On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:58:24 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


Follow-ups set to exclude off-topic groups.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:11:31 +0100, "George Dishman"

Of course it is Henry, that's why the atomic clocks
in GPS satellites have special circuits built is to
modify the frequency,

AH! This is new!

No it isn't, you've been told about it for a decade.
The story is that some non-technical guys were sceptical
so the first satellites were launched with the circuit
switched off. When the frequency was in error by exactly
the amount GR predicted, they switched it on and the error
was cancelled out.



Andersen et al always claimed there was no built-in way to modify GPS
clock
rates.

Correct, the clock rates are simply a spectral line
so you can't alter them. That's the precise reason
why atomic clocks are so effective, they are virtually
unaffected by local environmental conditions. What you
do is put a frequency changing circuit after the clock.

George, the 'spectral line' is used to synch a secondary crystal clock.
It is an easy matter to vary that synchronization.
It so happens that atomic clocks change rates very slightly when placed in free
fall. It is also a fact that the fractional change in signal speed as it falls
from 26000 km to Earth is exactly the same as the GR blueshift prediction. Work
it out yourself if you don't believe me.
Relativists noticed that the blue shift matched the GR prediction and naturally
jumped on the opportunity to claim this as 'evidence'. In fact it is a BaTh
effect.

I will quote you on this one too, George.

Feel free, the story might be apocryphal but you'll
find it all over the net.

There is a lot of bull**** on the net.

and iFog's and laser gyros
wouldn't work at all unless SR was right, there would
be no fringe shifts at all if ballistic theroy was
correct.

They wouldn't work if SR was right and both beams moved at c wrt the
source.

Clueless as always Henry.

SR clearly requires that the two beams move at c+/-v wrt the source.
It requires an absolute reference frame for light.
SR is just a disguised aether theory.

The standard expanation requires that one beam moves at c+v and the other
at
c-v wrt the source AS SEEN IN THE NONROTATING FRAME. Have a look for
yourself.

The standard explanation is that the beams both move
at c in the inertial frame exactly as SR says.

No George, you're dreaming again...
It's perfectly obvious that in the inertial frame the beams are moving at c+/-v
wrt the source.



In an inertial frame with the axle at rest, the
light moves at c, and as I said above in an inertial
(non-rotating) frame momentarily co-moving with the
source at the moment of emission, the light also
moves with a coordinate speed of c.

That's irrelevant ....

No, it is highly relevant, if you don't learn what
these simple phrases mean, you are never going to
be able to hold a coherent conversation with
anyone.

Not only was it irrelevant, it was complete bull**** as well.


To get from one frame to any other requires a
transform. To get from c in the lab frame to c+v
in the 'source' frame (by which I mean non-rotating
inertial and momentarily co-moving with the source
at the time of emission), you require the Galilean
Transforms. You have not deduced it from the
experimental results so it is an assumption.

What's this bull**** about the 'frame co-moving with the source'.

Read the explanation above or the one Jeff gave
you. Until you learn to read with understanding,
these conversations will go right over your head.

Why don't you just say 'THE SOURCE'?

Because "the source" isn't not a frame, and a
frame attached to the source would not be inertial.

The frame you are takling about is not important.
It is the light and the source that we have to consider.

Clearly, in the SR explanation, the light is assumed to move at c+/-v wrt the
source at hte instant of emission.

Why don't you just admit it George and save further embarrassment.

--- it's the same thing --- and admit that
the rays move at c+v wrt it.

They don't, they move in a cycloid path or a spiral
path depending on whether you mean a rotating or
non-rotating source frame. The speed isn't even
constant in either. See below.

Don't try to wriggle out . We are talking about the instant of emission George.

I merely stating what's in the standard SR explanation
of sagnac,

No, you are merely demonstrating how someone with no
knowledge of SR would get it wrong.

Your use of 'frames and transforms' doesn't fool me George.

Most basic physics fools you Henry.

That's why I wrote a book on it....You can read it if you want to learn the
basics...

The rays clearly move at c+v wrt the source.

