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: Paul B. Andersen on 9 Oct 2005 16:54 Androcles wrote: > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no> wrote in message > news:1128714861.714112.279680(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > | Claim: > | If Androcles were in Norway, he would break up into > | droplets of mercury. > | > | Proof: > | Androcles does not break up into droplets of mercury, > | therefore Androcles is not in Norway. That's a fact. > > Correct. Well done, tusselad. > I'm not sure that your proposition is true, but it is certainly > valid. You are learning well from me. So valid but false is a possibility? :-) Don't think so. Either I have proven my claim: "If Androcles were in Norway, he would break up into droplets of mercury." to be true, or I have proven nothing because the proof you taught me is logically wrong. > | So you better stay away from Norway, Androcles. > > I have no intention of visiting Norway, we are unable > to test your hypothesis. Likewise we are unable > to test mine, the moon not being fluid. Why would we have to test our claims, when we both have proven them to be true with logical necessity, Androcles? Does that mean that there is a possibility that your claim: "If the Moon were a fluid it would break apart like droplets of mercury." is false? But if your claim may be false, what did you then prove with your contrapositive: "The moon does not break up into droplets of mercury, therefore the moon is not fluid. That's a fact." You have confused your poor, stupid pupil, Androcles. Would you please clear it up? Did you, or did you not prove your claim about the Moon to be true? > However, your claim that Algol is a binary system is not compatible > with your claim the K2 is an accretion disk that occults > the light of the B8 and bounces off the surface of the B8. I think you better look up what I claimed, Androcles. You got it wrong - again! Paul
From: Paul B. Andersen on 9 Oct 2005 17:07 Androcles wrote: > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no> wrote in message > news:1128714861.714112.279680(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > | > | Androcles wrote: > || > I didn't write that, tusselad. You did. > | > | Indeed. > | I never said you wrote it, I said you believed it. > > You are not in a position to know what I believe. > > | > Would you like to be sued for libel? > | > | It is well documented above that you believe > | ((NOT B) AND (NOT A)) = (A => B) > | so please sue me, Androcles. > > Is it? Before the suit commences, I'm prepared to allow you > the opportunity to prove your claim or retract it, failing which I shall > address a missive to > Agder University College (HiA) > Serviceboks 422, N-4604 Kristiansand, NORWAY Tel (+47) 38 14 10 00 Fax > (+47) 38 14 10 01 > informing your superiors and possibly students of your libellous > claims, > is that fair enough? I shall also include the college in the suit, it > has their email > address at the top of your missve here, recorded by Google. > Androcles Go ahead. I am sure the dean will appreciate being sued by a Roman slave. Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 9 Oct 2005 17:12 On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 23:51:52 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:4gjgk11be4aadfp4vu9a0hehnc4hmie7sm(a)4ax.com: > >> On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 17:24:03 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> >> wrote: >> >>>Ad hominem attacks are the last refuge of desperate people. >>>When you make such attacks, you put yourself into that catagory. >>> >>>Download starlight pro from >>>http://www.physics.sfasu.edu/astro/binstar.html and play with it a bit. >> >> Can't you see the flat sections between the eclipses? > >Of course. But the 'flat sections between the eclipses' disappear when the >stars are large and close together, although the region may look rather >flat. Between the eclipses it is dead flat (apart maybe from the 'day/night' effect). You are refering to the partial eclipse condition. >> >> I don't know what you are trying to say here Bob. If the star is not >> being eclipsed, its brightness should remain almost dead constant >> whatever its shape and spin. > >Just as the earth receives different amount of illumination from the sun >when the sun is close to the horizon vs when it is overhead, our sun and >other stars emit different amounts of light at different angles of >radiation. Rubbish. Stars are all homogeneous balls of gas. > >This produces an effect called 'limb darkening'. How the hell does the ecplise by a second distant object affect the properties of the star itself? If you are claiming that the star becomes ellipsoidal or something, then that would only happen if the orbiting object was extremely close. Generally, the star's brightness remains constant outside the eclipse zone. >This makes a body eclipsing the central region of the star 'intercept more >of the star light destended to head in our direction' than the same body >does when it eclipses an off-central region of the star. You appear confused. We were taking about the non-eclipse region. > >> >>>If you want the troughs flat bottomed, >>>turn off limb darkening and make sure the plane of the orbit allows >>>total or annular occultation to take place. >> >> I don't want the troughs flat bottomed. It is obvious how that can be >> achieved. > >Is it? yes, quite obvious. > >>>>>> ..unlike Algol's , which has a distinct >>>>>> concavity....just as the BaT predicts. >>>>>> HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
