental result is that the speeds are the same.
George
Henri Wilson - 12 Dec 2005 22:30 GMT >> >> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 00:32:09 -0000, "George Dishman" >> [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] >our models in such a way that we can use those models as >tools for analysing other experiments. You are starting to preach again George.
>> >... Note that the pattern across the screen >> >isn't just a linear row of straight fringes, it [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >matches that predicted by the application of the static >interference rules to the dynamic situation. I am working on my simulation. Wait for it.
>> >>>Twyman has no fringes, just uniform light but >> >>>at an intensity controlled by the phase shift [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >classical physics (which Ritz inherited) doesn't >produce a phase shift any way I can see. Yo will have to wait for my answer.
>> >>>> What assumptions did you make about reflected angle? >> >>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >Pythagoras so you should be able to show where >I went wrong easily. My next demo will make everything much clearer. It is nearly finished.
>> I think it is a lot more complicated than that. >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >applies in Ritz as long as you take any speed change >into account. We will see.
>> >> There is an accumlating angular change for one thing. >> > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >Good, it's only geometry so you should be able >to decide whether you agree or not quite easily. Geometry with certain assumptions.
>> >So let's summarise a bit and then I can answer >> >your point about lateral movement of the ray [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >and showed the two are matched so that t' = t >hence no phase change. I know that is the answer you want George.
>> I am speculating that the 'wave axis' does peculiar things during reflection >> from a moving mirror. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >about a circular beam, but Idon't see how the shape >of the cross section has any relevance. Have you no idea of the physical significance of Maxwell's theory? Have you never seen a diagram of the two waves oscillating at right angles along an 'axis'? They are pure sine waves, not skewed.
>> >The amount of intensity change at the centre >> >(or fringe displacement farther out) tells [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Apply Huygens and see what you get then. Maybe Huygens theory was limited.
>> >Now consider this version: >> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >of the detector by dL hence the sum of c't and dL >must equal the distance from A to D, L'. That's a funny way to look at it. Which beams arrive out of step? You are considering only ONE beam here.
>> >The distance dL can be calculated from the >> >measured intensity change or fringe [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >consequence because only the linear >distances come into the calculation. No i think you are trying to oversimplify this whole thing George.
>The experimental result is that the speeds are >the same. We shall see.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
George Dishman - 13 Dec 2005 09:05 GMT > >> >> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 00:32:09 -0000, "George Dishman"
> >> I still reckon there is a basic difference between the fringe formation of a > >> rotating sagnac and that of a stationary MMX or non-rotating sagnac. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You are starting to preach again George. Hmm, OK, let's see if I can say it another way. You seem to be saying that you agree that interference produces the fringes in the stationary case of an MMX and presumably you would then accept that it will also have an effect in the Sagnac setup. You before ...
> >> Yes. We can be pretty certain that the standard MMX explanation > >> also applies to a non-rotating sagnac. .. so I think that's reasonable.
We have seen that Ritz doesn't produce a time difference on the diagram you drew so what I think you are saying is that the combination of Ritzian (ballistic) speed, the conventional interference PLUS some less well defined effect which you refer to a photon's having a 'gyro' is what produces the fringes in Sagnac. Do I understand you correctly?
> I am working on my simulation. Wait for it. ...
> Yo will have to wait for my answer. ...
> My next demo will make everything much clearer. It is nearly finished. ...
> We will see. ...
> >> Well, I'll have to try to program this, > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Geometry with certain assumptions. OK, I'll wait and see.
> >> >In Sagnac, we measure an intensity change at > >> >the centre of the pattern which means a phase [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I know that is the answer you want George. It is the answer we derived from your diagram. You even said to someone else that I had convinced you of that part. I thought you now felt the fringes were due to some other effect, you seem to be saying that above.
> >> I am speculating that the 'wave axis' does peculiar things during reflection > >> from a moving mirror. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > along an 'axis'? > They are pure sine waves, not skewed. That's what I suspected:
> >That's nonsense, are you perhaps confusing the wave > >solution with the equations? Those are solutions, they are not the equations. I'll perhaps explain this better when I have more time but I'm out tonight.
> >> I'm not even sure you can assume that, even for very small angles. > >> The reflected speed could depend on angle...so the wavefront might not be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Maybe Huygens theory was limited. Not by Ritz's theory, he only changed the speed.
> >> >Now consider this version: > >> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > That's a funny way to look at it. It just turns the arithmetic process around. Instead of hypothesising a speed and predicting a shift, we measure the shift and it tells us the speed. Instead of "Assuming A, predict B." we use "Given B, find A."
> Which beams arrive out of step? > You are considering only ONE beam here. You only drew one in the diagram :-)
The fringe displacement tells us the difference between the path lengths, One beam is increased while the other is decreased by the same amount. The increase in one beam is therefore half the amount determined by the fringe displacement. There are four identical legs of which you have drawn a typical single leg so dL on that diagram is quarter of the path length change for the whole beam or one eighth of the total.
> >> >The distance dL can be calculated from the > >> >measured intensity change or fringe [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > No i think you are trying to oversimplify this whole thing George. It is simple Henri, your diagram gives us the maths for each leg, displacement of the point of reflection on the mirror due to deviation from the law of reflection has no first-order effect and the intensity follows from the same effect you get in the Michelson or Twyman interferometers. I think you are just looking for an excuse to duck the issue. "It's too complicated for me but I can't say why." isn't an answer.
George
Henri Wilson - 13 Dec 2005 19:49 GMT >> >> No understand.... >> > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >George I am still working on a much improved simulation...nearly finished...must get the angles dead right.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
George Dishman - 14 Dec 2005 08:45 GMT > I am still working on a much improved simulation...nearly finished...must get > the angles dead right. OK, I'll wait to see and hope it answers the questions you snipped.
George
Eric Gisse - 14 Dec 2005 10:18 GMT > > I am still working on a much improved simulation...nearly finished...must get > > the angles dead right. > > OK, I'll wait to see and hope it answers the questions you snipped. Do you think Henri actually learned anything from your amazingly patient posts?
> George George Dishman - 14 Dec 2005 21:07 GMT >> > I am still working on a much improved simulation...nearly >> > finished...must get [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Do you think Henri actually learned anything from your amazingly > patient posts? Certainly. For example he didn't know much about fibre gyros before we started. He made the reasonable assumption that, like many interferometers, they produced fringes and their displacement was registered by counting as they passed a slit. Now he is aware that there are no fringes, the signal is measured by a photodiode, an optical modulator is used and what is detected is an AC signal whose amplitude is proportional to the angular speed.
He didn't understand the details of how fringes are formed in a Michelson interferometer but only because he wasn't aware of the diffuser in the light source he had used in the past.
I don't think he realised the fringes in the Sagnac experiment, or an accurately aligned Michelson, would be circular. We've all used interferometers with linear fringes so again that wasn't unreasonable, but there is considerable significance since it is easy to think moving a beam sideways might shift linear fringes while obviously it can't change the radius of circular fringes.
We have also gone over the simple drawing he did of the rays comparing path length when stationary and moving and although he may harbour some concerns that perhaps something was missed (mirror reflection angles and such like), he understood how that diagram alone showed there was no time difference under Ritz's theory. That's only one aspect of course but it is something I think that he would not have expected some months ago.
Most importantly, when "Androcles" tried to hand-wave an explanation, Henri pointed out a number of errors. Henri was right on the ball, picking up all the mistakes and correcting them. He couldn't have done that without a sound understanding of the experiment.
Of course I don't expect him to drop Ritz and embrace relativity, that was never on the cards. He will continue to seek an explanation within a ballistic framework, but now he should be able to avoid wasting time on dead-end approaches and I think he realises it is not the trivial question he first imagined.
I have to say Henri earned a degree of respect in my view in particular because on a number of occasions he said honestly "I don't know" or "I can't explain" or "I don't understand." and the vast majority of cranks would never say anything like that. It's a shame he occasionally resorts to the propaganda statements and insults but they're water of a duck's back to me, I'm long enough in the tooth to know that people judge me on my posts, not the insults of others.
If you want a comparison, ask yourself how much Ken Seto learnt from our discussion. Henri's in a different league.
George
Eric Gisse - 14 Dec 2005 23:51 GMT > >> > I am still working on a much improved simulation...nearly > >> > finished...must get [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Do you think Henri actually learned anything from your amazingly > > patient posts? [snip]
> I have to say Henri earned a degree of respect in my > view in particular because on a number of occasions [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > back to me, I'm long enough in the tooth to know that > people judge me on my posts, not the insults of others. Holy sh.t.
Mabey I should try to get him to think about the wave equations Maxwell's equations makes a little more, if I wouldn't be talking to a wall.
> If you want a comparison, ask yourself how much Ken > Seto learnt from our discussion. Henri's in a different > league. > > George Henri Wilson - 15 Dec 2005 05:26 GMT >> I have to say Henri earned a degree of respect in my >> view in particular because on a number of occasions [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Maxwell's equations makes a little more, if I wouldn't be talking to a >wall. Geesey, the equations are rather complicated but visuallising what they mean is pretty simple. You , of course, being a junior, wouldn't have the required intelligence or experience to do that.
>> If you want a comparison, ask yourself how much Ken >> Seto learnt from our discussion. Henri's in a different >> league. >> >> George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Eric Gisse - 15 Dec 2005 05:35 GMT > >> I have to say Henri earned a degree of respect in my > >> view in particular because on a number of occasions [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Geesey, the equations are rather complicated but visuallising what they mean is > pretty simple. Then explain to me how your c+v theory satisfies Maxwell's equations.
> You , of course, being a junior, wouldn't have the required intelligence or > experience to do that. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Henri Wilson - 15 Dec 2005 20:54 GMT >> >> I have to say Henri earned a degree of respect in my >> >> view in particular because on a number of occasions [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Then explain to me how your c+v theory satisfies Maxwell's equations. Explain to me how Maxwell's equations don't prove that SR is just an aether theory.
>> You , of course, being a junior, wouldn't have the required intelligence or >> experience to do that. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> HW. >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Eric Gisse - 15 Dec 2005 23:45 GMT > >> >> I have to say Henri earned a degree of respect in my > >> >> view in particular because on a number of occasions [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Explain to me how Maxwell's equations don't prove that SR is just an aether > theory. The subject at hand is too close to your mental block to be able to make any progress.
Now, back to Maxwell's equations.
You have the two E and B wave equations. I want to hear you explain how, contrary to all the PDE theory I know, the speed of light in the 2 wave equations can possibly be dependant on velocity.
[snip]
Henri Wilson - 16 Dec 2005 00:09 GMT >> >> >> I have to say Henri earned a degree of respect in my >> >> >> view in particular because on a number of occasions [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >The subject at hand is too close to your mental block to be able to >make any progress. ....Note, no answer from the idiot geese.
>Now, back to Maxwell's equations. > >You have the two E and B wave equations. I want to hear you explain >how, contrary to all the PDE theory I know, the speed of light in the 2 >wave equations can possibly be dependant on velocity. The two constants have value zero in empty space.
...and what is this 'speed of light' you refer to?
Maxwell's equations apply to speed wrt the ONE absolute aether. Haven't they taught you that yet?
Poor boy...
>[snip] HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Eric Gisse - 16 Dec 2005 03:13 GMT > >> >> >> I have to say Henri earned a degree of respect in my > >> >> >> view in particular because on a number of occasions [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > ....Note, no answer from the idiot geese. I am not going to answer any questions from you when you will neither accept or understand the answer.
> >Now, back to Maxwell's equations. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The two constants have value zero in empty space. Empirically wrong, as usual. Don't let the facts get in your way, Henri!
> ...and what is this 'speed of light' you refer to? Reading is hard.
> Maxwell's equations apply to speed wrt the ONE absolute aether. Haven't they > taught you that yet? No, they don't. Goddamn. They are perfectly valid in free space. I am tired of explaining this stuff to you. YOU CANNOT LEARN ANYTHING ABOUT PHYSICS!
> Poor boy... There is no f.cking way you have a degree in applied mathematics. I am tired of wasting my time with you.
> >[snip] > > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm jgreen@seol.net.au - 16 Dec 2005 04:06 GMT George, after a good night's sleep, you should be able to explain how light can have its velocity altered, without changing "speed"
Jim G c'=c+v
George Dishman - 16 Dec 2005 10:52 GMT > George, after a good night's sleep, you should be able to explain how > light can have its velocity altered, without changing "speed" Shine a torch at a mirror. The direction changes but the speed doesn't. That's true in both SR and Ritz so I fail to see your point.
George
The Ghost In The Machine - 16 Dec 2005 17:00 GMT In sci.physics.relativity, George Dishman <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote on 16 Dec 2005 02:52:46 -0800 <1134730366.174599.83990@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
>> George, after a good night's sleep, you should be able to explain how >> light can have its velocity altered, without changing "speed" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > George Now shine the torch at a mirror that is moving with respect to the torch.
nBaT: the reflected light will have a different speed than c.
SR: the reflected light will have the same speed, but a different wavelength.
 Signature #191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
George Dishman - 16 Dec 2005 17:27 GMT > In sci.physics.relativity, George Dishman > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Now shine the torch at a mirror that is moving with respect to > the torch. That would only complicate the question, Jim only asked about the difference between velocity and speed.
Patience Ghost, patience.
George
jgreen@seol.net.au - 18 Dec 2005 00:43 GMT > In sci.physics.relativity, George Dishman > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > nBaT: the reflected light will have a different speed than c. Yep! Cleary demonstrated by the observed frequency change.
> SR: the reflected light will have the same speed, but a different > wavelength. Pure magic! How did the torch "know" to alter its output? How did the mirror convert the signal?
Jim G c'=c+v
The Ghost In The Machine - 18 Dec 2005 02:00 GMT In sci.physics.relativity, jgreen@seol.net.au <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote on 17 Dec 2005 16:43:13 -0800 <1134866593.278436.255940@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
>> In sci.physics.relativity, George Dishman >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Yep! Cleary demonstrated by the observed frequency change. Clear as mud. The frequency change in SR is (c+v)/(c-v). In nBaT the frequency change is (c+2v)/c.
>> SR: the reflected light will have the same speed, but a different >> wavelength. > > Pure magic! How did the torch "know" to alter its output? > How did the mirror convert the signal? The torch is in a different reference frame from the moving mirror.
> Jim G > c'=c+v
 Signature #191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
jgreen@seol.net.au - 18 Dec 2005 10:14 GMT > In sci.physics.relativity, jgreen@seol.net.au > <jgreen@seol.net.au> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Clear as mud. The frequency change in SR is (c+v)/(c-v). > In nBaT the frequency change is (c+2v)/c. Don't be ridiculous Ghost! (c+v) is DENIED in SR, EXCEPT when v = 0 In c+v theory, alteration of source v causes change to frequency (observed), due to the wavelength being the same, and the photons (c+v)
> >> SR: the reflected light will have the same speed, but a different > >> wavelength. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The torch is in a different reference frame from the moving mirror. If you think that all of a sudden, the source/photon/receiver are in a different "frame", then YOU are in the WRONG universe.
Jim G c'=c+v BY ACT OF PARLIAMENT
George Dishman - 18 Dec 2005 10:33 GMT >> SR: the reflected light will have the same speed, but a different >> wavelength. > > Pure magic! How did the torch "know" to alter its output? It didn't, the incident light is unchanged.
> How did the mirror convert the signal? The mirror moves in the time between reflecting consecutive wavefronts.
George
jgreen@seol.net.au - 18 Dec 2005 00:37 GMT > > George, after a good night's sleep, you should be able to explain how > > light can have its velocity altered, without changing "speed" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > George You know of that to which I refer ( a little trolly, but still greatly significant to light propagation). A photon emitted vertically from the ceiling of a staionary train, would strike earth's center if not blocked; one from a moving train would NOT. This is NOT analogous to a beam incident to a mirror.
Jim G c'=c+v
George Dishman - 18 Dec 2005 10:39 GMT >> > George, after a good night's sleep, you should be able to explain how >> > light can have its velocity altered, without changing "speed" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You know of that to which I refer I answered the question you asked Jim. I've said before that you should take more care in asking your questions if that isn't what you wanted to know about.
> ( a little trolly, but still greatly > significant to light propagation). Not a troll at all, the subject of the thread is the Sagnac experiment where light is bounced off moving mirrors.
> A photon emitted vertically from the ceiling of a staionary train, > would strike earth's center if not blocked; one from a moving train > would NOT. Well obviously, since in one case the train is moving and in the other it isn't. Were you trying to make a point? Is it relevant to the subject of analysing the Sagnac experiment with Ritz's theory?
> This is NOT analogous to a beam incident to a mirror. Apparently not.
George
Henri Wilson - 16 Dec 2005 20:56 GMT >> >> >> >> I have to say Henri earned a degree of respect in my >> >> >> >> view in particular because on a number of occasions [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >Empirically wrong, as usual. Don't let the facts get in your way, >Henri! Geese, poor boy, if you try to measure the permittivity of truly empty space you get the permittivity of the field between the plates. It is NO LONGER empty space.
>> ...and what is this 'speed of light' you refer to? > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> HW. >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
George Dishman - 16 Dec 2005 17:37 GMT > Mabey I should try to get him to think about the wave equations > Maxwell's equations makes a little more, if I wouldn't be talking to a > wall. Before trying that, you need to make sure he understands the nature of the equations in differential form. My idea was to consider a box of randomly distributed charge (use the COBE image for example
http://aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/cobe/COBE_Home/cmb_flux.gif
with red=positive and blue=negative) and say how that would evolve with time as described by equations in differential form. Of course there's more than just charge in Maxwell and Henri understands simulation programs so my idea was to move onto weather prediction where both pressure and momentum are important. He should understand the equations describe cells of air but the overall sim can reproduce say a hurricane even though there is no equation for a rotating air mass in the system. That would be my way to distinguish between the equations and their solutions and introduce propagating sine waves only as a solution.
YMMV, have fun whatever.
george
Henri Wilson - 15 Dec 2005 05:20 GMT >>> > I am still working on a much improved simulation...nearly >>> > finished...must get [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >he wasn't aware of the diffuser in the light source he >had used in the past. Don't bullshit...even to the idiot Geese.
I informed YOU that fringes wouldn't be formed in an MMX with perfectly parallel light.
>I don't think he realised the fringes in the Sagnac >experiment, or an accurately aligned Michelson, would >be circular. Unlike you George, I have actually SEEN round fringes in the interferometer that I made as a final year project. I informed YOU that one mirror is slightly angled to form an effective optical wedge and produce straight lines instyead of circles.
> We've all used interferometers with >linear fringes so again that wasn't unreasonable, but >there is considerable significance since it is easy >to think moving a beam sideways might shift linear >fringes while obviously it can't change the radius >of circular fringes. The Michelson interferometer is very different from a sagnac.
>We have also gone over the simple drawing he did of >the rays comparing path length when stationary and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >something I think that he would not have expected >some months ago. You can see from my latest demo that the sagnac DOES NOT refute the BaTh. In fact it makes a mockery of the standard SR/aether argument.
>Most importantly, when "Androcles" tried to hand-wave >an explanation, Henri pointed out a number of errors. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >time on dead-end approaches and I think he realises >it is not the trivial question he first imagined. My demo doesn't allow for any 'dragging' at mirror reflections. I will include that option next.
>I have to say Henri earned a degree of respect in my >view in particular because on a number of occasions [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Seto learnt from our discussion. Henri's in a different >league. To be better regarded as less stupid than Seto is indeed one of the greatest compliments one can receive.....
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Henri Wilson - 14 Dec 2005 19:56 GMT >> I am still working on a much improved simulation...nearly finished...must get >> the angles dead right. > >OK, I'll wait to see and hope it answers the questions you snipped. I'm almost there. Very difficult....
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Henri Wilson - 14 Dec 2005 21:36 GMT >> I am still working on a much improved simulation...nearly finished...must get >> the angles dead right. > >OK, I'll wait to see and hope it answers the questions you snipped. > >George Have a look at www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac1.exe
You will have to wortk out how to use it
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
George Dishman - 14 Dec 2005 23:16 GMT >>> I am still working on a much improved simulation...nearly >>> finished...must get [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You will have to wortk out how to use it I'm just off to bed so I've only tried it briefly but I can't find a setting for the red ray that hits the detector. You have 0.01 and 0.03 in the list but it seems to need about 0.02. The path is becoming rectangular as well but I'm not sure if that's a symptom of not having the right value in the list. I'll need to think about that one.
George
Henri Wilson - 15 Dec 2005 05:23 GMT >>>> I am still working on a much improved simulation...nearly >>>> finished...must get [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >value in the list. I'll need to think >about that one. Set the speed at 1000 in the combo (0.001 c) With both angles at zero, you should get a square with both beams ending up only slightly displaced. If both red and blue displacement angles are the saem, it means they start out 90 degrees apart.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
George Dishman - 15 Dec 2005 08:37 GMT > Set the speed at 1000 in the combo (0.001 c) > With both angles at zero, you should get a square with both beams ending up > only slightly displaced. > If both red and blue displacement angles are the saem, it means they start out > 90 degrees apart. OK, figured it out.
Set both "Deviation" boxes to 0.07 and set "Rotation Rate" to 10.
Run with "Lightspeed=c" checked and the beams arrive back at the yellow line with a large difference so that gives the correct prediction, at least qualitatively.
Run with "Lspeed=c+vcos(45+)" checked and the beams arrive back at the yellow line together which is correct for the Ritzian prediction, no time difference.
AFAICS, your program works nicely and illustrates what I have been saying all along.
Just for reference, compare that diagram with mine at:
http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/SagnacAngles.html
Set the slider to about one tick to the left and the paths are identical to yours though I started on the left instead of the right.
George
Henri Wilson - 15 Dec 2005 21:18 GMT >> Set the speed at 1000 in the combo (0.001 c) >> With both angles at zero, you should get a square with both beams ending up [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >AFAICS, your program works nicely and illustrates what >I have been saying all along. Very funny George. How long did it take you to find ONE setting that resulted in the two beams almost meeting at the detector.
Try any other set of values and you will see that there is very little difference between the BaTh and aether result.
Try both deviations = zero and speed 5000. Both theories give virtually the same result.
You have been wrong all along.
The BaTh is fully supported by sagnac.
>Just for reference, compare that diagram with mine at: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >are identical to yours though I started on the left instead >of the right. There must be an error in your program.
The two beams don't meet.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
George Dishman - 16 Dec 2005 11:06 GMT > >Set both "Deviation" boxes to 0.07 and set "Rotation > >Rate" to 10. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > How long did it take you to find ONE setting that resulted in the two beams > almost meeting at the detector. First attempt, just luck I guess. However I've tried a few more settings. For each of your "Rotation Rate" values, these are the corresponding Deviation settings. They need to be typed in as your drop-down doesn't have the right values available:
Rate Deviation 10 0.068 25 0.028 50 0.014 100 0.0068 1000 0.00068
In all cases the Ritzian demo shows the beams return in sync.
> Try any other set of values and you will see that there is very little > difference between the BaTh and aether result. Your program doesn't do an aether model. The mirrors are arranged on a circle but in the aether model that becomes an ellipse with the minor axis aligned with the aether flow. All the speeds change too. Add boxes for aether x and y components (or speed and direction) and we can try that. In the meantime you only show the SR model.
George
Henri Wilson - 16 Dec 2005 20:58 GMT >> >Set both "Deviation" boxes to 0.07 and set "Rotation >> >Rate" to 10. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > >George You are wrong. Wait for my next version.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Paul B. Andersen - 16 Dec 2005 10:42 GMT >>>>>I am still working on a much improved simulation...nearly >>>>>finished...must get [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > If both red and blue displacement angles are the saem, it means they start out > 90 degrees apart. Henri, I have looked at your animation sagnac1.exe. As far as I can see, it works pretty well.
Since the beams of interest are those that hit the mirrors at their centres, I think you should have the the angles "deviation from 45" computed automatically, it should be an easy task to do. But when those angles are properly adjusted, your animation shows the obvious, the two beams will always hit the target simultaneously, meaning that the ballistic theory predicts that the position of the fringes do not depend on the rotation rate.
So you have demonstrated what we all knew: the Sagnac experiment falsifies the ballistic theory.
Paul
Androcles - 16 Dec 2005 15:17 GMT >> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 23:16:24 -0000, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Paul Thank you, Paul. I told him to do it properly, now he's stuck with argument instead of demonstration. Androcles
Henri Wilson - 16 Dec 2005 21:02 GMT >>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 23:16:24 -0000, "George Dishman" >>> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >with argument instead of demonstration. >Androcles If you read what he said you would soon realize he hasn't a clue.
The rays that hit the centres of the first mirrors don't hit the centres of the subsequent ones. The rays that reunite at the same point on the final detector DO NOT start out 90 degrees apart.
The BaTh model produces virtually the same result as the aether/SR one.
Sagnac does not falsify the BaTh. If anything, Sagnac proves that SR is an aether theory.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Androcles - 16 Dec 2005 23:53 GMT >>>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 23:16:24 -0000, "George Dishman" >>>> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > If you read what he said you would soon realize he hasn't a clue. I know he doesn't, but you have yet to prove to him (not me) how Sagnac works.
> The rays that hit the centres of the first mirrors don't hit the centres > of the > subsequent ones. That's what I told you, but you argued.
> The rays that reunite at the same point on the final detector DO NOT start > out > 90 degrees apart. That's what I told you, but you argued.
> The BaTh model produces virtually the same result as the aether/SR one. The BaTh model doesn't simulate Sagnac, it has a mirror missing and insufficient reflections. It is only 75% completed, leaving the door wide open for Andersen to drive a bus through your hole.
> Sagnac does not falsify the BaTh. > If anything, Sagnac proves that SR is an aether theory. That's what I told you, but you argued. Now either complete it or waste away another 6 months arguing how right you are while Andersen says how wrong you are, both behaving like schoolchildren. It's not me you need to convince, I believe you. GET ON WITH IT! Androcles.
George Dishman - 17 Dec 2005 11:43 GMT >>>> Set the speed at 1000 in the combo (0.001 c) >>>> With both angles at zero, you should get a square with both beams [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > The rays that hit the centres of the first mirrors don't hit the > centres of the subsequent ones. According to your simulation, they do:
http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/sim/index.html
> The rays that reunite at the same point on the final detector > DO NOT start out 90 degrees apart. See the first screengrab on the above page. According to your simulation they do, exactly as you said above:
>>>> If both red and blue displacement angles are the saem, it means >>>> they start out 90 degrees apart. Your program is an excellent demonstration and completely correct as far as I can see, I have no argument with it.
George
Henri Wilson - 17 Dec 2005 20:59 GMT >>>>> Set the speed at 1000 in the combo (0.001 c) >>>>> With both angles at zero, you should get a square with both beams [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/sim/index.html Naturally it is always possible to find rays that DO start out 90 apart and reunite at the same point.
>> The rays that reunite at the same point on the final detector >> DO NOT start out 90 degrees apart. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Your program is an excellent demonstration and completely >correct as far as I can see, I have no argument with it. Try my improved version.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Androcles - 17 Dec 2005 23:35 GMT > On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:43:15 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > Try my improved version. Duh... It's still a light accelerator with a missing mirror, not a Sagnac simulator. What does it take to make a dumb Wabo understand Sagnac has FOUR mirrors?
I notice the lying, cheating c.nt George Dishwater has f.cked with the extension of the red ray, the internal angles of the red pentilateral are greater than 90 degrees and three of the internal angles of the blue quadrilateral are less than 90 degrees, the fourth making the sum to 360 degrees, but not at the mirror.
Why do you even bother with the arsehole?
Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 18 Dec 2005 00:23 GMT >> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:43:15 -0000, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk>
>>>Your program is an excellent demonstration and completely >>>correct as far as I can see, I have no argument with it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >simulator. >What does it take to make a dumb Wabo understand Sagnac has FOUR mirrors? My demo has four mirrors, A. But we know your arithmetic is sometimes a little substandard.....
>I notice the lying, cheating c.nt George Dishwater has f.cked with the >extension of the red ray, the internal angles of the red pentilateral are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Why do you even bother with the arsehole? Well he cannot argue any more.
It is clear that there is little difference between the BaTh prediction and the standard SR/Aether one.
I have been arguing that the sagnac effect is not principally due to path length differences at all...but to the fact that light doesn't like reuniting with light coming from a different angle.
>Androcles. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Androcles - 18 Dec 2005 02:50 GMT >>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:43:15 -0000, "George Dishman" >>> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Well he cannot argue any more. He did.
> It is clear that there is little difference between the BaTh prediction > and the > standard SR/Aether one. Of course there is, a world of difference.
I wrote in a separate post:
In trying to take the piss out of Henri Wilson, George Dishman created: http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/sim/index.html
Dishman claims the red ray arrives at the destination at the same instant as the blue ray.
Origin of rays are at pixel coordinates (471, 291), found using Microsoft Paint.
Red reflection 1: (299,96) ==> first leg = 260.02 pixels
Red reflection 2: (80,237) ==> 2nd leg = 260.47 pixels
Red reflection 3: (188,472) ==> 3rd leg = 258.63 pixels
End of path, both rays: (437,399) ==> 4th leg = 259.48 pixels
Total red path length, 1038.6 pixels Mean value per leg: 259.65 pixels. Standard deviation: 0.79 < 2 pixels, probably my error in estimating a pixel from a double wide line Dishman drew.
Blue reflection 1: (244,489) ==> 301.2 pixels Blue reflection 2: (81,236) ==> 300.96 pixels Blue reflection 3: (351,110) ==>297.9 pixels End of path, both rays: (437,399) ==> 301.5 pixels.
Total blue path length, 1201.6 pixels Mean value per leg: 300.41 Standard deviation: 1.66 < 2 pixels, probably my error.
So according to Dishwater, the blue ray travels 163 pixels further than the red ray in the same time, yet both rays supposedly travel at c.
Dishwater is a lying incompetent tord and a troll (a typical relativist), attempting to take the piss out of Henri Wilson's honest but rather incomplete attempt at modelling Sagnac by remove and adding rays to the diagram to falsify Henri's data. Such disgusting, dishonest, lying, cheating c.nts as Dishman should receive 20 lashes at the masthead with a cat o'nine tails. Where do you live, Dishman? Within driving distance? I detest traitors to science and to the greatest scientist, Sir Isaac Newton englishman, there ever was, you f.cking wog. f.ck off back to Pakistan, we don't need bomb-throwing traitors in this Sceptred isle, this home of science and technology, this haven of gentlemanly conduct.
Take that crap down and write an apology to Henri, you f.cking w.nker.
> I have been arguing that the sagnac effect is not principally due to path > length differences at all...but to the fact that light doesn't like > reuniting > with light coming from a different angle. Crap. Dishwater is fuckin' with you.
>>Androcles. > > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Jerry - 18 Dec 2005 09:11 GMT > In trying to take the piss out of Henri Wilson, George Dishman > created: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > further than the red ray in the same time, yet both rays > supposedly travel at c. Did you notice the checkbox, "Lspeed=c+vcos(45+)"? Except for that gross mistake, nice work, Androcles! BaT is falsified.
Jerry
George Dishman - 18 Dec 2005 12:10 GMT >> In trying to take the piss out of Henri Wilson, George Dishman >> created: >> http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/sim/index.html The graphics were captured using Alt-PrintScreen and annotated using Windows Paint. The rays have not been altered, only comments have been added. Henri has since updated his program and at the time of writing it can be downloaded here:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac1.exe
For reference, the version used for the web page is here so the veracity of the captures can be checked.
http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/sim/sagnac1.exe
>> Dishman claims the red ray arrives at the destination at the same >> instant as the blue ray. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> Standard deviation: 0.79 < 2 pixels, probably my error >> in estimating a pixel from a double wide line Dishman drew. Henri's software draws the double wide lines at the end of both rays. I have not edited the rays in any way.
>> Blue reflection 1: (244,489) ==> 301.2 pixels >> Blue reflection 2: (81,236) ==> 300.96 pixels [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> Mean value per leg: 300.41 >> Standard deviation: 1.66 < 2 pixels, probably my error. More likely just rounding to the nearest pixel and the effect of the time-slice size in Henri's program.
>> So according to Dishwater, the blue ray travels 163 pixels >> further than the red ray in the same time, yet both rays >> supposedly travel at c. The blue ray travels farther in the same time since, as Jerry noticed, it moves at higher speed in accordance with Ritz's theory:
> Did you notice the checkbox, "Lspeed=c+vcos(45+)"? > Except for that gross mistake, nice work, Androcles! > BaT is falsified. I have added a screengrab of the SR pattern here:
http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/sim/sr.png
which can be compared with the Ritzian result:
http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/sim/leg_4.png
Both now have the speed selection highlighted to avoid confusion.
The path length difference is of the order of 150 pixels though this isn't entirely accurate as the deviation values should not be the same in this mode. The software doesn't run on to the point where the blue ray meets the partially-silvered mirror. Henri could you allow that to happen for an extra click of the "Next Leg" button?
I'll say again, if anyone doubts the honesty of any of the graphics I have put on the web, please download Henri's program and check for yourself. The addresses are at the top of this post.
Barring negligible rounding errors, I completely agree with the output of Henri's program in its present form.
George
George Dishman - 18 Dec 2005 11:38 GMT > On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:43:15 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > and > reunite at the same point. Of course. You have exaggerated the rotation for ease of understanding but the actual values are far less than the spread of the light. It would make it easier if you just calculated that values instead of having drop-downs but what you have is fine.
>>> The rays that reunite at the same point on the final detector >>> DO NOT start out 90 degrees apart. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Try my improved version. It seems to produce the same results, the rays are at 90 degrees and still hit the mirrors at the yellow lines. Even if they didn't, the effect would be far too small to explain the measured result. I have no doubt your program is correct other than perhaps some minor rounding errors (to the nearest pixel) as it matches both Andro's analogy of grandpa on the carousel and the maths we did based on your diagram that showed t'=t for Ritz.
Compare the Ritzian diagram
http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/sim/leg_4.png
with the same settings for SR:
http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/sim/sr.png
The value measured in real life matches the length of the purple line. That's far too much to be explained by shifting the reflection points on the mirrors even in the exaggerated display.
George
George Dishman - 18 Dec 2005 12:17 GMT >> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:43:15 -0000, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> Naturally it is always possible to find rays that DO start out 90 apart >> and reunite at the same point. I hadn't noticed, your reply doesn't relate to the location of the point of reflection on the mirrors but to what was said next.
> Of course. I should revise that. The deviation values are determined by the requirement that the rays hit the detector so it needn't necessarily follow that those rays would be at 90 degrees.
>>>> The rays that reunite at the same point on the final detector >>>> DO NOT start out 90 degrees apart. George
Henri Wilson - 16 Dec 2005 20:59 GMT >>>>>>I am still working on a much improved simulation...nearly >>>>>>finished...must get [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >So you have demonstrated what we all knew: >the Sagnac experiment falsifies the ballistic theory. Crap.
>Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Jerry - 04 Dec 2005 20:02 GMT > I cannot see why you consider loop area to be the important factor. > It is fibre length that you need to know. That is about 10 metres.... > equivalent to a four mirror sagnac with 2.0 metre diagonals. Er, no. The shape of the ring is extremely important. Stretch out the ring so that the fibers are parallel, and you will have destroyed the sensitivity of the device. Mathematically, the sensitivity the device turns out to be directly proportional to the area.
