Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 11:04:55 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
....

the ground clock is irrelevant.
GR has nothing to do with the operation of GPS.

Sorry Henry, accurate time for syncing atomic
clocks around the world is a key product of the
system. The system would not work without the
GR correction, the time product would drift out
of specification in minutes.

As long as all the clocks did the same, it wouldn't make one iota of
difference.

Don't be silly, if all the orbiting clocks drift at 38us/day
then obviously any ground clock locked to them will
also drift at 38us/day. The GR correction is essential
to get that output to be correct.

George

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 10:55:10 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...


I think we are talking about different things here.

My theory states that a photon has an intrinsic frequency based on some
kind of
standing wave or spinning effect.

No it doesn't. Your theory is a single equation, v=c+u
and a second that I added regarding speed equalisation.
There is nothing in that equation relating to frequency
at all. You could aply it to a particle but there are
no intrinsic features described by the equation, or you
can use Ritz's original where the speed is that of
wavefronts in a semi-classical wave model (I say 'semi-'
because a classical wave can be described by a second
order differential while Ritz's version cannot).

now you are trying to change my model even though you don't even know what it
is.

As I said above, your model consists of only two equations,
one is the vector sum at emission:

v = c + u [1]

and the second is the scalar equation for speed equalisation

dv/ds = (c/n -v) / R [2]

That's all there is Henry, nothing more.

This gives the appearance of a moving spatial
pattern... like a moving saw blade.
It also says that observed frequency is really the 'wavecrest arrival
frequency' at the observer. The equation is f = h(c+v)/Lambda, where
Lambda is
ABSOLUTE wavelength.

There is no ABSOLUTE wavelength Henry, as the waves
speed up, according to your equation they move farther
apart so frequency is unchanged.

All lengths (spatial intervals) are absolute, George.

Sorry Henry, your religious convictions count for nothing.

That wavelength can differ from the norm in the source frame if: 1) the
source
is accelerating (ADoppler x K) or 2)

That is not how K appears in the final equation,
you need to derive it properly, but that is an
aside.

It ends up with the same phase and shape of the brightness curve but much
smaller in magnitude change.

Nope, as we discussed a few days ago, for a laser it
might produce an effect similar to a standing wave, but
you need to calculate it to find out, you won't get
anywhere guessing as it is going to be very complex.

if light speed varies during travel

see George, you apparently cannot drag yourself away from the belief that
space
has absolute properties which detrmine light speed.

We both know that Henry, you imagine that 'absolute
property' is the Galilean Transforms, experimentally
it is the Lorentz Transforms.

Not 'experimentally'...

Yes Henry, experimentally.

[ Riemann geometry]

It is nothing more than a complicated way of expressing the unproven 2nd
postulate.

Wrong again on both counts, it is the underlying
physical mechanism which resultes in the effect
described by the postulate which was proven by
Sagnac in 1913.

George, run my program again:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/gr-aether.exe

Why does the light move at THAT particular speed?

For the same reason that all objects above your head have
an elevation of 90 degrees.

What is the reference?

It is the same in _every_ inertial reference frame just
as the elevation of 90 degrees for an item above you
remains if you stand on a box.

Garbage, the photons arrive at the same time
regardless of what you imagine happens to
their intrinsic properties.

No George, it becomes quite complicated, he end result being that the
travel times of the two rays are different..

Nope, it is very simple, the speed is v=c+u from
the basic postulate and that tells us when they
arrive.

Let's be honest Henry, you didn't include a
mathematical derivation of your claim above
because there is no way to apply your only
equation that doesn't prove you wrong and
you know it. You are just throwing out a wild
claim as a way of stalling for time again.

I'll get around to it soon.

You said that to me months ago.

George

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 21:47:31 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:06:06 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:35:59 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"

Don't they teach you to read in Norway?
Are you seriously claiming that any of these equations
are inconsistent with the postulates of SR just because
the terms (c-v) and (c+v) appear in them?
They obviously don't teach people to read OR THINK in Norway.
WHERE DO THE C+V AND C-V TERMS COME FROM PAUL?
Don't you understand the math, Henri?
It should be simple enough.
Read it again and try to figure out where where
the terms (c+v) and (c-v) come from.

