"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 11:39:14 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:32:15 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:52:05 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
Haha!
George, the velocity component is not a real physical change . Yet
you
claim it
IS. The GR correction is at least 20% out

Henri Wilson finds that GR is wrong because measurements
show the correct value to be 20% lower than a value which
is 20% higher than the GR prediction.

Wilsonian logic at its very best! :-)

THe so called 'GR correction' just happens to be exactly equal to the
fractional increase in speed as light falls from the clock to Earth.

WHAT A STRANGE COINCIDENCE.

Remarkable, unless of course GR is correct.

If it is correct it is for entirely the wrong reason.

Science only deals with "correct" and "falsified",
leave the reasons to the philosophers.

George, it is possible to mathematically describe the moon's motion around
the
sun using Earth centrism.

Yes, GR is valid in arbitrary reference frames,
but it means you have to take account of a large
number of pseudo-forces that have no philosophical
justification.

Does that mean the maths is correct for the right or
wrong reason?

It means the maths is right, period.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 11:40:46 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

context restored

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:35:55 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 09:37:53 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news:7qhkb394dh1alsrtgfbr9pubj9ijcarao1@4ax. com...
...
Absolute crap. You are using the source at 'instant of
emission'.
That
is just as inertial as is 'its frame at that instant'.

Wrong again, at that instant the source has non-zero
acceleration, it is NOT inertial and the two definitions
are NOT the same.

Correct. I never even hinted that they were.

Liar, you said above the source "is just as inertial as
is 'its frame at that instant'." which is not true, the
frame is inertial by definition, the source is accelerating
hence not inertial.

At any particular INSTANT the accelerating source has one and only
one
velocity. ..

And it has one and only one acceleration. That value is
not zero therefore it is not inertial. The frame _is_
inertial by definition.

So what?

So when you said it was "just as inertial" you
were wrong and when you claimed that you "never
even hinted that they were", you were lying.

George, at the INSTANT of emission the source acceleration is
irrelevant.

Nope, it is always relevant when determining whether
something is inertial or not. You were simply wrong
and lied to try to cover it up rather than admit a
trivial mistake.

George, the SR sagnac diagram clearly shows the rays moving at c+/-v wrt
the
source.

Don't try to snip the context then change the subject,
you said "using the source at 'instant of emission' ..
is just as inertial as is 'its frame at that instant'"
when I had defined the frame as being inertial and
co-moving at the moment of emission. That is not true,
and there is no point denying it when the quote is
above. Nor it there any point snipping it because I'll
just keep putting it back.

George

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 11:39:14 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:32:15 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
om...
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:52:05 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
Haha!
George, the velocity component is not a real physical change . Yet
you
claim it
IS. The GR correction is at least 20% out

Henri Wilson finds that GR is wrong because measurements
show the correct value to be 20% lower than a value which
is 20% higher than the GR prediction.

Wilsonian logic at its very best! :-)

THe so called 'GR correction' just happens to be exactly equal to the
fractional increase in speed as light falls from the clock to Earth.

WHAT A STRANGE COINCIDENCE.

Remarkable, unless of course GR is correct.

If it is correct it is for entirely the wrong reason.

Science only deals with "correct" and "falsified",
leave the reasons to the philosophers.

George, it is possible to mathematically describe the moon's motion
around the
sun using Earth centrism.

Yes, GR is valid in arbitrary reference frames,
but it means you have to take account of a large
number of pseudo-forces that have no philosophical
justification.

"pseudo-forces that have no philosophical justification."?? I disagree as do
others. E.g. see -
http://www.geocities.com/physics_wor...tial_force.htm

Pete

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:26:33 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
At any particular INSTANT the accelerating source has one and only one
velocity. In the SR sagnac diagram, light is shown to be moving at c relative
to the ring and c+ that velocity relative to the source.

Sagnac proves SR wrong.
OK.
Let us assume that the light is moving around a ring.
(Infinite number of mirrors.)

I will not try to draw it.

- Given an inertial frame.
- Given a circle with radius r.
- Given a light source moving at the speed v around the circle.
- According to SR the speed of light is c.

Why then it is assumed to move at c+v wrt the source?

How can I know why you make your stupid assumptions?

- Let tf be the time the light emittet in the forward direction
uses to catch up with the source.
- Let tb be the time the light emittet in the backward direction
uses to meet the source.