Jerry
Henri Wilson - 05 Dec 2005 02:35 GMT >> I cannot see why you consider loop area to be the important factor. >> It is fibre length that you need to know. That is about 10 metres.... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >sensitivity of the device. Mathematically, the sensitivity the device >turns out to be directly proportional to the area. Only because v=w.r.
You still multiply by the number of turns.
>Jerry HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Androcles - 05 Dec 2005 11:23 GMT >>> I cannot see why you consider loop area to be the important factor. >>> It is fibre length that you need to know. That is about 10 metres.... >>> equivalent to a four mirror sagnac with 2.0 metre diagonals. >> >>Er, no. The shape of the ring is extremely important. LOL! Really! Too funny, H. Which ditch do you hitch this witch from? Thunder. Enter the three Witches First Witch Thrice the brinded cat hath mew'd.
Second Witch Thrice and once the hedge-pig whined.
Third Witch Harpier cries 'Tis time, 'tis time.
First Witch Round about the cauldron go; In the poison'd entrails throw. Toad, that under cold stone Days and nights has thirty-one Swelter'd venom sleeping got, Boil thou first i' the charmed pot.
ALL Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.
Second Witch Fillet of a fenny snake, In the cauldron boil and bake; Eye of newt and toe of frog, Wool of bat and tongue of dog, Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting, Lizard's leg and owlet's wing, For a charm of powerful trouble, Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.
ALL Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn and cauldron bubble.
Third Witch Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf, Witches' mummy, maw and gulf Of the ravin'd salt-sea shark, Root of hemlock digg'd i' the dark, Liver of blaspheming Jew, Gall of goat, and slips of yew Silver'd in the moon's eclipse, Nose of Turk and Tartar's lips, Finger of birth-strangled babe Ditch-deliver'd by a drab Make the gruel thick and slab: Add thereto a tiger's chaudron, For the ingredients of our cauldron.
ALL Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn and cauldron bubble.
Second Witch Cool it with a baboon's blood, Then the charm is firm and good.
"Macbeth".
>> Stretch out the >>ring so that the fibers are parallel, and you will have destroyed the >>sensitivity of the device. Mathematically, the sensitivity the device >>turns out to be directly proportional to the area. Mathematically, ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) would apply and be false, x' the coordinate is not x' the circumference. The phuckwitch knows no mathematics.
> Only because v=w.r. > > You still multiply by the number of turns. Yep.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 23 Nov 2005 22:36 GMT >> No that is not right. If the acceleration is +ve, the fringes move one >> way. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >carousel analogy which shows it nicely, or do "the duck, >the car and the goose" diagram. All of them prove it. George, I woke up with another bright idea.
Please run my program: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac1.exe
See how the two paths don't meet at the same point. That is why the BaTh is getting the same travel times for different path lengths. What we have to look at are the fronts of the original beam that DO meet at the same point on the final screen. Think of the main beam as being broad with continuous 'dispersion'. The fact is, lines that eventually meet at the same point do not start out parallel.
I will discuss this with you next time. It is becoming quite complicated.
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 28 Nov 2005 15:20 GMT ...
> George, I woke up with another bright idea. > > Please run my program: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac1.exe > > See how the two paths don't meet at the same point. I know, I pointed out that error to you some time ago but you ignored me. If you recall a recent discussion about how to calculate the speed of the light between the mirrors, I gave you a statement that said it was the magnitude of the vector sum of the tangential speed of the source and a vector of magnitude 'c' whose direction was such that the resultant hit the detector (or next mirror). It should be obvious that light that doesn't hit the detector plays no part in creating the output.
In fact this is not too important because the the effect is second order and you are trying to explain a first order behaviour.
> That is why the BaTh is getting the same travel times for different path > lengths. > What we have to look at are the fronts of the original beam that DO meet > at the > same point on the final screen. Exactly, that's what I was telling you weeks ago.
> Think of the main beam as being broad with > continuous 'dispersion'. Right, that is important.
> The fact is, lines that eventually meet at the same point do not start out > parallel. Err, no they start out at right angles for the three mirror setup but if the centre of the beam hits the detector when stationary, then the light we are interested in is slightly to the side of centre when it is rotating.
> I will discuss this with you next time. It is becoming quite complicated. George
Jeff Root - 19 Nov 2005 02:02 GMT George,
Would you explain to me why you are posting in this thread? What are you trying to accomplish? Are you succeeding, or making progress? -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
George Dishman - 19 Nov 2005 10:48 GMT > George, > > Would you explain to me why you are posting in this thread? Purely recreational.
> What are you trying to accomplish? To highlight to Henri that the Sagnac effect is a major problem for Ritz's ballistic light theory and by the normal rules of science it falsifies that theory.
There is no reason why he shouldn't invent an alternative based on Ritz which he could call "BaT" but the challenge is there for him to explain what the difference is that resolves the problem.
> Are you succeeding, or making progress? I think Henri has realised that the problem isn't trivial and is worthy of some thought whereas he initially dismissed it so yes, progress has been made. Certainly he has a much better understanding than when we started a few months ago which I also consider a positive accomplishment.
For my part I have looked at the effect of angular acceleration in Ritz for the first time and can see qualitatively how it would produce an output but I can also see that a general quantitative result would be more complex because an 'event horizon' can be formed at high rates making the result discontinuous.
Henri, if 'event horizon' sounds too like relativity, consider that in your binary star program, sometimes later wavefronts can overtake earlier ones if they are emitted faster due to the c+v factor. In theory the same thing could happen round the mirrors in the Sagnac experiment but only at unrealistic accelerations. Similarly you can get gaps in the beams for rapid speed reduction and the converse would apply to the opposite beam since an acceleration for one beam is a deceleration for the other.
George
Henri Wilson - 21 Nov 2005 05:51 GMT >George, > >Would you explain to me why you are posting in this thread? >What are you trying to accomplish? >Are you succeeding, or making progress? If you cannot see the connection, why are you bothering to post at all. You know nothing !
> -- Jeff, in Minneapolis HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Paul B. Andersen - 16 Nov 2005 22:34 GMT >>>>George, George, George. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Are you sure of that? Yes.
>>The problem with the fibre-optic gyro is that to measure >>the rotation, you have to compare the position of the fringes [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > That isn't very clear. Maybe not. What I tried to say is that the INS is aligned when the plane is stationary on the ground. A "strap down" system have three laser gyros, one for each of the three axes fixed to the plane. Imagine it is standing on equator, heading north. The gyros will then detect rotation around the roll axis only, and none around the other axes. If it is heading east, the rotation will be around the pitch axis only. So no rotation around the yaw axis means latitude zero. The ratio of rotation around the pitch and roll axes will give the heading. If the plane is on the north pole, the rotation will be around the yaw axis only. So in short, the rotation around the yaw axis give the latitude. The rotation around the pitch and roll axes give the heading. And this takes only ten minutes. The earth rotates only 2.5 degrees during that time. Impressive, eh? :-)
> I don't htink we will discuss ring lasers becasue they might operate on an > entirely different principle to the four mirror type. I don't think you will discuss ring lasers because they so obviously falsifies the BaT. I have explained why before, and you have fled the discussion before because you were unable to refute my arguments.
In fact any gas laser falsifies the BaT. Coherent light means all the light is going at the same speed. In a gas laser, the gas atoms which are the sources of the light, are moving fast relative to each other. BaT falsified.
> FoGs are similar but effectively have an infinitie number of mirrors which > reflect at infinitesimal angle. > We aren't going to get anywhere multiplying zero by infinity. Not unless you know some math, of course. Hint: limits. What is sin(x)/x for x = 0?
And light in a mono-mode fibre is never reflected. It's a wave guide. BaT falsified.
> So let's just stick with the four mirror sagnac eh? > > I think by now you will have realised that it fully supports the BaTh and > probably refutes SR. Any Sagnac ring falsifies the BaT. No question about it.
> Poor old George has spent years proving that according to the BaTh, fringes > will not move during constant rotation. That is of course what happens. Of course it is. But I have in a much shorter time proved that according to the BaT, the phase relationship between the two waves will be the same regardless of the rate of a constant rotation. That is NOT what happens. The BaT falsified.
And you never refuted my proof. You fled it by claiming that interferometers works in an entirely different manner than physicists think. You are unable to explain _how_ you think it works, thought. All you know is that it works in some mysterious way which make the fringes appear at different positions even when the phase relationship between the two waves are the same.
A typical Wilsonian escape by inventing new laws of nature for every new phenomenon that must be explained away.
Paul
Henri Wilson - 16 Nov 2005 23:23 GMT >>>>http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/packard/Competition/Gyros/LaserRingGyro /Steadman/StedmanReview1997.pdf >>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >Yes. They are not based on the sagnac effect then.
>>>The problem with the fibre-optic gyro is that to measure >>>the rotation, you have to compare the position of the fringes [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >during that time. >Impressive, eh? :-) Like much of modern technology, yes.
>> I don't htink we will discuss ring lasers becasue they might operate on an >> entirely different principle to the four mirror type. > >I don't think you will discuss ring lasers because they so >obviously falsifies the BaT. We are discussing sagnac. Your statement above shows these aren't basd on sagnac.
>I have explained why before, and you have fled the discussion before >because you were unable to refute my arguments. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >which are the sources of the light, are moving fast relative to >each other. BaT falsified. It is YOUR theory that each atom is a source. Other don't believe you. Even if it were, the effect would be too small to worry about.
>> FoGs are similar but effectively have an infinitie number of mirrors which >> reflect at infinitesimal angle. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Hint: limits. >What is sin(x)/x for x = 0? Irelevant.
>And light in a mono-mode fibre is never reflected. >It's a wave guide. >BaT falsified. There is constant internal reflection at grazing angles.
>> So let's just stick with the four mirror sagnac eh? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Any Sagnac ring falsifies the BaT. >No question about it. My diagram clearly show the opposite. Path lengths change during acceleration. Wavelength is absolutely constant according to the BaTh. Therefore fringes will MOVE during angular acceleration and will NOT move during constant rotation.
Sagnac disproves SR.
>> Poor old George has spent years proving that according to the BaTh, fringes >> will not move during constant rotation. That is of course what happens. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >That is NOT what happens. >The BaT falsified. You haven't proved that at all. You haven't even understood the significance of acceleration in all of this. You haven't a clue. Study my diagram again.
>And you never refuted my proof. >You fled it by claiming that interferometers works [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >A typical Wilsonian escape by inventing new laws of nature >for every new phenomenon that must be explained away. The sagnac effect occurs when the apparatus is experiencing angular acceleration. The reason is that, during light transit time, successive components are displaced by a little more than they would be under constant rotation. The amount is virtually the same whether c or c+v is used. Path length difference alone determines the position of the fringes. Small variations in light speed do not make any significant difference to the result.
>Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Paul B. Andersen - 17 Nov 2005 15:27 GMT >>>I don't htink we will discuss ring lasers becasue they might operate on an >>>entirely different principle to the four mirror type. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>I have explained why before, and you have fled the discussion before >>because you were unable to refute my arguments. Which is the real reason you don't like to discuss ring lasers.
>>In fact any gas laser falsifies the BaT. Coherent light means all >>the light is going at the same speed. In a gas laser, the gas atoms [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It is YOUR theory that each atom is a source. > Other don't believe you. Don't be ridiculous, Henri. :-) What in a gas laSER do you think is Stimulated to Emit Radiation, if not the gas atoms?
> Even if it were, the effect would be too small to worry about. Really, Henri? The light from a laser can go to the Moon and back, and still be coherent light. Do you think that could happen if the speeds of the photons were as different as the speeds of the atoms in the gas?
The mere existence of gas lasers falsifies the BaT.
>>>FoGs are similar but effectively have an infinitie number of mirrors which >>>reflect at infinitesimal angle. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Irelevant. It is an example where "multiplying zero by infinity" get you somewhere.
>>And light in a mono-mode fibre is never reflected. >>It's a wave guide. >>BaT falsified. > > There is constant internal reflection at grazing angles. You don't know what a mono-mode fibre is, do you? :-)
>>>So let's just stick with the four mirror sagnac eh? >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Sagnac disproves SR. Inventing new laws of nature proves nothing. Any Sagnac ring falsifies the BaT. No question about it.
>>>Poor old George has spent years proving that according to the BaTh, fringes >>>will not move during constant rotation. That is of course what happens. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You haven't proved that at all. You have a very selective memory.
Paul B. Andersen wrote January 2005:
| To a first order approximation, (that is, ignoring | terms containing higher than first order of [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] | | You are proven wrong. Henri Wilson responded:
| I did that calculation a long time ago. So Henri Wilson agree to the statement: " The ballistic theory predicts that the time has no first order dependency on the speed!"
Which obviously implies that the phase relationship between the two waves will be the same regardless of the rate of a constant rotation.
> You haven't even understood the significance of acceleration in all of this. > You haven't a clue. > Study my diagram again. I understand that acceleration have no significance in this.
>>And you never refuted my proof. Quite the contrary, you have confirmed it.
>>You fled it by claiming that interferometers works >>in an entirely different manner than physicists think. >>You are unable to explain _how_ you think it works, thought. >>All you know is that it works in some mysterious way which >>make the fringes appear at different positions even when >>the phase relationship between the two waves are the same. Henri's explanation of why the fringes change position despite the fact that BaT predicts no change in the phase relationship:
| I have told you many times. The sagnac effect is caused by the angular change | in the mirrors during the travel time of the light between them. The change in | opposite ways for the two beams and cause opposite sideways displacements when | reunited. That causes sideways fringe movements.
| Actually, the sagnac effect is completely unrelated to SR, the BaT or aether | theories. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | | The clockwise beam ends up displaced one way, the anti-clockwise one the other. See? The fringes do not change position because the phase relashionship between the waves changes, interferometers doesn't measure phase differences. They work in an entirely different manner. How is not clear.
This is unbelivable stupid, Henri. :-)
>>A typical Wilsonian escape by inventing new laws of nature >>for every new phenomenon that must be explained away. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > components are displaced by a little more than they would be under constant > rotation. D = kw when dw/dt = 0 But D is caused by dw/dt, not w, because dD/dt <> 0 only when dw/dt <> 0.
How incredible stupid!
> The amount is virtually the same whether c or c+v is used. > Path length difference alone determines the position of the fringes. Small > variations in light speed do not make any significant difference to the result. How incredible stupid!
The Sagnac effect IS "the small variations in light speed".
delta_n = n+ - n- where n+ and n- are the number of wavelengths around the ring for the two beams, and delta_n is the difference. n+ = (S/lambda)(c+v)/c S = circumference of ring n- = (S/lambda)(c-v)/c delta_n = (S/lambda)2v/c
S = 2*pi*r, A = pi*r^2, v = w*r, lambda = c/f, T = 1/f
delta_n = f*4*pi*r^2*w/c^2 = f4Aw/c^2
delta_t = delta_n*T = delta_n/f = 4Aw/c^2
Seen this before? If this is the Sagnac effect, then it is caused by "the small variations in light speed".
Paul
Black Knight - 17 Nov 2005 15:39 GMT "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis ^^^^^^^^^^
OK, Andersen, you have convinced me. Your stupidity IS so gigantic that you do not understand why your statement is nonsense. Please don't forgive me for not having doubted that. I'm sure it will happen again.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 17 Nov 2005 23:11 GMT >"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis > ^^^^^^^^^^ [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Please don't forgive me for not having doubted that. >I'm sure it will happen again. He is getting into real trouble now.
>Androcles. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Henri Wilson - 17 Nov 2005 23:11 GMT >>>I have explained why before, and you have fled the discussion before >>>because you were unable to refute my arguments. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >The mere existence of gas lasers falsifies the BaT. Wouldn't you like that to be true eh?
At what tempertatures do they run?
What determines the direction of emission of a photon from an atom Paul? Come on, you are the expert.....
Why should gas lasers work at all?
>>>>FoGs are similar but effectively have an infinitie number of mirrors which >>>>reflect at infinitesimal angle. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >It is an example where "multiplying zero by infinity" get you somewhere. There are many such examples.
>> There is constant internal reflection at grazing angles. > >You don't know what a mono-mode fibre is, do you? :-) No. ..and I don't care.
I am discussing the four mirror sagnac.
>>>>So let's just stick with the four mirror sagnac eh? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Any Sagnac ring falsifies the BaT. >No question about it. Sagnac clearly refutes SR. No doubt about it.
>>>>Poor old George has spent years proving that according to the BaTh, fringes >>>>will not move during constant rotation. That is of course what happens. [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >Which obviously implies that the phase relationship between the two waves >will be the same regardless of the rate of a constant rotation. That's not at all correct. It will depend on how many wavelengths have sneaked in or out of each path during the acceleration periods. I think SR says 'no change' because of doppler.
BaTh says, the phase relationship will be different for different rotation speeds but it will remain the same during any period of constant rotation.
>> You haven't even understood the significance of acceleration in all of this. >> You haven't a clue. >> Study my diagram again. > >I understand that acceleration have no significance in this. The acceleration period is when the FRINGES ACTUALLY MOVE because that's when wavelengths are either added or subtracted from each path.
I know this is hard to see... but if I repeat it often enough the message might get through.
>>>And you never refuted my proof. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >| opposite ways for the two beams and cause opposite sideways displacements when >| reunited. That causes sideways fringe movements. Well I will now qualify that by pointing out that it is only during acceleration that the path lengths actually change.
>| Actually, the sagnac effect is completely unrelated to SR, the BaT or aether >| theories. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >This is unbelivable stupid, Henri. :-) Several areas of speculation were discussed in the early days before I realised that it was only during acceleration that finge movement occurred.
My latest revelations overide all that stuff.
>>>A typical Wilsonian escape by inventing new laws of nature >>>for every new phenomenon that must be explained away. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >How incredible stupid! Just study my diagram again Paul before you rant about anyone being stupid.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg
You will eventually realise why the number of wavelengths in each path changes only during acceleration.
>> The amount is virtually the same whether c or c+v is used. >> Path length difference alone determines the position of the fringes. Small [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >The Sagnac effect IS "the small variations in light speed". No it isn't. It is due to changes in number of wavelengths in each opposite path.
>delta_n = n+ - n- >where n+ and n- are the number of wavelengths around the ring [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >If this is the Sagnac effect, then it is caused by >"the small variations in light speed". We are analysing the four mirror sagnac Paul. In Sr, there wil be a doppler shift at each mirror which will make the number of wavelengths in each path remain constant for all rotation speeds.
Sagnac disproves SR.
>Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Paul B. Andersen - 18 Nov 2005 13:08 GMT >>>>In fact any gas laser falsifies the BaT. Coherent light means all >>>>the light is going at the same speed. In a gas laser, the gas atoms [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > At what tempertatures do they run? Depend on the cooling. Say 50 - 150C.
> What determines the direction of emission of a photon from an atom Paul? > Come on, you are the expert..... I am a little reluctant to use much time to explain to you what you will ignore anyway. But in a laSEr, we are talking about Stimulated Emission. That means that a photon passing close by an atom may stimulate it to emit a new photon with the same direction and with the same phase.
> Why should gas lasers work at all? Why indeed. :-) I am not going to give a thorough description, you can look it up yourself if you really want to know. But you never really want to know, you will rather invent it yourself.
But I will mention a few points of special interest to this discussion. Let us consider a HeNe laser. Let us assume the gas temp. is 350k. Let us assume the length of the tube is ca. 0.75 m. The rms speed of the He atoms will be: v^2 = 3kT/m where m is 4 proton masses. v = 1.47 km/s. (rms) v/c = 5*10^-6. This means that the frequency emitted by the atoms will be Doppler shifted, so the frequency will be distributed like a Gauss function with relative width ca. 5*10^-6. The central frequency fo = ca. 0.5*10^15 Hz
However, the laser tube is a resonator, and only the frequencies given by f = m*c/2L can exist in the resonator. The distance between the possible frequencies is: delta_f = c/2L = 2*10^8 Hz. delta_f/fo = 4*10^-7
Note that a laser do not emit strictly monochromatic light, but a number of close spectral lines. We can see that in the order of 10 spectral lines can exist within the frequency distribution above.
We KNOW this is happening in a laser. Each spectral line is emitted by atoms with a specific longitudinal velocity component.
According to the BaT, the light from these spectral lines should travel at different speeds. They don't. BaT falsified.
Paul
Jeff Root - 19 Nov 2005 02:04 GMT Paul,
Would you explain why you are posting in this thread? What are you trying to accomplish? Are you succeeding? -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Henri Wilson - 19 Nov 2005 21:00 GMT >> Wouldn't you like that to be true eh? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I am a little reluctant to use much time to explain >to you what you will ignore anyway. I take that to mean you don't know. ..which isn't surprising because I doubt if anyone has the faintest idea.
>But in a laSEr, we are talking about Stimulated Emission. >That means that a photon passing close by an atom may stimulate >it to emit a new photon with the same direction and with the same >phase. Well now, that IS interesting. It appears to support my W-aether theory.
>> Why should gas lasers work at all? > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >They don't. >BaT falsified. Yes, very funny Paul.
I think it is a little more complicated than that. I think the photon fields combone somehow to create the resonance. I don't think molecular speeds would make much difference. Remember it was YOU who claimed that electric fields act instantaneously.
>Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Paul B. Andersen - 21 Nov 2005 10:51 GMT >>>Wouldn't you like that to be true eh? >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I take that to mean you don't know. > ..which isn't surprising because I doubt if anyone has the faintest idea. I didn't say I couldn't or wouldn't explain it. I said I was reluctant do to so, because you would probably not care to read it anyway. Which you have demonstrated below.
>>But in a laSEr, we are talking about Stimulated Emission. >>That means that a photon passing close by an atom may stimulate [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >>But I will mention a few points of special interest to this discussion. But Henri didn't read it, and made no attempt to understand it.
>>Let us consider a HeNe laser. Let us assume the gas temp. is 350k. >>Let us assume the length of the tube is ca. 0.75 m. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > I think it is a little more complicated than that. So what is too simple to you, Henri? :-)
> I think the photon fields combone somehow to create the resonance. Of course they do. They combine to a number of standing waves in the resonator. That WAS what I explained above, wasn't it?
> I don't think molecular speeds would make much difference. You are babbling, Henri. The distribution of atomic speeds is the very reason for why there are several close spectral lines in a laser beam. And the number of spectral lines is exactly as predicted by the speed distribution. Read the explanation above again, please.
The light in one of these of spectral lines can only come from He atoms with exactly the right speed to Doppler shift the light by exactly the correct amount. So we know what the speed of the atoms emitting the light in each spectral lines is. To sum it up: 1. We know that the speed of the atoms emitting the light in the different spectral lines are different. 2. We know that the speed of the light in the different spectral lines is the same.
The BaT is falsified. Again.
> Remember it was YOU > who claimed that electric fields act instantaneously. I claimed that a force acts on a charged particle at the same instant it enters a static electric field. You claimed this could be used to instant communication! :-)
The fact that you mention this utterly irrelevant matter show your inability to give any sensible respons to the issue at hand.
Paul
donstockbauer@hotmail.com - 21 Nov 2005 11:09 GMT You are babbling, Henri.
**********************
Perhaps he's the Star Child?
Henri Wilson - 21 Nov 2005 23:29 GMT >>>>Wouldn't you like that to be true eh? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > >So what is too simple to you, Henri? :-) How is your 'm' in 'v^2 = 3kT/m' related to your 'm' in 'f = m*c/2L'
>> I think the photon fields combone somehow to create the resonance. > >Of course they do. >They combine to a number of standing waves in the resonator. >That WAS what I explained above, wasn't it? No . How are your m's connected?
>> I don't think molecular speeds would make much difference. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >by the speed distribution. >Read the explanation above again, please. At best, your explanation was very unclear. At worst plain bulldust.
>The light in one of these of spectral lines can only come >from He atoms with exactly the right speed to Doppler [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >The BaT is falsified. >Again. ...and laser beams are infinitesimally bright according to Andersen's theory.
> > Remember it was YOU > > who claimed that electric fields act instantaneously. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >show your inability to give any sensible respons to the issue >at hand. Sort yourself out Paul.
>Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Black Knight - 17 Nov 2005 05:30 GMT "Paul B. Andersen" wrote <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis
Ok. Anything to oblige. Andersen, you have convinced me. Your stupidity IS so gigantic that you do not understand why your statement is nonsense. Please don't forgive me for not having doubted that. I'm sure it will happen again.
Androcles.
Black Knight - 14 Nov 2005 12:26 GMT > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:35:04 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Sagnac proves SR to be wrong!!! You don't need any angular crap to muddy the water. Grandpa puts granddaughter and grandson on a carousel and watches them walk around it in opposite directions. The pass each other on the opposite side and meet back at grandpa if the carousel isn't turning, else they meet beside grandma standing next to grandpa if it does. Like Hansel and Gretel they drop breadcrumbs on the carousel with each step they take. Grandpa counts N-1 breadcrumbs from granddaughter and N+1 breadcrumbs from grandson. This is called a "beat frequency".
It's that simple that the fuckin' imbecile Jerry calls it "handwaving". Androcles.
George Dishman - 14 Nov 2005 13:37 GMT > Grandpa puts granddaughter and grandson on a carousel and watches > them walk around it in opposite directions. The pass each other on the > opposite side and meet back at grandpa if the carousel isn't turning, ... Good analogy but the source and detector are on the turntable so Grandpa is on the carousel. You have shown why Ritz says there will be no output, the kids return to Grandpa at the same time regardless of the rate the carousel is turning.
George
Henri Wilson - 14 Nov 2005 21:23 GMT >> Grandpa puts granddaughter and grandson on a carousel and watches >> them walk around it in opposite directions. The pass each other on the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the kids return to Grandpa at the same time >regardless of the rate the carousel is turning. Forget it George. I have now completely explained why sagnac does not refute the BaTh. .
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Paul B. Andersen - 14 Nov 2005 21:33 GMT > I have now completely explained why sagnac does not refute the BaTh. Nonsense. Sagnac falsifies the BaT. No question about it.
Paul
Henri Wilson - 14 Nov 2005 23:18 GMT >> I have now completely explained why sagnac does not refute the BaTh. > >Nonsense. >Sagnac falsifies the BaT. >No question about it. I hope the realization that you are wrong - again - doesn't completely destroy your confidence.
>Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Paul B. Andersen - 15 Nov 2005 15:09 GMT >>>I have now completely explained why sagnac does not refute the BaTh. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I hope the realization that you are wrong - again - doesn't completely destroy > your confidence. I know the fact that you are wrong - again - doesn't completely destroy your conficence.
Paul
Henri Wilson - 15 Nov 2005 23:45 GMT >>>>I have now completely explained why sagnac does not refute the BaTh. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I know the fact that you are wrong - again - doesn't completely destroy >your conficence. see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg
>Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Black Knight - 15 Nov 2005 02:09 GMT >> I have now completely explained why sagnac does not refute the BaTh. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Paul Nonsense. You've never seen a wavelength of light, doppler shifted or otherwise. Androcles.
Black Knight - 15 Nov 2005 02:08 GMT >>> Grandpa puts granddaughter and grandson on a carousel and watches >>> them walk around it in opposite directions. The pass each other on the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I have now completely explained why sagnac does not refute the BaTh. > . Forget it, H. The phuckwit writes to me and I'm not answering the idiot, he's already on my kill-file as a worthless turd. This Grandpa isn't getting in any kiddy carousel. You may have explained why it doesn't refute your bath water, I've explained why it DOES refute Einstein's phuckwittery, whatever the dish that ran away with the spoonfed says.
BTW, I've now duplicated a certain curve we had a bet on.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 15 Nov 2005 04:17 GMT >>>> Grandpa puts granddaughter and grandson on a carousel and watches >>>> them walk around it in opposite directions. The pass each other on the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >BTW, I've now duplicated a certain curve we had a bet on. 1493 Aql?
>Androcles. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Black Knight - 15 Nov 2005 13:31 GMT >>> On 14 Nov 2005 05:37:52 -0800, "George Dishman" >>> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > 1493 Aql? I did that one last year. The period is circa 200-250 years, as with Pluto. On a 1024 pixel wide screen that's 4 pixels per year, and the double maxima are 3 months apart. A one pixel gap.
The light curve looks like this. __________|_________ <---------200 years-------->
To see the shape BAA plotted you have to expand the time axis, put a magnifying glass on it. You are not going to be able to do that wasting your life away with idiots like Dishman, Gisse or bz or generating chaotic half spirals that take you months of f.cking with the wrong parameters. Proof that your method is chaotic: http://www.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection1.html examples 3, 4, 8, 9, 10.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 15 Nov 2005 23:54 GMT >>>BTW, I've now duplicated a certain curve we had a bet on. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >You are not going to be able to do that wasting your life away >with idiots like Dishman, Gisse or bz I agree with that. They are interested in debating not science.
>or generating chaotic half spirals >that take you months of f.cking with the wrong parameters. My ellipses are perfect.
>Proof that your method is chaotic: >http://www.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection1.html > examples 3, 4, 8, 9, 10. My threebody program can do those things.
>Androcles. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Black Knight - 16 Nov 2005 03:55 GMT >>>>BTW, I've now duplicated a certain curve we had a bet on. >>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > My threebody program can do those things. Show us. Let's see your figure of 8. http://www.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection3.html Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 16 Nov 2005 06:07 GMT >>>>>BTW, I've now duplicated a certain curve we had a bet on. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >Show us. Let's see your figure of 8. > http://www.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection3.html I would have to feed in the exact starting parameters.
However it would soon become unstable on any real computer simulation..
Their animation doesn't use Newton's gravitational equation. It is just a program designed to trace that 8 shape.
>Androcles. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Black Knight - 16 Nov 2005 13:32 GMT >>>>>>BTW, I've now duplicated a certain curve we had a bet on. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > I would have to feed in the exact starting parameters. Clearly displayed by Butikov...
> However it would soon become unstable on any real computer simulation.. Oh, so your program is chaotic then? I sure you said "My threebody program can do those things." Let's see you do those things. Or are you just blowing smoke?
> Their animation doesn't use Newton's gravitational equation. It is just a > program designed to trace that 8 shape. That sounds like professional jealousy of professor Butikov. You remind me of Tom Roberts. He hallucinates too.
C'mon, H. Put your skills where your mouth is, your program will be better than Butikov's. I'm beginning to think you just like to be argumentative like Dishman. I was hoping you'd show you how to get an RR-Lyrae curve the way you showed you the solution to the Sagnac "riddle" that I posted last August.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 16 Nov 2005 22:18 GMT >>>> My threebody program can do those things. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >I sure you said "My threebody program can do those things." >Let's see you do those things. Or are you just blowing smoke? My program comes up with all kinds of wierd motions. Starting parameters are crucial.
But even if I fed in the exact values, the figure of 8 would soon disappear. No computer is sufficiently accurate to maintain it.
>> Their animation doesn't use Newton's gravitational equation. It is just a >> program designed to trace that 8 shape. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >C'mon, H. Put your skills where your mouth is, your program will > be better than Butikov's. I can easily write a program that will do exactly what his demo does...but it wont be based on GMm/r^2
>I'm beginning to think you just like to be argumentative like Dishman. >I was hoping you'd show you how to get an RR-Lyrae curve the >way you showed you the solution to the Sagnac "riddle" that I >posted last August. Is R Leo the type of curve you mean? That's quite straightforward.
If you want to see the reason why sagnac supports the BaTh see:
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg
>Androcles. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Black Knight - 17 Nov 2005 05:27 GMT >>>>> My threebody program can do those things. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > My program comes up with all kinds of wierd motions. > Starting parameters are crucial. True for all differential equations and well-known. http://www.wolfram.com/products/mathematica/newin5/ndsolve.html/ This animation shows the application of the new numerical method of lines algorithm for solving the Korteweg-de Vries equation demonstrating the nonlinear interaction of solitary waves. Excellent spatial resolution is achieved efficiently in this example by use of a pseudospectral discretization method.
http://math.furman.edu/~dcs/java/newton.html
Look at the initial conditions for this convergence, it's Newton's.
Try entering 0,1,6,11. Continue pressing "Draw Tangent" until the result stops changing.
0-> 11.38
1-> 3.37
6-> 6.68
11-> 11.38 (again)
Now try 5. That's about midway between 3.37 and 6.68. It should converge quickly.
This is why it will be VERY difficult for you to model V1493 Aql.
> But even if I fed in the exact values, the figure of 8 would soon > disappear. No > computer is sufficiently accurate to maintain it. I understand completely. I've been telling you that for months, but you are too stubborn to listen. You just go on insisting your program is the best.
>>> Their animation doesn't use Newton's gravitational equation. It is just >>> a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > it > wont be based on GMm/r^2 Mine is based on Kepler's equation. I KNEW your program could not work, 20 fuckin' years ago. Actually I knew 40 years ago, but had no computer of my own then. I was pounding away on a 110 baud teletype in numbered BASIC, it was all there was.
>>I'm beginning to think you just like to be argumentative like Dishman. >>I was hoping you'd show you how to get an RR-Lyrae curve the >>way you showed you the solution to the Sagnac "riddle" that I >>posted last August. > > Is R Leo the type of curve you mean? That's quite straightforward. That's too slow. It's not even a Lyra, the fundamental is 1 year.
Jovian-sized planet in Venus-sized orbit. Say you discovered it and call it Wupiter if you like. There's another big planet with a 3 to 4-month period closer to the star, Mercury sized orbit. Call that one Waturn or Weptune or Wooranus, only please don't call it a Wilson Cool Heavy. I'm not kidding, either. We are not going to find Earth sized planets without much finer data, but we can be pretty certain about the bigger ones.
> If you want to see the reason why sagnac supports the BaTh see: > > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg I've seen it before. (Yawn)
If you want to know how to suck eggs, make a small hole at each end and blow into one of them.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 17 Nov 2005 09:57 GMT >>>>>> My threebody program can do those things. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > I understand completely. I've been telling you that for months, but you are >too stubborn to listen. You just go on insisting your program is the best. That is an entirely different program. This one is my 'three body' animation.
The other is my variable star simulation.
>>>> Their animation doesn't use Newton's gravitational equation. It is just >>>> a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >own then. I was pounding away on a 110 baud teletype in numbered BASIC, it >was all there was. You are talking about two entirely different programs A. I have programs that do all kinds of things.
Nothing wring with basic....
>>>I'm beginning to think you just like to be argumentative like Dishman. >>>I was hoping you'd show you how to get an RR-Lyrae curve the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >I've seen it before. (Yawn) I don't think you have.
>If you want to know how to suck eggs, make a small hole at each end and blow >into one of them. > >Androcles. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Black Knight - 17 Nov 2005 14:12 GMT >>>>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 03:55:51 GMT, "Black Knight" >>>>> <Androcles@castle.edu> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > That is an entirely different program. > This one is my 'three body' animation. It doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. Didn't you read ANYTHING I wrote above?
http://math.furman.edu/~dcs/java/newton.html
Look at the initial conditions for this convergence, it's Newton's.
Try entering 0,1,6,11. Continue pressing "Draw Tangent" until the result stops changing.
0-> 11.38 1-> 3.37 6-> 6.68 11-> 11.38 (again)
Now try 5. That's about midway between 3.37 and 6.68. It should converge quickly.