IF YOU CLAIM THE CALCULATION TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE POSTULATES
OF SR - POINT OUT _EXACTLY_ WHERE THE INCONSISTENCY IS.

I have explained.
SR claims that the rays move at c wrt the source, (as does BaTh).t also claims
that they move at c wrt the ring.
However is the accompanying diagram, th rays are clearly shown to be moving at
c+/-v wrt the source.

The accompanying diagram is drawn in the inertial frame,
and shows that the light is moving at c in the inertial frame,
and that the source is moving with the speed v in the inertial frame.

It doesn't show any other speeds relative to anything else.

..so the only conclusion I can reach is that SRians are in fantasyland when
they claim Sagnac is consistent with SR.

Try again, Henri.
And remenber:
Stupidities like:
"(c+/-v) appear in the equations, that is inconsistent with SR"
won't do.

Below is a description of the standard Sagnac diagram,
and a calculation of what SR predicts for the Sagnac experiment.

- Given an inertial frame which is the reference
for all speeds mentioned below.
That is, all speeds are relative to this frame.
- Given a stationary circle with radius r.
- Given a light source moving at the speed v around the circle.
- Assume the light is moving around the circle (infinite number of mirrors).
- According to SR, the speed of the light is c.

That's just a postulate. Where is the physics?

No theory of physics has anything but "just postulates".
If the prediction - based on the postulates of the theory -
is in accordance with experimental evidence, the theory
and its postulates are confirmed, otherwise it is falsified.
That's physics, Henri.

- 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)

Both c+v and c-v, as used above represent the velocities of the rays wrt the
source.
That should be obvious to anyone outside norway.

Stupidities like:
"(c+/-v) appear in the equations, that is inconsistent with SR"
won't do.



delta_t = tf - tb = 4*pi*r*v/(c2 - v2)

Setting w = v/r, A = pi*r2, g = (1 - v2/c2)-0.5
we get:

delta_t = (4Aw/c2)* g2

The g2 will obviously be unmeasurable different from 1
for any practical Sagnac experiment.

So SR predicts delta_t = 4Aw/c2 which is in accordance
with enumerable practical experiments.

Purely coincidental...
The diagram is not related to SR.

I see. You didn't understand the derivation.
Here it is again.
If there is any particular part you don't understand, just ask.

Below is a description of the standard Sagnac diagram,
and a calculation of what SR predicts for the Sagnac experiment.

- Given an inertial frame which is the reference
for all speeds mentioned below.
That is, all speeds are relative to this frame.
- Given a stationary circle with radius r.
- Given a light source moving at the speed v around the circle.
- Assume the light is moving around the circle (infinite number of mirrors).
- According to SR, the speed of the 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.

I suppose you can manage to draw the diagram described above yourself.

Since you obviously don't understand the derivation,
I will have to explain:
- tf is the time the light emittet in the forward direction
uses to catch up with the source.
- 2*pi*r is the circumference of the circle (or ring).
- tf*v is the distance the source has moved during the time
from the light was emitted, to it is back at the source.
- tf*c is the distance the light has moved during the time
from the light was emitted, to it is back at the source.

So we have:
2*pi*r + tf*v = tf*c

Is this really too hard for you, Henri?
There are only two speeds in this equation, c and v.
Both are speeds in the inertial frame.
THERE ARE NO SPEEDS RELATIVE TO ANYTHING ELSE IN
THIS EQUATION!

When we _solve_ this equation, we get:
2*pi*r = tf*c - tf*v = tf*(c-v)
tf = 2*pi*r/(c-v)

(c-v) is nothing but an arithmetic difference between
two speeds, It is NOT the speed of anything relative
to anything!

