Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #392295 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-14 18:01 +1000 |
| Last post | 2016-09-16 06:48 +1000 |
| Articles | 17 on this page of 97 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
AC Gravity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-14 18:01 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-14 17:04 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 15:22 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-15 09:53 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 19:10 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-15 00:01 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-15 17:47 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-15 15:27 +0000
Re: AC Gravity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-16 06:44 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-15 17:16 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-16 11:20 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-15 22:54 +0000
Re: AC Gravity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-16 11:27 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-16 03:58 +0000
Re: AC Gravity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-17 04:58 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 12:18 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-18 05:42 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 21:08 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-18 20:09 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-18 12:57 +0000
Re: AC Gravity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-19 15:11 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 14:37 +0000
Re: AC Gravity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-20 04:44 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 21:47 +0000
Re: AC Gravity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 11:16 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-19 13:22 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-20 04:58 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-19 22:24 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-21 20:04 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 07:20 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-21 20:10 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 07:59 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-22 13:57 +0200
Re: AC Gravity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 09:51 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 09:32 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-20 04:52 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-19 22:35 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-21 20:08 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 07:18 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 14:22 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-16 20:55 +0000
Re: AC Gravity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-18 05:40 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 17:59 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-18 03:18 +0000
Re: AC Gravity. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 07:27 +0200
Re: AC Gravity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-15 17:50 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 07:06 +0200
Re: AC Gravity. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 00:54 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-30 09:44 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-15 11:51 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-16 12:04 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-16 22:17 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-18 06:27 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-20 19:47 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-21 19:48 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 07:21 +0200
Re: AC Gravity. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-22 01:33 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 04:50 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-22 05:53 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-22 14:43 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-23 08:18 +1000
Re: AC Gravity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-22 15:39 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 07:01 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-23 01:12 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-23 09:46 +0000
Re: AC Gravity. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-24 05:37 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-24 07:32 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-25 06:35 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-25 10:58 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-26 02:37 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-26 04:32 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:05 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-25 06:00 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 17:15 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-26 02:54 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 08:29 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-23 05:34 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-26 04:10 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-26 05:30 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-26 06:38 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-27 05:11 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-27 08:47 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-28 10:16 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-28 14:03 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-09-30 05:33 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-30 06:41 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-10-02 02:39 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-02 05:26 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-10-05 04:54 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-06 06:59 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-10-09 05:25 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 06:06 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 10:06 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2016-10-12 08:28 -0700
Re: AC Gravity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 08:32 -0500
Re: AC Gravity. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-15 15:38 +0200
Re: AC Gravity. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-16 06:48 +1000
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 05:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bccffc21-c22c-410c-8f9f-b6d5c3e84f6c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393849 |
Gary Harnagel... You mention lesage is just a belief. Couple of points. First of all Lesage is particulate. Im suggesting waves. I only refer to leSage as a reference to Push gravity. Otherwise Im not promoting any of his detailed speculations. Particles are not waves. Second. Its true it is assumption only. But so are SR and pull gravity. Nobody knows what really happens at those scales. Why do push gravity proponents have to explain what noother model does. >> any point in a pushgravity explanation can be immediately experienced > by any object regardless of the speed of the " gravity". >Oh, it's MUCH MORE than just an analogy. No, look at my first mention of it. I clearly say ANALOGY. Go to any point around/ near the sun. In a push model at that point there already is more "gravity" energy coming towards the sun at that point than away from the sun. Regardless of whether or not the earth or any mass is at that point. So when an object moves into that position it experiences an immediate imbalance of pressure pointing directly at the sun. It doesnt have to wait for gravity from the sun to reach out at c. And to address your point about the suns motion around the galaxy being a problem. I dont see this as a problem. Every body or mass is surrounded by a infinite isotropic sea of this wave energy. The universe and its vacuum