So we have:
2*pi*r + tf*v = tf*c
tf = 2*pi*r/(c-v)

2*pi*r - tb*v = tb*c
tb = 2*pi*r/(c+v)

delta_t = tf - tb = 4*pi*r*v/(c^2 - v^2)

Setting w = v/r, A = pi*r^2, g = (1 - v^2/c^2)^-0.5
we get:

delta_t = (4Aw/c^2)* g^2

The g^2 will obviously be unmeasureable different from 1
for any practical Sagnac experiment.

So SR predicts delta_t = 4Aw/c^2 which is in accordance
with enumerable practical experiments.

I don't care.

You are claiming over and over that "the SR Sagnac diagram"
somehow proves SR wrong, but don't care about why?

Here is how you calculate SR's prediction for Sagnac.

PLEASE POINT OUT WHY THIS PROVES SR WRONG.

Let us assume that the light is moving around a ring.
(Infinite number of mirrors.)

This is "the SR Sagnac diagram", but I will not try to draw it.

- Given an inertial frame.
- Given a circle with radius r.
- Given a light source moving at the speed v around the circle.
- According to SR the speed of light is c.
- Let tf be the time the light emittet in the forward direction
uses to catch up with the source.
- Let tb be the time the light emittet in the backward direction
uses to meet the source.

So we have:
2*pi*r + tf*v = tf*c
tf = 2*pi*r/(c-v)

2*pi*r - tb*v = tb*c
tb = 2*pi*r/(c+v)

delta_t = tf - tb = 4*pi*r*v/(c^2 - v^2)

Setting w = v/r, A = pi*r^2, g = (1 - v^2/c^2)^-0.5
we get:

delta_t = (4Aw/c^2)* g^2

The g^2 will obviously be unmeasureable different from 1
for any practical Sagnac experiment.

So SR predicts delta_t = 4Aw/c^2 which is in accordance
with enumerable practical experiments.

#############################################
# Henri:
#
# Please explain how this prove SR wrong.
#
#############################################

Paul

"Pmb" wrote in message
. ..
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
....
George, it is possible to mathematically describe the moon's motion
around the
sun using Earth centrism.

Yes, GR is valid in arbitrary reference frames,
but it means you have to take account of a large
number of pseudo-forces that have no philosophical
justification.

"pseudo-forces that have no philosophical justification."?? I disagree as
do others. E.g. see -
http://www.geocities.com/physics_wor...tial_force.htm

That site wouldn't open, but let me ask this, if I describe
the universe based on the Earth then every star in our galaxy,
and every other galaxy and astronomical object moves in a
circle (ok, ellipse) of diameter about 2AU in a period of one
year due to some pseudo-force. Given that choice of coordinates,
the apparent motion of those bodies would still occur even if
the Earth and Solar System didn't exist. What is the cause of
that force and how could a physical theory predict its existence?

George

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"Pmb" wrote in message
. ..
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
...
George, it is possible to mathematically describe the moon's motion
around the
sun using Earth centrism.

Yes, GR is valid in arbitrary reference frames,
but it means you have to take account of a large
number of pseudo-forces that have no philosophical
justification.

"pseudo-forces that have no philosophical justification."?? I disagree as
do others. E.g. see -
http://www.geocities.com/physics_wor...tial_force.htm

That site wouldn't open, ...

I clicked it while I was reading the post and it worked fine for me. Give a
few tries later. Here are the contents of that web page
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Einstein -That the relation of gravity to inertia was the motivation
for general relativity is expressed in an article Einstein wrote which
appeared in the February 17, 1921 issue of Nature [28]

Can gravitation and inertia be identical? This question leads directly to
the General Theory of Relativity. Is it not possible for me to regard the
earth as free from rotation, if I conceive of the centrifugal force, which
acts on all bodies at rest relatively to the earth, as being a "real"
gravitational field of gravitation, or part of such a field? If this idea
can be carried out, then we shall have proved in very truth the identity of
gravitation and inertia. For the same property which is regarded as inertia
from the point of view of a system not taking part of the rotation can be
interpreted as gravitation when considered with respect to a system that
shares this rotation. According to Newton, this interpretation is
impossible, because in Newton's theory there is no "real" field of the
"Coriolis-field" type. But perhaps Newton's law of field could be replaced
by another that fits in with the field which holds with respect to a
"rotating" system of co-ordiantes? My conviction of the identity of inertial
and gravitational mass aroused within me the feeling of absolute confidence
in the correctness of this interpretation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A.P. French - Inertial force is defined as the force on a body that results
solely from observing the motion of the body from a non-inertial frame of
reference. This in addressed in Newtonian Mechanics, A.P. French, The M.I.T.
Introductory Physics Series,W.W. Norton Pub. , (1971) , page 499. After
describing the inertial force as seen from an accelerating frame of
reference French writes