The equation for the light going in the other direction
is equivalent:

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/c2)* g2

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

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

Paul

I have not considered the rest of Paul Andersen's posting but the
following can be regarded as an epitome of zombie thinking taught in
Einstein criminal cult:

On 20 Aug, 16:40, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
(c-v) is nothing but an arithmetic difference between
two speeds, It is NOT the speed of anything relative
to anything!

Besides, it seems this Paul Andersen is somehow able to change the
archives of sci.physics.relativity. He was the first to discover, on
sci.physics.relativity, that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)
was wrong. Tom Roberts was the second. Yet Paul Andersen's discovery
then disappeared and now Tom Roberts is the only discoverer. Some day
Tom Roberts' discovery may also disappear - Einstein criminal cult may
decide to remove all discrediting idiocies.

Pentcho Valev

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:40:27 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 21:47:31 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

IF YOU CLAIM THE CALCULATION TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE POSTULATES
OF SR - POINT OUT _EXACTLY_ WHERE THE INCONSISTENCY IS.

I have explained.
SR claims that the rays move at c wrt the source, (as does BaTh).t also claims
that they move at c wrt the ring.
However is the accompanying diagram, th rays are clearly shown to be moving at
c+/-v wrt the source.

The accompanying diagram is drawn in the inertial frame,
and shows that the light is moving at c in the inertial frame,
and that the source is moving with the speed v in the inertial frame.

It doesn't show any other speeds relative to anything else.

..so the only conclusion I can reach is that SRians are in fantasyland when
they claim Sagnac is consistent with SR.

Try again, Henri.
And remenber:
Stupidities like:
"(c+/-v) appear in the equations, that is inconsistent with SR"
won't do.

Below is a description of the standard Sagnac diagram,
and a calculation of what SR predicts for the Sagnac experiment.

- Given an inertial frame which is the reference
for all speeds mentioned below.
That is, all speeds are relative to this frame.
- Given a stationary circle with radius r.
- Given a light source moving at the speed v around the circle.
- Assume the light is moving around the circle (infinite number of mirrors).
- According to SR, the speed of the light is c.

That's just a postulate. Where is the physics?

No theory of physics has anything but "just postulates".
If the prediction - based on the postulates of the theory -
is in accordance with experimental evidence, the theory
and its postulates are confirmed, otherwise it is falsified.
That's physics, Henri.

- 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)

Both c+v and c-v, as used above represent the velocities of the rays wrt the
source.
That should be obvious to anyone outside norway.

Stupidities like:
"(c+/-v) appear in the equations, that is inconsistent with SR"
won't do.



delta_t = tf - tb = 4*pi*r*v/(c2 - v2)

Setting w = v/r, A = pi*r2, g = (1 - v2/c2)-0.5
we get:

delta_t = (4Aw/c2)* g2

The g2 will obviously be unmeasurable different from 1
for any practical Sagnac experiment.

So SR predicts delta_t = 4Aw/c2 which is in accordance
with enumerable practical experiments.

Purely coincidental...
The diagram is not related to SR.

I see. You didn't understand the derivation.
Here it is again.
If there is any particular part you don't understand, just ask.

Below is a description of the standard Sagnac diagram,
and a calculation of what SR predicts for the Sagnac experiment.

- Given an inertial frame which is the reference
for all speeds mentioned below.
That is, all speeds are relative to this frame.
- Given a stationary circle with radius r.
- Given a light source moving at the speed v around the circle.
- Assume the light is moving around the circle (infinite number of mirrors).
- According to SR, the speed of the 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.

I suppose you can manage to draw the diagram described above yourself.

Since you obviously don't understand the derivation,
I will have to explain:
- tf is the time the light emittet in the forward direction
uses to catch up with the source.
- 2*pi*r is the circumference of the circle (or ring).
- tf*v is the distance the source has moved during the time
from the light was emitted, to it is back at the source.
- tf*c is the distance the light has moved during the time
from the light was emitted, to it is back at the source.

So we have:
2*pi*r + tf*v = tf*c

Is this really too hard for you, Henri?
There are only two speeds in this equation, c and v.
Both are speeds in the inertial frame.
THERE ARE NO SPEEDS RELATIVE TO ANYTHING ELSE IN
THIS EQUATION!