Isotropally distributed energy surrounds and goes through each atom . Each atom is its own restframe as per MMX. ( SR is out in a push model) So each objects shadow is always in its own restframe. Sagnac and MMX are proof that in a classical model light is always at c in the source frame only. >> Anyways gas is particulate and I wasnt suggesting, incorrectly like > leSage, that gravity is particulate. Its wave based and emr does not > effect mass in the >>ame way as other mass does. >EMR has momentum, so it DOES affect objects the same way particles do. Waves transfer momentum ... and energy. Waves transfer energy yes. Momentum no. Emr waves do not have momentum. Particles do. A wave model transfers energy by changing the magnetic field. If I rotate a magnet and it induces a nearby magnet to rotate. Is that momentum? I dont consider that momentum but maybe others do. >> For instance: Particles like gas slow down orbital paths. But does light > from the rest of the universe slow down the earths orbit as the earth > speeds >>through this light? >Yes, it does. Light hitting the earth in front is Doppler-shifted to higher energy (and lower momentum) and light hitting the back side is Doppler-shifted to >Lower energy (and lower momentum). Thus there is a net force, albeit very, very small. Its an interesting point. Are orbital speeds of planets slowed just by light from the rest of the universe. You seem to suggest that this light does impart force. In a sense thats consistent with me saying gravitational pressure is wave based emr. Except I think its from energies much higher than currently observed >> > And I notice that you have not addressed the problem of heating due to > > absorption of the "waves" which you haven't bothered to identify either. > > >>fair enough points to raise, even though relativity or newtonian > pull gravity cant even begin to explain any mechanisms. >Well, relativity certainly DOES begin to explain gravity, but "explaining" isn't what physics is about. Sure, I myself would like to know WHY things happen, but >The universe is a mysterious place that we are just beginning to explore. How does a steam engine make the car move? Thats mechanics and its important. We have to do the same at the atomic level to truely harness the vacuum energy. “I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” -- Isaac Newton. Thats all I do. Why was it OK for Newton, but not for me? > First of all, you would have to ignore the fact that the earths core and > the sun do heat up, due to gravity. >The effects of tidal forces are well known, so I don't have to "ignore" anything at all. But your claim requires you to do a calculation of just how much energy is absorbed by an object being bombarded by all of these undetectable particles. Take a spherical spacecraft in orbit, say. How much energy is required to >deflect it from a straight line so it follows a curved path. It's pretty stupendous, I would think. Why would a push gravity need more force than any other model? If it was waves then yes I would assume this energy travels through any mass. It would have to. Otherwise atoms would not stay the same weight. But one can only speculate how it does impart the force observed as gravity. I have certain ideas but you are not interested(*). Whats important is....no model explains any mechanism. So push should be given the respect of parity at least. (*)My assumption is that atoms are like raised nodes/standing waves on the surface of a resonating volume of water. The energy of that node comes completely from the waves passing *through* the node. Turn off the vibration and that node/ atom no longer exists. So vacuum wave energy bouncing around an infinite non BB universe is what powers atoms. Gravity is what happens when atoms somehow screen this energy as a shadow. The only way I can think to give more detail is to say that some of the passing directional emr waves are reradiated isotropically as electro weak, strong, magnetic forces. These forces in turn become heat or motion of atoms. So no accumulation of energy occurs in each atom. Gravity effects are a redistribution and redirection of vacuum energy. But I can only assume. Nobody knows what gravity is. >Furthermore, these waves (or particles) must have a very small interaction cross-section else gravity would be dependent on surface area rather than mass. In fact, most of wave energy must pass right through objects, so the push-wave-idea leads to a stupendous energy flux of which we are somehow completely >unaware. BIGTIME suspension of disbelief. You mean suspension of belief? Anyways you hit it on the nail head. Yes, there must be huge energies passing through us. But not infinite. And Why not? There's nothing yet to disprove this assumption. In fact Im under the impression that the concept of the vacuum quantum foam plays with this idea.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 08:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4ad47e5a-0b68-42c2-908a-73f5dfd4c000@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393979 |
On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 6:11:50 AM UTC-6, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote: > > You mention lesage is just a belief. So is a wave speculation. > Couple of points. First of all Lesage is particulate. Irrelevant. Particles can act as waves and waves can act as particles. I stipulated waves, too, so why are you bellyaching? > Im suggesting waves. I only refer to leSage as a reference to Push gravity. And I did, too. You are splitting hairs. Besides, particles carry energy and momentum and waves carry energy and momentum. Particles can be absorbed or reflected, waves can be absorbed or reflected. > Otherwise Im not promoting any of his detailed speculations. Particles are > not waves. An unsubstantiated assertion which I have refuted. > Second. Its true it is assumption only. But so are SR and pull gravity. SR is NOT assumption (the "assumptions" are Principle of Relativity and invariant light speed, both of which are supported by copious experiments and neither of which have been refuted), but that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. GR does not subscribe to "pull" gravity and it's not an "assumption" either. It is a theory that is verified by many, many experiments and refuted by none. Your "wave" Le Sage is not even a theory: it's a speculation. > Nobody knows what really happens at those scales. What scales? > Why do push gravity proponents have to explain what noother model does. Because it's a speculation with no experimental support. > > > any point in a pushgravity explanation can be immediately experienced > > > by any object regardless of the speed of the " gravity". > > > Oh, it's MUCH MORE than just an analogy. > > No, look at my first mention of it. I clearly say ANALOGY. It doesn't matter what you SAY. What matters is whether you are RIGHT. > Go to any point around/ near the sun. In a push model at that > point there already is more "gravity" energy coming towards the > sun at that point than away from the sun. Just how much would that be? Remember, MOST of the "waves" must pass right through the sun, else shielding would be obvious. It's not. > Regardless of whether or not the earth or any mass is at that point. > So when an object moves into that position it experiences an immediate > imbalance of pressure pointing directly at the sun. Nope, because the sun isn't there any more. It has moved on. The net force will be toward where the sun WAS. That would be catastrophic for any solar system. > It doesnt have to wait for gravity from the sun to reach out at c. This is false assertion. > And to address your point about the suns motion around the galaxy being > a problem. I dont see this as a problem. Of course YOU don't. > Every body or mass is surrounded by a infinite isotropic sea of this wave > energy. It's not isotropic to a body moving through it. > .... > > > > Anyways gas is particulate and I wasnt suggesting, incorrectly like > > > leSage, that gravity is particulate. Its wave based and emr does not > > > effect mass in the >>ame way as other mass does. > > > EMR has momentum, so it DOES