This is why it will be VERY difficult for you to model V1493 Aql. [rest snipped] Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 17 Nov 2005 23:25 GMT >>>True for all differential equations and well-known. >>> http://www.wolfram.com/products/mathematica/newin5/ndsolve.html/ [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >Now try 5. That's about midway between 3.37 and 6.68. It should converge >quickly. It doesn't.
>This is why it will be VERY difficult for you to model V1493 Aql. >[rest snipped] I don't see the connection between this equation and what my program predicts using true elliptical orbits.
>Androcles. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Black Knight - 18 Nov 2005 04:30 GMT >>>>True for all differential equations and well-known. >>>> http://www.wolfram.com/products/mathematica/newin5/ndsolve.html/ [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > It doesn't. That right, it doesn't. It oscillates, getting ever larger.
>>This is why it will be VERY difficult for you to model V1493 Aql. >>[rest snipped] > > I don't see the connection between this equation and what my program > predicts > using true elliptical orbits. Initial conditions, H. It shows just how important they are. Load up http://www.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection1.html
Use example 1 and check "Geo frame." Start the simulation and look carefully at the petals. The system is stable in the long term, but the petals are different sizes in the short term.
Switch to Example 2. -- Stable. BUT.... the petals do not advance. Go back to Example 1 and look again. See how the petals are advancing?
Now we come to the important part. Are you ready? In the two simulations, the mass of the satellite is ZERO. If this were the Sun, Jupiter and a Jovian Moon, its an excellent simulation. If it were the Sun, Earth and OUR moon, the large mass has to move about the barycentre of the SYSTEM. On other words the green track has to have a wobble on it, a wave, which Butikov has not shown. That wave will be transmitted across space (the c+v model) and will result in a variation of the fundamental light curve, tugging it out of shape. This is what I want you to model. I don't want your prattling on about Lagrange, I should never have mentioned Lagrange, or you telling me how much better you program is than mine. That's ego, I don't give a sh.t about ego. I want the light curve of a star that has a wavy green orbit, for ONE cycle. Ten is better. Not half an ellipse. THEN you'll see the light curves of variables and take care of that silly bitch Jerry and her "noise". It isn't noise, it is data. The WAY to do it is use Kepler's equation for the FUNDAMENTAL ellipse, and then tug that out of position using GmM/r^2.
Now... One more. Example 1 again, creeping petals. When the light goes TWICE critical distance, we still will get the fundamental, but we will get the oscillations from the petals and they are OUT OF PHASE between two cycles.
http://www.student.oulu.fi/~ktikkane/AST/RRLYR.html Like you, tikkane doesn't realize the petals are creeping, so he fudges a curve to agree with what he thinks it ought to be, and EVERY ASTRONOMER DOES THE SAME. The observations are accurate. The curve is bullshit. That's why empirical data is important, and reduced data is suspect. I know what Lyraes are, I need no WCH, and I'm the first to find out (once again). I was hoping you would be, but you were going nowhere with your curve fitting. That's also why you owe me a bottle of Glenlivet. Androcles
Henri Wilson - 19 Nov 2005 21:24 GMT >>>>>True for all differential equations and well-known. >>>>> http://www.wolfram.com/products/mathematica/newin5/ndsolve.html/ [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] >and will result in a variation of the fundamental light curve, tugging it >out of shape. It is the 'wobble' of Algol that causes the light curve we see. The radial velocities required to produce the curve, at ~100 LYs, shows just that.
>This is what I want you to model. That is what I DO model. I model the orbit of a star around a barycentre with some other object. If the object is small compared withnthe star, the barycentre is probably inside the star....hence the 'wobble' rather than an orbit.
>I don't want your prattling on about Lagrange, I should never have >mentioned Lagrange, or you telling me how much better you >program is than mine. That's ego, I don't give a sh.t about ego. It's a joke A. calm down. You program does things mine doesn't do. Mine does things yours doesn't do.
>I want the light curve of a star that has a wavy green orbit, for ONE cycle. >Ten is better. Not half an ellipse. I can produce the curve for any number of orbits. Three is enough if the star is below the critical distance. You obviously haven't run my program at all.
>THEN you'll see the light curves of variables and take care of that >silly bitch Jerry and her "noise". It isn't noise, it is data. That's right. Probably a significant third body is involved.
>The WAY to do it is use Kepler's equation for the FUNDAMENTAL >ellipse, and then tug that out of position using GmM/r^2. But the rotation of our moon around the Earth/moon barycentre does not affect the sun's movement. Even if Earth and moon were a hundred times heavier that would still be basically true. The sun wobbles around the barycentre of itself and the Earth/moon CofG.
>Now... One more. >Example 1 again, creeping petals. >When the light goes TWICE critical distance, we still will get >the fundamental, but we will get the oscillations from the petals >and they are OUT OF PHASE between two cycles. My three body program produces all kinds of 'creeping petals'. But like I said, unless the two objects are reasonably heavy, their motion will hardly affect the central star.
>http://www.student.oulu.fi/~ktikkane/AST/RRLYR.html >Like you, tikkane doesn't realize the petals are creeping, so >he fudges a curve to agree with what he thinks it ought to be, >and EVERY ASTRONOMER DOES THE SAME. They are confused by the Willusions.
>The observations are accurate. The curve is bullshit. That's >why empirical data is important, and reduced data is suspect. >I know what Lyraes are, I need no WCH, and I'm the first >to find out (once again). I was hoping you would be, but you >were going nowhere with your curve fitting. Except for the fact that I can fit most curves.
> That's also why you owe me a bottle of Glenlivet. No. You owe me a bottle of nice red.
>Androcles HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Androcles - 20 Nov 2005 01:47 GMT >>>>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 05:27:29 GMT, "Black Knight" >>>>> <Androcles@castle.edu> [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] > > It is the 'wobble' of Algol that causes the light curve we see. No it isn't. Algol itself is moving around the barycentre. It is essentially a TWO body system. The wobble I'm talking about is the response to the petals in a THREE body system.
The radial
> velocities required to produce the curve, at ~100 LYs, shows just that. Algol shows a TWO body system. The line of sight is aligned with periastron and apastron.
I'm discussing THREE body systems. We need to move on. f.cking hell, H, this will take forever. Are you really that dense?
>>This is what I want you to model. > > That is what I DO model. > I model the orbit of a star around a barycentre with some other object. > If the object is small compared withnthe star, the barycentre is probably > inside the star....hence the 'wobble' rather than an orbit. I'm talking about THIS wobble: http://www.nmm.ac.uk/upload/img/moon_orbital_motion.gif
The sun has to have a miniature version about the barycentre. Sheesh.. how to get the message over...
>>I don't want your prattling on about Lagrange, I should never have >>mentioned Lagrange, or you telling me how much better you [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > That's right. Probably a significant third body is involved. RIGHT! So model it... I've told you HOW below.
>>The WAY to do it is use Kepler's equation for the FUNDAMENTAL >>ellipse, and then tug that out of position using GmM/r^2. > > But the rotation of our moon around the Earth/moon barycentre does not > affect > the sun's movement. YES IT DOES! That's why you need to model it! I agree it will be pretty insignificant for Earth, Moon and Sun, but there will be systems out there where it is very significant.
> Even if Earth and moon were a hundred times heavier that > would still be basically true. Basically, yes. But R Leo isn't our solar system.
> The sun wobbles around the barycentre of itself and the Earth/moon CofG. That's what you are guessing. What you are ignoring is R Leo. You brought it up, dammit! You are treating the Earth-Moon barycentre as a point. I understand that. But in reality that's an approximation, you have to treat the three bodies as in http://www.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection6.html Example EIGHT!! The green orbit is excessive, but that's what I'm talking about. Look at the final green track when the collision occurs, after the simulation has run backwards. That's Collection SIX, example EIGHT, not Collection ONE. You CANNOT guess with this stuff, H, it's chaotic.
>>Now... One more. >>Example 1 again, creeping petals. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > will > hardly affect the central star. Yawn.... Michaelson was a scientist who thought he knew what would happen and it didn't. Wilson knows it all. Wilson is no Michaelson. Michaelson was a scientist. Wilson is a halfwit (like he said). "Unless the two objects are reasonably heavy".... They ARE reasonably heavy. They may not Wilson the central star. Their motion WILL affect the central star.
>>http://www.student.oulu.fi/~ktikkane/AST/RRLYR.html >>Like you, tikkane doesn't realize the petals are creeping, so >>he fudges a curve to agree with what he thinks it ought to be, >>and EVERY ASTRONOMER DOES THE SAME. > > They are confused by the Willusions. You are confused by your own ego.
>>The observations are accurate. The curve is bullshit. That's >>why empirical data is important, and reduced data is suspect. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Except for the fact that I can fit most curves. That's a real Willusion. Only you suffer from them.
>> That's also why you owe me a bottle of Glenlivet. > > No. You owe me a bottle of nice red. You didn't match empirical data with a WCH. RRlyr2, remember? I suspect you are getting senile. Gout becoming a problem? Give up the golf and write a real program, you act like a relativist. Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 21 Nov 2005 06:44 GMT >>>Now we come to the important part. Are you ready? >>>In the two simulations, the mass of the satellite is ZERO. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >I'm discussing THREE body systems. We need to move on. >f.cking hell, H, this will take forever. Are you really that dense? Not dense A, just a mile ahead of you. :-)
>>>This is what I want you to model. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >The sun has to have a miniature version about the barycentre. >Sheesh.. how to get the message over... A, the C of G of the Earth/moon system remains in an almost constant orbit. You can safely regard the Earth and moon as one object.
In other star systems, the effect would only become significant if the 'Earth and Moon' happened to be of significant size compare to the star itself. That of course could easily happen. However the effect would merely show up as a beat, since the period of the moon around the planet would usually be quite different from that of the planet around the star. I found several stars on the britastro site that appeared fit this category.
>>>I don't want your prattling on about Lagrange, I should never have >>>mentioned Lagrange, or you telling me how much better you [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >will >be systems out there where it is very significant. Unless all three bodies are fairly close in size, the effect will appear as a sinusoidal modulation of the brightness curve....very like a beat.
>> Even if Earth and moon were a hundred times heavier that >> would still be basically true. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >That's Collection SIX, example EIGHT, not Collection ONE. >You CANNOT guess with this stuff, H, it's chaotic. Very interesting motions.
But I would expect them all to become unstable eventually unless one body is considerably more massive than the other two. Even then they are probably mildly chaotic.
>>>Now... One more. >>>Example 1 again, creeping petals. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >and it didn't. Wilson knows it all. Wilson is no Michaelson. Michaelson >was a scientist. Wilson is a halfwit (like he said). No that's Andersen.
>"Unless the two objects are reasonably heavy".... >They ARE reasonably heavy. They may not Wilson the central star. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >RRlyr2, remember? >I suspect you are getting senile. Gout becoming a problem? Gout has gone. ..Vegemite was the cause.
>Give up the golf and write a real program, you act like a relativist. A true relativist.
>Androcles. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Androcles - 21 Nov 2005 08:04 GMT >>>>Now we come to the important part. Are you ready? >>>>In the two simulations, the mass of the satellite is ZERO. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > orbit. > You can safely regard the Earth and moon as one object. Enough... If there is one thing worse than a relativist it's a Wuckfitted Wegotistical know-it-all WOOOPID Wabo.
> In other star systems, the effect would only become significant And your definition of "significant" is what, Wabo?
> if the 'Earth > and Moon' happened to be of significant size compare to the star itself. And your definition of "significant" is what, Wabo?
That
> of course could easily happen. > However the effect would merely show up as a beat, Well f.ck my old boots! Here we are looking for a beat, and what I've said would merely show up as a beat... dang! I must have been wrong while you are right as always, Wabo. You must be a mile ahead of me, Wabo.
since the period of the moon
> around the planet would usually be quite different from that of the planet > around the star. > I found several stars on the britastro site that appeared fit this > category. Did you really? Wow! I must have been wrong while you are right as always, Wabo. You must be a mile ahead of me, Wabo.
>>>>I don't want your prattling on about Lagrange, I should never have >>>>mentioned Lagrange, or you telling me how much better you [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > as a > sinusoidal modulation of the brightness curve....very like a beat. Well f.ck my old boots! Here we are looking for a beat, and what I've said would very like a beat... dang! I must have been wrong while you are right as always, Wabo. You must be a mile ahead of me, Wabo.
>>> Even if Earth and moon were a hundred times heavier that >>> would still be basically true. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > considerably more massive than the other two. Even then they are probably > mildly chaotic. Well f.ck my old boots! It is the 'wobble' of Algol that causes the light curve we see, Wabo. The C of G of the Earth/moon system remains in an almost constant orbit. You can safely regard the Earth and moon as one object, Wabo.
>>>>Now... One more. >>>>Example 1 again, creeping petals. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > No that's Andersen. Andersen is a fully-blown supercharged phuckwit. I'm talking about Wilson, the guy that's a mile ahead of me and found several stars on the britastro site that appeared fit this category. That's the halfwit I mean. I wouldn't expect Andersen to have half your brains, or even half your ego. I can't imagine Andersen saying "MY theory this" or "My theory that" and earning a place on crank.net. Andersen is like a hard drive with no CPU. He can spew out data but can't process it. Wilson is like a 4 MHz CPU with 16k of RAM, no hard drive, capable of storing a Basic program on a cassette tape. Much better than Andersen, but still a 1979 model.
>>"Unless the two objects are reasonably heavy".... >>They ARE reasonably heavy. They may not Wilson the central star. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Gout has gone. Glad to hear that.
..Vegemite was the cause.
What's that, something cobbers drink? Never heard of it. Sounds like a margarine version of Marmite, a disgusting thick black paste of dried animal blood (probably baboon). Lemme google and see.... yep... close enough.
>>Give up the golf and write a real program, you act like a relativist. > > A true relativist. Give up the vegemite too, eat real meat. Forget that soy bean stuff. I was in a restaurant the other day, little pink packets of sweetener with 50,000 chemicals listed in the smallest print possible. No wonder people need prescription drugs to counteract the stuff. I chose the white packet with "sugar" (another chemical) written on it, at least I know what that is. The only thing you really have to watch is that other dangerous product, "too much".
Androcles
Henri Wilson - 21 Nov 2005 23:48 GMT >> A, the C of G of the Earth/moon system remains in an almost constant >> orbit. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >And your definition of "significant" is what, Wabo? significantly significant.
>That >> of course could easily happen. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I must have been wrong while you are right as always, Wabo. >You must be a mile ahead of me, Wabo. You were talking about beats in relation to sagnac not star curves.
>since the period of the moon >> around the planet would usually be quite different from that of the planet [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I must have been wrong while you are right as always, Wabo. >You must be a mile ahead of me, Wabo. I am.....
>>>YES IT DOES! That's why you need to model it! >>>I agree it will be pretty insignificant for Earth, Moon and Sun, but there [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >The C of G of the Earth/moon system remains in an almost constant orbit. You >can safely regard the Earth and moon as one object, Wabo. You are learning.
>>>Yawn.... >>>Michaelson was a scientist who thought he knew what would happen [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >of storing a Basic program on a cassette tape. Much better than >Andersen, but still a 1979 model. Professional jealousy coming out again....
You didn't even put grandpa on the carousel.
>>>>> That's also why you owe me a bottle of Glenlivet. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >thick black paste of dried animal blood (probably baboon). >Lemme google and see.... yep... close enough. That's right.. Kraft product...lovely taste....but full of yeast... My brother had bad gout till he gave up the vegemite too. He put me onto it. I have now cured a few other 'pre-vegemite eating' sufferers around here.
Best sell your shares in Kraft before this gets out.
>>>Give up the golf and write a real program, you act like a relativist. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I know what that is. The only thing you really have to watch is that >other dangerous product, "too much". Yes. Everything in moderation......
There appears to be a big increase in number of allergy sufferers around here. People who have never shown any previous symptoms are suddenly experiencing respiratory difficulties, rashes and other complaints. It could be just the spring pollens ...but it could also be something do with newly introduced chemicals or genetically modified products.
Food certainly doesn't taste like it used to....if you can taste it at all.
>Androcles HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Androcles - 22 Nov 2005 02:50 GMT >>> A, the C of G of the Earth/moon system remains in an almost constant >>> orbit. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > significantly significant. Roberts is deliberately vague when floundering against logic he has no answer for. He's a phuckwit. But then you know that, don't you, Wabo SRist?
>>That >>> of course could easily happen. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You were talking about beats in relation to sagnac not star curves. Was I? Ok. I must have been wrong while you are right as always, Wabo. You must be a mile ahead of me, Wabo.
>>since the period of the moon >>> around the planet would usually be quite different from that of the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I am..... Uh huh... Another Roberts. All ego and no knowledge. You are formally reduced from halfwit status to dimwit. The emotional ego content has overridden logic in your neuron.
>>>>YES IT DOES! That's why you need to model it! >>>>I agree it will be pretty insignificant for Earth, Moon and Sun, but [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > You are learning. I learned how to piss on phuckwitted relativists. Pissing on you is easy.
>>>>Yawn.... >>>>Michaelson was a scientist who thought he knew what would happen [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Professional jealousy coming out again.... Do try to get over your jealousy, we are discussing physics. I did say you were better than Andersen (marginally).
> You didn't even put grandpa on the carousel. The 8yo kiddy goes on the carousel with his 5yo sister. Grandpa watches.
>>>>>> That's also why you owe me a bottle of Glenlivet. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Best sell your shares in Kraft before this gets out. No accounting for taste... I thought all you cobbers munched sheep.
>>>>Give up the golf and write a real program, you act like a relativist. >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Food certainly doesn't taste like it used to....if you can taste it at > all. That's for sure. The Americans produce the most beautiful large red apples you've ever seen, they taste like paper pulp. I'll settle for the little golden green ones I get from the orchard down the road, acidic and sweet. Do Ozzie women squeeze the bread before they buy it? Seems to me that food should be as tasteless as possible to sell sauces in today's world. At least I can still get a pint of bitter now.
>>Androcles > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". Henri Wilson - 22 Nov 2005 20:42 GMT >> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:04:35 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep>
>Do try to get over your jealousy, we are discussing physics. >I did say you were better than Andersen (marginally). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The 8yo kiddy goes on the carousel with his 5yo sister. >Grandpa watches. In the real sagnac, grandpa is on the carousel.
>>>Glad to hear that. >>> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >That's for sure. The Americans produce the most beautiful large >red apples you've ever seen, they taste like paper pulp. We buy a lot of US fruit in the of season. Tasteless bloody stuff.
Many Aussie orchards are going out of business because of free trade. Much of our high quality fruit is ploughed into the ground through over supply. Cheap orange juice imported from Brazil recently caused several long established canning factories to close down.
>I'll settle for the little golden green ones I get from the orchard down >the road, acidic and sweet. >Do Ozzie women squeeze the bread before they buy it? nah!
>Seems to me that food should be as tasteless as possible to sell >sauces in today's world. The sauces are full of chemicals too..
>At least I can still get a pint of bitter now. Even the beer is contaminated with preservatives and other sh.t.
That's why I stick with the good pure red wine.
>>>Androcles >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. >> The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Androcles - 23 Nov 2005 01:11 GMT >>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:04:35 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > In the real sagnac, grandpa is on the carousel. Yeah, you are right... http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/research/laser/graphics/zerodorblock1.jpg A little dangerous though when it starts turning.
>>>>Glad to hear that. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > We buy a lot of US fruit in the of season. Tasteless bloody stuff. I've had some really great navel oranges in Florida, right off the tree. Can't grow them here. I made a couple of gallons of the sweetest OJ I've ever tasted, a hint of pink grapefruit juice added. I must have thrown more oranges and grapefruit in the canal than I ever bought in my entire life. Still, they can't grow apples there, so what you gain on the pendulum you lose on the Sagnac roundabout. Seems a pretty expensive ride in a cave, I hope the admission fees for the public are not too high just to get thrown off a carousel. http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/research/laser/ring_history.shtml Still, it's their money...
> Many Aussie orchards are going out of business because of free trade. Much > of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > nah! Strange, American women do that all the time. Taste doesn't matter to them. Appearance is everything.
>>Seems to me that food should be as tasteless as possible to sell >>sauces in today's world. > > The sauces are full of chemicals too.. Of course. But no matter what you eat, you get the taste you like. Honey roasted or barbecued cabbage works, I guess.
>>At least I can still get a pint of bitter now. > > Even the beer is contaminated with preservatives and other sh.t. Foster's isn't beer, Theakston's is beer, Shepherd Neame is beer.
> That's why I stick with the good pure red wine. I can't blame you for that. If I had to drink Fosters I'd drink wine instead, too.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 23 Nov 2005 04:38 GMT >>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:04:35 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/research/laser/graphics/zerodorblock1.jpg >A little dangerous though when it starts turning. HaHa!
>>>That's for sure. The Americans produce the most beautiful large >>>red apples you've ever seen, they taste like paper pulp. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/research/laser/ring_history.shtml >Still, it's their money... They claim it works because of a relativistic effect. I reckon they will find they are out by root2.
If not, there must be a local aether reference frame or some unknown factor at work.
>>>I'll settle for the little golden green ones I get from the orchard down >>>the road, acidic and sweet. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Strange, American women do that all the time. Taste doesn't matter >to them. Appearance is everything. ...that figures.
>>>Seems to me that food should be as tasteless as possible to sell >>>sauces in today's world. >> >> The sauces are full of chemicals too.. >Of course. But no matter what you eat, you get the taste you like. >Honey roasted or barbecued cabbage works, I guess. You're welcome.
>>>At least I can still get a pint of bitter now. >> >> Even the beer is contaminated with preservatives and other sh.t. >> >Foster's isn't beer, Theakston's is beer, Shepherd Neame is beer. A few genuine beers are reappearing here, too.
>> That's why I stick with the good pure red wine. > >I can't blame you for that. >If I had to drink Fosters I'd drink wine instead, too. > >Androcles. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Androcles - 23 Nov 2005 09:23 GMT >>>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:04:35 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > HaHa! What's the haha for? You think this is a joke?
>>>>That's for sure. The Americans produce the most beautiful large >>>>red apples you've ever seen, they taste like paper pulp. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > factor at > work. I reckon you haven't got a fuckin' clue. But then, you are not as smart as an 8yo kid.
>>>>I'll settle for the little golden green ones I get from the orchard down >>>>the road, acidic and sweet. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". Henri Wilson - 23 Nov 2005 21:51 GMT >>>> In the real sagnac, grandpa is on the carousel. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> HaHa! >What's the haha for? You think this is a joke? I thought it was. It looks pretty slippery to me.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 15 Nov 2005 15:11 GMT > >> Grandpa puts granddaughter and grandson on a carousel and watches > >> them walk around it in opposite directions. The pass each other on the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Forget it George. I killfiled Andy some time ago since he wasn't reading my replies but there's no killfile on Google. If he's going to try to join in, he had better find out how the experiment is conducted, but he's got a long way to go to catch up with you.
> I have now completely explained why sagnac does not refute the BaTh. No, you slipped up a bit at the end. I'll reply tonight, lunchtime is over.
George
Henri Wilson - 15 Nov 2005 23:56 GMT >> >> Grandpa puts granddaughter and grandson on a carousel and watches >> >> them walk around it in opposite directions. The pass each other on the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >No, you slipped up a bit at the end. I'll reply tonight, >lunchtime is over. see the duck shooting analogy: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
jgreen@seol.net.au - 21 Nov 2005 03:11 GMT > > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:35:04 -0000, "George Dishman" > > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > It's that simple that the fuckin' imbecile Jerry calls it "handwaving". > Androcles. Tick
Jim G c'=c+v
George Dishman - 12 Nov 2005 10:51 GMT <snip stuff now agreed>
>>> In the table frame, the whole beam appears to move at 45 degrees, like >>> the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Nah! OK, think about the car chasing the duck round the roundabout only this time the hunter has an automatic. The first bullet travels as you drew:
v<-car /gun
| / v Duck
The second is fired 90 degrees later:
car |\gun | \ v
\ --> Duck
Can you see that the same analysis applies, the drawing has just been turned a bit? The same is true for intermediate angles so once you do the maths for one bullet, the calculated time taken for the bullet to reach the duck will also apply to each subsequent bullet.
<snip>
>> Closing speed is meaningful when one object is following >> the same path as another but is some distance behind, for [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > infinite > number of 'mirrors'. The reson it applies is that the path is a series of chords. If you calculate the sum of the lengths of the N chords of a regular polygon within a circle and then let N tend to infinity, the length of each tends to zero (infinitesimal) while the sum is asymptotic to the circumference.
As N tends to infinity, the direction of the light is also asymptotic to the tangential at the point of reflection. The the path of the light is asymptotic to that of the mirrors, your use of closing speed is then reasonable.
> You can still use it in the four mirror system but you have to accomodate > the > sideways movement. Closing speed does not deal with sideways, it is one dimensional by definition.
George
bz - 24 Oct 2005 13:59 GMT > I suppose one could talk about the point where moving scissor blades > meet... Is IT distinguishable from nothing? Finally, you mention a phenomina that CAN move faster than light.
Take two intersecting laser beams and move the point of intersection by moving them like a pair of scissor blades. The point of intersection CAN move at any velocity you like.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson - 25 Oct 2005 00:11 GMT >> I suppose one could talk about the point where moving scissor blades >> meet... Is IT distinguishable from nothing? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >moving them like a pair of scissor blades. The point of intersection CAN >move at any velocity you like. that's because it is a mathematical and not a physical entity.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
bz - 24 Oct 2005 14:09 GMT > The conventional view ignores the fact that the ends of the 'elements' > are emitted at different times, during which the source moves along a > little. All the elements of the beam remain aligned vertically in both > frames. That is what the program is intended to show and it DOES just > that. Henri, you and I have discussed this before. If the ends of the photon are emitted at different times, they will be in different locations relative to the vertical in the other frame. They appear to be 'slanted' just as the beam appears to be slanted.
Think of shooting a harpoon (with a trailing line) at a whale that is off the portside of a moving ship. The harpooner has been leading the whale and fires at the moment that the gun is exactly perpendicular to the side of the ship and to the motion of the ship. Neglect air resistance and gravity.
To the viewers on the ship, the harpoon appears to move in a straight line, perpendicular to the course of the ship.
To the viewers floating in a 'stationary' rowboat, near the point where the whale and harpoon are about to meet, the harpoon and line follow a diagonal.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson - 25 Oct 2005 00:13 GMT >> The conventional view ignores the fact that the ends of the 'elements' >> are emitted at different times, during which the source moves along a [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >the whale and harpoon are about to meet, the harpoon and line follow a >diagonal. Each infinitesimal element follows a different diagonal.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 22 Oct 2005 11:40 GMT > >> Can you not see that you are quoting the aether explanation. You seem to > >> think [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Of course it is simple. It has no physical basis. It is just circular maths. Show us the maths of your theory so we can test it for circularity.
> >> Imagine a completely remote sagnac interferometer with mirrors 1 million > >> LYs [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > George, physically speaking, there is NO spacetime. Mabey, but it is the best description we have.
> It is just a maths tool. So?
> >> I think you are just a good old fashioned aetherist. > > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Try as I may, I cannot understand bullshit. It wouldn't compromise your position to understand SR and still have a opinion that is counter to it.
The only reason you "cannot understand" is because you are incapable of learning anything that doesn't agree with your preconcieved notion of how the universe works.
> I don't wish to be associated with any theory that is based on the obvious > fallacy that a vertical light beam in one frame becomes a diagonal light beam > in another. > That is plain nonsense. So its always vertical then?
How about if I emit a photon, then catch up to it? Is it still going vertical relative to me?
> >>>No speculation at all Henri, just the empirical result. > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If the result agrees with anything you want it to prove, it is for the wrong > reasons. So you are dismissing observational evidence because you know it is wrong, even though you can't explain why it is wrong?
> >> Well, for tyhe MMX, assumptions might have to be made about the reflection > >> of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I don't accept that. > Too many assumptions are involved. It can never be directly verified. That is a cop-out. "I have to think too much" is what it boils down to.
You wouldn't understand the explanation anyway. Remember this? "Try as I may, I cannot understand bullshit."
> >>>> No I don't believe sagnac is a test of Ritz. > >>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > So was Einstein then. Lorentz was correct. > There is at least a 'local aether'. I am sure you have evidence to support that assertion?
> >> LET accepts that light can move at c+v wrt an observer BUT that the > >> observer [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Yes..so SR breaks down in any physical situation.. That conclusion does not follow.
How do you even know SR "breaks down", you admit you don't understand it!
> >In reality, the speed measured by each observer > >is c and SR explains that by the geometry of spacetime. > >It is the metric which is physical. > > Never verified. Then test it then.
Oh wait, you can't - you don't understand SR. "Try as I may, I cannot understand bullshit."
> >> This is just a mathematical trick. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Geoge, expressing 3D space and time as a 4D graphic achieves nothing new. > It might impress a lot of little kids but that's about all. METRIC, Henri, METRIC. Not graphic.
Do you even know what a metric is? Can you say ANYTHING qualitative or quanitative about the idea of a metric that shows you have had the education to understand it?
> >George > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". Robert - 23 Oct 2005 01:31 GMT >> >The geometry of spacetime. You might want to think >> >of it as an extension of Pyhtagoras to 4D. >> >> George, physically speaking, there is NO spacetime. > >Mabey, but it is the best description we have. It describes nothing physical. 'Spacetime' is just a big word designed to impress little boys.
>> It is just a maths tool. > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >learning anything that doesn't agree with your preconcieved notion of >how the universe works. In this universe, no vertical beam of light in one frame becomes diagonal in another. If you cannot deduce this yourself then consult my program 'movingframe.exe'.
>> I don't wish to be associated with any theory that is based on the obvious >> fallacy that a vertical light beam in one frame becomes a diagonal light beam [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >How about if I emit a photon, then catch up to it? Is it still going >vertical relative to me? You cannot catch up. You don't have enough (mc^2) energy in you body to get the last atom up to that speed.
>> >Irrelevant, the result is known. That is what 'empirical' >> >means. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >So you are dismissing observational evidence because you know it is >wrong, even though you can't explain why it is wrong? There is no experimental evidence that supports SR. There is no experimental evidence that refutes the BaTh.
>> >> Well, for tyhe MMX, assumptions might have to be made about the reflection >> >> of [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > >I am sure you have evidence to support that assertion? The Sagnac definitely DOES NOT refute the BaTh. I have just shown George why this is the case.
>> Yes..so SR breaks down in any physical situation.. > >That conclusion does not follow. > >How do you even know SR "breaks down", you admit you don't understand >it! I understand what it cannot do. SR cannot explain why simultaneously emitted light pulses from adjacent but differently moving sources should travel together through space.
->S1__________________>p <-S2
Until you can provide an alternative reason why they should, I will maintain that only an absolute spatial reference frame could achieve that outcome.
>> >In reality, the speed measured by each observer >> >is c and SR explains that by the geometry of spacetime. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Oh wait, you can't - you don't understand SR. "Try as I may, I cannot understand bullshit."
>> >> This is just a mathematical trick. >> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >quanitative about the idea of a metric that shows you have had the >education to understand it? a length in a 4D graph of space and time?
What does that achieve.
Eric Gisse - 23 Oct 2005 03:42 GMT > >> >The geometry of spacetime. You might want to think > >> >of it as an extension of Pyhtagoras to 4D. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It describes nothing physical. > 'Spacetime' is just a big word designed to impress little boys. You do not understand SR by your own admission so I fail to see how you can decide if it is valid or not.
> >> It is just a maths tool. > > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > In this universe, no vertical beam of light in one frame becomes diagonal in > another. So it is vertical in every frame?
> If you cannot deduce this yourself then consult my program 'movingframe.exe'. Why should I consult your computer program when you could simply write out the mathematics of the transformation from one frame to another?
> >> I don't wish to be associated with any theory that is based on the obvious > >> fallacy that a vertical light beam in one frame becomes a diagonal light beam [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You cannot catch up. You don't have enough (mc^2) energy in you body to get the > last atom up to that speed. Odd.
You have used superluminal muons in examples before, eg:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/a7b289a357541458?dmode =source&hl=en
Why the change of tune? Are you now saying massive particles CANNOT go faster than the speed of light?
Furthermore, E = mc^2 is a prediction of relativity, not the "BaTh". You cannot derive E = mc^2 classically, and I defy you to show me otherwise.
> >> >Irrelevant, the result is known. That is what 'empirical' > >> >means. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > There is no experimental evidence that supports SR. There is no experimental > evidence that refutes the BaTh. What about "willusions" ? The "willusions" match the form of relativity. Why is that?
Remember, you have a VERY large amount of posts for me to quote.
> >> >> Well, for tyhe MMX, assumptions might have to be made about the reflection > >> >> of [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > The Sagnac definitely DOES NOT refute the BaTh. I have just shown George why > this is the case. You missed my point, Henri. Support the assertion that there is a local aether frame.
> >> Yes..so SR breaks down in any physical situation.. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I understand what it cannot do. No, you do not. Otherwise you wouldn't make up stupid examples time and again. You wouldn't be asking questions that you know have no answer within the context of a physical theory.
> SR cannot explain why simultaneously emitted light pulses from adjacent but > differently moving sources should travel together through space. > > ->S1__________________>p > <-S2 Relativity of simultainety, constancy of the speed of light. It follows exactly from the postulates of the theory. If you understood the theory you would know this.
Within the framework of the theory, its perfectly obvious. Unfortunately you cannot work within the framework to find the solution, because you are a goddamn idiot.
> Until you can provide an alternative reason why they should, I will maintain > that only an absolute spatial reference frame could achieve that outcome. You can maintain whatever you want, neither the universe nor anyone else really cares.
> >> >In reality, the speed measured by each observer > >> >is c and SR explains that by the geometry of spacetime. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "Try as I may, I cannot > understand bullshit." Yes, that is what you said. You are thus unfit to judge the merits of SR. If you do not understand the theory, how can you possibly know what it does and does not predict?
> >> >> This is just a mathematical trick. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > a length in a 4D graph of space and time? METRIC, Henri, METRIC. Not graph. I should only have to say it once considering you quoted me saying it!
The metric preserves the distance between events, this is basic differential geometry.
> What does that achieve. What would be the point of telling you? You will either argue that my explaination is useless or that you don't, in effect, understand it.
If you really want to know, you can read any of the modern treatments of special and general relativity where the metric plays a fundamental role.
HW@.. - 23 Oct 2005 23:47 GMT >> >> >The geometry of spacetime. You might want to think >> >> >of it as an extension of Pyhtagoras to 4D. [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > >So it is vertical in every frame? Every frame that is moving along the horizontal, yes.
Have a look at my program again and use your brain if you have one.
>> If you cannot deduce this yourself then consult my program 'movingframe.exe'. > >Why should I consult your computer program when you could simply write >out the mathematics of the transformation from one frame to another? Idiot. Just plot the bloody thing....as my program does. Do you have NO scientific ability at all?
>> >> I don't wish to be associated with any theory that is based on the obvious >> >> fallacy that a vertical light beam in one frame becomes a diagonal light beam [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Why the change of tune? Are you now saying massive particles CANNOT go >faster than the speed of light? Poor boy! Do you have NO scientific ability at all?
