Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: bz on 9 Oct 2005 08:54 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:f4mgk1ls96rgfjoplja5l2munbhkctkaii(a)4ax.com: > In the mirror frame, the source is moving in a circle around that > mirror. False. In the mirror's frame, the location of the source is constant and the angle of incidence of light from the source is constant. Proof? If what you stated were true, the source would orbit around the mirror and the angle of incidence of the light would change through 360 degrees with every rotation of the platform. This is obviously not true as the angle of incidence of the light is measureable constant within a few fractions of a wavelength, no matter how fast the platform rotates. > Its velocity component towards the mirror is zero. > If your first statement were true, your second statement could not be true because if the source were in circular motion wrt the first mirror then it MUST be moving with a velocity of sin theta in one direction and a velocity of cos theta in the perpendicular direction. There would be a component in the direction of the mirror at all times. The source and the mirrors are fixed wrt each other at all times. The only things that are not fixed in postion are the photons traveling around the ring. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: George Dishman on 9 Oct 2005 09:53 "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns96EA50DFCC736WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > news:f4mgk1ls96rgfjoplja5l2munbhkctkaii(a)4ax.com: > >> In the mirror frame, the source is moving in a circle around that >> mirror. > > > False. > > In the mirror's frame, the location of the source is constant and the > angle > of incidence of light from the source is constant. > > Proof? If what you stated were true, the source would orbit around the > mirror and the angle of incidence of the light would change through 360 > degrees with every rotation of the platform. Consider a non-rotating frame centred on the mirror. It is not inertial because the origin is accelerated but the source orbits the mirror at the same rate that the mirror rotates. It's hard to imagine a more awkward frame to choose George > This is obviously not true as the angle of incidence of the light is > measureable constant within a few fractions of a wavelength, no matter how > fast the platform rotates. > >> Its velocity component towards the mirror is zero. >> > > If your first statement were true, your second statement could not be true > because if the source were in circular motion wrt the first mirror then it > MUST be moving with a velocity of sin theta in one direction and a > velocity > of cos theta in the perpendicular direction. There would be a component in > the direction of the mirror at all times. > > The source and the mirrors are fixed wrt each other at all times. The only > things that are not fixed in postion are the photons traveling around the > ring. > > -- > bz > > please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an > infinite set. > > bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 9 Oct 2005 11:00 In sci.physics, George Dishman <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote on Sun, 9 Oct 2005 14:53:39 +0100 <dib6vp$472$1(a)news.freedom2surf.net>: > > "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message > news:Xns96EA50DFCC736WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... >> H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >> news:f4mgk1ls96rgfjoplja5l2munbhkctkaii(a)4ax.com: >> >>> In the mirror frame, the source is moving in a circle around that >>> mirror. >> >> >> False. >> >> In the mirror's frame, the location of the source is >> constant and the angle of incidence of light from the >> source is constant. >> >> Proof? If what you stated were true, the source would >> orbit around the mirror and the angle of incidence of >> the light would change through 360 degrees with every >> rotation of the platform. In such a frame the mirror is also rotating. > > Consider a non-rotating frame centred on the mirror. > It is not inertial because the origin is accelerated > but the source orbits the mirror at the same rate that > the mirror rotates. > > It's hard to imagine a more awkward frame to choose How about one rotating in the opposite direction? :-) [rest snipped] -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: bz on 9 Oct 2005 11:09 "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:dib6vp$472$1 @news.freedom2surf.net: > Consider a non-rotating frame centred on the mirror. > It is not inertial because the origin is accelerated agreed. > but the source orbits the mirror at the same rate that > the mirror rotates. In the mirror's FoR, the universe is rotating in a rather eccentric way, but the source is fixed in position at a contant distance and angle. This must be true as all mirrors and source are fastened securely to a base- plate of some sort. You (Henri or George) seem choosing a POINT on the mirror, perhaps a point at the exact center of the mirror and are using that as your origin, but looking at things around that point from a FoR that is parallel to some reference in the lab FoR. Thus you have NOT chosen the mirror's FoR, but a hybred FoR that is related to the turntable AND to the lab in a rather complex way. > > It's hard to imagine a more awkward frame to choose Agreed, except, perhaps, for the photons FoR. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Timo Nieminen on 9 Oct 2005 15:39
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005, Androcles wrote: > "Timo Nieminen" <uqtniemi(a)mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote: > | On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Androcles wrote: > | > "Timo Nieminen" <uqtniemi(a)mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote: > | > | > | > | Now, this is IMHO an interesting question of physics. I'd have > thought > | > the > | > | ballistic theory gang would be interested, since it could lead to > a > | > real > | > | test of your various ballistic/emission theories. Alas, it hasn't > been > | > | possible to discuss it with Greenfield or Androcles. > | > > | > I'll discuss it, but you have to agree to do it on an equal basis, > I'll > | > only cheese off your pompous know-it-all attitude and one-up-manship > | > games of "Noted refused to answer". I'll cuss you out. > | > | Oh, so your "rules of discussion" mean that you consider bad language, > | insults, claiming that curl E = -dB/dt is different from > | curl E + dB/dt = 0 in some substantial way? > > The rules of discussion are those set out by [cut Androclean potty-mouth > spew] aka Paul Draper [cut] > When we get to a point of conflict, we'll identify what the > error is on either side, and the party in error MUST acknowledge the > error and remove the erroneous statement from further discussion. [cut] > So now you know and need not guess what the rules of discussion are. > Please acknowledge them. No. I don't agree to these terms of discussion. In any case, you've already shown that you don't follow those rules, anyway, in your discussion with PD. "Equal", eh? :) > | You insist that you can > | repeatedly ignore or cut relevant questions that are central to the > | discussion proceeding? > > No. Yet you did last time, and you did below, as well. > | Well, let's see if you really mean "equal", or > | whether you really mean "the Androclean way". > | > | The discussion that you ran out on had reached the stage: > > You are a LIAR, the last thing I said in that discussion was > > "Sorry, I thought you were familiar with the Maxwell equations." > (instigitated of course by Timo Nieminen) > Timo Nieminen: > Oh? > Yes, my mistake. Sorry about that." OK, you've revealed exactly how much physics you wish to discuss. The above was what you posted when you ran out on the discussion last time. (a) You claimed that permittivity and permeability of free space are zero (b) You agreed that this implied that D=0, B=0 (c) You claimed the all of the Maxwell equations apart from the modified Ampere's law are correct (a) is a point of conflict. After (c), you refused to answer any questions relating to (a)-(c). > Under the rule of discussion by [cut Androclean potty-mouth spewing]: > "We'll go things one little step at a time. When we get to a point of > conflict, we'll identify what the error is on either side, and the party > in error MUST acknowledge the error and remove the erroneous > statement from further discussion", we have reached a point of > conflict. This you clearly didn't do, since you cut-and-ran to evade the point. Twice. > Please acknowledge that you've lied, I did not run out, you did. Ha! You run out on a question of physics, and return to divert the discussion to the above! Well, this clearly demonstrates your willingness to discuss physics. Still, I'll give you a further chance to discuss physics, though I expect you'll use it as an opportunity to cut-and-run. (d) Are E and H zero in free space, as well as D and B? (e) What is the correct 4th Maxwell equation? (f) Is the Lorentz force-law correct? (g) What are the constitutive parameters for a moving medium that is linear and isotropic when at rest? -- T. |