affect objects the same way particles do. > > Waves transfer momentum ... and energy. > > Waves transfer energy yes. Momentum no. Emr waves do not have momentum. Another false assertion: p = E/c. > Particles do. A wave model transfers energy by changing the magnetic field. > If I rotate a magnet and it induces a nearby magnet to rotate. Is that > momentum? I dont consider that momentum but maybe others do. Of course it's momentum transfer. Are you daft? p = m*v where v is velocity. Did the second magnet MOVE? Of COURSE it did! > > > For instance: Particles like gas slow down orbital paths. But does light > > > from the rest of the universe slow down the earths orbit as the earth > > > speeds through this light? > > > Yes, it does. Light hitting the earth in front is Doppler-shifted to > > higher energy (and lower momentum) and light hitting the back side is > > Doppler-shifted to Lower energy (and lower momentum). Thus there is a > > net force, albeit very, very small. > > Its an interesting point. Are orbital speeds of planets > slowed just by light from the rest of the universe. You seem > to suggest that this light does impart force. In a sense thats > consistent with me saying gravitational pressure is wave > based emr. Except I think its from energies much higher than > currently observed You believe your "waves" are EMR? You are definitely chewing hempweed. > > Well, relativity certainly DOES begin to explain gravity, but "explaining" > > isn't what physics is about. Sure, I myself would like to know WHY things > > happen, but The universe is a mysterious place that we are just beginning > > to explore. > > How does a steam engine make the car move? Thats mechanics and its important. > We have to do the same at the atomic level to truely harness the vacuum > energy. Don't change the subject. > > “I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and > > then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst > > the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” -- Isaac Newton. > > Thats all I do. Why was it OK for Newton, but not for me? Because Newton did experiments, he looked at pebbles and shells. All you do is sit on your bum and fantasize. > > > First of all, you would have to ignore the fact that the earths core and > > > the sun do heat up, due to gravity. > > > The effects of tidal forces are well known, so I don't have to "ignore" > > anything at all. But your claim requires you to do a calculation of just > > how much energy is absorbed by an object being bombarded by all of these > > undetectable particles. Take a spherical spacecraft in orbit, say. How > > much energy is required to deflect it from a straight line so it follows > > a curved path. It's pretty stupendous, I would think. > > Why would a push gravity need more force than any other model? Newtonian gravity and GR don't transfer heat energy to the particles of an object. You have introduced "mechanics" into the milieu and mechanical actions produce heat. Take an object. Your waves impinge upon its surface. What happens? Are they absorbed or reflected from the surface? Well, certainly not a measurable amount else we could build gravity shields like Dr. Cavor did in fiction. In order to agree with observation the waves must be PERFECTLY reflected when they interact with matter or they will cause matter to heat up significantly. Take a ball sitting on a thermal insulator which is on the ground. Your waves must be continually bombarding the ball, so even if there was the SLIGHTEST degree of absorption, the ball's temperature would rise to extremes. > If it was waves then yes I would assume this energy travels through any > mass. It would have to. Otherwise atoms would not stay the same weight. > But one can only speculate how it does impart the force observed as gravity. You specify mechanical action. It must do it either by absorption or reflection. It can't be absorption, so the waves interact with elementary particles and are reflected. This means that at some density and thickness, matter becomes a gravity shield. > I have certain ideas but you are not interested(*). Whats important is....no > model explains any mechanism. So push should be given the respect > of parity at least. Show some experimental evidence of these waves. Otherwise it's just a pipe dream. > (*)My assumption is that atoms are like raised nodes/standing waves on > the surface of a resonating volume of water. The energy of that node > comes completely from the waves passing *through* the node. Turn off > the vibration and that node/ atom no longer exists. So vacuum wave > energy bouncing around an infinite non BB universe is what powers > atoms. Gravity is what happens when atoms somehow screen this > energy as a shadow. > The only way I can think to give more detail is to say that some of the > passing directional emr waves are reradiated isotropically as electro weak, strong, > magnetic forces. These forces in turn become heat or motion of atoms. So > no accumulation of energy occurs in each atom. Gravity effects are a redistribution > and redirection of vacuum energy. But I can only assume. Nobody knows > what gravity is. > > > Furthermore, these waves (or particles) must have a very small interaction > > cross-section else gravity would be dependent on surface area rather than > > mass. In fact, most of wave energy must pass right through objects, so the > > push-wave-idea leads to a stupendous energy flux of which we are somehow > > completely >unaware. BIGTIME suspension of disbelief. > > You mean suspension of belief? Nope, I disbelieve that there can be such a stupendously large yet unmeasurable energy flux, so I must suspend my disbelief to even consider push gravity. > Anyways you hit it on the nail head. Yes, there must be huge > energies passing through us. But not infinite. And Why not? There's > nothing yet to disprove this assumption. In fact Im under the > impression that the concept of the vacuum quantum foam plays > with this idea. Vacuum energy is the crutch most free-energy cranks lean on to explain their unworkable schemes these days :-) But the virtual particle sea is "real" in the sense that it explains certain observations such as vacuum polarization and such. The recombination of virtual electrons and positrons emit virtual photons which, if they could be observed, with energies of 550 keV. This energy level is not at all transparent to matter and is routinely absorbed in matter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 10:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ffff7597-cf65-4a0d-a49d-bc5eb1b777bd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393998 |
Sep 27 Gary Harnagel On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 6:11:50 AM UTC-6, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote: >> You mention lesage is just a belief. >So is a wave speculation. And GR. The advantage with a wave model is we know waves exist in emr. GR, on the other hand has only magic and unverified assumption. Thats called pseudoscience. >> Otherwise Im not promoting any of his detailed speculations. Particles are > not waves. >An unsubstantiated assertion which I have refuted. When you have proof that photons exist let me know. So far its only wild speculation. No actual observation. >> Second. Its true it is assumption only. But so are SR and pull gravity. >SR is NOT assumption (the "assumptions" are Principle of Relativity and invariant light speed, both of which are supported by copious experiments and >neither of which have been refuted), but that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. There is no experiment that confirms invariance. On the other MMX, sagnac FIZEAU, KT, Ives Stillwell etc...all confirm lightspeed is source dependent >GR does not subscribe to "pull" gravity and it's not an "assumption" either. It is a theory that is verified by many, many experiments and refuted by none. >your "wave" Le Sage is not even a theory: it's a speculation. There is no observation in physics or astrophysics that cannot be explained classically. You are delusional. >> Why do push gravity proponents have to explain what no other model does. >Because