>Furthermore, E = mc^2 is a prediction of relativity, not the "BaTh". >You cannot derive E = mc^2 classically, and I defy you to show me >otherwise. E=Mc^2 was around long before relativity.
>> >> >Irrelevant, the result is known. That is what 'empirical' >> >> >means. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >What about "willusions" ? The "willusions" match the form of >relativity. Why is that? Probably because relativity is a DElusion.
>Remember, you have a VERY large amount of posts for me to quote. > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] >You missed my point, Henri. Support the assertion that there is a local >aether frame. You have NO scientific ability at all?
>> >How do you even know SR "breaks down", you admit you don't understand >> >it! [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Unfortunately you cannot work within the framework to find the >solution, because you are a goddamn idiot. Definitely NO scientific ability at all?
>> Until you can provide an alternative reason why they should, I will maintain >> that only an absolute spatial reference frame could achieve that outcome. > >You can maintain whatever you want, neither the universe nor anyone >else really cares. Poor boy.... really should start another career before it's too late.
>> "Try as I may, I cannot >> understand bullshit." > >Yes, that is what you said. You are thus unfit to judge the merits of >SR. If you do not understand the theory, how can you possibly know what >it does and does not predict? It predicts exactly what LET predicts...and I CAN understand LET, because it isn't bullshit. It would be a perfectyl sound theory if an aether actually existed.
>> >> Geoge, expressing 3D space and time as a 4D graphic achieves nothing new. >> >> It might impress a lot of little kids but that's about all. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >The metric preserves the distance between events, this is basic >differential geometry. Poor confused boy.
>> What does that achieve. > >What would be the point of telling you? You will either argue that my >explaination is useless or that you don't, in effect, understand it. It IS useless.
>If you really want to know, you can read any of the modern treatments >of special and general relativity where the metric plays a fundamental >role. It's bullshit.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 24 Oct 2005 00:37 GMT > >> >> >The geometry of spacetime. You might want to think > >> >> >of it as an extension of Pyhtagoras to 4D. [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > Every frame that is moving along the horizontal, yes. What keeps light moving vertical in the new frame if the new frame has a different velocity?
> Have a look at my program again and use your brain if you have one. Do you realise how absurd it is to say "if you want to know what my theory predicts, look at my program" in the context of a physical theory?
> >> If you cannot deduce this yourself then consult my program 'movingframe.exe'. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Idiot. Just plot the bloody thing....as my program does. > Do you have NO scientific ability at all? How am I supposed to know if the equations that I deduce are the correct ones if you refuse to show me the ones you use?
Instead of whining every time I ask, just show me.
> >> >> I don't wish to be associated with any theory that is based on the obvious > >> >> fallacy that a vertical light beam in one frame becomes a diagonal light beam [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Poor boy! Do you have NO scientific ability at all? You can't answer the questions.
> >Furthermore, E = mc^2 is a prediction of relativity, not the "BaTh". > >You cannot derive E = mc^2 classically, and I defy you to show me > >otherwise. > > E=Mc^2 was around long before relativity. Good, then you can show me the classical derivation of it.
> >> >> >Irrelevant, the result is known. That is what 'empirical' > >> >> >means. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Probably because relativity is a DElusion. You didn't answer the question.
> >Remember, you have a VERY large amount of posts for me to quote. > > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > You have NO scientific ability at all? You didn't answer the question...again.
> >> >How do you even know SR "breaks down", you admit you don't understand > >> >it! [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Definitely NO scientific ability at all? You didn't understand the answer so you claim "no scientific ability" on my part. Nice job.
> >> Until you can provide an alternative reason why they should, I will maintain > >> that only an absolute spatial reference frame could achieve that outcome. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Poor boy.... really should start another career before it's too late. Fine, you want to play that game?
How do you use your applied mathematics degree in your work?
> >> "Try as I may, I cannot > >> understand bullshit." [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > isn't bullshit. It would be a perfectyl sound theory if an aether actually > existed. Except you stated many times that there is an aether. Such as here :
"So was Einstein then. Lorentz was correct. There is at least a 'local aether'. "
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f9fae54daa7d778b?dmode =source&hl=en
These are contradicting statements. So were you mistaken in saying there is an aether, or were you mistaken in saying there isn't one?
> >> >> Geoge, expressing 3D space and time as a 4D graphic achieves nothing new. > >> >> It might impress a lot of little kids but that's about all. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Poor confused boy. YOU are the one that is confused. I am not responsible for the gaps in your education.
> >> What does that achieve. > > > >What would be the point of telling you? You will either argue that my > >explaination is useless or that you don't, in effect, understand it. > > It IS useless. How do you know? You can't even use the word "metric" correctly because you do not even understand what it means or how it is used!
> >If you really want to know, you can read any of the modern treatments > >of special and general relativity where the metric plays a fundamental > >role. > > It's bullshit. How would you know?
You lack the intellectual curiosity required to actually learn the theory, much less critique it without viewing it through the myopic lens that is your "BaT" theory.
> HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe > > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". Henri Wilson - 25 Oct 2005 00:20 GMT >> >> In this universe, no vertical beam of light in one frame becomes diagonal in >> >> another. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Instead of whining every time I ask, just show me. Poor boy.. absolutely no scientific ability whatsoever...but he tries.
>> >> >How about if I emit a photon, then catch up to it? Is it still going >> >> >vertical relative to me? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >You can't answer the questions. I want to give you an opportunity to use your own brain geese.
>> >Furthermore, E = mc^2 is a prediction of relativity, not the "BaTh". >> >You cannot derive E = mc^2 classically, and I defy you to show me [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Good, then you can show me the classical derivation of it. Look it up
>> >> >So you are dismissing observational evidence because you know it is >> >> >wrong, even though you can't explain why it is wrong? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >You didn't answer the question. I'll leave it to you.
>> >Yes, that is what you said. You are thus unfit to judge the merits of >> >SR. If you do not understand the theory, how can you possibly know what [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >These are contradicting statements. So were you mistaken in saying >there is an aether, or were you mistaken in saying there isn't one? I was being sarcastic there. I was merely pointing out that Andersen was an aetherist in disguise.
>> >The metric preserves the distance between events, this is basic >> >differential geometry. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >How do you know? You can't even use the word "metric" correctly because >you do not even understand what it means or how it is used! I don't want to ever use it.
>> >If you really want to know, you can read any of the modern treatments >> >of special and general relativity where the metric plays a fundamental >> >role. >> >> It's bullshit. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 25 Oct 2005 00:52 GMT [snip]
> >How am I supposed to know if the equations that I deduce are the > >correct ones if you refuse to show me the ones you use? > > > >Instead of whining every time I ask, just show me. > > Poor boy.. absolutely no scientific ability whatsoever...but he tries. Refusal to show theory noted.
You act like showing the fine details of your theory is such a burden. I can imagine you going to a podium, and talking all about your theory. When finally questioned, you say only one of the following: "c+v", "work it out yourself", or "it is obvious".
> >> >> >How about if I emit a photon, then catch up to it? Is it still going > >> >> >vertical relative to me? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I want to give you an opportunity to use your own brain geese. Says the man who cannot spell my name.
Besides, every time I do that you get mad when I come to a conclusion different than your own.
> >> >Furthermore, E = mc^2 is a prediction of relativity, not the "BaTh". > >> >You cannot derive E = mc^2 classically, and I defy you to show me [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Look it up f.ck you, Henri. It does not work that way. It is not my job to do your work for you.
You produce the literature citation, and there is a good chance I will go look it up. But I will NOT do the work of either finding it or doing it just to please you.
> >> >> >So you are dismissing observational evidence because you know it is > >> >> >wrong, even though you can't explain why it is wrong? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I'll leave it to you. It isn't my problem if you are incapable of answering basic questions such as this.
> >> >Yes, that is what you said. You are thus unfit to judge the merits of > >> >SR. If you do not understand the theory, how can you possibly know what [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I was being sarcastic there. Only you knew that. Sarcasm conveys in person, not through text.
> I was merely pointing out that Andersen was an aetherist in disguise. What he believes only matters to you because it isn't what you believe.
Get over it. The petty attacks only impress yourself and Androcles.
> >> >The metric preserves the distance between events, this is basic > >> >differential geometry. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I don't want to ever use it. Fascinating, you find the concept of differential geometry - a subject independant of relativity - distasteful too! Odd..
I think it is because you couldn't pass a differential geometry class in your day.
> >> >If you really want to know, you can read any of the modern treatments > >> >of special and general relativity where the metric plays a fundamental [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". Henri Wilson - 25 Oct 2005 09:24 GMT >[snip] > [quoted text clipped - 126 lines] >I think it is because you couldn't pass a differential geometry class >in your day. always top of the class geese.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
bz - 23 Oct 2005 16:33 GMT >>How about if I emit a photon, then catch up to it? Is it still going >>vertical relative to me? > > You cannot catch up. You don't have enough (mc^2) energy in you body to > get the last atom up to that speed. Robert AKA Henri,
That should be no problem for a BaTer.
All you need to do is to get up to .2 c (particles much better than that all the time in accelerators), and catch up to a photon emitted by a particle going at -0.9c.
The particle that emits the photon (going in your direction) is going away from you in the opposite direction from the direction of your travel.
By the BaT, c'=c+0.9c = 0.1c
So, if you are going 0.2 c you should have no trouble catching a photon that is only going 0.1 c relative to you, should you?
Henri, I am afraid you can't have it both ways. You can't say that massive bodies can't go faster than c while maintaining that photons move at c'=c+v. Your approach leads to logical contradictions.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
HW@.. - 23 Oct 2005 23:52 GMT >>>How about if I emit a photon, then catch up to it? Is it still going >>>vertical relative to me? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >bodies can't go faster than c while maintaining that photons move at >c'=c+v. Your approach leads to logical contradictions. Your argument is not related to the problem geesey raised and I answered.
The question is, "if someone emits a pulse of light, can they ever catch up with it?" I have replied by saying NO. Even if all the person's MC^2 energy was available to accelerate the last molecule, it could never reach it.
Try rocket propulsion theory....remember the exhaust accelerates too, mainly in the same direction as the pulse.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
bz - 24 Oct 2005 14:20 GMT >>>>How about if I emit a photon, then catch up to it? Is it still going >>>>vertical relative to me? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Your argument is not related to the problem geesey raised and I > answered. So? I raised a new point(tangentially related). You fail to refute it.
> The question is, "if someone emits a pulse of light, can they ever catch > up with it?" The question is 'can matter ever travel fast enough to catch photons'?
In a SR/GR/EEP universe, the answer is 'no'.
In a BaTer's universe, the answer must be 'yes'. But you appear to say it is NO. This is a logical contradiction. BaT can't fly.
> I have replied by saying NO. OK in SR, bad for BaT.
> Even if all the person's MC^2 energy was > available to accelerate the last molecule, it could never reach it. I agree. OK in SR, bad for BaT.
> Try rocket propulsion theory....remember the exhaust accelerates too, > mainly in the same direction as the pulse. ????. The exhaust accelerates in all directions, the rocket chamber confines the accelerated paricles and only allows them to escape in the direction opposite to the light pulse you are trying to catch.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson - 25 Oct 2005 00:40 GMT >>>>>How about if I emit a photon, then catch up to it? Is it still going >>>>>vertical relative to me? [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >In a BaTer's universe, the answer must be 'yes'. But you appear to say it >is NO. This is a logical contradiction. BaT can't fly. Bob, matter is continually 'catching' photons. Haven't you noticed? That's because it has different relative speeds to the photons.
>> I have replied by saying NO. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >I agree. OK in SR, bad for BaT. why?
>> Try rocket propulsion theory....remember the exhaust accelerates too, >> mainly in the same direction as the pulse. > >????. The exhaust accelerates in all directions, the rocket chamber >confines the accelerated paricles and only allows them to escape in the >direction opposite to the light pulse you are trying to catch. Wrong.
Initially the propellent moves in the opposite direction to the rocket motion wrt base. When the rocket speed wrt base equals the propellent speed wrt the rocket, the propellent speed wrt base becomes zero. Further acceleration by the rocket sees the propellent also moving in the rocket direction wrt base. So energy is eventually required to accelerate both rocket and propellent in the same direction wrt base. As the rocket approaches c wrt base, so does the propellent speed...and in the same direction. KE approaches 1/2mc^2. Expended energy dissipated as heat must be at least that. Total final energy = mc^2
get it?
I say there can never be enough energy in chemical or nuclear bonds to get to c...because maximum available is E=mc^2.
However, maybe some of the accelerating energy could come from an external source...
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 25 Oct 2005 01:04 GMT > >>>>>How about if I emit a photon, then catch up to it? Is it still going > >>>>>vertical relative to me? [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > why? You don't place bounds on the v in c+v. c' can be smaller than c.
> >> Try rocket propulsion theory....remember the exhaust accelerates too, > >> mainly in the same direction as the pulse. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > that. > Total final energy = mc^2 Oh you are using Newtonian kinematics, to prove the validity of the "BaT", while using an example derived from special relativity?
Well, that is WRONG, fuckhead! For so many goddamn reasons.
Newtonian mechanics sets c=oo, and SR sets c = constant in all inertial frames.
Your analysis is dead on arrival because you are using a theory that is incompatable with the premise of your theory.
Your analysis is dead on arrival due to the above plus E = mc^2 is derived from SR and not Newton. I asked for you to show me otherwise and since you are incapable of doing it, my point stands.
> get it? > > I say there can never be enough energy in chemical or nuclear bonds to get to > c...because maximum available is E=mc^2. That is derivable from SR, not Newton. Goddamn you are dumb.
> However, maybe some of the accelerating energy could come from an external > source... No sh.t. Perhaps we could test the hypothesis of c'=c+v using that method.
Henri just thought of the concept now known as the "particle accelerator". Only a century and change late Henri, good job!
> HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe > > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". bz - 25 Oct 2005 05:16 GMT >> >>>>>How about if I emit a photon, then catch up to it? Is it still >> >>>>>going vertical relative to me? [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > You don't place bounds on the v in c+v. c' can be smaller than c. Exactly right, Dr. Gisse. BaT doesn't place bounds on velocity. SR does.
That presents Henri with a problem.
>> >> Try rocket propulsion theory....remember the exhaust accelerates >> >> too, mainly in the same direction as the pulse. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> Wrong. http://www.suzy.co.nz/suzysworld/Factpage.asp?FactSheet=116
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mrockets.html
>> Initially the propellent moves in the opposite direction to the rocket >> motion wrt base. I think you are confusing yourself. The mass of the rocket is moving, as a unit, in the direction that the .2 c BaT photon is going.
The exhaust from the rocket is going in the opposite direction, to provide the 'action-reaction' push. We don't know where the base is, nor do we care.
>> When the rocket speed wrt base equals the propellent speed wrt the >> rocket, the propellent speed wrt base becomes zero. In order for the rocket to accelerate in one direction, the reaction-mass of the fuel must be ejected from the rocket at a much higher velocity in the other direction.
>> Further acceleration by the rocket sees the propellent also moving in >> the rocket direction wrt base. Acceleration doesn't have eyes, so IT can't see anything.
>> So energy is eventually required to accelerate both rocket and >> propellent in the same direction wrt base. Forget about the base, it could be in any direction by now.
>> As the rocket approaches c wrt base, so does the propellent speed...and >> in the same direction. No, the exhaust must go in the opposite direction from the rocket.
>> KE approaches 1/2mc^2. Expended energy dissipated as heat must be at >> least that. >> Total final energy = mc^2
> Oh you are using Newtonian kinematics, to prove the validity of the > "BaT", while using an example derived from special relativity? > > Well, that is WRONG, ****head! For so many g*dd*mn reasons. Please, watch the language. No need for such terms. Leave them to A**r*cl*s and his ilk.
> Newtonian mechanics sets c=oo, and SR sets c = constant in all inertial > frames. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> I say there can never be enough energy in chemical or nuclear bonds to >> get to c...because maximum available is E=mc^2. I agreed already that in SR universe we can't reach c with matter.
But in BaT universe, c isn't a magic number. Newtonian Relativity says that I can keep accelerating, and if you run the numbers, without relativistic mass increase as you approach c, you will find that it is easy for the rocket to exceed c.... And it would IF we lived in a BaTty universe.
> That is derivable from SR, not Newton. Goddamn you are dumb. He is just a bit muxed up. No need to be rude. Name calling makes the name caller look bad.
>> However, maybe some of the accelerating energy could come from an >> external source... magic?
> No sh*t. Perhaps we could test the hypothesis of c'=c+v using that > method. > > Henri just thought of the concept now known as the "particle > accelerator". Only a century and change late Henri, good job!
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Eric Gisse - 25 Oct 2005 09:09 GMT [snip]
> >> >I agree. OK in SR, bad for BaT. > >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Exactly right, Dr. Gisse. BaT doesn't place bounds on velocity. SR does. I don't have a doctorate, or even a bachelor's. I am, however, a bad student. At the very least I am on par with Henri, because I too can be very loud about my ignorance.
[snip]
> > Oh you are using Newtonian kinematics, to prove the validity of the > > "BaT", while using an example derived from special relativity? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Please, watch the language. No need for such terms. Leave them to A**r*cl*s > and his ilk. He makes the same elementry mistakes over and over. Patience is not the solution.
The tone was set and continues to be set by Henri who insists on not calling me by my actual name.
I am not the type of person to take the high road.
[snip]
Jeff Root - 25 Oct 2005 11:58 GMT > He makes the same elementry mistakes over and over. Those are not mistakes. They are delusions which support his fantasy.
> Patience is not the solution. I agree. Patience is only a part of the solution.
> The tone was set and continues to be set by Henri Bad choice.
> who insists on not calling me by my actual name. It hurts me a little every time I see him do that, and I've never really had my funny last name made fun of.
> I am not the type of person to take the high road. We can change that. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Henri Wilson - 25 Oct 2005 22:36 GMT >> He makes the same elementry mistakes over and over. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >We can change that. Go root yer boot!
> -- Jeff, in Minneapolis HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
bz - 25 Oct 2005 13:04 GMT > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I don't have a doctorate, or even a bachelor's. I work daily with PhDs, Post Docs, Grad Students, undergrads and never grads. Intellegence and ability have little correlation with degrees obtained. The degrees show an ability to stick to the task, however.
> I am, however, a bad > student. At the very least I am on par with Henri, because I too can be > very loud about my ignorance. You often make cogent comments. I enjoy reading those.
>> > Oh you are using Newtonian kinematics, to prove the validity of the >> > "BaT", while using an example derived from special relativity? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > He makes the same elementry mistakes over and over. Patience is not the > solution. Nothing else will work better.
> The tone was set and continues to be set by Henri who insists on not > calling me by my actual name. I have advised him, numerous times, via e-mail, that he only makes himself look bad by such actions.
> I am not the type of person to take the high road. There is only one person that you can control. You.
Your actions DO have an effect on others, however.
Taking the high road costs less in the long run.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Eric Gisse - 26 Oct 2005 01:00 GMT [snip]
> > I am not the type of person to take the high road. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Taking the high road costs less in the long run. Good point, I will remember that.
> -- > bz [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap Henri Wilson - 25 Oct 2005 09:43 GMT >>> >I agree. OK in SR, bad for BaT. >>> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > >No, the exhaust must go in the opposite direction from the rocket. A good example of the futility of arguing with non physicists.
Bob, If the propellent is moving at 1000 m/sec wrt the rocket and the rocket has reached a speed of 1001 m/sec wrt base, what is the speed of the propellent wrt base?
When the rocket reaches 2900000000 m/sec, what is that speed?
>>> KE approaches 1/2mc^2. Expended energy dissipated as heat must be at >>> least that. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >mass increase as you approach c, you will find that it is easy for the >rocket to exceed c.... And it would IF we lived in a BaTty universe. Bob, there is no mass increase. That is a leftover from aether theory.
In relativity, contractions aren't real.
>> That is derivable from SR, not Newton. Goddamn you are dumb. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >magic? No, external boosters are used to launch rocket regularly.
>> No sh*t. Perhaps we could test the hypothesis of c'=c+v using that >> method. >> >> Henri just thought of the concept now known as the "particle >> accelerator". Only a century and change late Henri, good job! Geese seems to have discovered drinking.
Next he might discover that women are better than his fist.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
The Ghost In The Machine - 25 Oct 2005 12:00 GMT In sci.physics, HW@..(Henri Wilson) <HW@> wrote on Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:43:33 GMT <bhrrl1pdji5hc7gqal2ka02j3pdnf8mttj@4ax.com>:
>>>> >I agree. OK in SR, bad for BaT. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > and the rocket has reached a speed of 1001 m/sec wrt base, > what is the speed of the propellent wrt base? 1/(1-(1000)(1001)/c^2), of course. What else? :-P
At these velocities, that translates into 3209839924060063/3209839924024313 m/s exactly or 1.000000000011137627061220767 m/s or 1 + 1.113762706122076699*10^-11 m/s, so we're not exactly talking easily measurable effect here.
Of course with that rocket performance one's going to have used up 63% of one's fuel just getting to 1001 m/s.
v_f = v_i + v_e * log(M_i / M_f) [Tsiolkovsky, Newtonian variant]
where v_i is the initial velocity of the rocket, v_f the final velocity, v_e the exhaust relative to the rocket, M_i the initial rocket mass (with fuel), and M_f the final rocket mass (no fuel). Note that this is Newtonian; there is a relativistic variant but I'd have to hunt for it, and of course this is for straight-line travel.
If v_i = 0, one can rewrite this as
v_f/v_e = log(M_i / M_f)
M_f = M_i/exp(v_f/v_e) = M_i * exp(-v_f/v_e)
Assuming M_i = 100000 kg, M_f = 36751.2 kg.
Personally, I'd want a fusion rocket. The Ultimate Engine, which got shot down by Uncle Al -- and for good reason, until we get the bugs worked out in fusion drive :-) -- would have had about 25MeV applied to a helium atom, translating into an approximate exhaust velocity of 34500000 m/s or .115 c, if my computations are correct. One can get even higher exhaust velocities if one wants to discard hydrogen or even electron-positron pairs instead. Sans antimatter, subspace, Asimovian hyperjumping, stargates, or Fred Saberhagen's "C+ theory" (whatever that might be, in Fred Saberhagen's Berserker universe) this is about the best we can do. One could also contemplate a deuterium-tritium fusion power source, yielding about 17 MeV plus a free neutron, but the tritium doesn't last long when not in use.
> When the rocket reaches 2900000000 m/sec, what is that speed? Sorry. Tachyonic rockets are not allowed. :-P Did you mean 290000000 m/s? If so, the exhaust velocity relative to the base is as one might expect:
(290000000-1001)/(1-(290000000)(1001)/c^2) = 289999935.6742280716613296097
Scoff as one will, but that is what SR predicts.
>>>> KE approaches 1/2mc^2. Expended energy dissipated as heat must be at >>>> least that. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > In relativity, contractions aren't real. Maybe not, but the LHC designers don't seem to want to design for superluminal protons.
>>> That is derivable from SR, not Newton. Goddamn you are dumb. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No, external boosters are used to launch rocket regularly. External boosters are still part of the rocket, until shed.
>>> No sh*t. Perhaps we could test the hypothesis of c'=c+v using that >>> method. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Next he might discover that women are better than his fist. That's too much information. :-P (FSVO "information".)
[.sigsnip]
 Signature #191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
Henri Wilson - 25 Oct 2005 22:46 GMT >In sci.physics, HW@..(Henri Wilson) ><HW@> > wrote
>>>>> >I agree. OK in SR, bad for BaT. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 180 lines] > >[.sigsnip] Ghost, why do you always want to make simple things seem hard?
My point was that the propellent ends up travelling in the same direction as the rocket wrt base. That applies in NM or SR.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
The Ghost In The Machine - 26 Oct 2005 12:00 GMT In sci.physics, HW@..(Henri Wilson) <HW@> wrote on Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:46:24 GMT <7h9tl19q0qqkcra0e16ct34vcuc0piocqn@4ax.com>:
[snip rocket-propelled commentary for brevity]
> Ghost, why do you always want to make simple things seem hard? Don't look at me; the Universe is what you're fighting. :-)
> My point was that the propellent ends up travelling in the > same direction as the rocket wrt base. That applies in NM or SR. Depends on the rocket's performance. Given any rocket at rest with respect to the launch base, some of the propellant will have to go in the other direction (assuming it doesn't hit the base), and, if the rocket's going fast enough (i.e., greater than the exhaust velocity), some of it will go in the same direction.
Now...how much is going in the opposite direction, and how much the same direction?
Or is that not the question you wished to ask?
[.sigsnip]
 Signature #191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
Henri Wilson - 26 Oct 2005 23:01 GMT >In sci.physics, HW@..(Henri Wilson) ><HW@> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >Or is that not the question you wished to ask? We were talking about a hypotheticl rocket that was capable of reaching near c wrt base. Since propellant speeds are never likely to be greater than about 0.0001 c, you can assume that most of the propellant ends up moving in the same direction as the rocket.
forget all that SR rubbish.
A claim was wrongly made that the propellant always moved in the opposite direction to the rocket, wrt base.
>[.sigsnip] HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
bz - 25 Oct 2005 13:26 GMT >>>> >I agree. OK in SR, bad for BaT. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > A good example of the futility of arguing with non physicists. Henri, there are many here that understand physics better than you or I do.
I understand that the delta KE of fuel the expelled = delta KE of rocket in any instance of acceleration.
> Bob, If the propellent is moving at 1000 m/sec wrt the rocket and the > rocket has reached a speed of 1001 m/sec wrt base, what is the speed of > the propellent wrt base? How does the speed wrt the base have anything to do with catching up to a photon that was fired from an object moving away?
under BaT photon<------ <<rocket<<--- -->>>laser that fired photon>>>
laser is moving at .9c that ---> way. photon is moving at .1c <---- that way.
Rocket is moving at .2c <---- that way. It will catch the photon.
everything is measured wrt the original rest frame of the rocket, what you are calling 'base'. --------------------------------------------------------------
> When the rocket reaches 2900000000 m/sec, what is that speed? 9.673 c
>>>> KE approaches 1/2mc^2. Expended energy dissipated as heat must be at >>>> least that. >>>> Total final ....
>>> Newtonian mechanics sets c=oo, and SR sets c = constant in all >>> inertial frames. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Bob, there is no mass increase. That is a leftover from aether theory. Then how do you limit mass to < c ?
> In relativity, contractions aren't real. Who said they were?
....
>>>> However, maybe some of the accelerating energy could come from an >>>> external source... >> >>magic? > > No, external boosters are used to launch rocket regularly. The boosters are part of the rocket until they are shed.
Perhaps you are using a railgun or terawatt ground based laser for propulsion?
....
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Jeff Root - 25 Oct 2005 11:44 GMT Bob Zinn replied to Eric Gisse, who was replying to Henri Wilson:
> >> >> Try rocket propulsion theory....remember the exhaust > >> >> accelerates too, mainly in the same direction as the pulse. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > to provide the 'action-reaction' push. We don't know where the > base is, nor do we care. Henri's purpose in the rocket scenario is to show that a rocket cannot achieve unlimited speed relative to its starting point-- that is, the "base". The fundamental idea of his argument is that the whole mass of propellant which has not yet been used must be accelerated along with the rest of the rocket. That propellant is accelerated in the direction that the rocket is moving.
> >> When the rocket speed wrt base equals the propellent speed > >> wrt the rocket, the propellent speed wrt base becomes zero. > > In order for the rocket to accelerate in one direction, the > reaction-mass of the fuel must be ejected from the rocket at > a much higher velocity in the other direction. Henri understands that. What he said is correct.
> >> Further acceleration by the rocket sees the propellent > >> also moving in the rocket direction wrt base. > > Acceleration doesn't have eyes, so IT can't see anything. I understand what he meant. He was right: When the rocket is moving away from its starting point at a speed greater than the speed of its exhaust, the exhaust will be moving away from the starting point.
> >> So energy is eventually required to accelerate both > >> rocket and propellent in the same direction wrt base. > > Forget about the base, it could be in any direction by now. Henri's point here is valid and relevant.
> >> As the rocket approaches c wrt base, so does the propellent > >> speed...and in the same direction. > > No, the exhaust must go in the opposite direction from the rocket. Relative to the starting point, the exhaust is going in the same direction as the rocket.
* * * *
> >> KE approaches 1/2mc^2. Expended energy dissipated as > >> heat must be at least that. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Please, watch the language. No need for such terms. Thanks, BZ! I was thinking about saying the same thing, and a minute later found that you'd already said it.
> >> I say there can never be enough energy in chemical or > >> nuclear bonds to get to c...because maximum available > is E=mc^2. ...
> > That is derivable from SR, not Newton. Goddamn you are dumb.
> He is just a bit muxed up. > No need to be rude. Name calling makes the name caller > look bad. Henri is mentally ill. I don't know exactly what kind of mental illness it is, but it is more serious than "just a bit muxed up". Even if physics is the only subject that he has delusions about, this one subject is controlling a large part of his life. And he has managed to drag you and me into it. You are arguing physics with a mental illness, not with a person.
> >> However, maybe some of the accelerating energy could come > >> from an external source... > > magic? No, like Eric said: Particle accelerator. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
bz - 25 Oct 2005 13:38 GMT "Jeff Root" <jeff5@freemars.org> wrote in news:1130237062.882954.46320 @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Bob Zinn replied to Eric Gisse, > who was replying to Henri Wilson: ....
> Henri's purpose in the rocket scenario is to show that a > rocket cannot achieve unlimited speed relative to its > starting point-- that is, the "base". I never argued against that. I said [quote] From: bz <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> Message-ID: <Xns96F86BC263075WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139> ....
Robert <RB@..> wrote in news:t9lll1lf8gesdltqsprkbqggf5pbq3t3sa@4ax.com:
>>How about if I emit a photon, then catch up to it? Is it still going >>vertical relative to me? > > You cannot catch up. You don't have enough (mc^2) energy in you body to > get the last atom up to that speed. Robert AKA Henri,
That should be no problem for a BaTer.
All you need to do is to get up to .2 c (particles much better than that all the time in accelerators), and catch up to a photon emitted by a particle going at -0.9c.
The particle that emits the photon (going in your direction) is going away from you in the opposite direction from the direction of your travel.
By the BaT, c'=c+0.9c = 0.1c
So, if you are going 0.2 c you should have no trouble catching a photon that is only going 0.1 c relative to you, should you?
Henri, I am afraid you can't have it both ways. You can't say that massive bodies can't go faster than c while maintaining that photons move at c'=c+v. Your approach leads to logical contradictions. [unquote]
> The fundamental > idea of his argument is that the whole mass of propellant > which has not yet been used must be accelerated along with > the rest of the rocket. That propellant is accelerated in > the direction that the rocket is moving. Which had nothing to do with the possiblity of [in a BaTty universe] catching a photon moving at 0.1 c with a rocket ship that moves at 0.2 c.
....
> Henri's point here is valid and relevant. Henri's 'valid' points are not relevant. They are smoke screens.
....
>> Please, watch the language. No need for such terms. > > Thanks, BZ! I was thinking about saying the same thing, > and a minute later found that you'd already said it. I decided a while back that I will ONLY communicate with those that have enough respect for themselves to treat me with respect. Such language shows lack of self respect boiling over onto others.
....
> Henri is mentally ill. I am not a qualified mental professional. I make no judgements.
> I don't know exactly what kind of > mental illness it is, but it is more serious than "just a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and me into it. You are arguing physics with a mental > illness, not with a person. That remains to be seen. I have given up arguing with Henri. I sometimes see a 'weak spot' in his 'logic' and try to point it out to him. He usually invents a new phenomina to fill the hole.
>> >> However, maybe some of the accelerating energy could come >> >> from an external source... >> >> magic? > > No, like Eric said: Particle accelerator. Not in the problem I presented to Henri.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson - 25 Oct 2005 22:58 GMT >"Jeff Root" <jeff5@freemars.org> wrote in news:1130237062.882954.46320 >@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >So, if you are going 0.2 c you should have no trouble catching a photon >that is only going 0.1 c relative to you, should you? I'm sure this is happening continuously. How would we know? That is not the original problem.
>Henri, I am afraid you can't have it both ways. You can't say that massive >bodies can't go faster than c while maintaining that photons move at [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Henri's 'valid' points are not relevant. They are smoke screens. You obviously don't like to see one of your own kind supporting me.
>>> Please, watch the language. No need for such terms. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >I am not a qualified mental professional. I make no judgements. As a qualified psychologist, I have already categorized the contributors to this group. Most come under the heading of 'would-be-if-I-could-be'.
>> I don't know exactly what kind of >> mental illness it is, but it is more serious than "just a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >see a 'weak spot' in his 'logic' and try to point it out to him. He usually >invents a new phenomina to fill the hole. I just base my arguments on real physics. I can't go wrong that way.
>>> >> However, maybe some of the accelerating energy could come >>> >> from an external source... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Not in the problem I presented to Henri. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
bz - 26 Oct 2005 13:27 GMT >>"Jeff Root" <jeff5@freemars.org> wrote in news:1130237062.882954.46320 >>@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >>I never argued against that. I quite agree that no rocket can achieve unlimited speed relative to its starting point in the real universe and in an Einsteinian universe, but I am trying to point out that in a BaTers newtonian universe a rocket could exceed the speed of light. I do this by showing that the rocket CAN catch a slow photon.
If any body with mass can catch any photon by chasing it down, then mass can move faster than light.
>>I said [quote] >>From: bz <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > I'm sure this is happening continuously. How can you be sure?
No evidence of sub/super luminal photons has ever been found.
> How would we know? When you ask me such questions, it sounds like you are not sure.
> That is not the original problem. The point is that in a universe where c+v and c-v photons exist, there is no basis for 'limiting' mass to less than the speed of light as light has no speed limit.
Logic says that if photons could move at a speed different from c in unstressed vacuum, then mass would have no speed limit.
It is because photons move at c that mass can never reach c.
>>Henri, I am afraid you can't have it both ways. You can't say that >>massive bodies can't go faster than c while maintaining that photons [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > You obviously don't like to see one of your own kind supporting me. On the contrary, I have no objection. I am quite willing to support you when you are right. But in this case, the point he was supporting you upon is one upon which I had no disagreement with you. It also was unimportant to the point I was trying to make. ....
>>> Henri is mentally ill. >> >>I am not a qualified mental professional. I make no judgements. > > As a qualified psychologist, I have already categorized the contributors > to this group. As a qualified expert, perhaps you can tell me if the rumor is really true that most psychologist go into psychology because they think they are themselves crazy and want to know how to hide it?
> Most come under the heading of 'would-be-if-I-could-be'. Those are usually recognizable by their claims to have found undiscovered flaws in 'accepted' physics.
Not that such claims are necessarily irrational, but that the lengths to which they go to support their delusions are extraordinary.
The biggest clue is that they are NOT asking for others to help them find the flaws in their idea.
....
>>That remains to be seen. I have given up arguing with Henri. I sometimes >>see a 'weak spot' in his 'logic' and try to point it out to him. He >>usually invents a new phenomina to fill the hole. > > I just base my arguments on real physics. I can't go wrong that way. Would it were so. Real physics is not based on willusions.
Real physics is based on observable, identifiable, verifiable phenomina.
Theories must be consistent with all data.