This isn't quite the Sagnac setup, the light is
emitted tangentially from the edge of the wheel
but it's one I drew months ago and I can't be
bothered illustrating the obvious. It shows some
of the frames we are discussing, so in which of
the two "source" frames do you think the speed is
"clearly" a nice, simple, constant "c+v" ?

We are discussing the STANDARD SR analysis, not your interpretation.

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Sean/SagFrame3.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect

...even wikipedia shows the red and blue dots moving at c+-v wrt the source. fig
3.

Easy, the modulation moves at c and is carried by
the light which must be moving at the same speed,
thus proving Einstein's postulate.

...both move at c+v wrt the source...

The resultant output signal proves the modulation
moves at c relative to the inertial "lab" frame.

....well start looking for that absolurte aether again George.


You forget I actually got my degree in physics
while you only faked yours. It describes the
relationship between the propagation vector
and the angular momentum. See below ...

Yes of course mine are faked...
I actually have a Dsc.

I don't care if you have a BMX, you certainly didn't
pass a physics course.

What you believe is of no consequence here George.
....but it's quite obvious I know a lot more about it than YOU do.


In particular:

"Photons too have quantum spin (they are spin-1
particles), but since photons travel at the
speed c, the "spin axis" of a photon is always
parallel to its direction of motion, pointing
either forward or backward. These two states
correspond to left-handed and right-handed
photons. Whenever a photon is absorbed by an
object, an angular momentum of either +h/2p or
-h/2p is imparted to the object."

.... which supports my 'spinning charge' or 'spinning quark' photon model
perfectly.

Nope, note "... the "spin axis" of a photon is
always parallel to its direction of motion ..."

That's right, the two charges spin around that axis and self propagate along
the axis in a lossless fashion.
Polarization can still occur with this model, too.

You often said the medium (ISM or whatever) could
have different motions along the light path, and
since the equilibrium speed is c/n relative to that
local medium, the motion of the medium affects the
speed of the light.

that's right...but I have never really considered 'dragging'.

Well now you know.

In space, it is only 'partial dragging' at most. In the proximity of a large
mass, I don't think a small amount of matter would 'drag' to any significant
extent.

But that's exactly what you are doing Henry, what
do you think your "spheres" represent.

I don't regard them as ordinary matter. ..but, yes, they probably behave
somewhat like a medium.

Gravity is already accounted for in the Shapiro
effect, bending and blue shift. All that remains
is the particle interactions.

The Shapiro effect is just a slowing of the light due to solar wind and
radiation. This is greater than the acceleration effect due to gravity.

It only applies 100% in space that it below the WDT.

There is no "WDT" in your equations Henry, c+v applies
at all times. The effect of density shows up only in
the equation I added, dv/ds = (c/n-v)/R because the
characteristic distance R depends on charge density.

WDT exists outside the star's sphere.

You previously said it was much less than the ISM
density and perhaps even less than the IGM, but
regardless of that, there is no threshold in your
equations, they apply at all densities.

No George, you don't get the picture.
For a single orbiting stars the light ends up moving at c wrt the sphere (and
essentially wrt the star, with maybe some phase lag and absolute wavelength
shift)...which moves at c+vcos(xt) wrt Earth.

You can assume that it moves through empty space for the majority of its
lifetime.
Note: MY BaTh produced curves rely on the same principle that requires the two
sagnac rays to move at c+/-v wrt the source, in the standard SR explanation.

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 Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:51:06 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
Oh no George, all starlight is miraculously adjusted by the fairies.
Didn't you
know that?
You are welcome to your fantasies. Light isn't "adjusted"
by anything other than the refractive index.

How then does all starlight in the universwe travel to Earth at precisely 'c'?

Thanks for the demonstration of your failure to understand what invariant speed means.
It wasn't really necessary, though.
We knew.

Paul

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 20:18:30 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:51:06 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
Oh no George, all starlight is miraculously adjusted by the fairies.
Didn't you
know that?
You are welcome to your fantasies. Light isn't "adjusted"
by anything other than the refractive index.

How then does all starlight in the universwe travel to Earth at precisely 'c'?

Thanks for the demonstration of your failure to understand what invariant speed means.
It wasn't really necessary, though.
We knew.

I asked for a physical explanation as to HOW and WHY it is invariant.
Can't any relativist tell me?