From the standpoint of an observer in the accelerating frame, the inertial
force is actually present. If one took steps to keep an object "at rest" in
S', by tying it down with springs, these springs would be observed to
elongate or contract in such a way as to provide a counteracting force to
balance the inertial force. To describe such force as "fictitious" is
therefore somewhat misleading. One would like to have some convenient label
that distinguishes inertial forces from forces that arise from true physical
interactions, and the term "psuedo-force" is often used. Even this, however,
does not do justice to such forces experienced by someone who is actually in
the accelerating frame of reference. Probably the original, strictly
technical name, "inertial force," which is free of any questionable
overtones, remains the best description.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cornelius Lanczos - The subject of inertial force is also addressed in The
Variational Principles of Mechanics - 4th Ed., Cornelius Lanczos, Dover
Pub., page 98.

Whenever the motion of the reference system generates a force which has to
be added to the relative force of inertia I', measured in that system, we
call that force an "apparent force." The name is well chosen, inasmuch as
that force does not exist in the absolute system. The name is misleading,
however, if it is interpreted as a force which is not as "real" as any given
physical force. In the moving reference system the apparent force is a
perfectly real force which is not distinguishable in its nature from any
other impressed force. Let us suppose that the observer is not aware of the
fact that his reference system is in accelerated motion. Then purely
mechanical observations cannot reveal to him that fact.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John A. Peacock - From "Cosmological Physics," by John A. Peacock, Cambridge
University Press, (1999), page 6-7

The 'weak equivalence principle' is a statement only about space and time.
It says that in any gravitational field, however strong, a freely falling
observer will experience no gravitational effects - with the important
exception of tidal force in non-uniform fields. [...] It may seem that we
have actually returned to something like the Newtonian viewpoint:
gravitation is merely an artifact of looking at things from the 'wrong'
point of view. This is really not so; rather, the important aspects of
gravitation are not so much first order effects as second order tidal
forces: They cannot be transformed away and are the true signature of
gravitating mass. However, it is certainly true in one sense to say that
gravity is not a 'real' force, the gravitational acceleration is not derived
from a 4-force and transforms differently.
-----------------------------------------------------------------


....but let me ask this, if I describe the universe based on the Earth ..

What aspects of the universe are you describing? Locations?

...then every star in our galaxy,
and every other galaxy and astronomical object moves in a
circle (ok, ellipse) ....

On average, galaxies move with radial motion from each other, not in
circles. This motion is caused by the expansion of the universe.

.....of diameter about 2AU in a period of one
year due to some pseudo-force. Given that choice of coordinates,
the apparent motion of those bodies would still occur even if
the Earth and Solar System didn't exist. What is the cause of
that force and how could a physical theory predict its existence?

The source of the force is the distant stars. Motion is described in terms
of the position relative to the stars. E.g. suppose you have an inertial
coordinate system S. Then you surround the disk with a shell of mass which
you can take to be as large as you please. The gravitational force and tidal
forces inside that shell are both zero. Now let the shell start to rotate.
Now there are inertial forces present due to the rotating shell. The
rotating shell drags the inertial frame of reference S around in circles.
The force is as real as they get. It simply isn't a 4-force which some
people like to refer to as "real" since they have an absolute existance
rather than a relative one. This was all pointed out by Einstein in his text
"The Meaning of Relativity". If you have that book then I believe the
calculations are where Einstein speaks about Mach's principle.

Pete

"Pmb" wrote in message
...

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"Pmb" wrote in message
. ..
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
...
George, it is possible to mathematically describe the moon's motion
around the
sun using Earth centrism.

Yes, GR is valid in arbitrary reference frames,
but it means you have to take account of a large
number of pseudo-forces that have no philosophical
justification.