When we _solve_ this equation, we get:
2*pi*r = tf*c - tf*v = tf*(c-v)
tf = 2*pi*r/(c-v)

Time = distance/ velocity
velocity = c-v

(c-v) is nothing but an arithmetic difference between
two speeds, It is NOT the speed of anything relative
to anything!

The equation for the light going in the other direction
is equivalent:

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

Time = distance/ velocity
velocity = 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/c2)* g2

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

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

Very amusing Paul. ...becoming more amusing every day...

Paul



www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 01:21:17 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

No it doesn't. Your theory is a single equation, v=c+u
and a second that I added regarding speed equalisation.
There is nothing in that equation relating to frequency
at all. You could aply it to a particle but there are
no intrinsic features described by the equation, or you
can use Ritz's original where the speed is that of
wavefronts in a semi-classical wave model (I say 'semi-'
because a classical wave can be described by a second
order differential while Ritz's version cannot).

now you are trying to change my model even though you don't even know what it
is.

As I said above, your model consists of only two equations,
one is the vector sum at emission:

v = c + u [1]

and the second is the scalar equation for speed equalisation

dv/ds = (c/n -v) / R [2]

That's all there is Henry, nothing more.

George, you are omitting a most important factor...the time delay between
emission of the 'pulses'.

This gives the appearance of a moving spatial
pattern... like a moving saw blade.
It also says that observed frequency is really the 'wavecrest arrival
frequency' at the observer. The equation is f = h(c+v)/Lambda, where
Lambda is
ABSOLUTE wavelength.

There is no ABSOLUTE wavelength Henry, as the waves
speed up, according to your equation they move farther
apart so frequency is unchanged.

All lengths (spatial intervals) are absolute, George.

Sorry Henry, your religious convictions count for nothing.

George, it is simple exercise to prove that rods do not physically change when
subjected to a speed change...so any rigid rod can be used as an absolute
spatial length standard ANYWHERE.

That wavelength can differ from the norm in the source frame if: 1) the
source
is accelerating (ADoppler x K) or 2)

That is not how K appears in the final equation,
you need to derive it properly, but that is an
aside.

It ends up with the same phase and shape of the brightness curve but much
smaller in magnitude change.

Nope, as we discussed a few days ago, for a laser it
might produce an effect similar to a standing wave, but
you need to calculate it to find out, you won't get
anywhere guessing as it is going to be very complex.

I'm not guessing, The calculation is trivial.

if light speed varies during travel

see George, you apparently cannot drag yourself away from the belief that
space
has absolute properties which detrmine light speed.

We both know that Henry, you imagine that 'absolute
property' is the Galilean Transforms, experimentally
it is the Lorentz Transforms.

Not 'experimentally'...

Yes Henry, experimentally.

never has there been an experiment that directly verifies an LT.



George, run my program again:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/gr-aether.exe

Why does the light move at THAT particular speed?

For the same reason that all objects above your head have
an elevation of 90 degrees.

What is the reference?

It is the same in _every_ inertial reference frame just
as the elevation of 90 degrees for an item above you
remains if you stand on a box.

you are raving...



George



www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 01:10:39 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 11:04:55 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
...

the ground clock is irrelevant.
GR has nothing to do with the operation of GPS.

Sorry Henry, accurate time for syncing atomic
clocks around the world is a key product of the
system. The system would not work without the
GR correction, the time product would drift out
of specification in minutes.

As long as all the clocks did the same, it wouldn't make one iota of
difference.

Don't be silly, if all the orbiting clocks drift at 38us/day
then obviously any ground clock locked to them will
also drift at 38us/day. The GR correction is essential
to get that output to be correct.

The GC's reading is irrelevant. It cancel out in the triangulation procedure.

George



www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 01:04:56 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 10:59:54 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:

The local clock time cancels out.

Nope, it doesn't. It is a common term over the four
equations.

Then it cancels.

Nope, you need to revise how to solve simultaneous
equations.

any good GPS article will tell you it cancels out.