it's a speculation with no experimental support. Aah! Like GR. > > > any point in a pushgravity explanation can be immediately experienced > > > by any object regardless of the speed of the " gravity". >> Go to any point around/ near the sun. In a push model at that > point there already is more "gravity" energy coming towards the > sun at that point than away from the sun. >Just how much would that be? Remember, MOST of the "waves" must pass right through the sun, else shielding would be obvious. It's not. What you fail to realize is its not how much is pushing from one direction. Its the difference between two opposing directions. And that quantifiable. By many theorists since Newton. >> Regardless of whether or not the earth or any mass is at that point. > So when an object moves into that position it experiences an immediate > imbalance of pressure pointing directly at the sun. >Nope, because the sun isn't there any more. It has moved on. The net force will be toward where the sun WAS. That would be catastrophic for any solar >system. Wrong again. At any point in space and at any point in time there is a pressure imbalance. In the suns frame. There is proof for this. Gravity appears to act instantaneously. >> It doesnt have to wait for gravity from the sun to reach out at c. >This is false assertion. You mean false assumption. Relativists even talk about the speed of gravity. Obviously youve forgotten your religious tutoring in Relativity class. >> Every body or mass is surrounded by a infinite isotropic sea of this wave > energy. >it's not isotropic to a body moving through it. Yeah right Gary. Move to the left and you're closer to the left hand edge of the universe. Pulll the other one vicar. >> Waves transfer energy yes. Momentum no. Emr waves do not have momentum. >Another false assertion: p = E/c. And yet another false assumption. Photons have yet to be observed. >> Particles do. A wave model transfers energy by changing the magnetic field. > If I rotate a magnet and it induces a nearby magnet to rotate. Is that > momentum? I dont consider that momentum but maybe others do. >Of course it's momentum transfer. Are you daft? p = m*v where v is velocity. Did the second magnet MOVE? Of COURSE it did! Depends if you call rotation a movement. If the two magnets are fixed at the center but allowed to rotate. Rotate the first and the second magnet rotates. Did it move farther away? No. > > > For instance: Particles like gas slow down orbital paths. But does light > > > from the rest of the universe slow down the earths orbit as the earth > > > speeds through this light? >> > Yes, it does. Light hitting the earth in front is Doppler-shifted to > > higher energy (and lower momentum) and light hitting the back side is > > Doppler-shifted to Lower energy (and lower momentum). Thus there is a > > net force, albeit very, very small. >> Its an interesting point. Are orbital speeds of planets > slowed just by light from the rest of the universe. You seem > to suggest that this light does impart force. In a sense thats > consistent with me saying gravitational pressure is wave > based emr. Except I think its from energies much higher than > currently observed >You believe your "waves" are EMR? You are definitely chewing hempweed. I think you are. Are you suggesting emr has no observed wave properties? Ha ha.! >> > Well, relativity certainly DOES begin to explain gravity, but "explaining" > > isn't what physics is about. Sure, I myself would like to know WHY things > > happen, but The universe is a mysterious place that we are just beginning > > to explore. >> How does a steam engine make the car move? Thats mechanics and its important. > We have to do the same at the atomic level to truely harness the vacuum > energy. >Don't change the subject. So a steam engine has no moving parts? Interesting >> > “I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and > > then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst > > the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” -- Isaac Newton. >> Thats all I do. Why was it OK for Newton, but not for me? >Because Newton did experiments, he looked at pebbles and shells. All you do is sit on your bum and fantasize. Sounds just like you gary. A serial fantasist with no evidence for relativity. > > > First of all, you would have to ignore the fact that the earths core and > > > the sun do heat up, due to gravity. > > The effects of tidal forces are well known, so I don't have to "ignore" > > anything at all. But your claim requires you to do a calculation of just > > how much energy is absorbed by an object being bombarded by all of these > > undetectable particles. Take a spherical spacecraft in orbit, say. How > > much energy is required to deflect it from a straight line so it follows > > a curved path. It's pretty stupendous, I would think. >> Why would a push gravity need more force than any other model? >Newtonian gravity and GR don't transfer heat energy to the particles of an object. You have introduced "mechanics" into the milieu and mechanical actions produce heat. Take an object. Your waves impinge upon its surface. What happens? Are they absorbed or reflected from the surface? Well, certainly not a >measurable amount else we could build gravity shields like Dr. Cavor did in fiction. What surface? A resonating node in a wave only atom has no edge. This is observed the closer we look at atoms. >In order to agree with observation the waves must be PERFECTLY reflected when they interact with matter or they will cause matter to heat up significantly. Take a ball sitting on a thermal insulator which is on the ground. Your waves must be continually bombarding the ball, so even if there was the SLIGHTEST >degree of absorption, the ball's temperature would rise to extremes. Get this straight Gary. When I say atoms in thus model are not particles. I mean,... they arent particles. They are resonating nodal points in a sea of emr radiation. >> If it was waves then yes I would assume this energy travels through any > mass. It would have to. Otherwise atoms would not stay the same weight. > But one can only speculate how it does impart the force observed as gravity. >You specify mechanical action. It must do it either by absorption or reflection. It can't be absorption, so the waves interact with elementary particles and are reflected. This means that at some density and thickness, matter becomes a gravity shield. Resonance is absorbtion. Apply more wave energy to a vibrating volume of water and the standing waves increase. Although infinitely. That nodal point of raised vibrating water has no edge. No surface. This is all observed the closer we look at atoms. >> I have certain ideas but you are not interested(*). Whats important is....no > model explains any mechanism. So push should be given the respect > of parity at least. >Show some experimental evidence of these waves. Otherwise it's just a pipe dream. If you need evidence to show emr has wave properties...you're in the wrong newsgroup. >> (*)My assumption is that atoms are like raised nodes/standing waves on > the surface of a resonating volume of water. The energy of that node > comes completely from the waves passing *through* the node. Turn off > the vibration and that node/ atom no longer exists. So vacuum wave > energy bouncing around an infinite non BB universe is what powers > atoms. Gravity is what happens when atoms somehow screen this > energy as a shadow. > The only way I can think to give more detail is to say that some of the > passing directional emr waves are reradiated isotropically as electro weak, strong, > magnetic forces. These forces in turn become heat or motion of atoms. So > no accumulation of energy occurs in each atom. Gravity effects are a redistribution > and redirection of vacuum energy. But I can only assume. Nobody knows > what gravity is. >> > Furthermore, these waves (or particles) must have a very small interaction > > cross-section else gravity would be dependent on surface area rather than > > mass. In fact, most of wave energy must pass right through objects, so the > > push-wave-idea leads to a stupendous energy flux of which we are