"pseudo-forces that have no philosophical justification."?? I disagree
as do others. E.g. see -
http://www.geocities.com/physics_wor...tial_force.htm

That site wouldn't open, ...

I clicked it while I was reading the post and it worked fine for me. Give
a few tries later. Here are the contents of that web page

snip copy

OK, it struggled but opened after a few minutes this
time. Geocities seems to be flaky on occassion.

However, having read it, it doesn't address the question:

... let me ask this, if I describe
the universe based on the Earth then every star in our galaxy,
and every other galaxy and astronomical object moves in a
circle (ok, ellipse) of diameter about 2AU in a period of one
year due to some pseudo-force. Given that choice of coordinates,
the apparent motion of those bodies would still occur even if
the Earth and Solar System didn't exist. What is the cause of
that force and how could a physical theory predict its existence?

What is your justification for such a universal pseudo-force?

George

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:52:28 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 20:53:09 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:34:31 -0700, George Dishman
GPS doesn't use triangulation (i.e. multiple bearings), it
uses the time of arrival.
It uses triangulation....actually 4 signals.
"Triangulation" usually refers to constructing a
triangle using two lines of known bearing from
two known locations. GPS does not work that way,
it solves for the location at which the difference
in times of arrival of the four signals would match
the measured values.
It uses phase difference.
I find it amazing an almost unbelievable that you
still have no clue whatsoever of how the GPS works.

You have been discussing the GPS for years!!

Answer me this:
Which phase differences are you referring to?

George has assured me that the clock rates are changed after launch.
George has also assured me that phase differences are used.

I will transfer your request to George.

I see.
After having discussed the GPS for years, you admit that
you still have no clue about how it works.
Why do you then claim so much nonsense about something
you know nothing about?

Paul

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:32:15 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:52:05 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
Haha!
George, the velocity component is not a real physical change . Yet you
claim it
IS. The GR correction is at least 20% out
Henri Wilson finds that GR is wrong because measurements
show the correct value to be 20% lower than a value which
is 20% higher than the GR prediction.

Wilsonian logic at its very best! :-)
THe so called 'GR correction' just happens to be exactly equal to the
fractional increase in speed as light falls from the clock to Earth.

WHAT A STRANGE COINCIDENCE.
Remarkable, unless of course GR is correct.

If it is correct it is for entirely the wrong reason.

Of course.
When every prediction of GR tested so far has proven
to be correct within the precision of the measurements,
it obviously proves that GR is false.

GR can't be correct when it is correct by the wrong reasons!

That's elementary Wilsonian logic!

Paul

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 11:40:46 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:35:55 +0100, "George Dishman"

So when you said it was "just as inertial" you
were wrong and when you claimed that you "never
even hinted that they were", you were lying.
George, at the INSTANT of emission the source acceleration is irrelevant.
Nope, it is always relevant when determining whether
something is inertial or not. You were simply wrong
and lied to try to cover it up rather than admit a
trivial mistake.

George, the SR sagnac diagram clearly shows the rays moving at c+/-v wrt the
source.

This is "the SR Sagnac diagram": (you can draw it yourself)

- Given an inertial frame.
- Given a circle with radius r.
- Given a light source moving at the speed v around the circle.
- According to SR the speed of light is c.
- Assume the light is moving around the circle. (Infinite number of mirrors.)
- Let tf be the time the light emittet in the forward direction
uses to catch up with the source.
- Let tb be the time the light emittet in the backward direction
uses to meet the source.

So we have:
2*pi*r + tf*v = tf*c
tf = 2*pi*r/(c-v)

2*pi*r - tb*v = tb*c
tb = 2*pi*r/(c+v)

delta_t = tf - tb = 4*pi*r*v/(c^2 - v^2)

Setting w = v/r, A = pi*r^2, g = (1 - v^2/c^2)^-0.5
we get:

delta_t = (4Aw/c^2)* g^2

The g^2 will obviously be unmeasureable different from 1
for any practical Sagnac experiment.

So SR predicts delta_t = 4Aw/c^2 which is in accordance
with enumerable practical experiments.

- Any problem with this?
- Does this prove SR to correctly predict the outcome of
the Sagnac experiment, or does Sagnac falsify SR?
- Can you find anything in the above which is inconsistent
with the postulates of SR?
- What was your point?

Paul