Re: What is Proper Time?

In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson)
<HW@>
wrote
on Sat, 08 Mar 2008 22:58:20 GMT
<ip46t3tv3bcshga4dpc4gncp3cel289fqg@xxxxxxx>:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 18:38:22 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson)
<HW@>
wrote
on Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:08:00 GMT
<8u
That's what aether theory states.
There is no aether, therefore it's wrong. Why do you even bother with the
maths?

You will, of course, have alternate maths for BaTH, I trust?

the math is obvious.
In BaTh the whole MM apparatus may be considered 'at rest'.

tAB=L/c
tBA=L/c

A little more complicated than that, as the MMX measures
(or attempts to measure) crabwinds versus headwinds;
however, both BaTH and nBat can (and do) assume that the
MMX apparatus is at rest, since the aether "surface" (if
there is one) is essentially frictionless.

BaTh assumes no classical style aether exists.

Hence my terminology of "hockey pucks", and any "aether
wind" is ignorable since the puck's velocity is not
affected thereby.

For its part SR isn't quite as simple to characterize, as
the light photon is moving at c no matter who's observing
it; time and space twist in odd fashions (and are provable
from this hypothesis more or less alone, as Einstein showed
long ago) in order to assure this constancy. It turns
out, mathematically anyway, that the "aether wind" doesn't
affect the photon either, in SR.

Ghost, you must be able to see the funny side of this.
In pure desperation, Einstein found that space and time had to be distorted in
order to maintain constant light speed.

However, TWLS shows nothing regarding nBaT (and presumably
BaTh); the frictionless hockey puck encounters only the
reflecting mirror and is always moving at speed c.

Light normally moves at c wrt it source. ...and all components of the
interferometer.

Only if the source is not moving with respect thereto, in BaTH.

Of course the bloody light source of an interferometer is not movingr.

I would assume that someone's done a variant where MMX is pointing
towards, say, Venus. I'll admit I can't say without looking though,
and proper setup would be difficult unless the MMX is performed
outside of the influence of Earth's gravity. Low earth orbit might
be good enough -- though of course Gravity Probe B was looking for far
subtler effects anyway.

Even if the source was moving it would make no difference.
It would simply mean that the light speed around the apparatus was c+v instead
of c.

If one uses a spinning device to feed the MMX, of size
about 10cm in diameter and running at 12,000 RPM, the edge
speed is about 63 m/s, or 2.1 * 10^-7 c. Bouncing light
off this device (assuming the edge is rotating in the
opposite direction of the beam, in an attempt to slow it
down) should result in something like the following:

lambda/lambda_0[*] nu/nu_0 c/c_0

nBAT: 1 1 - 2.1 * 10^-7 1 - 2.1 * 10^-7
SR: 1 + 2.1 * 10^-7 1 - 2.1 * 10^-7 1
Androcles: 1 - 2.1 * 10^-7 1 1 - 2.1 * 10^-7
BaTH: ? ? ?
Shouldn't you double the value?

Nope. Mathematically, v = lambda * frequency.


BaTh says the same.

It can't say the same. All other theories are
distance-independent. In other words, for both nBAT and
SR the values of lamba and nu are the same regardless of
whether I'm 1 meter, 1 lightyear, or 1 billion lightyears
away (assuming no other artifacts exist that slow down or
speed up light using gravity or other such).

Since BaTH is clearly distance-dependent from your statements,
I can't say it's equal to anything.


Measuring doppler shift tells us nothing except the speed of the wheel.

If the above wheel was set up on top of a high mountain and used to reflect a
pulse from a laser 30 km away, the reflected pulse would travel at 1.0000042c.
The travel time difference when the wheel was and was not rotating would be
about 4E-11 seconds.

This experiment might just be possible with the latest lasers, PMs and clocks.

OK. And if the laser was 15 km, 60 km, or 400,000 km away?



In BaTH the question marks are because the values are
distance- or time-dependent (I have no idea which). Over short
distances I presume BaTH approximates nBAT; over long distances
it approximates SR.

It doesn't even go close to SR. Maybe it approximates an aether theory when
light travels in a dense medium.

The question I have is how short and how long "short" and "long" are.
One presumes a priori that these have a wavelength dependency,
since light is an oscillatory motion.


For christ's sake will you give up this aether nonsense. You are supposed to
be a ballistician, remember

But SR is an aether theory; Androcles has "proven" that. ;-)

Well he should know, he's a great believer in aether theories.

No no...he doesn't believe in SR. If anything, he vehemently disputes
it. He's more in line with BaTH.

Have you seen his silly animation of tAB and tBA.

No, I haven't. Of course since he assumes tAB != tBA, but refuses to
say how they *are* related, I can't draw many useful conclusions.

His animation uses a source 'at rest' and two observers moving in oppposite
directions. Naturally, they measure different times for light to travel the
same distacne.

As they should, if the observers are moving at different speeds.


What Androcles has really done is use a source that is moving at different
speeds wrt the two observers. He has no idea of what Einstein was talking
about.




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95.


--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
/dev/signature/pedantry: Resource temporarily unavailable

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
    ... rejecting BaTh. ... Classical aether theory was dismissed .. ... BaTh as I have not said which direction the light is travelling. ... mecahnisam that is make light trabel at different speeds it is ALWAYS ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What is Proper Time?
    ... There is no aether, therefore it's wrong. ... In BaTh the whole MM apparatus may be considered 'at rest'. ... A little more complicated than that, as the MMX measures ... reflecting mirror and is always moving at speed c. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
    ... rejecting BaTh. ... had been wrong for 200 years about aether and source independence both ... Classical aether theory was dismissed .. ... mecahnisam that is make light trabel at different speeds it is ALWAYS ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Idiot Proof Aether Drift Experiment (OWLS)
    ... >>stationary luminiferous aether was considered by classical physicists, ... and the Earth was moving through the aether as it orbited the Sun. ... with the high velocities of heavenly bodies w.r.t the same frame." ... >compared to the speed of light (and typical speeds within the aether). ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
    ... merely that they are not dependent on which inertial FoR they are tested ... a wave travelling in aether and it is the aether which controls the speed ... them (they can be moving relative to each other). ... number of different speeds resulting in an infinite number of different ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)