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.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 20:18:30 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:51:06 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
Oh no George, all starlight is miraculously adjusted by the fairies.
Didn't you
know that?
You are welcome to your fantasies. Light isn't "adjusted"
by anything other than the refractive index.

How then does all starlight in the universwe travel to Earth at
precisely 'c'?

Thanks for the demonstration of your failure to understand what invariant
speed means.
It wasn't really necessary, though.
We knew.

I asked for a physical explanation as to HOW and WHY it is invariant.

Its the nature of space and time that there is a fastest possible speed.
Light travels as fast as it is possible for it to travel. That that fastest
speed is measured as 'c' in all frames of reference. There is no adjustment
of speeds at all required in SR.

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:34:53 +1000, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 20:18:30 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:



How then does all starlight in the universwe travel to Earth at
precisely 'c'?

Thanks for the demonstration of your failure to understand what invariant
speed means.
It wasn't really necessary, though.
We knew.

I asked for a physical explanation as to HOW and WHY it is invariant.

Its the nature of space and time that there is a fastest possible speed.
Light travels as fast as it is possible for it to travel. That that fastest
speed is measured as 'c' in all frames of reference. There is no adjustment
of speeds at all required in SR.

Don't preach postulates to me please....


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" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:34:53 +1000, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 20:18:30 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:



How then does all starlight in the universwe travel to Earth at
precisely 'c'?

Thanks for the demonstration of your failure to understand what
invariant
speed means.
It wasn't really necessary, though.
We knew.

I asked for a physical explanation as to HOW and WHY it is invariant.

Its the nature of space and time that there is a fastest possible speed.
Light travels as fast as it is possible for it to travel. That that
fastest
speed is measured as 'c' in all frames of reference. There is no
adjustment
of speeds at all required in SR.

Don't preach postulates to me please....

Fine .. stay ignorant .. it suits you

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:27:57 +1000, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:34:53 +1000, "Jeckyl" wrote:

I asked for a physical explanation as to HOW and WHY it is invariant.

Its the nature of space and time that there is a fastest possible speed.
Light travels as fast as it is possible for it to travel. That that
fastest
speed is measured as 'c' in all frames of reference. There is no
adjustment
of speeds at all required in SR.

Don't preach postulates to me please....

Fine .. stay ignorant .. it suits you

Do you know what a postulate is, idiot?



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" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:27:57 +1000, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:34:53 +1000, "Jeckyl" wrote:

I asked for a physical explanation as to HOW and WHY it is invariant.

Its the nature of space and time that there is a fastest possible speed.
Light travels as fast as it is possible for it to travel. That that
fastest
speed is measured as 'c' in all frames of reference. There is no
adjustment
of speeds at all required in SR.

Don't preach postulates to me please....

Fine .. stay ignorant .. it suits you

Do you know what a postulate is, idiot?

Of course I do, ****wit.

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:18:13 +1000, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:27:57 +1000, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:34:53 +1000, "Jeckyl" wrote:

I asked for a physical explanation as to HOW and WHY it is invariant.

Its the nature of space and time that there is a fastest possible speed.
Light travels as fast as it is possible for it to travel. That that
fastest
speed is measured as 'c' in all frames of reference. There is no
adjustment
of speeds at all required in SR.

Don't preach postulates to me please....

Fine .. stay ignorant .. it suits you

Do you know what a postulate is, idiot?

Of course I do, ****wit.

It's nothing more than a bloody guess...It's not a law...



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 Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:18:13 +1000, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:27:57 +1000, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:34:53 +1000, "Jeckyl" wrote:
I asked for a physical explanation as to HOW and WHY it is invariant.
Its the nature of space and time that there is a fastest possible speed.
Light travels as fast as it is possible for it to travel. That that
fastest
speed is measured as 'c' in all frames of reference. There is no
adjustment
of speeds at all required in SR.
Don't preach postulates to me please....
Fine .. stay ignorant .. it suits you
Do you know what a postulate is, idiot?
Of course I do, ****wit.

It's nothing more than a bloody guess...It's not a law...

Quite right.
Do you know how we test the validity of postulates, Henri?

Is it by computer animations like these?
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Paul