BaT must be continually propped up with new w-theories as inconsistencies are pointed out. It started with the invention of 'extinction'.
I have still not heard a mechanism for extinction that will speed up the c- v photons.
....
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson - 26 Oct 2005 23:18 GMT >>>> Henri's purpose in the rocket scenario is to show that a >>>> rocket cannot achieve unlimited speed relative to its [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >If any body with mass can catch any photon by chasing it down, then mass >can move faster than light. where are the references for this velocity. I gather you are saying that it is impossible for any light source to ever catch up with its own light.
I agree with that on energy grounds. No self contained 'rocket' can have enough energy to get beyond c let alone catch previously emitted light.. I base that on E=mc^2.....which has nothing to do with SR.
>>>The particle that emits the photon (going in your direction) is going >>>away from you in the opposite direction from the direction of your [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >How can you be sure? Every time you move you change the relative velocities of photons raching you.
>No evidence of sub/super luminal photons has ever been found. > >> How would we know? > >When you ask me such questions, it sounds like you are not sure. We aren't sufficiently sensitive to detect individual photons.
>> That is not the original problem. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Logic says that if photons could move at a speed different from c in >unstressed vacuum, then mass would have no speed limit. You must try to make meaningful statements.
Speed relative to what? Speed LIMIT relative to what?
>It is because photons move at c that mass can never reach c. relative to what?
>>>Henri, I am afraid you can't have it both ways. You can't say that >>>massive bodies can't go faster than c while maintaining that photons [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >is one upon which I had no disagreement with you. It also was unimportant >to the point I was trying to make. You don't even understand the problem.
>>>> Henri is mentally ill. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >that most psychologist go into psychology because they think they are >themselves crazy and want to know how to hide it? Psychology classes are invariably top heavy with mixed up, hormonally unbalanced females, most of whom drop out when they come up against the inevitable course in stats.
>> Most come under the heading of 'would-be-if-I-could-be'. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >The biggest clue is that they are NOT asking for others to help them find >the flaws in their idea. Bob, I don't really care if you spend the rest of your life deluding yourself into believing that a vertical light beam becomes a diagional light beam in a moving frame. I know it is not true. I have demonstrated why. If you are too stupid or stubborn to run my program and try to understand it that is not my problem.
>.... >>>That remains to be seen. I have given up arguing with Henri. I sometimes [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Would it were so. Real physics is not based on willusions. And vertical light beams don't become diagonal one.
>Real physics is based on observable, identifiable, verifiable phenomina. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I have still not heard a mechanism for extinction that will speed up the c- >v photons. That's because you have no imagination and little understanding of physics.
>.... HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 27 Oct 2005 01:27 GMT [snip]
> I agree with that on energy grounds. No self contained 'rocket' can have > enough energy to get beyond c let alone catch previously emitted light.. I base > that on E=mc^2.....which has nothing to do with SR. Yet you are abjectly incapable of producing a classical derivation of E=mc^2.
I can't wait to see how you justify not producing the derivation for the 7th time!
[snip]
bz - 27 Oct 2005 03:02 GMT >>>>> Henri's purpose in the rocket scenario is to show that a >>>>> rocket cannot achieve unlimited speed relative to its [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > where are the references for this velocity. Pick a spot. Any spot in space. Lets say it is 1 light hour above the suns north pole.
> I gather you are saying that it is impossible for any light source to > ever catch up with its own light. No. I never said anything about a light source catching its own light.
We see a laser going to the west, by our 'spot'. It is going at 0.8 c. As it passes us, it fires a pulse of photons back toward the east. At the same time, a rocket, moving at 0.2 c is going from west to east and it passes us. It is 'chasing' the pulse of photons.
In a BaT universe, it will quickly catch the pulse because the pulse is moving at 0.1 c to the east and the rocket is moving at 0.2 c. In an Einstinian universe, it will never catch the pulse because the rocket is moving at 0.2 c and the pulse is moving at c.
> I agree with that on energy grounds. No self contained 'rocket' can > have enough energy to get beyond c let alone catch previously emitted > light.. I base that on E=mc^2.....which has nothing to do with SR. The rocket is already moving at 0.2 c. We don't have to worry about how it got up to c.
>>>>The particle that emits the photon (going in your direction) is going >>>>away from you in the opposite direction from the direction of your [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Every time you move you change the relative velocities of photons > raching you. In a BaT universe, that is correct.
In an Einstinian universe, you change the energy (frequency and wavelength) of the photons (as you see them), but not their velocity.
>>No evidence of sub/super luminal photons has ever been found. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > We aren't sufficiently sensitive to detect individual photons. It isn't required. We can capture large groups of them on a piece of film, after they have passed through a grating.
>>> That is not the original problem. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Speed relative to what? To anything.
> Speed LIMIT relative to what? To any reference you choose to use. Use the same reference point for both the mass and the photons.
>>It is because photons move at c that mass can never reach c. > > relative to what? You really are hung up on relatives, aren't you? Pick a point. Just stick with the same point in both cases. It doesn't really matter which point you choose.
>>>>Henri, I am afraid you can't have it both ways. You can't say that >>>>massive bodies can't go faster than c while maintaining that photons [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > You don't even understand the problem. Perhaps, by now, YOU do understand my point.
>>>>> Henri is mentally ill. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > unbalanced females, most of whom drop out when they come up against the > inevitable course in stats. That is as close to a 'dodged the question' as I have seen in some time.
>>> Most come under the heading of 'would-be-if-I-could-be'. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > If you are too stupid or stubborn to run my program and try to > understand it that is not my problem. Henri, I helped you fix some problems with another one of your programs.
I do my best to avoid being obnoxious or insulting to you. Sometimes my tongue gets very sore from my biting it to avoid saying things that your comments beg for me to say.
>>.... >>>>That remains to be seen. I have given up arguing with Henri. I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > And vertical light beams don't become diagonal one. What does this have to do with 0.2 c rockets catching 0.1 c photons in a BaT universe?
>>Real physics is based on observable, identifiable, verifiable phenomina. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > That's because you have no imagination and little understanding of > physics. Ad hominem attack is a poor answer to a scientific question.
Such an uncalled for statements calls for an insulting rejoinder.
I decline to decend to that level.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
bz - 27 Oct 2005 03:12 GMT > We see a laser going to the west, by our 'spot'. It is going at 0.8 c. That should have been 0.9 c.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson - 27 Oct 2005 10:39 GMT >> We see a laser going to the west, by our 'spot'. It is going at 0.8 c. > >That should have been 0.9 c. Now you tell me......
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Henri Wilson - 27 Oct 2005 10:38 GMT >>>I quite agree that no rocket can achieve unlimited speed relative to its >>>starting point in the real universe and in an Einsteinian universe, but [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >At the same time, a rocket, moving at 0.2 c is going from west to east and >it passes us. It is 'chasing' the pulse of photons. That's correct. It is traveling at the same speed as the photons.
It sees DC light??? Frequency = zero
>In a BaT universe, it will quickly catch the pulse because the pulse is >moving at 0.1 c to the east and the rocket is moving at 0.2 c. Geez, geese, you're good at arithmetic. 1- 0.8 = 0.1
>In an Einstinian universe, it will never catch the pulse because the rocket >is moving at 0.2 c and the pulse is moving at c. Einstein? Wasn't he the fellow who claimed that a vertical light beam becomes a diagonal one in a moving frame?
>> I agree with that on energy grounds. No self contained 'rocket' can >> have enough energy to get beyond c let alone catch previously emitted [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >In an Einstinian universe, you change the energy (frequency and wavelength) >of the photons (as you see them), but not their velocity. Einstein? Wasn't he the fellow who claimed that a vertical light beam becomes a diagonal one in a moving frame?
>>>No evidence of sub/super luminal photons has ever been found. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >It isn't required. We can capture large groups of them on a piece of film, >after they have passed through a grating. very clever geese. You might pass first semester yet.
>>>> That is not the original problem. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >To anything. Not a good answer really. 0/10.
>> Speed LIMIT relative to what? > >To any reference you choose to use. Use the same reference point for both >the mass and the photons. Not a good answer really. 0/10.
>>>It is because photons move at c that mass can never reach c. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Pick a point. Just stick with the same point in both cases. It doesn't >really matter which point you choose. Not a good answer really. 0/10.
>>>On the contrary, I have no objection. I am quite willing to support you >>>when you are right. But in this case, the point he was supporting you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Perhaps, by now, YOU do understand my point. Not a good answer really. 0/10.
>>>As a qualified expert, perhaps you can tell me if the rumor is really >>>true that most psychologist go into psychology because they think they [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >That is as close to a 'dodged the question' as I have seen in some time. Why don't you enrol in psych. You would really be at home there geese. The women are sex mad too. Give your fist a rest...
>> Bob, I don't really care if you spend the rest of your life deluding >> yourself into believing that a vertical light beam becomes a diagional [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >tongue gets very sore from my biting it to avoid saying things that your >comments beg for me to say. Why don't you just throw a brick at your monitor. If it would help, I will place a photo of me on my website.
>>>Would it were so. Real physics is not based on willusions. >> >> And vertical light beams don't become diagonal one. > >What does this have to do with 0.2 c rockets catching 0.1 c photons in a >BaT universe? They can easily catch them. It happens regularly. Ask any 0.2c rocket.
>>>I have still not heard a mechanism for extinction that will speed up the >>>c- v photons. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >I decline to decend to that level. Not a good answer really. 0/10.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
bz - 27 Oct 2005 12:37 GMT BZ said (not Eric Gisse!):
>>We see a laser going to the west, by our 'spot'. It is going at 0.8 c. ------------------------------------------------------------------0.9 c.
>>As it passes us, it fires a pulse of photons back toward the east. >>At the same time, a rocket, moving at 0.2 c is going from west to east >>and it passes us. It is 'chasing' the pulse of photons. > > That's correct. It is traveling at the same speed as the photons. Sorry for the typo. It is traveling FASTER than the photons. It is thus traveling FASTER THAN LIGHT.
This is clearly possible in a BaT universe.
It is NOT possible in an Einsteinian universe.
Unfortunately for the BaT theory, we seem to live in a universe where it is NEVER possible to travel faster than light.
[big snip of comments you made to another person].
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson - 27 Oct 2005 22:53 GMT >BZ said (not Eric Gisse!): >>>We see a laser going to the west, by our 'spot'. It is going at 0.8 c. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Unfortunately for the BaT theory, we seem to live in a universe where it >is NEVER possible to travel faster than light. You are talking crap as usual.
In a vacuum, light can impinge on an observer at a whole range of speeds - and that is what happens. It also so happens that not many objects in the whole universe are moving at anywhere near c wrt any other objects. There have been recordings of doppler shift indicating gas bodies moving at >c wrt Earth but the relativists concocted excuses for these.
The argunment here was whether or not it is possible to catch up with one's own emitted light. I say it isn't (except maybe with an external energy boost).
>[big snip of comments you made to another person]. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
bz - 28 Oct 2005 03:43 GMT >>BZ said (not Eric Gisse!): >>>>We see a laser going to the west, by our 'spot'. It is going at 0.8 c. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > You are talking crap as usual. Ad hominem attacks are the refuge of those with no valid arguements to make.
I showed that in a BaT universe, there is no reason to suppose that there is any limit on velocity. Yet you and I both accept the fact that it is impossible to accelerate a mass to a velocity greater than c. But in a BaT universe, there should NOT be any such limit, so what is going on?
> In a vacuum, light can impinge on an observer at a whole range of speeds > - and that is what happens. In a BaT universe, that is what would be true. In an Einsteinian universe light can only impinge on any observer at c.
You have not been able to disprove the theory that all light impinges on any observer at c.
> It also so happens that not many objects in the whole universe are > moving at anywhere near c wrt any other objects. > There have been recordings of doppler shift indicating gas bodies moving > at >c wrt Earth but the relativists concocted excuses for these. Henri, if something were actually moving away from earth at speeds > c, the doppler shift would make the frequency negative. On the other hand, calculating CLOSING (opening) speeds for distant objects can easily indicate speeds greater than c.
> The argunment here was whether or not it is possible to catch up with > one's own emitted light. I say it isn't (except maybe with an external > energy boost). I agree with that statement.
But, that is NOT the argument I was raising. It need NOT be one's own emitted light. In fact, in my example, it isn't.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+nanae@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu
Henri Wilson - 28 Oct 2005 22:03 GMT >> You are talking crap as usual. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >impossible to accelerate a mass to a velocity greater than c. But in a BaT >universe, there should NOT be any such limit, so what is going on? There isn't any limit. It is just too damn hard to achieve. Atmospheric Muons do it because they are produced in elastic collisions with heavy particles traveling at high speed, possibly >c wrt Earth..
>> In a vacuum, light can impinge on an observer at a whole range of speeds >> - and that is what happens. > >In a BaT universe, that is what would be true. In an Einsteinian universe >light can only impinge on any observer at c. Who cares.
>You have not been able to disprove the theory that all light impinges on >any observer at c. It has never been disproved either.
>> It also so happens that not many objects in the whole universe are >> moving at anywhere near c wrt any other objects. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >calculating CLOSING (opening) speeds for distant objects can easily >indicate speeds greater than c. What the hell are you talking about? ...negative frequency?????
>> The argunment here was whether or not it is possible to catch up with >> one's own emitted light. I say it isn't (except maybe with an external [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >But, that is NOT the argument I was raising. It need NOT be one's own >emitted light. In fact, in my example, it isn't. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
bz - 29 Oct 2005 02:04 GMT >>> You are talking crap as usual. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > There isn't any limit. It is just too damn hard to achieve. Not hard in a BaT universe. Collide Two beams of protons, each going .6 c and you would have them colliding at a relative velocity of 1.2 c.
In an Einsteinian universe, they only collide at 0.882 c.
Strangely enough, that is just about what they act like in our universe too.
> Atmospheric Muons do it because they are produced in elastic collisions > with heavy particles traveling at high speed, possibly >c wrt Earth. Strange that no one has discovered any traveling faster than c.
>>> In a vacuum, light can impinge on an observer at a whole range of >>> speeds - and that is what happens. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Who cares. You appear to care a lot.
>>You have not been able to disprove the theory that all light impinges on >>any observer at c. > > It has never been disproved either. That is what I said.
You have NOT been able to DISprove the theory that all light impinges on any observer at c.
>>> It also so happens that not many objects in the whole universe are >>> moving at anywhere near c wrt any other objects. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > What the hell are you talking about? > ...negative frequency????? Calculate the doppler shift of light from something going away at c. You end up with a frequency of zero. (actually, you end up dividing by zero and that is undefined, but the LIMIT approaches zero)
Now, calculate the frequency from a source going away faster than c. The frequency would be negative or imaginary.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson - 30 Oct 2005 01:43 GMT >>>I showed that in a BaT universe, there is no reason to suppose that >>>there is any limit on velocity. Yet you and I both accept the fact that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >In an Einsteinian universe, they only collide at 0.882 c. No. Their closing speed is still 1.2c.
>Strangely enough, that is just about what they act like in our universe too. Who said that?
>> Atmospheric Muons do it because they are produced in elastic collisions >> with heavy particles traveling at high speed, possibly >c wrt Earth. > >Strange that no one has discovered any traveling faster than c. they discover them regularly.
>>>> In a vacuum, light can impinge on an observer at a whole range of >>>> speeds - and that is what happens. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >You have NOT been able to DISprove the theory that all light impinges on any >observer at c. Typo It has never been proved either.
>>>> It also so happens that not many objects in the whole universe are >>>> moving at anywhere near c wrt any other objects. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Now, calculate the frequency from a source going away faster than c. The >frequency would be negative or imaginary. Its light would not reach you. You wouldn't register any doppler shift.
It cannot be made to happen anyway.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Androcles - 30 Oct 2005 02:40 GMT | >>>I showed that in a BaT universe, there is no reason to suppose that | >>>there is any limit on velocity. Yet you and I both accept the fact that [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] | | It cannot be made to happen anyway. Err... you are correct, H, a source going away would emit light that never reaches you, BUT... A negative frequency is what you get when a source approaches you, then passes. Let c = 1, v = 2
f' = f (c+v)/c 3 = 1 * (1+2)/1 -1 = 1 * (-1+2)/-1 because c changes sign, v does not.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 30 Oct 2005 22:19 GMT >| >>>I showed that in a BaT universe, there is no reason to suppose that >| >>>there is any limit on velocity. Yet you and I both accept the fact that [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] >-1 = 1 * (-1+2)/-1 >because c changes sign, v does not. That's a terminology.
As far as I'm concerned, frequency is 'beats per second', which has to be positive by nature. I cannot see why subtracting a positive number of 'beats/second' shold make those beats negative.
>Androcles. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Androcles - 31 Oct 2005 01:22 GMT | >| >>>I showed that in a BaT universe, there is no reason to suppose that | >| >>>there is any limit on velocity. Yet you and I both accept the fact that [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] | As far as I'm concerned, frequency is 'beats per second', which has to be | positive by nature. That's a terminology.
| I cannot see why subtracting a positive number of 'beats/second' shold make | those beats negative. Cos the negative beats can't be seen, which is why you can't see 'em. Androcles.
| >Androcles. | [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. | The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". Henri Wilson - 31 Oct 2005 23:01 GMT >| >| >>>I showed that in a BaT universe, there is no reason to suppose that >| >| >>>there is any limit on velocity. Yet you and I both accept the fact that [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] >Cos the negative beats can't be seen, which is why you can't see 'em. >Androcles. OK. That sounds logical.
>| >Androcles. >| [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >| "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. >| The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Androcles - 31 Oct 2005 23:52 GMT | >| >| >>>I showed that in a BaT universe, there is no reason to suppose that | >| >| >>>there is any limit on velocity. Yet you and I both accept the fact that [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] | | OK. That sounds logical. Of course. I'll tell you where else you'll find negative frequencies too. Run a recording backwards, or run a read head forwards faster than the tape. If we set off for the far reaches of space at 2c relative to Earth, a 100 MHz FM radio station beamed to the ship would sound like it was a backward recording. The signal is still there. At first is would sound normal, then as we accelerated it would get lost, and as we continue to accelerate it would reappear running in reverse. Androcles
| >| >Androcles. | >| [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] | "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. | The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". Henri Wilson - 01 Nov 2005 08:22 GMT >| >That's a terminology. >| > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >in reverse. >Androcles It's just a convention though.. We will still hear a positive number of beats per second.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
bz - 01 Nov 2005 13:36 GMT HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:1r5em1hjg2fnlct5jg2asb11bi4e7fb1fr@ 4ax.com:
> It's just a convention though.. > We will still hear a positive number of beats per second. The phase vector rotates in the oppose direction.
All the modulation side bands are reversed in phase also.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
donstockbauer@hotmail.com - 01 Nov 2005 13:57 GMT please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
**********************
Is that the cybernetic potential infinity, or the actualized infinity? There is no excluded middle infinity.
Henri Wilson - 01 Nov 2005 23:48 GMT >HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:1r5em1hjg2fnlct5jg2asb11bi4e7fb1fr@ >4ax.com: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >All the modulation side bands are reversed in phase also. All right, you have a negatively moving relative phase vector. You still record a positive number of 'beats per second'.
Both of you are describing a convention. If that is the accepted terminology then I wont argue. .....but I still insist that FREQUENCY - as in 'beats per second' - is by nature always positive.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
bz - 02 Nov 2005 05:00 GMT >>HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:1r5em1hjg2fnlct5jg2asb11bi4e7fb1fr@ >>4ax.com: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > terminology then I wont argue. .....but I still insist that FREQUENCY - > as in 'beats per second' - is by nature always positive. Everything is 'by convention'.
http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/mdft/Positive_Negative_Frequencies.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_frequency http://130.191.21.201/multimedia/jiracek/dga/spectralanalysis/examples.html
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Androcles - 01 Nov 2005 13:44 GMT | >| >That's a terminology. | >| > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] | It's just a convention though.. | We will still hear a positive number of beats per second. That's like saying we always travel a positive number of miles an hour. Your convention isn't my convention, my convention allows me to travel a negative number of miles in an hour to get back home again.
Sometimes I feel like a partial success. The least useful thing I have ever done is prove Wilson wrong. Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 01 Nov 2005 23:50 GMT >| >| >That's a terminology. >| >| > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >Sometimes I feel like a partial success. The least useful thing I have ever done is prove Wilson wrong. >Androcles. Message rating: minus 3 bottles.
PS: are you posting in HTML?
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Androcles - 02 Nov 2005 04:31 GMT | >| >| >That's a terminology. | >| >| > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] | | Message rating: minus 3 bottles. Sobering up?
| PS: are you posting in HTML? "So long as they don't get violent, I want to let everyone say what they wish, for I myself have always said exactly what pleased me." -- Albert Einstein Androcles. Sometimes I feel like a partial success. The least useful thing I have ever done is prove Wilson wrong.
Jerry - 30 Oct 2005 03:29 GMT > >Calculate the doppler shift of light from something going > >away at c. You end up with a frequency of zero. (actually, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It cannot be made to happen anyway. Why not? Nothing in BaT dictates any sort of cosmic speed limit for moving masses.
Jerry
bz - 30 Oct 2005 13:15 GMT >>>>I showed that in a BaT universe, there is no reason to suppose that >>>>there is any limit on velocity. Yet you and I both accept the fact [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > No. You MUST use Einstein's 'composition of velocities' formula to calculate the velocity of one as seen from the other in an Einsteinian universe.
> Their closing speed is still 1.2c. Correct, but closing speed is NOT the speed they see, it is the speed as seen by an observer that is NOT involved in their motion.
>>Strangely enough, that is just about what they act like in our universe >>too. > > Who said that? Experimenters at various labs that have been colliding particles for decades. Google is your friend.
>>> Atmospheric Muons do it because they are produced in elastic >>> collisions with heavy particles traveling at high speed, possibly >c [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > they discover them regularly. Who said? Reference? I can't find any. Google is your enemy.
>>>>> In a vacuum, light can impinge on an observer at a whole range of >>>>> speeds - and that is what happens. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Typo > It has never been proved either. A statement like that shows a lack of a scientific outlook.
It never will be proven. Science can NEVER prove anything.
That is why I said it has never been disproven. On the otherhand, much evidence exists that invalidates and disproves BaT.
>>>>> It also so happens that not many objects in the whole universe are >>>>> moving at anywhere near c wrt any other objects. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Its light would not reach you. > You wouldn't register any doppler shift. Correct, for an Einsteinian universe. The calculations, however would give a value as stated above.
In a BaTty universe, the source receeding faster than c could easily have a component emitting photons faster than c in our direction.
> It cannot be made to happen anyway. I agree. In an Einsteinian universe, that is true.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson - 30 Oct 2005 22:37 GMT >>>>>I showed that in a BaT universe, there is no reason to suppose that >>>>>there is any limit on velocity. Yet you and I both accept the fact [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Correct, but closing speed is NOT the speed they see, it is the speed as >seen by an observer that is NOT involved in their motion. That is merely a postulate, not a proven fact.
>>>Strangely enough, that is just about what they act like in our universe >>>too. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Experimenters at various labs that have been colliding particles for >decades. Google is your friend. What happens to charged particales in accelerators is an entirely differnet matter.
>>>> Atmospheric Muons do it because they are produced in elastic >>>> collisions with heavy particles traveling at high speed, possibly >c [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Who said? Reference? I can't find any. Google is your enemy. H. Wilson, 2005.
>>>That is what I said. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >That is why I said it has never been disproven. On the otherhand, much >evidence exists that invalidates and disproves BaT. I know of no evidence to that effect. Everything points to the BaTh being absolutely correct.
Everything also points to SR being just a subset of LET.
>>>Now, calculate the frequency from a source going away faster than c. The >>>frequency would be negative or imaginary. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >In a BaTty universe, the source receeding faster than c could easily have a >component emitting photons faster than c in our direction. Light moves at c wrt its source...c+v wrt any observer.
>> It cannot be made to happen anyway. > >I agree. In an Einsteinian universe, that is true. such doesn't exist.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Jeff Root - 31 Oct 2005 01:07 GMT Henri,
Are you feeling particularly good right now? More energetic than usual? -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
bz - 31 Oct 2005 02:18 GMT >>>>>>I showed that in a BaT universe, there is no reason to suppose that >>>>>>there is any limit on velocity. Yet you and I both accept the fact [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > That is merely a postulate, not a proven fact. 1) it is a definition, not a postulate. (the meaning of closing speed). 2) When we are speaking of an Einsteinian universe, we play by those rules. Arguing 'it is not a proven fact' is only allowed re the real universe. We were NOT talking about the real universe, we were talking above about in an Einsteinian universe.
>>>>Strangely enough, that is just about what they act like in our >>>>universe too. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > What happens to charged particales in accelerators is an entirely > differnet matter. 1) the results of the collisions are independent of HOW the particles got to the velocities involved. 2) as far as we can tell, everything that happens inside an accelerator is consistent with what happens outside an accelerator.
>>>>> Atmospheric Muons do it because they are produced in elastic >>>>> collisions with heavy particles traveling at high speed, possibly >c [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > H. Wilson, 2005. Not peer reviewed.
>>>>That is what I said. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I know of no evidence to that effect. > Everything points to the BaTh being absolutely correct. Sagnac, Gratings, muons, lack of mechanism for 'extinction' speeding up c-v photons.
> Everything also points to SR being just a subset of LET. A successful theory that is more basic.
If there were a LET that effected light, wouldn't it ALSO effect matter? If it effected matter, there would be drag and other effects that are NOT seen.
>>>>Now, calculate the frequency from a source going away faster than c. >>>>The frequency would be negative or imaginary. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Light moves at c wrt its source...c+v wrt any observer. Picture one of your orbiting stars moving away just a little faster than light, in parts of the orbit, it would be slower than c.
>>> It cannot be made to happen anyway. >> >>I agree. In an Einsteinian universe, that is true. > > such doesn't exist. I agree. That indicates we live in an Einsteinian universe. In a BaTty universe, such could exist.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson - 31 Oct 2005 23:15 GMT >>>>>In an Einsteinian universe, they only collide at 0.882 c. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >were NOT talking about the real universe, we were talking above about in an >Einsteinian universe. I wasn't refering to that aspect. I was refering to "but closing speed is NOT the speed they see".
>>>>>Strangely enough, that is just about what they act like in our >>>>>universe too. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >2) as far as we can tell, everything that happens inside an accelerator is >consistent with what happens outside an accelerator. It is also consistent with my 'reverse field bubble' theory.
>>>>>Strange that no one has discovered any traveling faster than c. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Not peer reviewed. Reviewed on sci.physics.relativity
>>>It never will be proven. Science can NEVER prove anything. >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >it effected matter, there would be drag and other effects that are NOT >seen. Aether theories insist that the aether can never be detected.
>>>>>Now, calculate the frequency from a source going away faster than c. >>>>>The frequency would be negative or imaginary. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Picture one of your orbiting stars moving away just a little faster than >light, in parts of the orbit, it would be slower than c. No stars are moving at anywhere near c wrt any other stars.
Think of molecules in a gas at 3K. What is the probability of one moving at c?
>>>> It cannot be made to happen anyway. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >That indicates we live in an Einsteinian universe. >In a BaTty universe, such could exist. So what causes light pulses from two differently moving sources to traverse space together? 1) Is it due to an absolute a property of space or an Einstein postulate? 2) Is it not what really happens?
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
bz - 01 Nov 2005 12:21 GMT >>>>>>In an Einsteinian universe, they only collide at 0.882 c. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I wasn't refering to that aspect. > I was refering to "but closing speed is NOT the speed they see". Which is a true statement for an Einsteinian universe. By the way, it is not a postulate but a result and prediction of the postulates of Einstein.
>>>>>>Strangely enough, that is just about what they act like in our >>>>>>universe too. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > It is also consistent with my 'reverse field bubble' theory. Your 'reverse field bubble theory' is an adhoc invention that you added to BaT to attempt to explain why BaT breaks down in experiments. 2 points for imagination. But you have neither quantified nor justifed your theory.
Einstein's 'composition of velocities' formula was a RESULT of his postulates. Yours is NOT. Yours can not be justified without adding more postulates to BaT.
>>>>>>Strange that no one has discovered any traveling faster than c. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Reviewed on sci.physics.relativity And rejected by most of the reviewers.
>>>>It never will be proven. Science can NEVER prove anything. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Aether theories insist that the aether can never be detected. No. The mechanical ether theory postulated that the drift wrt the ether would be detectable with a certain magnitude. No such drift was detected.
>>>>>>Now, calculate the frequency from a source going away faster than c. >>>>>>The frequency would be negative or imaginary. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > No stars are moving at anywhere near c wrt any other stars. You told me that some stars are moving away at more that c from the earth.
The stars near the edge of our detection limits appear to be moving away at high enough velocities that stars on opposite sides have 'closing velocities' of over -c.
> Think of molecules in a gas at 3K. What is the probability of one moving > at c? WRT what?
>>>>> It cannot be made to happen anyway. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > So what causes light pulses from two differently moving sources to > traverse space together? the character of light.
> 1) Is it due to an absolute a property of space or an Einstein > postulate? I don't know.
> 2) Is it not what really happens? It appears to happen. All our tests indicate that it is what is happening. It is the best explanation for what we see.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson - 02 Nov 2005 00:18 GMT >> I wasn't refering to that aspect. >> I was refering to "but closing speed is NOT the speed they see". [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >BaT to attempt to explain why BaT breaks down in experiments. 2 points for >imagination. But you have neither quantified nor justifed your theory. Nonsense, it is a very logical concept. A charge moving between two conected electrodes constitues a currect and will generate a reverse field. You should know that. Its very basic. I have extended that to situations where the charge is moving nearly as fast as the field itself. It naturally remains as a 'bubble' in the vicinity of the charge.
>Einstein's 'composition of velocities' formula was a RESULT of his >postulates. Yours is NOT. Yours can not be justified without adding more >postulates to BaT. w=c = c(c+v)/(c+v) = (c+v)/(1+vc/c^2)
Can I have my Nobel now please?
>>>>>>>Strange that no one has discovered any traveling faster than c. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >No. The mechanical ether theory postulated that the drift wrt the ether >would be detectable with a certain magnitude. No such drift was detected. It was undetectable becasue the apparatus contracts.
Contrary to p[opular belief, the MMX DID NOT disprove the presence of an aether.
>>>Picture one of your orbiting stars moving away just a little faster than >>>light, in parts of the orbit, it would be slower than c. >> >> No stars are moving at anywhere near c wrt any other stars. > >You told me that some stars are moving away at more that c from the earth. There are reports of gas jets emitting doppler shifted light indicating speeds
>c.
>The stars near the edge of our detection limits appear to be moving away at >high enough velocities that stars on opposite sides have 'closing >velocities' of over -c. that's a teaching of the fictitious 'big bang religion'.
>> Think of molecules in a gas at 3K. What is the probability of one moving >> at c? > >WRT what? wrt any other.
>> So what causes light pulses from two differently moving sources to >> traverse space together? > >the character of light. 0/10
>> 1) Is it due to an absolute a property of space or an Einstein >> postulate? > >I don't know. I do. It's called the BaTh.
>> 2) Is it not what really happens? > >It appears to happen. All our tests indicate that it is what is happening. >It is the best explanation for what we see. There have been absolutely NO tests, so don't be so smug in your ignorance.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
bz - 02 Nov 2005 04:46 GMT >>> I wasn't refering to that aspect. >>> I was refering to "but closing speed is NOT the speed they see". [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Nonsense, it is a very logical concept. It is an adhoc invention ADDED to BaT.
> A charge moving between two conected electrodes constitues a currect and > will generate a reverse field. That is your adhoc invention, it is not integral to BaT.
It is contrary to observation. While it is true that moving charges create a magnetic field, there is no reverse electric field detected.
> You should know that. Its very basic. It is NOT very basic. It has never been observed. In fact, there would be no superconductors if there were such a reverse electric field.
> I have extended that to situations where the charge is moving nearly as > fast as the field itself. It naturally remains as a 'bubble' in the > vicinity of the charge. You have created an adhoc rationalization to prop up a dying BaT.
You will need to continue to add other adhoc rationalizations to get around other uncomforatable facts.
>>Einstein's 'composition of velocities' formula was a RESULT of his >>postulates. Yours is NOT. Yours can not be justified without adding more [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Can I have my Nobel now please? You have to earn it first.
>>>>>>>>Strange that no one has discovered any traveling faster than c. >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Contrary to popular belief, the MMX DID NOT disprove the presence of an > aether. So, you have become an aetherist.
>>>>Picture one of your orbiting stars moving away just a little faster >>>>than light, in parts of the orbit, it would be slower than c. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > There are reports of gas jets emitting doppler shifted light indicating > speeds >>c. 'Closing speeds', not actual velocities.
>>The stars near the edge of our detection limits appear to be moving away >>at high enough velocities that stars on opposite sides have 'closing >>velocities' of over -c. > > that's a teaching of the fictitious 'big bang religion'. Observations, not explanations.
>>> Think of molecules in a gas at 3K. What is the probability of one >>> moving at c? >> >>WRT what? > > wrt any other. closing speeds exceeding c wrt some objects in the universe are quite probable. Actual velocities exceeding c,.... nil.
>>> So what causes light pulses from two differently moving sources to >>> traverse space together? >> >>the character of light. > > 0/10 Why do we see light?
>>> 1) Is it due to an absolute a property of space or an Einstein >>> postulate? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I do. > It's called the BaTh. Your faith is strong.
>>> 2) Is it not what really happens? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > There have been absolutely NO tests, so don't be so smug in your > ignorance. Your faith is strong.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+nanae@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu
Henri Wilson - 02 Nov 2005 21:34 GMT >>>> It is also consistent with my 'reverse field bubble' theory. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >It is an adhoc invention ADDED to BaT. nothng to do with BaTh.
>> A charge moving between two conected electrodes constitues a currect and >> will generate a reverse field. > >That is your adhoc invention, it is not integral to BaT. nothng to do with BaTh.
>It is contrary to observation. While it is true that moving charges create >a magnetic field, there is no reverse electric field detected. Shows how little you know about electricity.
>> You should know that. Its very basic. > >It is NOT very basic. It has never been observed. In fact, there would be >no superconductors if there were such a reverse electric field. Shows how little you know about electricity. Never heard of back emf, eh? How do you think chokes work?
>> I have extended that to situations where the charge is moving nearly as >> fast as the field itself. It naturally remains as a 'bubble' in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >You will need to continue to add other adhoc rationalizations to get around >other uncomforatable facts. Shows how little you know about electricity.
>>>Einstein's 'composition of velocities' formula was a RESULT of his >>>postulates. Yours is NOT. Yours can not be justified without adding more [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > >So, you have become an aetherist. Shows how little you know about anything
>>>>>Picture one of your orbiting stars moving away just a little faster >>>>>than light, in parts of the orbit, it would be slower than c. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >'Closing speeds', not actual velocities. How convenient for the true believers.
>>>The stars near the edge of our detection limits appear to be moving away >>>at high enough velocities that stars on opposite sides have 'closing [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >closing speeds exceeding c wrt some objects in the universe are quite >probable. Actual velocities exceeding c,.... nil. The above 'closing speeds' are wrt observers on Earth.