somehow > > completely >unaware. BIGTIME suspension of disbelief. >> You mean suspension of belief? >Nope, I disbelieve that there can be such a stupendously large yet unmeasurable energy flux, so I must suspend my disbelief to even consider push gravity. Its interesting. Here you say you cant believe there is large unobserved " energy flux". Yet below when QT posits this same idea. Suddenly you can believe it. Thats called religious dogma. Only your religion is correct. Nothing else including science is valid. >> Anyways you hit it on the nail head. Yes, there must be huge > energies passing through us. But not infinite. And Why not? There's > nothing yet to disprove this assumption. In fact Im under the > impression that the concept of the vacuum quantum foam plays > with this idea. >Vacuum energy is the crutch most free-energy cranks lean on to explain their unworkable schemes these days :-) You mean quantum theorists are cranks? I agree on that point. >But the virtual particle sea is "real" in the sense that it explains certain observations such as vacuum polarization and such. The recombination of virtual electrons and positrons emit virtual photons which, if they could be observed, with energies of 550 keV. This energy level is not at all transparent to matter >and is routinely absorbed in matter. I note you accept that this sea of energy that I also talk about, is possible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 14:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3c73317f-61c0-445c-9cb4-01c3186e7435@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394135 |
On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 11:16:26 AM UTC-6, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Sep 27 Gary Harnagel > > > > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 6:11:50 AM UTC-6, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > > > > You mention lesage is just a belief. > > > > So is a wave speculation. > > And GR. Nope. As I said before, GR predicts actual observations, your push gravity has done nothing of the sort. THAT'S why it's a weak speculation. > The advantage with a wave model is we know waves exist in emr. Irrelevant. Your push waves cannot be EMR. > GR, on the other hand has only magic and unverified assumption. You insist on remaining in your stupidity. GR has predicted many phenomena that have been observed and measured. Only a retard would deny that. > Thats called pseudoscience. Actually, your push gravity is not even pseudoscience. > > > Otherwise Im not promoting any of his detailed speculations. Particles > > > are not waves. > > > > An unsubstantiated assertion which I have refuted. > > When you have proof that photons exist let me know. So far > its only wild speculation. No actual observation. Oh, good grief! Your assertion is the height of stupidity and crankdom. > > > Second. Its true it is assumption only. But so are SR and pull gravity. > > > > SR is NOT assumption (the "assumptions" are Principle of Relativity and > > invariant light speed, both of which are supported by copious experiments > > and >neither of which have been refuted), but that's irrelevant to the > > discussion at hand. > > There is no experiment that confirms invariance. You are an out-and-out crank and a slimy liar. > On the other MMX, sagnac FIZEAU, KT, Ives Stillwell etc...all confirm > lightspeed is source dependent No, they don't. You are a filthy crank and a vomitous prevaricator. > > GR does not subscribe to "pull" gravity and it's not an "assumption" > > either. It is a theory that is verified by many, many experiments and > > refuted by none. your "wave" Le Sage is not even a theory: it's a > > speculation. > > There is no observation in physics or astrophysics that cannot be > explained classically. You are a filthy liar and a vomitous crank. You are delusional. > > > Why do push gravity proponents have to explain what no other model does. > > > > Because it's a speculation with no experimental support. > > Aah! Like GR. Ah ha! You lie again, you filthy crank. Why do you keep soiling yourself? > > > > any point in a pushgravity explanation can be immediately experienced > > > by any object regardless of the speed of the " gravity". > > > > > > Go to any point around/ near the sun. In a push model at that point > > > there already is more "gravity" energy coming towards the sun at that > > > point than away from the sun. > > > > Just how much would that be? Remember, MOST of the "waves" must pass right > through the sun, else shielding would be obvious. It's not. > > What you fail to realize is its not how much is pushing from one direction. > Its the difference between two opposing directions. And that quantifiable. > By many theorists since Newton. So you are mentally blind. That's a common symptom of cranks. > > > Regardless of whether or not the earth or any mass is at that point. > > > So when an object moves into that position it experiences an immediate > > > imbalance of pressure pointing directly at the sun. > > > > Nope, because the sun isn't there any more. It has moved on. The net > > force will be toward where the sun WAS. That would be catastrophic for > > any solar >system. > > Wrong again. At any point in space and at any point in time there is a > pressure imbalance. Really? Do you even understand what you just babbled? > In the suns frame. There is proof for this. Gravity appears to act > instantaneously. This is explained by GR, no one needs a crank speculation like pushy gravity. > > > It doesnt have to wait for gravity from the sun to reach out at c. > > > This is false assertion. > > You mean false assumption. Nope. You ASSERT. Another symptom of a crank. > Relativists even talk about the speed of gravity. And your point is? > Obviously youve forgotten your religious tutoring in Relativity class. I never took a class that discussed GR. You're still asserting baloney. > > > Every body or mass is surrounded by a infinite isotropic sea of this > > > wave energy. > > > > it's not isotropic to a body moving through it. > > Yeah right Gary. Move to the left and you're closer to the left hand > edge of the universe. Pulll the other one vicar. So you really are a stupid crank who never studied physics. Got it! > > > Waves transfer energy yes. Momentum no. Emr waves do not have momentum. > > > > Another false assertion: p = E/c. > > And yet another false assumption. Photons have yet to be observed. Repeating a lie does not make it so. Photons are actually neither pure particles nor pure waves. They have properties of both. Besides, I observe photons every day, are you blind? I also observe them with my scintillation counter, and the photoelectric effect confirms the particle property of photons. > > > Particles do. A wave model transfers energy by changing the magnetic > > > field. If I rotate a magnet and it induces a nearby magnet to rotate. > > > Is that momentum? I dont consider that momentum but maybe others do. > > > > Of course it's momentum transfer. Are you daft? p = m*v where v is > > velocity. Did the second magnet MOVE? Of COURSE it did! > > Depends if you call rotation a movement. If you don't, then you are stupider than dirt. > If the two magnets are fixed > at the center but allowed to rotate. Rotate the first and the second magnet > rotates. Did it move farther away? No. Irrelevant. Are you trying to be deceptive or are you just stupid? I'm tired of your crappy formatting that I have to fix and your endless yammering about things you're too arrogant to understand. My recommendation is get some physics books and pound them up your butt until they fill that vacuum in your head. Nobody cares about your stupid wavy Le Sage. It has been refuted in so many ways that only cranks and idiots belief that offal. The universe is MUCH more complicated than you imagine in your fantasies. “Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.” -- J.B.S. Haldane
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 05:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fc3a0502-d1ee-48a0-ab53-a078f4905fbb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394169 |