GR is totally unnecessary.

Wrong, obviously if all the satellites are drifting
at 38us/day then so will the time produced by the
receiver, it has no other source of time.

They don't drift 38us per day because they are coarsely adjusted before launch
to compensate for free fall conditions (and cutting the Earth fields) and then
finely adjusted after launch.

Nope, they are accurately adjusted during manufacture to
the GR value which works perfectly.

hahahaha! That's just to appease the relativists. Nobody else gives a damn.

in orbit
are for masscons, geographic features, and a whole range
of minor effects which add essentially random variations
on top of the secular rate.

The clocks are software adjusted at least twice per day.



The bottom line fact remains, GR predicts 38us/day and
that is confirmed to a better than 10ns/day while
ballistic theory gives no prediction.

BaTh produces the same figure...

Sorry Henry, ballistic theory makes no predictions
about the effect of gravity on a clock at all. It isn't
even incorrect, just "not applicable".

Funny how the BaTh predicted doppler shift is exactly numerically equal to the
'GR correction'.
Coincidence is it?

George



www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 01:04:56 -0700, George Dishman wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 10:59:54 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:

The local clock time cancels out.

Nope, it doesn't. It is a common term over the four
equations.

Then it cancels.

Nope, you need to revise how to solve simultaneous
equations.

any good GPS article will tell you it cancels out.

Learn how to solve simultaneous equations Henry. You
need four independent measurements to solve for the four
unknowns, x, y, z and t. If the clocks are synchronised
then the time cancels from x, y and z and appears directly
as t. It is that derived time that is output from the receivers,
typically as a 1pps reference signal plus data on the serial
output given the exact time.

I have worked on projects that rely on that information
being accurate to operate correctly, it is an esential
product from the system and the system would not
work without the GR correction.

GR is totally unnecessary.

Wrong, obviously if all the satellites are drifting
at 38us/day then so will the time produced by the
receiver, it has no other source of time.

They don't drift 38us per day because they are coarsely adjusted before launch
to compensate for free fall conditions (and cutting the Earth fields) and then
finely adjusted after launch.

Nope, they are accurately adjusted during manufacture to
the GR value which works perfectly.

hahahaha! That's just to appease the relativists. Nobody else gives a damn.

hahahaha! Tell that to all the users around the world
who use it to synchronise their atomic clocks. The
telcomms operator who supplies your ISP for example.

in orbit
are for masscons, geographic features, and a whole range
of minor effects which add essentially random variations
on top of the secular rate.

The clocks are software adjusted at least twice per day.

You have no idea how the system works, do you.
Net secular rates are less than 10ns/day against
the offset of 38us/day so it is tested to better than
one part in 10,000. Bleat all you want, you cannot
get away from the facts.

The bottom line fact remains, GR predicts 38us/day and
that is confirmed to a better than 10ns/day while
ballistic theory gives no prediction.

BaTh produces the same figure...

Sorry Henry, ballistic theory makes no predictions
about the effect of gravity on a clock at all. It isn't
even incorrect, just "not applicable".

Funny how the BaTh predicted doppler shift is exactly numerically equal to the
'GR correction'.

No it isn't, not even close. The ballistic prediction
for the clock rate error is zero while GR predicts
38us per day which is what actually occurs.

Coincidence is it?

The values do not coincide.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 01:10:39 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 11:04:55 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
...

the ground clock is irrelevant.
GR has nothing to do with the operation of GPS.

Sorry Henry, accurate time for syncing atomic
clocks around the world is a key product of the
system. The system would not work without the
GR correction, the time product would drift out
of specification in minutes.

As long as all the clocks did the same, it wouldn't make one iota of
difference.

Don't be silly, if all the orbiting clocks drift at 38us/day
then obviously any ground clock locked to them will
also drift at 38us/day. The GR correction is essential
to get that output to be correct.

The GC's reading is irrelevant. ...

As I said, don't be silly, that is a prime product
of the system and it is blatantly obvious that that
part would be unusable without the GR correction.

George