>>>> So what causes light pulses from two differently moving sources to >>>> traverse space together? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Why do we see light? Silly question.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
bz - 02 Nov 2005 22:13 GMT >>>>> It is also consistent with my 'reverse field bubble' theory. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > nothng to do with BaTh. Without it, BaT(h) has already fallen.
>>It is contrary to observation. While it is true that moving charges >>create a magnetic field, there is no reverse electric field detected. > > Shows how little you know about electricity. There is NO 'Henri's reverse electric field' detected.
>>> You should know that. Its very basic. >> >>It is NOT very basic. It has never been observed. In fact, there would >>be no superconductors if there were such a reverse electric field. > > Shows how little you know about electricity. Again, you are making comments that just make you look bad.
> Never heard of back emf, eh? > How do you think chokes work? I know how chokes work. NOT by what you are calling a reverse electric field.
Back EMF has the same relationship to your 'reverse electric field' that an elephant has to a gnome.
The expanding(contracting) magnetic field lines cut through the wires of the coil and induce a counter EMF that bucks the current from the imposed voltage (or attempt to maintain the current flow in the external circuit when you open the circuit contacts and get an arc from the self inductance of the coil).
It is a changing MAGNETIC field inducing an electric potential.
Your mythical 'reverse electric field' has nothing to do with lines of magnetic force inducing a voltage into a wire.
>>> I have extended that to situations where the charge is moving nearly >>> as fast as the field itself. It naturally remains as a 'bubble' in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>You will need to continue to add other adhoc rationalizations to get >>around other uncomforatable facts.
> Shows how little you know about electricity. Gnome.
>>>>Einstein's 'composition of velocities' formula was a RESULT of his >>>>postulates. Yours is NOT. Yours can not be justified without adding [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > Shows how little you know about anything I am just going by what you said.
>>>>>>Picture one of your orbiting stars moving away just a little faster >>>>>>than light, in parts of the orbit, it would be slower than c. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >>'Closing speeds', not actual velocities.
> How convenient for the true believers. Gnome.
>>>>The stars near the edge of our detection limits appear to be moving >>>>away at high enough velocities that stars on opposite sides have [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > The above 'closing speeds' are wrt observers on Earth. Unless you are talking about the speed wrt the observers on earth, in which case the speeds are NOT closing speeds, but relative velocities.
So, what point were you trying to make? How DO thoses c-v photons gain enough energy to get up to c?
>>>>> So what causes light pulses from two differently moving sources to >>>>> traverse space together? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Silly question. Yes. Any 'why' question is a silly question as far as science is concerned.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson - 02 Nov 2005 23:20 GMT >>>>>> It is also consistent with my 'reverse field bubble' theory. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > >It is a changing MAGNETIC field inducing an electric potential. You are leaning ....(slowly)
>Your mythical 'reverse electric field' has nothing to do with lines of >magnetic force inducing a voltage into a wire. It's the same principle. The fields are generated in the dielectric around the moving charge. The bubble remains close to the charge but drowns out the applied field.
>>>> I have extended that to situations where the charge is moving nearly >>>> as fast as the field itself. It naturally remains as a 'bubble' in the [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > >I am just going by what you said. The MMX DID NOT prove the non-existence of an aether. In fact, it dramatically upgraded aether theories to include the Lorentz contractions. Accordingly, in LET WITH CONTRACTIONS, the MMX should have given a null result. I must start a new thread about this.
>>>>>>>Picture one of your orbiting stars moving away just a little faster >>>>>>>than light, in parts of the orbit, it would be slower than c. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >So, what point were you trying to make? >How DO thoses c-v photons gain enough energy to get up to c? Obviously the objects responsible for the gas jets were moving towards Earth at considerable speed. The gas jets themselves were emitted at very high speed wrt these objects, making the total speed wrt earth >c. That can happen ...but I wouldn't expect it to be very common.
>>>>>> So what causes light pulses from two differently moving sources to >>>>>> traverse space together? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Yes. Any 'why' question is a silly question as far as science is concerned. Well, we know the answer to 'why do we see light?' only too well.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
bz - 03 Nov 2005 12:06 GMT >>>>>>> It is also consistent with my 'reverse field bubble' theory. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > You are leaning ....(slowly) You are learning ....(slowly)
The back EMF of the choke is to your reverse electric field bubble as an elephant is to a gnome.
>>Your mythical 'reverse electric field' has nothing to do with lines of >>magnetic force inducing a voltage into a wire. > > It's the same principle. The fields are generated in the dielectric > around the moving charge. The bubble remains close to the charge but > drowns out the applied field. Such an effect would have quite measureable and distinct effects that are not observed. No gnomes.
>>>>> I have extended that to situations where the charge is moving nearly >>>>> as fast as the field itself. It naturally remains as a 'bubble' in [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > Accordingly, in LET WITH CONTRACTIONS, the MMX should have given a null > result. I must start a new thread about this. If you have something to say that hasn't been said before, have at it. I think you are just plowing soil that has already been over plowed, over planted and over grazed. Watch out for the gnomes.
>>>>>>>>Picture one of your orbiting stars moving away just a little >>>>>>>>faster than light, in parts of the orbit, it would be slower than [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > very high speed wrt these objects, making the total speed wrt earth >c. > That can happen ...but I wouldn't expect it to be very common. That doesn't say anything about those c-v photons and how they get up to c.
As for your jets, the velocity is an apparent 'closing' velocity wrt the source, not a velocity wrt earth.
http://newton.ex.ac.uk/aip/physnews.211.html [quote] These jets appear to be traveling at greater- than-light speeds. This is actually an optical illusion owing to the alignment of the object relative to us,.... [unquote] http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw71.html
>>>>>>> So what causes light pulses from two differently moving sources to >>>>>>> traverse space together? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Well, we know the answer to 'why do we see light?' only too well. Who is we?
Explain it to me, I don't know it well at all.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson - 03 Nov 2005 23:15 GMT >>>> Shows how little you know about electricity. >>> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >Such an effect would have quite measureable and distinct effects that are >not observed. No gnomes. You are not leaning ....(not even slowly)
It IS observed. Its effect is mistakenly accredited to SR's fictitious 'mass increase'.
>>>> Shows how little you know about anything >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >think you are just plowing soil that has already been over plowed, over >planted and over grazed. Watch out for the gnomes. Stop trolling .
Learn something.
>> Obviously the objects responsible for the gas jets were moving towards >> Earth at considerable speed. The gas jets themselves were emitted at [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >relative to us,.... [unquote] >http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw71.html They ARE traveling at >c wrt Earth. Don't believe the nonsense relativists dish out.
>>>> Silly question. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Explain it to me, I don't know it well at all. study the physiology and psychology of the sensory system.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 04 Nov 2005 01:01 GMT > >>>> Shows how little you know about electricity. > >>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > It IS observed. Its effect is mistakenly accredited to SR's fictitious 'mass > increase'. Then derive it from "c+v" so we don't have to ask you the same thing over and over.
> >>>> Shows how little you know about anything > >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Learn something. When are you going to learn SR so you stop making so many basic mistakes?
> >> Obviously the objects responsible for the gas jets were moving towards > >> Earth at considerable speed. The gas jets themselves were emitted at [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > They ARE traveling at >c wrt Earth. > Don't believe the nonsense relativists dish out. This problem is an exercise in both MTW and "Spacetime and Geometry".
Just because you don't understand it does not mean it is nonsense.
> >>>> Silly question. > >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > study the physiology and psychology of the sensory system. Why are you incapable of answering a direct question?
> HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe > > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". Henri Wilson - 04 Nov 2005 04:42 GMT >> >Such an effect would have quite measureable and distinct effects that are >> >not observed. No gnomes. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Then derive it from "c+v" so we don't have to ask you the same thing >over and over. Geese, you are totally confused with regard to my theories.
>> >If you have something to say that hasn't been said before, have at it. I >> >think you are just plowing soil that has already been over plowed, over [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >When are you going to learn SR so you stop making so many basic >mistakes? Ther is nothing much to learn about complete bullshit.
>> >http://newton.ex.ac.uk/aip/physnews.211.html >> >[quote] These jets appear to be traveling at greater- than-light speeds. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Just because you don't understand it does not mean it is nonsense. It's bullshit propaganda. ...part of the brainwashing process.
If you don't give the 'right' answer according to Einsteiniana, you fail your course.
>> >Explain it to me, I don't know it well at all. >> >> study the physiology and psychology of the sensory system. > >Why are you incapable of answering a direct question? It would take me a few days.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 05 Nov 2005 23:55 GMT > >> >Such an effect would have quite measureable and distinct effects that are > >> >not observed. No gnomes. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Geese, you are totally confused with regard to my theories. That is what happens when you refuse to talk about the details of your theory.
I am flexible, it doesn't have to be c+v - even though that is the only assumption you have given me. You can derive it any way you want, as long as you derive it using your theory.
If I say "there is no such thing as a reverse field bubble in the 'BaTh' theory", you have no way of proving me wrong.
If you say "there is no length contraction in special relativity", I can easily show you to be incorrect because I have a theory that is mathematical in nature and as such makes concrete predictions that are unable to be influenced by anyone's sophistry.
> >> >If you have something to say that hasn't been said before, have at it. I > >> >think you are just plowing soil that has already been over plowed, over [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Ther is nothing much to learn about complete bullshit. You spend an amazing amount of time talking about the details of a "bullshit" theory.
Just because you think it is bullshit does not mean either that it is or that you can say whatever you want about it and have it be true.
> >> >http://newton.ex.ac.uk/aip/physnews.211.html > >> >[quote] These jets appear to be traveling at greater- than-light speeds. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > It's bullshit propaganda. > ...part of the brainwashing process. An utterly irrational and emotional response to something you do not understand.
> If you don't give the 'right' answer according to Einsteiniana, you fail your > course. It is mathematics, not sophistry.
Just because you are incapable of learning a mathematical theory and applying it correctly does not mean either that it is bullshit or that the people who have learned it are "brainwashed".
> >> >Explain it to me, I don't know it well at all. > >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It would take me a few days. Then don't give examples you are incapable of explaining.
> HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe > > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". Henri Wilson - 06 Nov 2005 22:45 GMT >> Geese, you are totally confused with regard to my theories. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >If I say "there is no such thing as a reverse field bubble in the >'BaTh' theory", you have no way of proving me wrong. geese, the WRFB is not related to the BaTh.
>If you say "there is no length contraction in special relativity", I >can easily show you to be incorrect because I have a theory that is [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >applying it correctly does not mean either that it is bullshit or that >the people who have learned it are "brainwashed". They are. They end up incapable of using their own brains.
>> >> >Explain it to me, I don't know it well at all. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Then don't give examples you are incapable of explaining. Poor boy....
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 06 Nov 2005 23:52 GMT > >> Geese, you are totally confused with regard to my theories. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > geese, the WRFB is not related to the BaTh. So you have no way of deriving the "reverse field bubble", you just assume it to be true so you don't have to use SR in the explanation of relativistic particles.
Some theory.
> >If you say "there is no length contraction in special relativity", I > >can easily show you to be incorrect because I have a theory that is [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > Poor boy.... Don't condescend down to me, Henri.
> HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe > > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". Henri Wilson - 07 Nov 2005 08:52 GMT >> >I am flexible, it doesn't have to be c+v - even though that is the only >> >assumption you have given me. You can derive it any way you want, as [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Some theory. Yes. pretty obvious really.
>> >> It would take me a few days. >> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Don't condescend down to me, Henri. One cannot condescend upwards.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 07 Nov 2005 09:06 GMT [snip contentless response]
How about responding to my post here?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b2c67482fbea6402?dmode=source&hl=en
Or are you incapable of complying with my simple request?
Henri Wilson - 07 Nov 2005 21:25 GMT >[snip contentless response] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Or are you incapable of complying with my simple request? I don't have time Geese.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 07 Nov 2005 23:07 GMT > >[snip contentless response] > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I don't have time Geese. Liar.
> HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe > > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". donstockbauer@hotmail.com - 07 Nov 2005 23:10 GMT Now, now. Kiss and make up.
Eric Gisse - 08 Nov 2005 02:04 GMT > Now, now. Kiss and make up. Why?
He is blatantly lying again.
Henri Wilson - 08 Nov 2005 21:35 GMT >> Now, now. Kiss and make up. > >Why? > >He is blatantly lying again. Silly boy, go and play with your blow-up girl dolls.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 02 Nov 2005 09:43 GMT [snip]
> >Einstein's 'composition of velocities' formula was a RESULT of his > >postulates. Yours is NOT. Yours can not be justified without adding more [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Can I have my Nobel now please? Why do you keep assuming the composition of velocities formula is either a postulate or valid for an observer having a coordinate velocity of c?
*snaps fingers*, NOW I REMEMBER! You don't understand SR! By god it all makes sense now.
[snip]
Henri Wilson - 02 Nov 2005 21:26 GMT >[snip] > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >*snaps fingers*, NOW I REMEMBER! You don't understand SR! By god it all >makes sense now. The postulate is 'w=c', idiot.
>[snip] HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 03 Nov 2005 02:38 GMT > >[snip] > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > The postulate is 'w=c', idiot. Stop arguing what you do not understand.
AGAIN, for the N+1'th f.cking time.
Setting a coordinate velocity to c is unallowable: The range is (-1,1).
The equation is not postulated, it is DERIVED.
> >[snip] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". Henri Wilson - 03 Nov 2005 10:47 GMT >> >[snip] >> > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >The equation is not postulated, it is DERIVED. Yes. Derived from the postulate.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
bz - 03 Nov 2005 11:54 GMT HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:95njm1l0qsahoi6286efdlrjlaoa0t7cc7@ 4ax.com:
> Yes. Derived from the postulate. That is how theories work. Ideally, everything can be derived from a few postulates. Then, as long as the postulates are correct, everything that has been derived is correct.
Lack of correctness, the invalidation of a prediction, is an indication that a postulate is wrong.
That is why your adding ad hoc new postulates to BaT to circumvent invalidating data is 'cheating' in that you have produced a new theory by adding the new postulate.
Of course, most of your ad hoc postulates are a priori invalid, so they do not really help revive BaT.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
donstockbauer@hotmail.com - 03 Nov 2005 12:08 GMT please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
********************
That's why Nature evolved the hive-intelligence.
Henri Wilson - 03 Nov 2005 23:18 GMT >HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:95njm1l0qsahoi6286efdlrjlaoa0t7cc7@ >4ax.com: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Of course, most of your ad hoc postulates are a priori invalid, so they do >not really help revive BaT. The BaTh has only one postulate...light initially leaves its source at c wrt that source.
Do you disagree with that?
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 04 Nov 2005 00:04 GMT > >HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:95njm1l0qsahoi6286efdlrjlaoa0t7cc7@ > >4ax.com: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Do you disagree with that? No, Henri. What we disagree with is you inventing ways to make your theory work every single time you are presented with an experimental result you can't explain away with a "willusion" or by assautling the integrity of the experimenter.
You have no physical theory. You might think you do, but you don't.
You can't give us anything other than "c+v" when we as you for the math, but when you are presented with something that your theory can't quite explain you ALWAYS have an explanation at the ready. You are always unable to show how the explanation comes from your theory, but you defend it as if it was all the same.
You are incapable of honest and rational discussion of your theory because you seem to manage to think both that your theory is unpublishable because it is incomplete and that it has never been falsified.
> HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe > > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". Henri Wilson - 04 Nov 2005 04:55 GMT >> >Of course, most of your ad hoc postulates are a priori invalid, so they do >> >not really help revive BaT. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >You have no physical theory. You might think you do, but you don't. You are simply too ignorant to undestand it.
>You can't give us anything other than "c+v" when we as you for the >math, but when you are presented with something that your theory can't >quite explain you ALWAYS have an explanation at the ready. You are >always unable to show how the explanation comes from your theory, but >you defend it as if it was all the same. It is usually pretty obvious.
>You are incapable of honest and rational discussion of your theory >because you seem to manage to think both that your theory is >unpublishable because it is incomplete and that it has never been >falsified. You are right. It hasn't.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 04 Nov 2005 07:42 GMT > >> >Of course, most of your ad hoc postulates are a priori invalid, so they do > >> >not really help revive BaT. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > You are simply too ignorant to undestand it. Again you resort to insulting my intelligence.
You shun relativity and call everyone who accept it "relativists" as if is an insult. You accuse them of not questioning the theory of relativity, and yet you get so defensive when I take your advice and question yours?
Why is that Henri? Is your theory above reproach? Should I just believe everything you say because you say it is the Truth?
> >You can't give us anything other than "c+v" when we as you for the > >math, but when you are presented with something that your theory can't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It is usually pretty obvious. Forgive me Henri, but according to you I am too "ignorant" to understand your theory's "obvious" explanations at face value without some background information.
Since you have talked about the following topics so much, it should be trivial for you to write down the obvious derivations.
The classical derivation of E=mc^2. Pick a theory: Ritzian, Newtonian, whatever. I have asked many times, but you always shrug off my requests and continue to assert that it is possible.
The derivation of gravitational lensing using Newtonian mechanics that yields a result consistant with observation without resorting to "willusions" or sh.t like that. You dance around saying "oh i found it!" but then refuse to show your work.
The derivation, using your "BaTh" theory, of the "reverse field bubble". You talk about it all the goddamn time like it is the solution to all the world's ills, but you never show how you obtain it from "c+v".
The explanation of where you obtained the working equation for your light deflection code, and why the sun figures into deflection you say is being explicitly caused by the Earth.
If you want to overturn all of known physics, you shouldn't be so reluctant to show details. Otherwise people might think you are full of sh.t.
If you think any of these are "obvious", you should be able to write them down explicitly without a single problem. Behind me are many textbooks with results that are NOT obvious, yet the authors managed to communicate the concepts and the mathematical results with clarity [in most cases. MTW is still a little dense for me at this time]. Not even most of them are about Relativity either.
> >You are incapable of honest and rational discussion of your theory > >because you seem to manage to think both that your theory is > >unpublishable because it is incomplete and that it has never been > >falsified. > > You are right. It hasn't. What? Hasn't been completed or hasn't been falsified?
If it is incomplete, how can you know it hasn't been falsified?
If it hasn't been falsified, how can it be incomplete?
> HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe > > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". Henri Wilson - 04 Nov 2005 21:24 GMT >> >You have no physical theory. You might think you do, but you don't. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Why is that Henri? Is your theory above reproach? Should I just believe >everything you say because you say it is the Truth? Geesey, you are already in the process of being indoctrinated by the physics establishment's experts. How can I hope to compete with them?
>If you want to overturn all of known physics, you shouldn't be so >reluctant to show details. Otherwise people might think you are full of >sh.t. When and if you ever learn physics, the gist of what I am saying will become obvious.
>If you think any of these are "obvious", you should be able to write >them down explicitly without a single problem. Behind me are many [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >If it hasn't been falsified, how can it be incomplete? Like my house. It will never get finished because I keep adding rooms. .
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 04 Nov 2005 22:28 GMT [snip whines and insults against my intelligence]
THIS IS WHAT I WANT. None of these are too difficult because you keep saying how obvious they are.
The classical derivation of E=mc^2. Pick a theory: Ritzian, Newtonian, whatever. I have asked many times, but you always shrug off my requests and continue to assert that it is possible.
The derivation of gravitational lensing using Newtonian mechanics that yields a result consistant with observation without resorting to "willusions" or sh.t like that. You dance around saying "oh i found it!" but then refuse to show your work.
The derivation, using your "BaTh" theory, of the "reverse field bubble". You talk about it all the goddamn time like it is the solution to all the world's ills, but you never show how you obtain it from "c+v".
The explanation of where you obtained the working equation for your light deflection code, and why the sun figures into deflection you say is being explicitly caused by the Earth.
Androcles - 04 Nov 2005 23:44 GMT [to Henri Wilson].
>>Again you resort to insulting my intelligence. It is hard insult something does not exist, Gisse. I ridicule YOU for your LACK of intelligence.
>>You shun relativity and call everyone who accept it "relativists" as if >>is an insult. It is intended as an insult. "Relativist" equates to fool, sucker, gullible idiot, non-thinking religious-like fanatic, and along with that, wicked. You are the kind of moron that would be against Copernicus and Galileo, someone with a mob mentality. No relativist can be a scientist.
>> You accuse them of not questioning the theory of >>relativity, and yet you get so defensive when I take your advice and >>question yours? Non-sequitur, pot calling kettle black.
>>Why is that Henri? Is your theory above reproach? Should I just believe >>everything you say because you say it is the Truth? Not everything Wilson says is above reproach. He is as self-centred, arrogant and egotistical as any relativist. He boasts that he's proved Einstein wrong when he hasn't, is a fence sitting aetherialist, invents masses that he calls "Wilson Cool Heavies" and claims to be a "physicist". All in all that is a stupid as time dilation and length contraction. On the plus side he understands the PoR and the vector addition of velocities, which you do not because you lack the intelligence.
[snip Wilson, I'm insulting your lack of intelligence]
>>If you want to overturn all of known physics, you shouldn't be so >>reluctant to show details. Otherwise people might think you are full of >>sh.t. Nobody wants to overturn Newtonian physics except stinking relativists, you have to be thoroughly stupid to suggest it.
>>If you think any of these are "obvious", you should be able to write >>them down explicitly without a single problem. Pot. Kettle. Black. Write down the PoR without a single problem. Hint: look at your own bible. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>> Behind me are many >>textbooks with results that are NOT obvious, yet the authors managed to >>communicate the concepts and the mathematical results with clarity [in >>most cases. Sounds like you are a true Catholic, you know no Latin but believe whatever the priest tells you to believe because you lack the intelligence to understand for yourself. Unlike you, I can read and understand mathematics and have read Albert's gospel according to Einstein. That's because I'm intelligent and you are not.
>> MTW is still a little dense for me at this time]. Not even >> most of them are about Relativity either. Misner, Thorn and Wheeler are cardinals in the Holy Church of Relativity, not a scientist among them.
>>> >You are incapable of honest and rational discussion of your theory Pot-kettle-black. Indeed you are incapable of HONEST and RATIONAL discussion.
>>> >because you seem to manage to think Translation: Gisse is guessing what Wilson thinks and wants to insult by saying "seem to manage".
>>> > both that your theory is >>> >unpublishable because it is incomplete and that it has never been [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >>What? Hasn't been completed or hasn't been falsified? You posed the question, it was asked and answered.
Wilson seems to manage to think. You do not seem to manage to think. You should have your so-called intelligence insulted.
>>If it is incomplete, how can you know it hasn't been falsified? >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". Androcles. Sometimes I feel like a partial success. The least useful thing I have ever done is prove Wilson wrong. (Gisse I don't care about, he's a phuckwit beyond redemption.)
Eric Gisse - 05 Nov 2005 00:39 GMT > [to Henri Wilson]. So much for being plonked.
> >>Again you resort to insulting my intelligence. > > It is hard insult something does not exist, Gisse. > I ridicule YOU for your LACK of intelligence. Whine on, Androcles.
> >>You shun relativity and call everyone who accept it "relativists" as if > >>is an insult. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with a mob mentality. > No relativist can be a scientist. Boo-f.cking-hoo. More insulting what you don't understand.
> >> You accuse them of not questioning the theory of > >>relativity, and yet you get so defensive when I take your advice and > >>question yours? > > Non-sequitur, pot calling kettle black. Waah.
Way to miss the point.
> >>Why is that Henri? Is your theory above reproach? Should I just believe > >>everything you say because you say it is the Truth? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > and the vector addition of velocities, which you do not because you lack the > intelligence. Your stupidity isn't my fault or problem.
> [snip Wilson, I'm insulting your lack of intelligence] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Nobody wants to overturn Newtonian physics except stinking relativists, > you have to be thoroughly stupid to suggest it. You are a century behind. This isnt 1905, this is 2005. Newton is dead and buried as far as being a complete theory of gravitation is concerned.
Again, your stupidity isn't my fault or problem.
> >>If you think any of these are "obvious", you should be able to write > >>them down explicitly without a single problem. > > Pot. Kettle. Black. > Write down the PoR without a single problem. *sigh*
Why do you keep expecting me to do anything for you when you will neither accept or understand the answer?
> Hint: look at your own bible. > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ I don't give a sh.t about the 1905 paper, it is not crucial to my understanding. I do believe I have told you this at least once before.
> >> Behind me are many > >>textbooks with results that are NOT obvious, yet the authors managed to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > read Albert's gospel according to Einstein. That's because I'm intelligent > and you are not. Yea right. You couldn't even grasp why I was arguing dx/dt =/= dxi/dtau.
Bitter old men who whine about which they do not understand do not bother me. You do not do anything useful but sit on the internet and complain.
> >> MTW is still a little dense for me at this time]. Not even > >> most of them are about Relativity either. > > Misner, Thorn and Wheeler are cardinals in the Holy Church of Relativity, > not a scientist among them. Whine on, Androcles.
> >>> >You are incapable of honest and rational discussion of your theory > > Pot-kettle-black. > Indeed you are incapable of HONEST and RATIONAL discussion. Whine on, Androcles.
> >>> >because you seem to manage to think > > Translation: Gisse is guessing what Wilson thinks and wants to insult by > saying "seem to manage". He didn't disagree.
> >>> > both that your theory is > >>> >unpublishable because it is incomplete and that it has never been [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You posed the question, it was asked and answered. Reading is hard, isn't it?
> Wilson seems to manage to think. You do not seem to manage to think. > You should have your so-called intelligence insulted. Preferably by those who know more than me rather than a bitter old man who can't come to terms with the direction physics has taken.
> >>If it is incomplete, how can you know it hasn't been falsified? > >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > done is prove Wilson wrong. > (Gisse I don't care about, he's a phuckwit beyond redemption.) Yet here you are, reading Henri's posts and responding to me through him even though I am "plonked".
Henri Wilson - 05 Nov 2005 22:37 GMT >[to Henri Wilson]. > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >and the vector addition of velocities, which you do not because you lack the >intelligence. Wilson is currently renowned for:
WCHs (Wilson Cool Heavies): heavy orbiting objects that cause stars to 'wobble' around a barycentre....includes planets, neutron stars, brown giants, dead stars, dark matter.
Willusions - illusions caused by the fact that light from distant objects travels to us at different speeds.
W-aether, also known as H-aether.
Wolume - a huge identifiable volume of interstellar space that contains matter and 'fields' at a density above the:
Wilson Density Threshold - below which light behaves purely ballistically. (Wolumes above the WDT have the ability to slightly modify the speed of light as it passes through).
WUD - Wilson's Unification Distance, beyond which the brightness curves of variable stars remain almost stable due to the fact that the speed of all light traveling in a particular direction tends towards unification.
WRFB - Wilson's 'reverse field bubble', which neutralizes the applied field around a moving charge in an accelerator.
A number of famous questions and laws are also attributed to Wilson:
1) "If a clock is given a short sharp shove, does its rate physically increase or decrease?"
2) <-S1_____________________p ->S2 "Why should pulses of light emitted simultaneously from two differently moving sources travel together through space?"
3) "A vertical light beam in one frame remains vertical in all horizontally moving frames."
4) Einsteinian relativity is Bull from the first chapter!!!! (as shown by Wilson's many famous animations)
>[snip Wilson, I'm insulting your lack of intelligence] > [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] >done is prove Wilson wrong. >(Gisse I don't care about, he's a phuckwit beyond redemption.) HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
bz - 04 Nov 2005 04:54 GMT >>HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:95njm1l0qsahoi6286efdlrjlaoa0t7cc7@ >>4ax.com: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Do you disagree with that? No. But that is NOT a theory. It is insufficient, by itself.
You must also assume/postulate other laws of physics. Therein lies the rub.
Einstein had two basic postulates: 1) the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. 2) light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
You need a postulate like 1. postulate 2 different in an important way from your only postulate. It refers to propagation in empty space. You say nothing about propagation at all, you only say it leaves the source at c.
In an Einsteinian universe, light leaves the emitter at c also. This is not a postulate but a result of the postulates. Another result is that light always arrives at the absorber at c. This is due to the FIRST postulate that says the laws are the same in all inertial frames of reference.
In a Henri universe we know nothing about the propagation nor the velocity of light at the absorber.
What do you have in place of Einstein's postulate 1?
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson - 04 Nov 2005 21:36 GMT >> The BaTh has only one postulate...light initially leaves its source at c >> wrt that source. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >1) the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames >of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. Note: he didn't say the answers would be the same in all frames.
>2) light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which >is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. ...a totally meaningless statement. Speed is always relative. Empty space has no reference points.
>You need a postulate like 1. >postulate 2 different in an important way from your only postulate. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >arrives at the absorber at c. This is due to the FIRST postulate that says >the laws are the same in all inertial frames of reference. An einsteinian universe is the same as an aetherists universe.
"All light emitted at a 'point' in space travels at a common speed which is determined solely by properties of that space".... as measured by a particular observer.
"What's wrong with that?", you ask.
Plenty! Just remove the observer.
Then it has absolutely no way of explaining why light pulses from differently moving sources should travel together through space UNLESS it assumes that space has absolute properties.
>In a Henri universe we know nothing about the propagation nor the velocity of >light at the absorber. > >What do you have in place of Einstein's postulate 1? Do you understand what 'ballistic' means?
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 04 Nov 2005 22:35 GMT [snip]
> >What do you have in place of Einstein's postulate 1? > > Do you understand what 'ballistic' means? Why do you find it so difficult to answer a basic question about your theory? The only reason you answer questions with questions all the time is because you don't understand your own theory well enough to discuss it.
[snip useless sig]
bz - 05 Nov 2005 03:16 GMT >>> The BaTh has only one postulate...light initially leaves its source at >>> c wrt that source. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Note: he didn't say the answers would be the same in all frames. That is the implication, when things are properly transformed to account for differences in location and velocity.
>>2) light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c >>which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. > > ...a totally meaningless statement. > Speed is always relative. Empty space has no reference points. Failure to comprehend does not imply meaninglessness.
He carefully specifies how to measure both space and time a bit later in the paper.
>>You need a postulate like 1. >>postulate 2 different in an important way from your only postulate. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > An einsteinian universe is the same as an aetherists universe. Nope.
But even if it were, the Einsteinian aether is not the same as pre Einsteinian ether. Einstein forever laid to rest the mechanistic ether as envisioned by Maxwell.
> "All light emitted at a 'point' in space travels at a common speed which > is determined solely by properties of that space".... as measured by a > particular observer. You added the 'observer' to the quote and you failed to attribute the quote.
> "What's wrong with that?", you ask. > > Plenty! Just remove the observer. You put 'm in, you take 'm out.
> Then it has absolutely no way of explaining why light pulses from > differently moving sources should travel together through space UNLESS > it assumes that space has absolute properties. Without the mythical 'observer' then it doesn't matter what travels where.
If an imaginary tree falls in an imaginary forest in an imaginary universe that has no observers, no one can hear the applause of the audiences' 'one hands clapping' to show their [dis]approval of your objection.
>>In a Henri universe we know nothing about the propagation nor the >>velocity of light at the absorber. >> >>What do you have in place of Einstein's postulate 1? > > Do you understand what 'ballistic' means? Do you understand what 'state your postulates and elucidate their mathematical implications' means?
And don't go ballistic on us.
If you have a theory rather than a WAG conjecture, then you can start from your postulates and derive the laws of motion for light in your universe your universe.
You can show how the basic postulate causes the reverse field bubble to develop as a natural consequence of c'=c+v.
You can show why BaT diffraction gratings are speed rather than wavelength sensitive as they would be in an Einsteinian universe.
You can show how c-v photons gain energy in their trip through interstellar space while c+v photons lose excess energy so they both arrive at earth at c, whereas in an Einsteinian universe all photons travel and arrive at c.
You can show why Henri cepheid variable don't show enhanced stellar aberration due to the c+v and c-v photons arriving early and late. Aberration being (in an Einstinian universe) due to the light following that 'slanted' path relative to the earths motion around the sun (but only in an Einstinian universe).
You can show why the parallax of double stars is not influenced by the c+v and c-v photons, changing as the stars orbit each other.
You can show why the spectra of spectrascopic binaries is behave as they do.
So, since you believe we live in a BaT(h) universe, show us the math, show us the evidence.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson - 05 Nov 2005 22:05 GMT >>>> The BaTh has only one postulate...light initially leaves its source at >>>> c wrt that source. [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] >So, since you believe we live in a BaT(h) universe, show us the math, show >us the evidence. I have already provided answers to all your concerns. If you are too stupid to understand them that is not my problem.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
bz - 05 Nov 2005 23:52 GMT ....
>>So, since you believe we live in a BaT(h) universe, show us the math, >>show us the evidence. > > I have already provided answers to all your concerns. If you are too > stupid to understand them that is not my problem. I understand your evasive answers.
It doesn't matter to me if you answer the questions or not.
I have been trying to help you Henri. It is important to YOU to answer the questions.
Unless and until you answer them and others, your theory is DOA.
No, that is wrong, a store window display dummy is not DOA, it never was alive.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson - 06 Nov 2005 22:45 GMT >> I have already provided answers to all your concerns. If you are too >> stupid to understand them that is not my problem. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I have been trying to help you Henri. It is important to YOU to answer the >questions. I don't need help. That should be obvious.
>Unless and until you answer them and others, your theory is DOA. > >No, that is wrong, a store window display dummy is not DOA, it never was >alive. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
bz - 07 Nov 2005 16:13 GMT >>> I have already provided answers to all your concerns. If you are too >>> stupid to understand them that is not my problem. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I don't need help. That should be obvious. Splorf. As I said, it is important to YOU that you be able to answer.
>>Unless and until you answer them and others, your theory is DOA. >> >>No, that is wrong, a store window display dummy is not DOA, it never was >>alive. The store window dummy doesn't need CPR, either.
Looks like I have been beating a plastic horse.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson - 07 Nov 2005 21:27 GMT >>>> I have already provided answers to all your concerns. If you are too >>>> stupid to understand them that is not my problem. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >Looks like I have been beating a plastic horse. You refuse to answer MY questions so why should I bother with yours.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 07 Nov 2005 23:13 GMT > >>>> I have already provided answers to all your concerns. If you are too > >>>> stupid to understand them that is not my problem. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > You refuse to answer MY questions so why should I bother with yours. Simply because his should be answered and your's already have been answered.
You are so full of sh.t it boggles the mind. You can't even produce a derivation of your "reverse field bubble", yet every time it is called into question you assert it is the truth.
You can't even give me a simple literature citation for a classical derivation of E = mc^2!
> HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe > > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". Henri Wilson - 08 Nov 2005 00:05 GMT >> >>>> I have already provided answers to all your concerns. If you are too >> >>>> stupid to understand them that is not my problem. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >You can't even give me a simple literature citation for a classical >derivation of E = mc^2! I like giving you a chance to use your own brain.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 08 Nov 2005 02:05 GMT > >> >>>> I have already provided answers to all your concerns. If you are too > >> >>>> stupid to understand them that is not my problem. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > I like giving you a chance to use your own brain. Wrong answer.
It is NOT our job to do your work for you. If you assert something as fact you better have a way of showing that it is.
You don't even have the first clue if E=mc^2 was around 'before Einstein' or not, and no amount of telling me "to use my brain" will change the fact you don't know.
> HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe > > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". Henri Wilson - 08 Nov 2005 21:40 GMT >> >You can't even give me a simple literature citation for a classical >> >derivation of E = mc^2! [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Einstein' or not, and no amount of telling me "to use my brain" will >change the fact you don't know. E= Mc^2 if a natural fact. Einstein didn't invent it. He simply publicised it.
....just like I'm publicising the natural principle that light is ballistic and travels at c wrt its source.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 08 Nov 2005 22:13 GMT > >> >You can't even give me a simple literature citation for a classical > >> >derivation of E = mc^2! [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > E= Mc^2 if a natural fact. Einstein didn't invent it. He simply publicised it. Since all you ever say is that it is a 'natural fact', it is obvious you are incapable of providing a citation that predates 1905.
So, E=mc^2 was not known before 1905. You cannot prove otherwise.
> ....just like I'm publicising the natural principle that light is ballistic and > travels at c wrt its source. It will never be published because you are incapable of creating a mathematical formalism to describe it.
It will never be published because you incapable of defending your theory without insulting the intelligence of those who take the time to ask you questions instead of laughing in your face.
...and most of all, it will never be published because it is wrong by fundamental experiment.
> HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe > > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". Henri Wilson - 08 Nov 2005 22:45 GMT >> >> I like giving you a chance to use your own brain. >> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >So, E=mc^2 was not known before 1905. You cannot prove otherwise. It was obvious. Just integrate mv.dv from 0 to c.
>> ....just like I'm publicising the natural principle that light is ballistic and >> travels at c wrt its source. > >It will never be published because you are incapable of creating a >mathematical formalism to describe it. Here is the maths Geesey.
Light speed = c (wrt source)
Happy now?
>It will never be published because you incapable of defending your >theory without insulting the intelligence of those who take the time to >ask you questions instead of laughing in your face. As the ever wise Androcles asked recently, " how can one insult zero intelligence?"
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Jerry - 09 Nov 2005 01:38 GMT > >So, E=mc^2 was not known before 1905. You cannot prove otherwise. > > It was obvious. > Just integrate mv.dv from 0 to c. Are you out to prove that well over two centuries in development of mathematics must be thrown out the window, the same as virtually all of physics? Shall we call your new system of mathematics wcalculus?
Don't you have the slightest grasp of how to do a simple integral?
Jerry
Jerry - 09 Nov 2005 01:50 GMT > Are you out to prove that well over two centuries in development > of mathematics must be thrown out the window Correction: well over THREE centuries
Jerry
Henri Wilson - 09 Nov 2005 03:50 GMT >> Are you out to prove that well over two centuries in development >> of mathematics must be thrown out the window > >Correction: well over THREE centuries Are you refereing to what Einstein did to Newton? (and nearly got away with his crime)
>Jerry HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 09 Nov 2005 03:19 GMT > > >So, E=mc^2 was not known before 1905. You cannot prove otherwise. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > virtually all of physics? Shall we call your new system of > mathematics wcalculus? int(mv,dv) = mv^2/2
Henri has shown many times he consideres being off by a factor of 1/2 "close enough" to the real answer.
I'm kinda getting tired of dealing with his idiocy, actually. Mathematical subtilties like "being correct" are completely lost upon him.
> Don't you have the slightest grasp of how to do a simple integral? > > Jerry Henri Wilson - 09 Nov 2005 03:39 GMT >> > >So, E=mc^2 was not known before 1905. You cannot prove otherwise. >> > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Mathematical subtilties like "being correct" are completely lost upon >him. can't you see where the other 1/2 comes from?
>> Don't you have the slightest grasp of how to do a simple integral? >> >> Jerry HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 09 Nov 2005 05:52 GMT > >> > >So, E=mc^2 was not known before 1905. You cannot prove otherwise. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > can't you see where the other 1/2 comes from? It is not my problem if you can't even work an integral. It is not my job to invent explanations for *your* failures.
> >> Don't you have the slightest grasp of how to do a simple integral? > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". Paul B. Andersen - 11 Nov 2005 13:36 GMT >>>>>>So, E=mc^2 was not known before 1905. You cannot prove otherwise. >>>>> >>>>>It was obvious. >>>>>Just integrate mv.dv from 0 to c. What a stupid proposition. This integral gives the kinetic energy of a mass m going at the speed c, according to Newton.
This has obviously nothing whatsoever to do with the energy content of a mass m at rest.
>>>>Are you out to prove that well over two centuries in development >>>>of mathematics must be thrown out the window, the same as [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > It is not my problem if you can't even work an integral. It is not my > job to invent explanations for *your* failures. The 1/2 is a bit beside the point anyway. The important point is that the E in E = mc^2 is not kinetic energy.
Henry Wilson has no clue how to derive this equation.
However, it may have been done before 1905, because it is possible to derive it using only Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell's equations.
The following thought experiment was devised by Einstein, and is commonly referred to as "Einstein's box".
I will describe it in my own words.
Given a box with mass M and length L. From one side of the box, an EM radiation pulse with energy E is emitted. According to Maxwell, the momentum of the pulse is p = E/c. The time for the pulse to traverse the box is t = L/c. Conservation of momentum say that the box will move with the speed given by Mv = E/c, v = E/Mc while the pulse is on its way. When the pulse hits the other wall, the box is stopped. So the box has moved a distance d = vt = (E/c^2)L/M. But the mass-centre of the box must remain stationary. That means that a mass m must have moved along with the pulse so that m*L = M*d = (E/c^2)L Thus m = E/c^2
I think E = mc^2 follows from Maxwell's equations, EM-radiation has momentum.
Paul
Henri Wilson - 11 Nov 2005 22:30 GMT >>>>>>>So, E=mc^2 was not known before 1905. You cannot prove otherwise. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >This has obviously nothing whatsoever to do >with the energy content of a mass m at rest. It might have. ....correct form.
>>>>>Are you out to prove that well over two centuries in development >>>>>of mathematics must be thrown out the window, the same as [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > >Paul Geese will still want to argue.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 12 Nov 2005 01:36 GMT > >>>>>>>So, E=mc^2 was not known before 1905. You cannot prove otherwise. > >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > It might have. ....correct form. Incorrect form because it is the wrong answer.
You are repeating the same idiocy Schoenfeld displayed here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics/msg/96fc6ffc533b82ea
Just because it is similar does not mean it is the same. At least he had the benefit of having obtained the correct answer.
[snip]
Black Knight - 12 Nov 2005 04:48 GMT >>>>>>>>So, E=mc^2 was not known before 1905. You cannot prove otherwise. >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > HW. Message rating several casks. Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 12 Nov 2005 21:41 GMT >> HW. >Message rating several casks. >Androcles. All right A, the joke is over. It is next morning and you should have sobered up by now.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Black Knight - 12 Nov 2005 23:58 GMT >>> HW. >>Message rating several casks. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > HW. You started it, you are now keeping it up. Sober up and tell me what was so wrong with my Sagnac analysis, drunken abo. Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 13 Nov 2005 23:38 GMT >>>> HW. >>>Message rating several casks. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >You started it, you are now keeping it up. Sober up and tell me what >was so wrong with my Sagnac analysis, drunken abo. OK I'll call a truce about rating messages in terms of bottles and casks. It was very impolite of me. Sorry. No more.
I cannot recall you sagnac explanation in detail. I didn't plagiarize it, I swear.
Incidentally, the idiots are now in complete turmoil because some time ago one of them (I think Andersen) assured me that fringes only shift during angular acceleration whereas Dishman and lackeys say they shift during CONSTANT rotation.
>Androcles. Currently, only two people on Earth accept the existence of the planet "Androcles". Let's hope it stays that way.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 14 Nov 2005 00:19 GMT [snip]
> Incidentally, the idiots are now in complete turmoil because some time ago one > of them (I think Andersen) assured me that fringes only shift during angular > acceleration whereas Dishman and lackeys say they shift during CONSTANT > rotation. [snip]
Nobody is in turmoil over anything you have said.
I still stand by saying that Maxwell's equations do not have solutions that allow for the speed of light to be anything other than c, regardless of the speed of the wave.
I am waiting for your counterexample that proves me wrong.
Here, I'll do some work for you. ...and if your nice, I'll even show that your theory is incompatable with Maxwell's equations.
We seek solutions of Maxwell's equations in a vacuum and in the MKS system.
The two curl equations are then:
del x E = -@B/@t del x B = epsilion_0*mu_0*@E/@t
Hmm, I guess I can't just skip to the end. You need to see it worked through.
Take the curl of both equations.
**Vector identity: del x del x A [for any vector field A], = del(del*A) - del^2a
del x del x E = - del x (@B/@t) del(del*E) - del^2E = -@/@t (del x B)
del^2E = e_0*u_0@^2E/@t^2 [Wave equation #1]
If you repeat the same analysis on the other curl equation, you get:
del^2B= e_0*u_0@^2B/@t^2 [Wave equation #2]
Now, Henri, you have two wave equations in E and B. The other two relations aren't necessary for what you want to show.
There are the wave equations, now show me how you can obtain a solution that allows the waves to travel faster than the solution's speed OF waves.
Henri Wilson - 14 Nov 2005 08:10 GMT >[snip] > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >that allows the waves to travel faster than the solution's speed OF >waves. geese, you are so stupid you have forgotten the topic.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 14 Nov 2005 08:44 GMT [snip]
I guess you can't show what I ask for. Your theory of light doesn't satisfy Maxwell's equations, despite your protests to the contrary.
Black Knight - 14 Nov 2005 01:26 GMT >>>>> HW. >>>>Message rating several casks. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > It > was very impolite of me. Sorry. No more. I'd like a drink, but my Glenlivet I won in a bet hasn't arrived yet. You did not reproduce the curve with your WCH. I understand Steven Hawking paid off the set of encyclopedia he lost, he may be have been wrong but he admitted it as a pommie gentleman would. Can't trust abos though.
> I cannot recall you sagnac explanation in detail. I didn't plagiarize it, > I > swear. Googlegroups is not hard to find.
From: HW@..(Henri Wilson) Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Anyone ever read this Einstein physics book? Reply-To: HW@.. Expires: 28 days Message-ID: <goe7n11l4s35g1s9tc2sj56k0gk0os96qg@4ax.com> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:26:52 GMT
> Incidentally, the idiots are now in complete turmoil because some time ago > one > of them (I think Andersen) assured me that fringes only shift during > angular > acceleration whereas Dishman and lackeys say they shift during CONSTANT > rotation. Andersen is a complete phuckwit who can do nothing but make assertions. I am seriously considering writing to the dean at his college, informing the college of his pathetic attitude toward science. At least the troll is only dealing with you and I, he's not corrupting students. Dishman and co. I leave to you. If you want them to bait you, that's your business. I've killfiled them.
>>Androcles. > > Currently, only two people on Earth accept the existence of the planet > "Androcles". Let's hope it stays that way. I don't want to keep it that way. The whole world should know about the discovery of TWO new planets and the method of finding them.
Androcles.
Jerry - 14 Nov 2005 01:47 GMT > Incidentally, the idiots are now in complete turmoil because some time ago one > of them (I think Andersen) assured me that fringes only shift during angular > acceleration whereas Dishman and lackeys say they shift during CONSTANT > rotation. No turmoil whatsoever. You can't read, can't understand, can't remember, and are trying to reinvent the usenet record. Don't put words into Andersen's fingers that you are incapable of documenting because he didn't type it.
The usenet records document that YOU fantasized it. You have misread the fact that the points on the perimeter of a Sagnac interferometer are not inertial but are in an accelerated reference frame, into a belief that fringes shift only during accelerated rotation. Not the same thing. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3d26da562d00945a
YOU thunk it up, and YOU are stunningly misinformed.
Fringes have been observed to shift during constant rotation. The theory of how fringes would shift during accelerated rotation is, to the best of my knowledge, not well-developed, and would in any case be irrelevant to any practical application of the technique, http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/packard/Competition/Gyros/LaserRingGyro /Steadman/StedmanReview1997.pdf or any use of the technique to distinguish between ballistic theory and relativity.
Jerry
Henri Wilson - 14 Nov 2005 08:09 GMT >> Incidentally, the idiots are now in complete turmoil because some time ago one >> of them (I think Andersen) assured me that fringes only shift during angular [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >or any use of the technique to distinguish between ballistic >theory and relativity. Sorry. I was assured by either Andersen or Dishman (I've forgotten which) that there is no fringe dshift during constant rotation. It wasn't MY idea.
I was lectured on how the change is integrated over time so that total angular displacement can be calculated and presented directly. When I queried the accuracy of such a system, I was told that the thing DOES drift a little and has to be recalibrate regularly.
So let's face it YOU HAVEN"T A CLUE.
>Jerry HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 11 Nov 2005 22:56 GMT [snip]
> I think E = mc^2 follows from Maxwell's equations, > EM-radiation has momentum. That seemed highly reasonable to me.
Though I was hoping for Henri to do it instead of you.
> Paul Henri Wilson - 12 Nov 2005 21:45 GMT >[snip] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Though I was hoping for Henri to do it instead of you. I just like to watch you sqirm when your SRian colleagues have to continually correct you out of pure embarrassment.
>> Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Paul B. Andersen - 14 Nov 2005 14:45 GMT > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Though I was hoping for Henri to do it instead of you. No point in hoping for the impossible. It is thoroughly documented that Henri couldn't do it.
Paul
Henri Wilson - 14 Nov 2005 21:27 GMT >> [snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >No point in hoping for the impossible. >It is thoroughly documented that Henri couldn't do it. I am more interested in the other question I asked.
Has anyone ever shown that ALL the mass of an atom can be converted to mc^2 energy?
It has probably been proved only for e+/e- pairs and for nuclear binding energy.
So far, no one has been able to convert a whole atom to energy.
>Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Black Knight - 15 Nov 2005 02:11 GMT >>> [snip] >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > HW. Why are you asking the tusselad? He doesn't know what a wavelength is, let alone any physics. Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 15 Nov 2005 04:19 GMT >>>> [snip] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >He doesn't know what a wavelength is, let alone any physics. >Androcles. he'll probably go for another long holiday to avoid the embarassment of his latest Sagnac mistake.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Black Knight - 15 Nov 2005 13:31 GMT >>>>> [snip] >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > HW. He says a mass on a spring doesn't have a wavelength. A car is a mass on a spring, it oscillates vertically as it is driven horizontally. The wavelength of a car oscillating at 1 Hz, 30 mph is 44 feet. The wavelength of a car oscillating at 2 Hz, 60 mph is 44 feet. The wavelength of light oscillating at f Hz, 186,000 mps is lambda feet. The wavelength of light oscillating at 2*nu Hz, 2* 186,000 mps is lambda feet. v = nu * lamba The idiot spends more time saying "You are wrong, the BaT is falsified" than he ever will spend actually thinking. Gisse is just a c.nt anyway.
When are you going to realize its time to leave these arseholes in the dust? They are not educable, you can't learn anything from them. Faith cannot be argued with. Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 15 Nov 2005 23:58 GMT >>>>>> [snip] >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >thinking. >Gisse is just a c.nt anyway. Poor boy... desperately wants to be a scientist....when and if he grows up.
>When are you going to realize its time to leave these arseholes in the dust? >They are not educable, you can't learn anything from them. >Faith cannot be argued with. I have woken up to that. Total waste of time.
>Androcles. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Black Knight - 16 Nov 2005 03:51 GMT >>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > I have woken up to that. > Total waste of time. sh.t-can them. Look out for students wanting real help and give them guidance. That way you'll be a useful member of society instead of a mental institution nursing assistant, and have more time to spend on research when not playing golf. Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 16 Nov 2005 06:09 GMT >> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:31:37 GMT, "Black Knight" <Androcles@castle.edu>
>>>When are you going to realize its time to leave these arseholes in the >>>dust? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >on research when not playing golf. >Androcles. Even talking to idiots can be productive sometimes. Thanks to George (who is not as dumb as the rest but more persistent and stubborn) I have solved the sagnac riddle.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Black Knight - 16 Nov 2005 13:15 GMT >>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:31:37 GMT, "Black Knight" <Androcles@castle.edu> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > HW. Sagnac riddle? What riddle? http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/64ef56204eb42d76?dmo de=source&hl=en (August 4th,2005)
All you had do to was ask. Three months struggling with Dish, 5 minutes from me. You are very stubborn, H. Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 16 Nov 2005 22:30 GMT >>>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:31:37 GMT, "Black Knight" <Androcles@castle.edu> >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >Three months struggling with Dish, 5 minutes from me. >You are very stubborn, H. Your explanation does explain why the fringe DISPLACEMENT changes only during an angular acceleration of the apparatus.
The fringe pattern remains unaltered during periods of constant rotation speed.
>Androcles. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Black Knight - 17 Nov 2005 04:27 GMT >>>>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:31:37 GMT, "Black Knight" >>>>> <Androcles@castle.edu> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > during > an angular acceleration of the apparatus. If you mean phase shift, please say phase shift. It is necessary when changing from v1 to v2 for the beat frequency to change from f1 to f2 for there to be a shift in phase. In this diagram (the best I have available right now) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9e/Doubleslitdiffraction.png imagine the frequency through one slit is f.(c+v)/c and through the other slit is f.(c-v)/c. The line perpendicular to the slits will lean over. There will be a gradual phase shift during acceleration.
> The fringe pattern remains unaltered during periods of constant rotation > speed. Of course. Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 17 Nov 2005 09:51 GMT >>>>>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:31:37 GMT, "Black Knight" >>>>>> <Androcles@castle.edu> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >> during >> an angular acceleration of the apparatus. I left out the 'not'. Your explanation does NOT explain......
>If you mean phase shift, please say phase shift. >It is necessary when changing from v1 to v2 for the beat frequency to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >The line perpendicular to the slits will lean over. >There will be a gradual phase shift during acceleration. Hang on A. Were talking about sagnac.
>> The fringe pattern remains unaltered during periods of constant rotation >> speed. >Of course. >Androcles. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Black Knight - 17 Nov 2005 14:05 GMT >>>>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 03:51:54 GMT, "Black Knight" >>>>> <Androcles@castle.edu> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > I left out the 'not'. > Your explanation does NOT explain...... That's not not not problem.
>>If you mean phase shift, please say phase shift. >>It is necessary when changing from v1 to v2 for the beat frequency to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Hang on A. Were talking about sagnac. Do you have a hard time understanding f.(c+v)/c and f.(c-v)/c ? Roll the turntable along a road and let it make footprints, but imagine it's slipping so that the "wavelength" is slightly short. Then roll it back again, still slipping, so that the "wavelength" is slightly long. The difference in print lengths is called the beat.
Or try it without slipping and two different sized paint rollers. Sheesh... so simple. Androcles.
>>> The fringe pattern remains unaltered during periods of constant rotation >>> speed. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". Henri Wilson - 17 Nov 2005 23:35 GMT >>>If you mean phase shift, please say phase shift. >>>It is necessary when changing from v1 to v2 for the beat frequency to [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >is slightly long. The difference in print lengths is called the >beat. Yes. we all know how beating takes place.
>Or try it without slipping and two different sized paint rollers. >Sheesh... so simple. >Androcles. It's anything BUT simple A when applied to a four mirror sagnac..
The point is, in the sagnac, no 'beating' takes place during constant rotation. Your explantion doesn't achieve that.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Black Knight - 18 Nov 2005 05:04 GMT >>>>If you mean phase shift, please say phase shift. >>>>It is necessary when changing from v1 to v2 for the beat frequency to [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > rotation. > Your explantion doesn't achieve that. It's extremely simple. Here I'll make v = c to show how simple it is.
Side of square 300 meters. Delta t = 1 microsecond. Observer stands at A.
t = 0
A----B
C----D
Light leave A, goes toward mirrors B and C at speed c.
t = 1 Light has arrived at B and at C. 300 metres, 1 usec. During this time, turntable has revolved 90 degrees.
C----A
D----B
t = 2. Light has arrived at D from B, meets light at D fron C. During this time, turntable has revolved 90 degrees. D----C
B----A
Observer is now standing at D, he didn't move, still at top left. One ray went all the way around, the other stayed by the observer while its source went backwards at c. f1 = f(c-v)/c = 0 f2 = f(c+v)/c = 2. Beat frequency 2+0 = 2-0 = 2f. No relativist should look at a high speed 4 mirror Sagnac, his heart will stop as time stops. You and I only need worry about holding the equipment together in the centrifuge, we can stand above or below for our own safety. I have not yet developed a suitable alloy to take the strain or we would have the ideal relativist murder machine, slaughtered by their own theory. An autopsy will not convict either of us, it was suicide anyway.
(NOT Suitable for 5yo Kids) Sagnac is off limits to 5yo Kids, tusselader, moortels and idiots in general.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 19 Nov 2005 21:32 GMT >>>> Hang on A. Were talking about sagnac. >>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >| >D----B You are using the non-rotating 'table' frame here. For light to go from A to B, it has to leave A and move in the direction of D, not B...because B is where D is when the light arrives.
Also, you cannot use c. You must use c+v. In the above case, v happens to be zero because A is moving at right angles to point D.
>t = 2. >Light has arrived at D from B, meets light at D fron C. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >murder machine, slaughtered by their own theory. An >autopsy will not convict either of us, it was suicide anyway. Unless I have misunderstood what you have said here, I think you are oversimplifying this problem. The 'observers' are moving with the apparatus, bnot remaining at a fixed point.
>(NOT Suitable for 5yo Kids) >Sagnac is off limits to 5yo Kids, tusselader, moortels and idiots in >general. > >Androcles. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Androcles - 19 Nov 2005 22:18 GMT > >>>> Hang on A. Were talking about sagnac. > >>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > You are using the non-rotating 'table' frame here. For the page, yes.
> For light to go from A to B, it has to leave A and move in the direction of D, > not B...because B is where D is when the light arrives. Baloney, my mirrors are arranged like this, as wide as I need them. The light cannot escape. You can use smaller mirrors in a real experiment. This is just a light guide with 4 reflections instead of multiple reflections.
/\ / \ / \ B / \ / \ / \ \ / \ / \ / \ /C \ / \/
Use 6 mirrors or 8 if you like. ----- / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \____ /
> Also, you cannot use c. You must use c+v. Idiot. c = distance moved divided by time. Distance moved between mirrors 300 metres, time 1 usec. That's c. Distance moved around ring from observer back to observer, 4 * 300 metres, time 2 us. Thats c+v.
> In the above case, v happens to be zero because A is moving at right angles to > point D. f.ck-all to do with angle. It works with a light guide as well and v is never zero. Where/when did I say v = zero? I said c+v is zero. This why I rank a relativist as a full-blown phuckwit and you as a halfwit.
> >t = 2. > >Light has arrived at D from B, meets light at D fron C. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > oversimplifying this problem. The 'observers' are moving with the apparatus, > bnot remaining at a fixed point. You misunderstanding doesn't surprise me. Get one of those kiddy rides called carousels and staple a lightguide around the rim. Nail a LED onto the rim, shine it down the light guide The kiddy observer on the ride sees c, if they look, but they don't look. Grandpa watching the kids yelling and screaming sees c+v, because he DOES look, and he's not moving with the apparatus. When the ride stops, he walks around it and still sees c+v, v-c. Fuckin' simple as it can be and as simple as I can make it. Androcles.
> >(NOT Suitable for 5yo Kids) > >Sagnac is off limits to 5yo Kids, tusselader, moortels and idiots in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". George Dishman - 20 Nov 2005 11:47 GMT ...
> > Unless I have misunderstood what you have said here, I think you are > > oversimplifying this problem. The 'observers' are moving with the apparatus, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The kiddy observer on the ride sees c, if they look, but they don't > look. Henri is correct, the detector is on the carousel, (as well as the LED and pipes). The kids are the only ones doing the looking.
Put two light pipes half way round the rim in opposite directions, and put a flash bulb between the ends on one side. Put two photodetectors on the other ends at the far side and an instrument to record the time between their reponses to the flash.
The kids reckon a speed of c and length of half the circumference for each pipe so the instrument records no time difference regardless of the speed as long as it is constant, the flash arrives simultaneously through both pipes.
> Fuckin' simple as it can be and as simple as I can make it. Simple, easy to understand, but you had the detector in the wrong place as Henri said.
George
Henri Wilson - 21 Nov 2005 07:10 GMT >> >It's extremely simple. Here I'll make v = c to show how simple it is. >> > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > \ / > \____ / You must consider only the beam that hits the centre of each mirror.
>> Also, you cannot use c. You must use c+v. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >metres, time 2 us. >Thats c+v. That I cannot follow.
>> In the above case, v happens to be zero because A is moving at right angles to >> point D. However, for A to send a beam to D, it would have to point its laser towards C because its light acquires a component speed in A's direction.
>f.ck-all to do with angle. It works with a light guide as well and v is >never zero. > Where/when did I say v = zero? I said c+v is zero. >This why I rank a relativist as a full-blown phuckwit and you as a >halfwit. Lay off the hard stuff A.
>> Unless I have misunderstood what you have said here, I think you are >> oversimplifying this problem. The 'observers' are moving with the apparatus, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >around it and still sees c+v, v-c. >Fuckin' simple as it can be and as simple as I can make it. Huh? I see you have become an aetehrist.
Seto will be proud of you.
>Androcles. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. >> The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Androcles - 21 Nov 2005 13:25 GMT >>> >It's extremely simple. Here I'll make v = c to show how simple it is. >>> > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > You must consider only the beam that hits the centre of each mirror. f.ck you too. I'll consider anything I like.
>>> Also, you cannot use c. You must use c+v. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > That I cannot follow. That's because you are a halfwit.
>>> In the above case, v happens to be zero because A is moving at right >>> angles to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > towards C > because its light acquires a component speed in A's direction.
>>> >t = 0 >>> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> > >>> >Light leave A, goes toward mirrors B and C at speed c. You really are halfwit; that's not an insult, it's a fact. WHERE THE f.ck DID I SAY A SENDS A BEAM TO D?
>>f.ck-all to do with angle. It works with a light guide as well and v is >>never zero. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Lay off the hard stuff A. Hard stuff? Some stupid idiot thinks I said "Light leave A, goes toward mirrors B and C at speed c." means "for A to send a beam to D" and you say I'm the hard stuff? f.ck YOU, YOU DUMB STOOOPID f.cking MORON! Learn to read, arsehole. Then at least try to understand.
>>> Unless I have misunderstood what you have said here, I think you are >>> oversimplifying this problem. The 'observers' are moving with the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Seto will be proud of you. c.nt! f.cking DUMB ABO.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson - 21 Nov 2005 21:53 GMT >>>> >It's extremely simple. Here I'll make v = c to show how simple it is. >>>> > [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] >You really are halfwit; that's not an insult, it's a fact. >WHERE THE f.ck DID I SAY A SENDS A BEAM TO D? You want to send it to B. But you said B is moving at c...and will be near D when it reaches him. Surely you can work that out yourself...you silly old bugger!
Also, A's beam will get a component speed in A's doirection, which is 45 up/right. Therefore A has to aim somewhere near C to make it hit the centre of B.
Surely you can work that out yourself...you silly old pommie!
>>>f.ck-all to do with angle. It works with a light guide as well and v is >>>never zero. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >f.ck YOU, YOU DUMB STOOOPID f.cking MORON! >Learn to read, arsehole. Then at least try to understand. I read that YOU let v=c.
quote: "It's extremely simple. Here I'll make v = c to show how simple it is."
'v' is A's rotational speed. If you meant to say v=0, then lay of the hard stuff so you can get it right next time.
>Androcles. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Androcles - 22 Nov 2005 02:20 GMT >>>>> >It's extremely simple. Here I'll make v = c to show how simple it is. >>>>> > [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] > But you said B is moving at c...and will be near D when it reaches him. > Surely you can work that out yourself...you silly old bugger! Did you forget that A is moving forwards at c, you silly old bugger? Surely you can work that out yourself?
> Also, A's beam will get a component speed in A's doirection, which is 45 > up/right. Therefore A has to aim somewhere near C to make it hit the > centre of > B. f.ck the centre, my mirrors are as drawn. Where did you get this 'centre' fetish, you stupid old goat?
> Surely you can work that out yourself...you silly old pommie! http://www.exploratorium.edu/snacks/gen_images/corner_reflect_1_291x191.gif (suitable for 8yo kids but not dumb Wabos).
>>>>f.ck-all to do with angle. It works with a light guide as well and v is >>>>never zero. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > right > next time. It's suitable for 8yo kids, but not dumb Abos. It's extremely simple. Here I'll make v = c to show how simple it is. t = 0
A----B
C----D
Light leave A, goes toward mirrors B and C at speed c. (light leaves A at 2c toward B in the frame of the 8yo kid's schoolroom) (light leaves A at 0c toward C in the frame of the 8yo kid's schoolroom) C comes toward the light. B goes away from the light.
t = 1 Light has arrived at B and at C. 300 metres, 1 usec. (in the frame of the rotating mirrors, not the kid.)
During this time, turntable has revolved 90 degrees.
C----A
D----B
> You are using the non-rotating 'table' frame here. Yes, the 8yo kid is not rotating. His hands may move, his eyes do not. In this experiment, he can move his hands at c. In practice that is not possible, but this is a "thought" experiment for 8yo kids that can "think". Dumb Wabos cannot "think", can you? Androcles
Henri Wilson - 22 Nov 2005 21:07 GMT >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>>>>>> In the above case, v happens to be zero because A is moving at right >>>>>> angles to [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >Did you forget that A is moving forwards at c, you silly old bugger? >Surely you can work that out yourself? No I didn't forget. But A is NOT moving FORWARD at c. A is moving at 45 degrees at c. You haven't mentioned root2 anywhere.
>> Also, A's beam will get a component speed in A's direction, which is 45 >> up/right. Therefore A has to aim somewhere near C to make it hit the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >f.ck the centre, my mirrors are as drawn. >Where did you get this 'centre' fetish, you stupid old goat? You wont detect the beams if they aren't pointed at the centres.
>> Surely you can work that out yourself...you silly old pommie! > > http://www.exploratorium.edu/snacks/gen_images/corner_reflect_1_291x191.gif >(suitable for 8yo kids but not dumb Wabos). There are two other mirrors not shown. How else would the back of the kid's head appear..
>> I read that YOU let v=c. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >It's suitable for 8yo kids, but not dumb Abos. Well I just wanted to make sure you meant v=c. Why don't you use a practical value like v=0.00001c?
>It's extremely simple. Here I'll make v = c to show how simple it is. >t = 0 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Light leave A, goes toward mirrors B and C at speed c. >(light leaves A at 2c toward B in the frame of the 8yo kid's schoolroom) 0/10
>(light leaves A at 0c toward C in the frame of the 8yo kid's schoolroom) 0/10
>C comes toward the light. B goes away from the light. > >t = 1 >Light has arrived at B and at C. 300 metres, 1 usec. >(in the frame of the rotating mirrors, not the kid.) Light moves in curved paths in that frame.
>During this time, turntable has revolved 90 degrees. It hasn't.
>C----A >| >D----B According to you, the light A sent towards B would now reach A, becasue A is now where B was.
>> You are using the non-rotating 'table' frame here. >Yes, the 8yo kid is not rotating. >His hands may move, his eyes do not. >In this experiment, he can move his hands at c. >In practice that is not possible, but this is a "thought" experiment for 8yo >kids that can "think". Dumb Wabos cannot "think", can you? Wabos know what root2 is. Wabos know that for A to send a beam to where B will be when the beam reaches him, A will have to point his laser about midway between the starting positions of C and D.
>Androcles Even Dishman is a mile ahead of you.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 22 Nov 2005 22:07 GMT >>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > But A is NOT moving FORWARD at c. A is moving at 45 degrees at c. > You haven't mentioned root2 anywhere. You also aren't noticing that though the light moves along the straight line paths (kiddy frame) of length R*sqrt(2), the source and mirrors are moving round quarter of the circumference, length R*Pi/2. So Henri, A is moving at 45 degrees at a little more than c if the light is to reach location B in the above diagram when mirror B is at the location shown as D above.
Also, what mirror does the light emitted from the source at A towards in the direction of B hit if the mirror is at D by the time the light reaches A?
George
Henri Wilson - 22 Nov 2005 22:17 GMT >>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > >George see my later message.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 22 Nov 2005 23:23 GMT > On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 22:07:36 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > see my later message. There are no replies from you after that on my server on that part of the thread.
BTW, I snipped the rest because I think it was all correct.
George
Androcles - 23 Nov 2005 02:12 GMT >>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > You wont detect the beams if they aren't pointed at the centres. YAWN.... "An eloquently written chapter on this use of the cavern is in Mark P Silverman's book "And yet it moves: strange systems and subtle questions in physics." (Cambridge UK: Cambridge 1993)
In the C-I (Canterbury I) ring laser experiment, two beams of light waves bounce off four mirrors, travelling around a square in opposite directions. The beams of light form separate lasers. There is a fixed number of wavelengths in any round trip and the light speed is fixed by relativity. When the whole device rotates, say with the earth, the beam which is travelling the same way as the rotation has to travel further to get back to any one mirror. The result is that its wavelength is stretched; similarly the other beam's wavelength is shrunk. "
Fixed by GALILEAN relativity, relative to the source.
(As you already KNOW, you stupid old goat.)
If grandpa gets on that ride, he's not going to see any fringe shift.
http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/research/laser/graphics/zerodorblock1.jpg
He's going to see stars instead.
>>> Surely you can work that out yourself...you silly old pommie! >> >> http://www.exploratorium.edu/snacks/gen_images/corner_reflect_1_291x191.gif >>(suitable for 8yo kids but not dumb Wabos). > > There are two other mirrors not shown. That's right, crazy old goat.
> How else would the back of the kid's head appear.. Well, see, you have to ..never mind, I SAID it was suitable for 8yo kids, not dumb Wabos who think Grandpa is going to ride that carousel.
>>> I read that YOU let v=c. >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Well I just wanted to make sure you meant v=c. > Why don't you use a practical value like v=0.00001c? It's hard to draw pictures in type, and I'd need 100,000 pictures. That's not practical. Why don't you use common f.cking sense?
>>It's extremely simple. Here I'll make v = c to show how simple it is. >>t = 0 [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > is > now where B was. The fuckin' penny hasn't dropped yet, but it almost did.
v = c, because I said so, right?
So the speed of light toward B is c+c = 2c
The speed of A toward B is 1c. The speed of light toward B is 2c.
The speed of light is twice the speed of A.
>>> You are using the non-rotating 'table' frame here. >>Yes, the 8yo kid is not rotating. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Wabos know what root2 is. Wabo thinks Grandpa is going to ride that fuckin' carousel, Wabo is fuckin' crazy. I don't know why Wabo changes my experiment to suit himself and then says I'm wrong, except Wabo IS crazy.
I say Grandpa watches the carousel, Wabo says in the real world Grandpa rides the carousel.
Picture of grandpa riding the carousel:
http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/research/laser/graphics/zerodorblock1.jpg
> Wabos know that for A to send a beam to where B will be when the beam > reaches > him, A will have to point his laser about midway between the starting > positions > of C and D. Wabo is a nitwit without a grain of commonsense.
Androcles.
http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/research/laser/pictures.shtml
Henri Wilson - 23 Nov 2005 04:44 GMT >>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 136 lines] > >So the speed of light toward B is c+c = 2c No it isn't. It is c+ root2 x c
A is moving at 45 degrees from the line towards B. Get it now?