Gary Harnagel tried to write... > .... Wow Gary, that was one hell of a post full of bile, invective,smears etc, but totally lacking any intellectual substance Typical response from a relativist when they can't supply any evidence to back up there erroneous claims. Let's look at GR. Relativists say there is a speed of gravity. But neglect to tell us what is speeding. Because they don't know. NASA and most of the astrophysics community use Newtonian pull gravity and don't seemed to mind that there is no explanation for what exactly is 'pulling'. Yet when it comes to a push gravity suddenly the monkeys come out of the forest and start howling. "How does it work". Forgetting they don't know how any model works. The fact is push gravity can explain how a finite speed CAN appear instantaneous. Simply by having gravity as being the difference in strength between two opposing forces. Relativity has so many failures and not a single verified prediction. Not only that but relativists are such bad mathematicians they can't even correctly model what a classical model predicts.... http://physicsexplained.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/ives-stillwell-modelled-as-classical.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 06:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <516ad8c2-4dfe-4224-84f2-e0c5b245ca4d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394363 |
On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 6:33:11 AM UTC-6, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Gary Harnagel tried to write... > > .... > > Wow Gary, that was one hell of a post full of bile, invective,smears etc, You deserve it. > but totally lacking any intellectual substance Wow! You are lying AGAIN! I said: "As I said before, GR predicts actual observations, your push gravity has done nothing of the sort. THAT'S why it's a weak speculation. There's your "intellectual substance" which you are incapable of recognizing because you are a stupid troll. > Typical response from a relativist when they can't supply any evidence > to back up there erroneous claims. See? You are just a stupid crank. You have been given evidence by me and others here, but you're just arrogant and stupid and can't think rationally. > Let's look at GR. Relativists say there is a speed of gravity. But neglect > to tell us what is speeding. Because they don't know. Irrelevant. > NASA and most of the astrophysics community use Newtonian pull gravity > and don't seemed to mind that there is no explanation for what exactly > is 'pulling'. Why do you believe we have to know that? Are you autistic? Anyway, you are wrong about astrophysicists. > Yet when it comes to a push gravity suddenly the monkeys come out of > the forest and start howling. "How does it work". The levelheaded refutation of your wavy push gravity violates so many principles of physics as well as being refuted by experimental evidence. > Forgetting they don't know how any model works. So why do you emphasize that about the standard theories? Hypocrite! > The fact is push gravity can explain how a finite speed CAN appear > instantaneous. No, it can't. I have refuted your assertion. > Simply by having gravity as being the difference in strength between two > opposing forces. Sorry, that is a refuted assertion. > Relativity has so many failures and not a single verified prediction. Now there is the proof that you are a stupid crank and a dishonest fool. Anyone who asserts that bullshit doesn't deserve respect. > Not only that but relativists are such bad mathematicians they can't even > correctly model what a classical model predicts.... > http://physicsexplained.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/ives-stillwell-modelled-as-classical.html Why would I look at anything posted by a stupid crank ignoramus? I can tell it's bullshit just by looking at the address. Why do you stuff your head with nonsense instead of reading some REAL information? http://home.fnal.gov/~pompos/light/light_page18.html http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2014-4/fulltext.html http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 02:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <987b5f30-4d41-41ef-89cf-f0d2834ca278@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394374 |
Gary pooped... > >> Not only that but relativists are such bad mathematicians they can't even >> correctly model what a classical model predicts.... >> http://physicsexplained.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/ives-stillwell-modelled-as-classical.html >Why would I look at anything posted by a stupid crank ignoramus? I can >tell it's bullshit just by looking at the address If you can't be bothered to read the excellent analysis here... http://physicsexplained.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/ives-stillwell-modelled-as-classical.html Then try answering this... The predicted doppler shift for classical theory is calculated by relativists using... W1=W(1+-v/c). Where W1 is observed doppler shifted wavelength and W is restframe wavelength. So if v were 0.5c and W was 100 nm, then approaching blueshifted light would be 50 nm and receding would be 150 nm. Which is what relativists call a null result for classical theory ( ie, wavelength change is the same amount for both red and blueshifted in classical). Hence the well used argument that classical theory cannot correctly model the observed offset displacement in the spectra in the Ives Stillwell experiment. This is incorrect. If v is+- 0.5 c then the total observed speed of the blueshifted light under classical theory is 1.5 c and for redshifted light it is 0.5 c. Now if if one looks at the the redshifted lightspeed first: It is 1/2 the speed of the restframe light. If the restframe wavelength is 100 nm at c then at 1/2 c it will appear to be the same as 200 nm light at c ( thats the appearance of double the wavelength for half the frequency) And for the blueshifted light; 100 nm at 1.5c will appear to be the same as 66.66 nm of light at c in the spectrograph. In other words classical theory actually predicts that a restframe wavelength of 100 nm will have its observed wavelength stretched by 100 nm when receding at 0.5 c but ONLY compressed by approximately 33.33 nm when approaching. On the linear scale this would give an offset, not a null result. And this is observed in Ives Stilwell. In other words for monkeys like Gary, this means that a classical model CAN predict the offset seen in the experiment. It's worth noting that Gary was unable to supply any reasonable mathematical refutation. An admission that relativists don't know how to do even basic maths. Either that or they're unable to admit they got it wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 05:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1873bb4e-f3cd-4420-b2f5-bf7f881835cc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394579 |
On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 3:39:27 AM UTC-6, jaymo...@hotmail.com pooped: > > Gary sagely wrote: > > > > > Not only that but relativists are such bad mathematicians they can't even > > > correctly model what a classical model predicts.... > > > http://physicsexplained.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/ives-stillwell-modelled-as-classical.html > > > > Why would I look at anything posted by a stupid crank ignoramus? I can > > tell it's bullshit just by looking at the address > > If you can't be bothered to read the excellent analysis here... > http://physicsexplained.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/ives-stillwell-modelled-as-classical.html > Then try answering this... > The predicted doppler shift for classical theory is calculated by > relativists using... W1=W(1+-v/c). Where W1 is observed doppler shifted > wavelength and W is restframe wavelength. Actually, that equation is valid ONLY for waves traveling SLOWER that the speed of the wave wrt the medium: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect > So if v were 0.5c and W was 100 nm, then approaching blueshifted light > would be 50 nm and receding would be 150 nm. Which is what relativists > call a null result for classical theory ( ie, wavelength change is the > same amount for both red and blueshifted in classical). Hence the well > used argument that classical theory cannot correctly model the observed > offset displacement in the spectra in the Ives Stillwell experiment. > This is incorrect. If v is+- 0.5 c then the total observed speed of the > blueshifted light under classical theory is 1.5 c Nope, because then the equation would be invalid because v is greater than the speed of the wave, making the equation invalid. The problem you present has a serious flaw: in the I-S experiment, the value of v was much, much less than c (v = .005c): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ives%E2%80%93Stilwell_experiment Consequently, the anisotropy you envision is MUCH smaller than the effect of the relativistic anomaly. > [Irrelevant baloney deleted] > In other words for monkeys like Gary, this means that a classical model > CAN predict the offset seen in the experiment. As I have demonstrated, the monkey is Jaymo... :-) > It's worth noting that Gary was unable to supply any reasonable mathematical > refutation. It's worth noting that I didn't even READ the blog nonsense so how could I have refuted it? > An admission that relativists don't know how to do even basic maths. :-)) > Either that or they're unable to admit they got it wrong. Let's see if an incompetent crank (or a dishonest crank) is able admit that HE is wrong :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 04:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2fdf7009-37ad-4737-b8aa-1fc3433c8164@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394587 |
Gary Harnagel http://physicsexplained.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/ives-stillwell-modelled-as-classical.html >> Then try answering this... >> The predicted doppler shift for classical theory is calculated by >> relativists using... W1=W(1+-v/c). Where W1 is observed doppler shifted >> wavelength and W is restframe wavelength. >Actually, that equation is valid ONLY for waves traveling SLOWER that >the speed of the wave wrt the medium: Total nonsensical garbled statement showing you have no idea of the experiment. Here's a quote from the I-S wiki page... "When we invert these relationships so that they relate to wavelengths rather than frequencies, "classical theory" predicts redshifted and blueshifted wavelength values of 1 + v/c and 1 − v/c, so if all three wavelengths (redshifted, blueshifted and original) are marked on a linear scale, according to classical theory the three marks should be perfectly evenly spaced" In other words Ives Stillwell incorrectly assume classical predicts the same wavelength stretch for both receding and approaching source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect >> So if v were 0.5c and W was 100 nm, then approaching blueshifted light >> would be 50 nm and receding would be 150 nm. Which is what relativists >> call a null result for classical theory ( ie, wavelength change is the >> same amount for both red and blueshifted in classical). Hence the well >> used argument that classical theory cannot correctly model the observed >> offset displacement in the spectra in the Ives Stillwell experiment. >>This is incorrect. If v is+- 0.5 c then the total observed speed of the >> blueshifted light under classical theory is 1.5 c >Nope, because then the equation would be invalid because v is greater >than the speed of the wave, making the equation invalid. If v is the speed of the wave how can v be greater than the speed of the wave? You are talking nonsense again. >The problem you present has a serious flaw: in the I-S experiment, the >value of v was much, much less than c (v = .005c): 0.5 was an example only. .005 c will also give an offset for classical, contrary to the erroneous claims by relativists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ives%E2%80%93Stilwell_experiment >Consequently, the anisotropy you envision is MUCH smaller than the effect >of the relativistic anomaly Oh!, now you admit there is an offset for classical contrary to your earlier claims there isn't. About time you admitted your mistake.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 06:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3251d8df-ae21-488c-a0a2-a1f7d98e8e8d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394908 |
On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 5:54:46 AM UTC-6, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Gary Harnagel > http://physicsexplained.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/ives-stillwell-modelled-as-classical.html > >> Then try answering this... > >> The predicted doppler shift for classical theory is calculated by > >> relativists using... W1=W(1+-v/c). Where W1 is observed doppler shifted > >> wavelength and W is restframe wavelength. > > > Actually, that equation is valid ONLY for waves traveling SLOWER that > > the speed of the wave wrt the medium: > > Total nonsensical garbled statement showing you have no idea of the > experiment. You are describing yourself quite well. > Here's a quote from the I-S wiki page... Yeah, yeah, that is an APPROXIMATION, goo only for speeds much lower than speed of a wave in the medium. For light, it only applies to speeds much lower than the speed of light, as I said. The correct relationship is f = f0*sqrt[(1 + v/c)/(1 - v/c)] As you will note, provided that you're not completely incompetent at math, that equation reduces to f0*(1 + v/c) for small v. > In other words Ives Stillwell incorrectly assume classical predicts the > same wavelength stretch for both receding and approaching source. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect Repeating nonsense does not make it so. > > >This is incorrect. If v is+- 0.5 c then the total observed speed of the > > > blueshifted light under classical theory is 1.5 c > > > Nope, because then the equation would be invalid because v is greater > > than the speed of the wave, making the equation invalid. > > If v is the speed of the wave how can v be greater than the > speed of the wave? You are talking nonsense again. v is the speed of the source or receiver, not the speed of the wave. > > The problem you present has a serious flaw: in the I-S experiment, the > > value of v was much, much less than c (v = .005c): > > 0.5 was an example only. It was a BAD example. In fact, it was a red herring. > .005 c will also give an offset for classical, contrary > to the erroneous claims by relativists. Have you done the calculation to see how big the difference is? Obviously not. “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.” -- Abraham Lincoln > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ives%E2%80%93Stilwell_experiment > > > Consequently, the anisotropy you envision is MUCH smaller than the effect > > of the relativistic anomaly > > Oh!, now you admit there is an offset for classical contrary > to your earlier claims there isn't. Oh! So you just proved that you are mathematically incompetent. > About time you admitted your mistake. About time you got an non-autistic brain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-09 05:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9f025a4b-add7-4e60-8e35-d2bf9da76623@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394992 |