>The speed of A toward B is 1c. The speed of light toward B is 2c. > >The speed of light is twice the speed of A. Gord.....
>> Wabos know what root2 is. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Wabo is a nitwit without a grain of commonsense. Do they teach square roots in pommie land?
>Androcles. > > http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/research/laser/pictures.shtml HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Androcles - 23 Nov 2005 10:30 GMT >>>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 146 lines] > No it isn't. > It is c+ root2 x c Why don't you use a practical value like v=0.00001c, since you are too fuckin' dumb to understand distance/time.
> A is moving at 45 degrees from the line towards B. > Get it now? The light travels 299.792458 metres in 1 microsecond, the TANGENTIAL velocity of the mirror is 1.414c, it takes a longer path around the circle than the light does across the chord.
The SPEED of the mirror is pi/2 radians per microsecond, GHOST! The CHORD is 299.792458 metres The DIAMETER of the turntable is sqrt(2) * 299.792458 metres = 423.97056000076647774788821718171metres.
You are as bad as Ghost the bean counter, f.cking around with inconsequentials. What a maroon... Who gives a sh.t as long as the mirror ends up in the right place at the right time?
I give the simplest explanation possible and some imbecile always tries to make it complicated and then tell me I'm wrong.
Get it next year when the penny finally gets off its parachute and drops to Earth? Why do some people still try to square the circle....
>>The speed of A toward B is 1c. The speed of light toward B is 2c. >> >>The speed of light is twice the speed of A. > > Gord..... Above the gateway to Plato's academy appeared a famous inscription:
"Let no one who is ignorant of geometry enter here".
They wouldn't let Wilson the Wabo in, that's for sure.
>>> Wabos know what root2 is. >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Do they teach square roots in pommie land? They go a little further, actually, and teach how to USE them. I knew the standard of education down under was low because Timo Nieminem is boasting a doctorate, but I had no idea just how low. And they don't let grandpa ride on kiddy carousels in case his walking cane slips.
>>Androcles. >> >> http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/research/laser/pictures.shtml donstockbauer@hotmail.com - 23 Nov 2005 12:28 GMT Just upping this one to 1120 posts. Yall have a very nice day.
Henri Wilson - 23 Nov 2005 20:36 GMT >>>>>C----A >>>>>| [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> No it isn't. >> It is c+ root2 x c actually it is c(1+1/sqrt2)
>Why don't you use a practical value like v=0.00001c, since you are too >fuckin' dumb to understand distance/time. OK I will.
>> A is moving at 45 degrees from the line towards B. >> Get it now? > >The light travels 299.792458 metres in 1 microsecond, the TANGENTIAL >velocity of the mirror is 1.414c, it takes a longer path around the circle >than the light does across the chord. Hang on A. You said the sides of the square were 300 metres and v =c. Now you are saying A's tangential velocity =1.414c. I take it you meant that v was A's component in the direction of B. You have to make these things clear, A. George and I have been using 'v' as the tangential speed.
>The SPEED of the mirror is pi/2 radians per microsecond, GHOST! >The CHORD is 299.792458 metres >The DIAMETER of the turntable is sqrt(2) * 299.792458 metres = >423.97056000076647774788821718171metres. Ok A, now we know what is what, we can talk seriously.
>You are as bad as Ghost the bean counter, f.cking around with >inconsequentials. What a maroon... Never compare me with Ghost please.
>Who gives a sh.t as long as the mirror ends up in the right place at the >right time? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Earth? >Why do some people still try to square the circle.... OK A, you have describes a sagnac configuration, now tell us why the fringes move.
>>>The speed of A toward B is 1c. The speed of light toward B is 2c. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >They wouldn't let Wilson the Wabo in, that's for sure. You would have been turned away years ago.
>>>> Wabos know what root2 is. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>then >>>says I'm wrong, except Wabo IS crazy.
>>>Wabo is a nitwit without a grain of commonsense. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >>> >>> http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/research/laser/pictures.shtml HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 24 Nov 2005 09:15 GMT >>If grandpa gets on that ride, he's not going to see any fringe shift. Henri, _that_ is what I have been trying to explain to you for the past many months. Perhaps "Androcles" can explain it better, he seems to share your ideas on light propagation. He doesn't read my posts BTW.
The following might be useful for you in explaining the nature of the experiment to him. There seems little point discussing it if he thinks the detector and/or source is off the turntable.
>>Well, see, you have to ..never mind, I SAID it was suitable for 8yo kids, >>not dumb Wabos who think Grandpa is going to ride that carousel. http://www.kvh.com/pdf/DSP-4000_6.04.pdf
Grandpa is in the little box with no holes for light to enter or leave. The carousel is the bit on the top of the tank that turns.
>>Wabo thinks Grandpa is going to ride that fuckin' carousel, Wabo is >>fuckin' [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >>Picture of grandpa riding the carousel: How it works - see page two
http://www.kvh.com/pdf/ECoreTech.pdf
The blocks marked "laser" and "detector" are actually a single integrated component. A photodiode is built on the rear of telecomms laser diodes so they can be run at the lowest current needed to produce the light output in order to maximise their life. In the iFOG the phase modulator produces an AC component on the photodiode output which is measured by the synchronous demodulator to give the rate-of-turn output while the DC part is used to stabilise the laser intensity.
Obvious point: if the laser and detector are a single component, then if one is "on the carousel", so is the other.
Just for reference, more detail and equations:
http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~bauer/habil_online/node11.html
George
Henri Wilson - 24 Nov 2005 21:17 GMT >>>If grandpa gets on that ride, he's not going to see any fringe shift. > >Henri, _that_ is what I have been trying to explain >to you for the past many months. Perhaps "Androcles" >can explain it better, he seems to share your ideas >on light propagation. He doesn't read my posts BTW. I don't think he reads much of any post.
>The following might be useful for you in explaining >the nature of the experiment to him. There seems [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >http://www.kvh.com/pdf/DSP-4000_6.04.pdf Very neat.
>Grandpa is in the little box with no holes for light >to enter or leave. The carousel is the bit on the top [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >http://www.kvh.com/pdf/ECoreTech.pdf Unfortunately it says nothing about number of turns and path length. I gather the path is quite long.
>The blocks marked "laser" and "detector" are actually >a single integrated component. A photodiode is built [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >component, then if one is "on the carousel", so is the >other. I know that, Androcles doesn't.
>Just for reference, more detail and equations: > >http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~bauer/habil_online/node11.html Quite amusing, eh.....the bit about using c instead of c/n. That is about the same ratio as using c+v instead of c.
quite amusing....
>George HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Androcles - 25 Nov 2005 04:04 GMT > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:15:57 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:rpbco1tmnpkfvr2l6qdih790e6d6n3fqi1@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:02:54 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Light initially travels at c wrt its source. Einstein apparently knew > it.... Of course he knew it, and it travels at c-v wrt the mirror. OWLtime = x/(c-v), OWLspeed = c-v.
Then it travels back to the source.
OtherWLtime = -x/(v-c), OtherWLspeed = v+c.
TWLtime = -x/(v-c) + x/(v+c)
One way light SPEED = total distance moved / total time taken. Total distance moved is Source (A) to Mirror (B) = x Total time taken is x/(c-v).
Two Way light SPEED = total distance light moved / total time taken. Total distance moved is Source (A) to Source (A) = 0. TWLS = 0.
> but he also knew he could derive more money and fame from his 'hoax'. You are losing it, you old goat. Get a brain retread next time you have your ears lowered. t = -x/(v-c) will NEVER be equal to x/(v+c)
Androcles Sometime I'm a complete success. Wilson did NOT EVER come close to proving Einstein wrong, Wilson is a crank, a gullible sucker taken in by Einstein. TWLS <> OWLS.
Henri Wilson - 25 Nov 2005 09:40 GMT >> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:15:57 -0000, "George Dishman"
>> According to Ritz (and you and I) the "time'' required by light to travel >> from A to B DOES equal the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A, if [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >Einstein wrong, Wilson is a crank, a gullible sucker taken in by Einstein. >TWLS <> OWLS. ....losing his marbles completely I would say. No idea at all....
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
George Dishman - 28 Nov 2005 15:26 GMT > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:15:57 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > gather > the path is quite long. There's simply no need to publish the length they use. Perhaps detailed maintenance handbooks might say "if repairing the fibre, wind xxx turns" but there is no reason for a user to need to know.
>>The blocks marked "laser" and "detector" are actually >>a single integrated component. A photodiode is built [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > the > same ratio as using c+v instead of c. Yes, I was somewhat surprised but it also means that the design is inherently robust against small changes to the fibre, say due to expansion.
> quite amusing.... George
Jeff Root - 16 Nov 2005 17:39 GMT > Thanks to George ... I have solved the sagnac riddle. The solution you posted 12 Nov 2005 21:40 GMT ?
| I have finally woken up to your (and MY) complete | misinterpretation of the problem. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | We should only be considering what happens during angular | ACCELERATION !!!!!! -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
bz - 15 Nov 2005 04:00 GMT HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:o40in11kuvc1n85k3mls0drg34jt18ev7c@ 4ax.com:
> I am more interested in the other question I asked. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So far, no one has been able to convert a whole atom to energy. Not too hard to do. Build one atom of anti hydrogen with a positron and an antiproton; collide it with one atom of normal hydrogen and you have just converted TWO whole atoms into energy.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson - 15 Nov 2005 08:42 GMT >HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:o40in11kuvc1n85k3mls0drg34jt18ev7c@ >4ax.com: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >antiproton; collide it with one atom of normal hydrogen and you have just >converted TWO whole atoms into energy. Has anyone done that?
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
bz - 15 Nov 2005 12:45 GMT >>HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:o40in11kuvc1n85k3mls0drg34jt18ev7c@ >>4ax.com: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Has anyone done that? [quote http://ppd.fnal.gov/experiments/hbar/] E862: Observation of Antihydrogen Atoms Antihydrogen production has been observed at Fermilab. Experiment 862 collected data in 1996 and 1997. A total of 99 antihydrogen atoms were observed, with essentially no background. The results were published in Physical Review Letters in the spring of 1998.[unquote]
[quote http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/anti_hydrogen_020918.h tml] European scientists say they have created enough antihydrogen -- a type of the mirror-image, antimatter stuff that fictionally powers spaceships on Star Trek -- to test a widely held basic model of the universe.
While antihydrogen has been made before, the more than 50,000 atoms created at the CERN particle accelerator in Geneva are ``by far, the most produced," said Jeffrey Hangst, a leader of the ATHENA collaboration, one of two groups of physicists working on antihydrogen at CERN. .... In the latest experiments, ATHENA researchers used the CERN accelerator to create antiprotons and electromagnetically trapped them in a vacuum chamber. A radioactive source, meanwhile, was used to create positrons, which were held in a separate trap. The antiprotons were then fed into the pool of positrons, where the two combined to form antihydrogen.
The antimatter was short-lived; Hangst said it was annihilated when it bumped into normal matter. Detectors picked up the unique signatures of antimatter as it was destroyed, he said. [unquote]
close enough?
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson - 16 Nov 2005 00:01 GMT >>>HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:o40in11kuvc1n85k3mls0drg34jt18ev7c@ >>>4ax.com: [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > >close enough? Hmmmm!
That's interesting..but I don't know if 'unique signatures' implies that E=mc^2 was fully supported.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Henri Wilson - 09 Nov 2005 03:58 GMT >> >So, E=mc^2 was not known before 1905. You cannot prove otherwise. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Don't you have the slightest grasp of how to do a simple integral? Of course Jerry. M isn't 2M is it.
Incidentally, jokes aside, the relationship E=mc^2 has been shown to apply to bonding energy and maybe to gamma decay into e+/e- pairs.
I don't think anyone has proved that it is possible to completely transform one mass unit of a substance into c^2 worth of energy.
>Jerry HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 09 Nov 2005 03:28 GMT > >> >> I like giving you a chance to use your own brain. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > It was obvious. > Just integrate mv.dv from 0 to c. int(v,dv) = v^2/2
Your "method", while completely unjustified physically, doesn't even arrive at the correct answer.
So, once again, E=mc^2 wasn't known before 1905 and you cannot prove otherwise.
> >> ....just like I'm publicising the natural principle that light is ballistic and > >> travels at c wrt its source. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Happy now? Of course not, you completely ignored the spirit of my request.
Show me the RESULTS, not one of your assumptions.
> >It will never be published because you incapable of defending your > >theory without insulting the intelligence of those who take the time to > >ask you questions instead of laughing in your face. > > As the ever wise Androcles asked recently, " how can one insult zero > intelligence?" I am merely a representation of whom I deal with.
groups.google.com author:"henri wilson"
geese - 31 results goose - 7 results geesey - 3 results
> HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe > > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". hanson - 09 Nov 2005 00:36 GMT to/over and about Henri Wilson, HW@bigpond.net.au who w/i news:ela2n15oejr6i30i6c4foh12mb8h9csjka@4ax.com...
[Gisse]
>> >> >You, Henry, can't even give me a simple literature >> >> >citation for a classical derivation of E = mc^2! >> >You, Henry, don't even have the first clue if E=mc^2 was >> >around 'before Einstein' or not.... [Henri]
>> E= Mc^2 if a natural fact. Einstein didn't invent it. >> He simply publicised it. [Gisse]
> Since all you ever say is that it is a 'natural fact', it is obvious > you are incapable of providing a citation that predates 1905. > So, E=mc^2 was not known before 1905. > You cannot prove otherwise. [hanson] .... ahahaha... AHAHA... Eric, you sound like a highschool kid hearing about Einstein for the 1st time and decided to become his disciple. Henri seems to have a much deeper insight into the matter, than you do with your B&W assertions. Eric, do yourself a favor and see what other folks have echoed about this issue... Go google and you'll find: ............. = 6,160 hits for E=mc2 before 1905 = ............. The ones right on the surface are:
--- start refs--- htttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/ancestors.html == Wherein it says: Without these three visionary thinkers, Einstein's equation might have been inconceivable.
To boot: http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/mileva.htm == Wherein it says: Mileva was co-author, or sole author, of the 1905 papers, quoted some of Albert's words, as found in The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, and bear in mind that the vast majority of Mileva's letters to Albert were destroyed, with there being no more likely reasons for their destruction, than to hide her contribution and the fact that the works were unoriginal...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c317bb71e593ff8b == Wherein it says: Einstein's Christian wife, Mileva Maric, who really had the ideas and performed the math in the manuscript. She urged/nagged her hubby, Albert, to publish HER work under his name, (given the status women had back then) which he apparently reluctantly did ... and in the process did not care to include any citations, etc. But, the moment the paper made a splash, their marriage soured and he dumped her.... One can wonder why Einstein acquiesced to her divorce demands for him to give her all the money that he got from his Nobel price... Hush money? The vast number of the interviewed professionals subscribed to the scenario that it was Maric who was the creator and inventor of SR, and not Einstein who cashed in on the laurels....
http://www.italiansrus.com/articles/emc2.htm http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,3928978-103681,00.html http://www.eequalsmcsquared.auckland.ac.nz/sites/emc2/events/events_home.cfm == Wherein it says: Olinto De Pretto, a native of the Veneto region of Italy, published an article in which he gave, in its final form, the equation E=mc^2. This article was published on June 16, 1903, and published again in February 27, 1904, the second time in the Atti of the Reale Instituto Veneto di Scienze. De Pretto thereby preceded Einstein's famous 1905 "E=mc^2" paper by at least a year-and-a-half.
http://catholicintl.com/scienceissues/critique-dermott3.htm == Wherein it says: Prior to Einstein, in his experiments with electricity and induction coils, Michael Faraday had already produced the reciprocal equation c^2 = E/m, and in 1881, J. J. Thompson had produced E= 4/3mc^2. [100] In 1903 the Italian scientist Olinto De Pretto had already published E=mc2, which Einstein included as a mere footnote in his 1905 paper on Special Relativity. Poincare had also used the formula long before Einstein commandeered it for Relativity. [101]
http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/CIPD.htm http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/prioritymyth.htm http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/emc2.htm == Wherein it says: Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist, by Christopher Bjerknes. Albert Einstein never even came close to such insights. . . . Maxwell's equations implicitly contain the formula E = mc^2. Simon Newcomb pioneered the concept of relativistic energy in 1889. [224] Preston, J.J. Thompson, [225] Poincare, [226] Olinto De Pretto,[227] Fritz Hasenohrl, [228] [etc.etc. etc.] each effectively presented the formula E = mc^2, before 1905. --- end refs---
[hanson] All that and such will not impress you of course because you are one of those COMMON specimens who made physics into their religion, for all to see, but you yourself denying it to your dying breath.. ahahahaha... having gone thru your life adoring and ruminating and regurgitating what others have done. At least, Wilson, __right or wrong__ ,is thinking for himself and is trying to push the envelop... Reprieve: Both of you make hilarious reading, for which I do thank you. So, as I say: *** Let'em sing... all of'em... it's beautiful choir *** ahahaha... ahahanson
PS: Besides, Henri has it right because m/2*v^2 becomes m*c^2 by definition and rule the moment you dictate/assume/declare that "c" is the limiting value of/for "v" in this pix .... ahahahaha......
Henri Wilson - 09 Nov 2005 03:48 GMT >to/over and about Henri Wilson, HW@bigpond.net.au who w/i >news:ela2n15oejr6i30i6c4foh12mb8h9csjka@4ax.com... [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] >by definition and rule the moment you dictate/assume/declare that >"c" is the limiting value of/for "v" in this pix .... ahahahaha...... Thank you Hanson. Geese has become very argumentative - even paranoid - since he failed first semester physics.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
bz - 08 Nov 2005 02:38 GMT >>>>> I have already provided answers to all your concerns. If you are too >>>>> stupid to understand them that is not my problem. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > You refuse to answer MY questions so why should I bother with yours. What questions of your have I refused to answer?
Were they answerable questions or 'why' questions of the type that science can not answer?
Is my ability to answer them critical to my being able to do develope my theory? The answer must be no, because I do not have a theory that I am trying to develop and sell to the world.
Your ability to answer our questions is critical to the development of your theory.
Without answers to those questions, you have no theory, only a conjecture.
If your conjecture explained many unexplained pheonomina and were backed by sound math, it would stand a chance.
Unfortunately, you must keep adding new ad hoc 'fixes' to your conjecture to explain data that is easily explained by other theories.
Unfortunately, you do NOT have sound math behind your conjecture.
Unfortunately, you grow angry, defensive and abusive when presented with questions that your theory MUST be able to answer if it is ever to stand on its own.
You have written some 'interesting' computer programs that draw pretty pictures. Computer program writing is very well adapted to adding ad hoc fixes to 'make things work'.
Unfortunately physics doesn't work the same way.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson - 08 Nov 2005 21:38 GMT >What questions of your have I refused to answer? > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >Unfortunately physics doesn't work the same way. But aeroplanes still fly even though they are designed with computer simulations.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 08 Nov 2005 22:20 GMT > >What questions of your have I refused to answer? > > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > But aeroplanes still fly even though they are designed with computer > simulations. Way to not understand, Henri.
Computer programs are based on actual math and not a "make it up as you go along" attitude.
You still can't even give me the basic theory that your light deflection program is based on. You just mumble about it being "bloody complicated" then change the subject.
> HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe > > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". Henri Wilson - 08 Nov 2005 22:46 GMT >> >Without answers to those questions, you have no theory, only a conjecture. >> > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >deflection program is based on. You just mumble about it being "bloody >complicated" then change the subject. Geese you will never be as famous as I am if you maintian this negative attitude.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 09 Nov 2005 00:27 GMT > >> >Without answers to those questions, you have no theory, only a conjecture. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Geese you will never be as famous as I am if you maintian this negative > attitude. Good job on missing the point.
Once again I would like to take the time to remind you that you are famous for nothing other than being a moron who can't back up what he says with math or literature citations.
> HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe > > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". Henri Wilson - 09 Nov 2005 03:45 GMT >> >> >Without answers to those questions, you have no theory, only a conjecture. >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >famous for nothing other than being a moron who can't back up what he >says with math or literature citations. mc^2= 1/2mc^2+1/2mc^2
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 09 Nov 2005 05:49 GMT > >> >> >Without answers to those questions, you have no theory, only a conjecture. > >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > mc^2= 1/2mc^2+1/2mc^2 Good job on missing the point, AGAIN.
I asked for a literature citation or a derivation that predates 1905. Your "derivation" is not based in any theory and is thus irrelevant to the discussion.
It is obvious you can provide neither.
> HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe > > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". bz - 09 Nov 2005 04:28 GMT >>What questions of your have I refused to answer? >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > But aeroplanes still fly even though they are designed with computer > simulations. IF aeroplanes were designed by programs as firmly based upon theory and data as your are, the pilots would sit in the tail of the plane and steer by shouting orders to the helmsmen riding on each wing. The rubber band that turns the propellors would be wound up by teams of horses before the planes were launched by giant catapults.
By the way, modern fighter planes are designed to be UNSTABLE in the air. The pilot can NOT possibly fly them without the computer to continually compensate for the instabilities. Modern aeroplanes are FIRMLY based on theory and data.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson - 09 Nov 2005 09:01 GMT >>>What questions of your have I refused to answer? >>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >that turns the propellors would be wound up by teams of horses before the >planes were launched by giant catapults. I thought they still were.
>By the way, modern fighter planes are designed to be UNSTABLE in the air. >The pilot can NOT possibly fly them without the computer to continually >compensate for the instabilities. Modern aeroplanes are FIRMLY based on >theory and data. Don't think so Bob.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
bz - 09 Nov 2005 14:00 GMT f> On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 04:28:15 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu>
> wrote: ....
>>> But aeroplanes still fly even though they are designed with computer >>> simulations. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Don't think so Bob. so.
[quote http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/Computers/Tec h37.htm] The General Dynamics (now Lockheed-Martin) F-16, which entered service in the late 1970s and has been built in large numbers, was the first operational jet fighter to use an analog flight control system. The pilot steers the rudder pedals and joystick, but these are not directly connected to the control surfaces such as the rudder and ailerons. Instead, they are connected to a "fly-by-wire" flight control system. Three computers on the aircraft constantly adjust the flight controls to maintain the aircraft in flight and reply to the commands from the pilot. The F-16 is inherently unstable by design, meaning that it would fly out of control if the computers failed (which is why there are three of them). The designers made it unstable in order to improve its maneuverability. The computers constantly readjust the flight surfaces to keep the plane flying. Initially, pilots often referred to the F-16 as "the electric jet." But computer control systems have become so common that they are no longer unusual. [unquote]
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson - 09 Nov 2005 21:34 GMT >>>By the way, modern fighter planes are designed to be UNSTABLE in the >>>air. The pilot can NOT possibly fly them without the computer to [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >common that they are no longer unusual. >[unquote] I think that is probably a little out of context. I'm sure the planes would be stable in normal flight.
I think such a servo control system would only apply during fast maveuvering.
...but any remote electronic system must work on the principle of sensing and reducing an error. One of the big problems is to find a decent compromise between reaction time, senstivity and damping. One must prevent the thing from building up an oscillation.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Paul B. Andersen - 09 Nov 2005 22:50 GMT >>>>By the way, modern fighter planes are designed to be UNSTABLE in the >>>>air. The pilot can NOT possibly fly them without the computer to [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I think that is probably a little out of context. > I'm sure the planes would be stable in normal flight. But then you are very wrong.
http://www.f16falcon.com/facts/f16_5.html " The F-16A/B employed an all-electronic fly-by-wire (FBW) flight control system instead of the traditional hydromechanical systems with linkages and cables. The system is a four-channel analog system, the F-16A/B having been designed too early to accommodate the quadruplexed digital system that was provided on the Space Shuttle and on the F/A-18 Hornet. The FBW system makes it possible for the F-16 to fly safely with its center of gravity behind the center of pressure, thus providing the aircraft with an inherent instability that makes it highly responsive to the controls and to use relatively modest amounts of tail deflection during high-g maneuvers. The use of relaxed stability enabled a smaller tail to be used, since less force was needed to alter aircraft attitude. The General Dynamics team was the first to take the bold step of eliminating mechanical backups to the FBW system, trusting the aircraft completely to electronics.
Experience with a triplex digital system on the AFTI/F-16 gave GD the confidence to abandon the proven analog FBW system of the earlier Fighting Falcon and adopt the quadruplex digital FBW system for the Block 25 and beyond F-16C/D."
It is a long time since fighters were stable. They cannot be flown without a computer. Not even close. With traditional control, a man would simply not be fast enough to keep control of the plane. And it probably isn't possible even if he were. The control panels don't move as you would expect them to. For example, the right and left elevator may move in opposite direction. And the ailerons may move in the same direction. And then there are those two extra control panels underneath the plane.
> I think such a servo control system would only apply during fast maveuvering. It's much more than a servo control. The pilot tells the plane what he want it to do, and the computer figure out how to do it. For example, if you pull the stick hard, it means up as fast as possible. The plane will then pull up as fast as it can without structural damage. (The pilot may pass out, but the plane will stay in one piece.)
> ...but any remote electronic system must work on the principle of sensing and > reducing an error. One of the big problems is to find a decent compromise > between reaction time, senstivity and damping. One must prevent the thing from > building up an oscillation. It's very different from traditional servo loops.
Paul
Henri Wilson - 10 Nov 2005 08:26 GMT >>>[quote >>>http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/Computers/Tec [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >But then you are very wrong.
>http://www.f16falcon.com/facts/f16_5.html >" The F-16A/B employed an all-electronic fly-by-wire (FBW) [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Fighting Falcon and adopt the quadruplex digital FBW system for > the Block 25 and beyond F-16C/D." All right, I'll partly believe you. I just hope I never have to fly in one.
>It is a long time since fighters were stable. >They cannot be flown without a computer. >Not even close. >With traditional control, a man would simply not be fast enough >to keep control of the plane. Yes that is pretty obvious.
>And it probably isn't possible even if he were. >The control panels don't move as you would expect them to. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >fast as it can without structural damage. (The pilot may pass out, >but the plane will stay in one piece.) The pilot still has to think fast enough to make the plane do what he wants. The electronics just carries out his instructions.
>> ...but any remote electronic system must work on the principle of sensing and >> reducing an error. One of the big problems is to find a decent compromise >> between reaction time, senstivity and damping. One must prevent the thing from >> building up an oscillation. > >It's very different from traditional servo loops. Well its a bit like electronic power steering of a car(which hasn't been introduced yet) but the basic problems remain.
>Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Paul B. Andersen - 11 Nov 2005 09:49 GMT >>>>[quote >>>>http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/Computers/Tec [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > Yes that is pretty obvious. Is it? I am not convinced you have grasped the point. A traditional aircraft - say like a small Cessna - is stable. That means that if the pilot leaves the aircraft to itself, it will keep going straight ahead (provided that trim tabs etc. are set properly). That means that if the plane by some reason veers a little around one of its axes, it will automatically correct itself. A non R/C model aircraft flies itself. It can do that because it is inherently stable. Real aircrafts are traditionally built after the same principles. But modern fighters are inherently unstable. That means that if it veers a little around one of its axes, forces will be induced which make it veer more in the same direction, unless it is corrected - fast!
It could be compared to driving with a trailer. While driving forward the trailer will automatically follow the car. It is a stable system. But backing is another story. If the trailer has a small angle to the car, this angle will increase unless the driver corrects it. It is impossible to back along a given curve without continuous corrections on the steering wheel. It is an unstable system.
A modern fighter is like that. It can't go straight ahead without continuous corrections.
A man is fast enough to back with a trailer - if he drives slowly. But try to back at 100 km/h (60 mph)! It can't be done. But a computer could.
>>And it probably isn't possible even if he were. >>The control panels don't move as you would expect them to. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > The pilot still has to think fast enough to make the plane do what he wants. Obviously. :-)
> The electronics just carries out his instructions. No, it does much more than that. Even with no input from the pilot, it must continuously correct for the plane's tendency to veer off course. It is so bad that if it didn't, the plane would after a short time go into spin.
>>>...but any remote electronic system must work on the principle of sensing and >>>reducing an error. One of the big problems is to find a decent compromise [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Well its a bit like electronic power steering of a car(which hasn't been > introduced yet) but the basic problems remain. "A bit like" maybe, but just a very small bit. :-) It is a multi variable control system. That means that a number of inputs (rotations around and accelerations along the different axes) affects a number of outputs (the angle of the different control panels). It can not be divided into a number of one input - one output control loops. It's a beast of a control system.
Which (- to a Norwegian's malicious pleasure -) was demonstrated by the Swedish JAS fighter. It crashed twice because the control system didn't work properly.
http://www.nearlygood.com/video/crashlanding.html The pilot survived - and crashed a second time at an air show! He ejected, and survived again. He is probably getting used to it! :-)
Paul
Henri Wilson - 11 Nov 2005 22:40 GMT >>>It is a long time since fighters were stable. >>>They cannot be flown without a computer. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Is it? >I am not convinced you have grasped the point. I do. One might compare this with the way a rocket is kept vertical during lift-off.
>A traditional aircraft - say like a small Cessna - is stable. >That means that if the pilot leaves the aircraft to itself, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >continuous corrections on the steering wheel. It is >an unstable system. Paul I understand perfectly what you are saying. I still find it hard to believe, particularly when the plane is decelerating.
>A modern fighter is like that. It can't go straight ahead >without continuous corrections. The article claims certain advantages in this...presumably less drag...OK...
>A man is fast enough to back with a trailer - if he >drives slowly. But try to back at 100 km/h (60 mph)! >It can't be done. But a computer could. Yes Paul. I understand that. I still find it hard to believe that the plane is unstable in all situations. Perhaps it only becomes unstable above a certain speed. That I can accept.
>>>And it probably isn't possible even if he were. >>>The control panels don't move as you would expect them to. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >tendency to veer off course. It is so bad that if it didn't, >the plane would after a short time go into spin. Yes, just as a vertical rocket will veer off course and crash if the nozzles aren't adjusted quickly enough. .
>>>>...but any remote electronic system must work on the principle of sensing and >>>>reducing an error. One of the big problems is to find a decent compromise [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >at an air show! He ejected, and survived again. >He is probably getting used to it! :-) As I said, I hope I never have to fly in one.
>Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
bz - 12 Nov 2005 01:09 GMT > Paul I understand perfectly what you are saying. > I still find it hard to believe, particularly when the plane is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The article claims certain advantages in this...presumably less > drag...OK... They are designed that way in order to increase their manoverability, not to decrease drag.
>>A man is fast enough to back with a trailer - if he >>drives slowly. But try to back at 100 km/h (60 mph)! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > situations. Perhaps it only becomes unstable above a certain speed. That > I can accept. Facts do not depend upon your acceptance.
The aircraft in question are inherently unstable at ALL speeds where they have enough lift to fly.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Black Knight - 12 Nov 2005 04:48 GMT >>>>It is a long time since fighters were stable. >>>>They cannot be flown without a computer. [quoted text clipped - 122 lines] > > HW. Message rating several casks. Androcles.
bz - 10 Nov 2005 04:46 GMT >>>>By the way, modern fighter planes are designed to be UNSTABLE in the >>>>air. The pilot can NOT possibly fly them without the computer to [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I think that is probably a little out of context. > I'm sure the planes would be stable in normal flight. As with some of the other things of which you are sure, you are wrong.
> I think such a servo control system would only apply during fast > maveuvering. Wrong.
> ...but any remote electronic system must work on the principle of > sensing and reducing an error. One of the big problems is to find a > decent compromise between reaction time, senstivity and damping. One > must prevent the thing from building up an oscillation. In this case, the system is designed, on purpose, to REQUIRE inhuman capabilities in order to control the craft.
Take a pencil, wrap 25 gms of solder around the eraser end of the pencil.
Balence the pencil by the point on your finger. That is the way aircraft used to be designed.
Now, move the 25 gms of solder downward until it is just above the bottom end of the pencil. There is now no way a human can react fast enough to balance the pencil. A computer can, however.
Todays fighter aircraft REQUIRE constant computer control.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson - 10 Nov 2005 08:31 GMT >>>>>By the way, modern fighter planes are designed to be UNSTABLE in the >>>>>air. The pilot can NOT possibly fly them without the computer to [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >end of the pencil. There is now no way a human can react fast enough to >balance the pencil. A computer can, however. Oh well I wont argue. Maybe there are advantages in doing it this way...
>Todays fighter aircraft REQUIRE constant computer control. So does today's astronomy. I have a good program that might be of some use.
HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
bz - 10 Nov 2005 11:16 GMT >>>>>>By the way, modern fighter planes are designed to be UNSTABLE in the >>>>>>air. The pilot can NOT possibly fly them without the computer to [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > So does today's astronomy. Constant computer CONTROL?
The computer is to the mind as the lever is to the muscles.
One can use a lever to move a rock or to bash someone in the head. When properly used, a computer is very useful.
> I have a good program that might be of some use. Everyone and everything is of some use.
Some of us serve mankind by providing examples of what NOT to do.
Your program(s) provide{s} some interesting pictures and allows one to explore what might be seen in a certain kind(s) of universe{s}.
 Signature bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Jerry - 01 Nov 2005 12:53 GMT > >> H. Wilson, 2005. > > > >Not peer reviewed. > > Reviewed on sci.physics.relativity Repeatedly and scathingly rejected.
Jerry
Henri Wilson - 02 Nov 2005 00:19 GMT >> >> H. Wilson, 2005. >> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Repeatedly and scathingly rejected. Only by indoctrinated fools who have not presented ONE argument that refutes it.
>Jerry HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Androcles - 02 Nov 2005 04:35 GMT | >> >> H. Wilson, 2005. | >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | Only by indoctrinated fools who have not presented ONE argument that refutes | it. We've got another one that doesn't understand simple logic. Nobody has ever refuted bright green flying elephants lay eggs in black holes, therefore my theory is valid. Message rating one glass. Androcles.
| >Jerry | [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. | The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". Jerry - 05 Nov 2005 22:22 GMT > >> >> H. Wilson, 2005. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Only by indoctrinated fools who have not presented ONE argument > that refutes it. Correct. Not ONE argument, but HUNDREDS, none of which you have satisfactorily answered.
Jerry
Jerry - 05 Nov 2005 22:22 GMT > >> >> H. Wilson, 2005. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Only by indoctrinated fools who have not presented ONE argument > that refutes it. Correct. Not ONE argument, but HUNDREDS, none of which you have satisfactorily answered.
Jerry
Henri Wilson - 06 Nov 2005 22:47 GMT >> >> >> H. Wilson, 2005. >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Correct. Not ONE argument, but HUNDREDS, none of which you >have satisfactorily answered. Nonsense. The BaTh has easily withstood all criticism.
>Jerry HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
Eric Gisse - 06 Nov 2005 23:54 GMT > >> >> >> H. Wilson, 2005. > >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Nonsense. The BaTh has easily withstood all criticism. LIAR. You can't even derive ONE SINGLE RESULT from your theory without using a computer program or sophistry.
THIS IS WHAT I WANT. None of these are too difficult because you keep saying how obvious they are.
The classical derivation of E=mc^2. Pick a theory: Ritzian, Newtonian, whatever. I have asked many times, but you always shrug off my requests and continue to assert that it is possible.
The derivation of gravitational lensing using Newtonian mechanics that yields a result consistant with observation without res
|
|