Gary Harnagel wrote >> .005 c will also give an offset for classical, contrary >> to the erroneous claims by relativists >> Here's a quote from the I-S wiki page... "When we invert these relationships so that they relate to wavelengths rather than frequencies, "classical theory" predicts redshifted and blueshifted wavelength values of 1 + v/c and 1 − v/c, so if all three wavelengths (redshifted, blueshifted and original) are marked on a linear scale, according to classical theory the three marks should be perfectly evenly spaced." >Yeah, yeah, that is an APPROXIMATION, goo only for speeds much lower >than speed of a wave in the medium. For light, it only applies to speeds >much lower than the speed of light, as I said. The correct relationship is >f = f0*sqrt[(1 + v/c)/(1 - v/c)] >As you will note, provided that you're not completely incompetent at math, >that equation reduces to f0*(1 + v/c) for small v. Irrelevant statement as usual. The fact is that relativists like to claim, as my wiki quote shows, that a classical model does not predict an offset. This is my incorrect. Classical theory predicts an offset for small and large velocities. There is no distinction for between near c velocities and small velocities in a classical model. Contrary to the erroneous calculation I have reproduced again below from wiki, but also implied in various other sources like Ives Stillwell. "When we invert these relationships so that they relate to wavelengths rather than frequencies, "classical theory" predicts redshifted and blueshifted wavelength values of 1 + v/c and 1 − v/c, so if all three wavelengths (redshifted, blueshifted and original) are marked on a linear scale, according to classical theory the three marks should be perfectly evenly spaced." >Have you done the calculation to see how big the difference is? Obviously >not. You forget that the claim by Ives Stillwell and others is that there should be no offset, or difference according to classical theory. Once again you inadvertantly admit the standard relativist claim of no offset for classical in Ives Stillwell is incorrect. As I've said before, this erroneous assumption uses an incorrect calculation based on the incorrect assumption that wavelength displacement for classical is defined by 1 + v/c and 1 − v/c. ( as per wiki quote) Whereas, In fact as I have already shown, c+v gives a different offset or displacement in wavelength than c-v. Which means that classical theory is consistent with Ives Stillwell.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-09 06:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6710137d-a0a2-4cd4-9b34-31877d996538@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395258 |
On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 7:25:53 AM UTC-5, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote: > You forget that the claim by Ives Stillwell and others is that there should be no > offset, or difference according to classical theory. Once again you inadvertantly > admit the standard relativist claim of no offset for classical in Ives Stillwell is > incorrect. To the *limits of accuracy* to which the offsets may be measured, classical theory predicts none. That does not deny that effects exist *far below the limits to which such can be detected on the small scale of the photographs* Relativity, however, predicts effects that *can* be measured on the small scale of the photographs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-09 10:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2ce64bf1-5e1a-4f10-8864-cc39bb9cfe9b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395261 |
On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 8:06:23 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> To the *limits of accuracy* to which the offsets may be measured, classical
> theory predicts none. That does not deny that effects exist *far below the
> limits to which such can be detected on the small scale of the photographs*
Correction: I was mistakenly thinking about what happens if one plotted
*frequencies* on a linear scale. Consider that for a moving source, the maximum
classical blueshifted frequency for a moving source is infinite and the minimum
classical redshifted frequency for a moving source (when v=c) is f_0/2.
The average of the classical blueshifted and redshifted frequencies will not
*quite* match the original frequency, since
f = f_0/(1 ± v/c) = f_0 * [ 1 ∓ v/c + (v/c)^2 ... ]
HOWEVER, if one plots *wavelengths* on a linear scale, the statement that
classical theory predicts no shift in the average is accurate regardless of
velocity. Consider that the classical minimum blueshifted wavelength when v=c is
zero and the classical maximum redshifted wavelength when v=c is 2λ. The average
of 0 and 2λ is λ.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jaymoseley@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 08:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d4ee5ae3-3dbe-4548-b08b-61525b1bd9d8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395272 |
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 8:06:23 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>> To the *limits of accuracy* to which the offsets may be measured, classical
>> theory predicts none. That does not deny that effects exist *far below the
>> limits to which such can be detected on the small scale of the photographs*
>Correction: I was mistakenly thinking about what happens if one plotted
>*frequencies* on a linear scale. Consider that for a moving source, the maximum
>classical blueshifted frequency for a moving source is infinite and the minimum
>classical redshifted frequency for a moving source (when v=c) is f_0/2.
>The average of the classical blueshifted and redshifted frequencies will not
>*quite* match the original frequency, since
f = f_0/(1 ± v/c) = f_0 * [ 1 ∓ v/c + (v/c)^2 ... ]
>HOWEVER, if one plots *wavelengths* on a linear scale, the statement that
>classical theory predicts no shift in the average is accurate regardless of
>velocity. Consider that the classical minimum blueshifted wavelength when v=c is
>zero and the classical maximum redshifted wavelength when v=c is 2λ. The average
>of 0 and 2λ is λ.
Whatever the mathematical methods and reasoning used to verify your assumed
prediction by classical, they are incorrect.
Let me explain again in more detail.
If , in a classical model, light is assumed to be at c+-v relative to the observer.
Then the following mathematical procedure should be used.
(c+v)f0 = f-forward
(c-v)f0 = f- rearward
Where f0 is the emitted frequency and f forward and rearward are the
two classically Doppler shifted frequencies and v of course is the velocity
of the source. Relative to the observer.
If you insert whatever numbers you please you will always get an offset
in wavelength predicted by classical. Contrary to any arguments used
by yourself above or any other relativist or any wiki page etc.
For example use 600 for f0 and 0.005c for v. Which is very close to the
Ives Stillwell example cited in wiki.
Calculate using (c+-v)f0, for both rearward and forward v. Then convert both
forward and rearward f amounts to wavelengths. Follow the wiki page
method to get average shift for both amounts as compared to the original
undoppler shifted wavelength derived from f0. And you get an offset
of approximately .065 A.
Which is roughly on the order of what's observed in Ives Stillwell
according to the wiki page.
In other words classical theory predicts a wavelength offset
equal to that observed.
And. ...* (c+-v)f0* ...IS the correct formula to calculate observed
forward and rearward Doppler shifted frequencies for emr in classical
physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 08:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsb80e$jri$7@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393845 |
On 9/26/2016 6:10 AM, jaymoseley@hotmail.com wrote: > Thats why relativity is a religion. Science explains how, with precedence. This is a ridiculous statement. You are claiming that science always provides explanations that are based on, or similar to, previous explanations, and that nothing fundamentally new is or should be introduced that is completely different than anything before. This to you is what you call "magic" and "religious devotion". -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 15:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nre88p$8cb$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #392295 |
On 14.09.2016 10:01, HGW wrote: > I propose the following experiment to test for gravity waves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 06:48 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nrf1ef$d5e$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392446 |
On 15/09/16 23:38, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 14.09.2016 10:01, HGW wrote: >> I propose the following experiment to test for gravity waves. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave Silly! We know about that....irrelevant here.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web