From: Henri Wilson on 9 Oct 2005 17:14 On 9 Oct 2005 13:54:40 -0700, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no> wrote: > >Androcles wrote: >> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no> wrote in message >> news:1128714861.714112.279680(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> >> | Claim: >> | If Androcles were in Norway, he would break up into >> | droplets of mercury. >> | >> | Proof: >> | Androcles does not break up into droplets of mercury, >> | therefore Androcles is not in Norway. That's a fact. >> >> Correct. Well done, tusselad. >> I'm not sure that your proposition is true, but it is certainly >> valid. You are learning well from me. > >So valid but false is a possibility? :-) >Don't think so. > >Either I have proven my claim: > "If Androcles were in Norway, he would break > up into droplets of mercury." >to be true, or I have proven nothing because >the proof you taught me is logically wrong. > >> | So you better stay away from Norway, Androcles. >> >> I have no intention of visiting Norway, we are unable >> to test your hypothesis. Likewise we are unable >> to test mine, the moon not being fluid. > >Why would we have to test our claims, when we >both have proven them to be true with logical >necessity, Androcles? > >Does that mean that there is a possibility that >your claim: > "If the Moon were a fluid > it would break apart like droplets of mercury." >is false? > >But if your claim may be false, what did you then prove >with your contrapositive: > "The moon does not break up into droplets of mercury, > therefore the moon is not fluid. That's a fact." > >You have confused your poor, stupid pupil, Androcles. >Would you please clear it up? >Did you, or did you not prove your claim about the Moon >to be true? > >> However, your claim that Algol is a binary system is not compatible >> with your claim the K2 is an accretion disk that occults >> the light of the B8 and bounces off the surface of the B8. > >I think you better look up what I claimed, Androcles. >You got it wrong - again! The moon was once fluid. Apparently it didn't break up How far was it from earth when it cooled? > >Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
From: Henri Wilson on 9 Oct 2005 17:40
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 13:10:27 +1000, Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi(a)mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote: >On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, it was written: > >> Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi(a)mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote: >>> On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, it was written: >>>> Timo Nieminen <timo(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, it was written: >>> Given that the electric field of any charged particle extends to an >>> infinite distance (or, if the particle came into existence a time t ago, >>> extends to tc), >> >> You are assuming that electric fields travel at c wrt the charge that creates >> them.. > >The Maxwellian prediction, so far in agreement with experiment. If you >prefer to assume that the electrostatic potential is instantaneous, then, >well, there is no field-free space. No actually I don't. Paul Andersen and I had a private joke about this. The fact that electric fields operate at c is the reason why charges cannot be accelerated beyond c in cyclotrons etc. It is not related to Einsteiniana at all. >>> If the presence of electromagnetic fields is enough to make space not >>> "completely empty", then can your claim >>> "Maxwell's equations don't apply in completelyempty space" >>> have any purpose, since there isn't any "completely empty" space anywhere? >> >> That's why I have proposed the 'Wilson density threshold' below which the >> interaction between photons and matter changes fairly abruptly. >> >> Above the threshold density, matter constitutes a kind of aether, which >> determines the equilibrium light speed in that region. The speed of any light >> emitted in that region or entering from outside will tend towards that >> equilibrium...not necessarilty very rapidly, though. > >Essentially the usual extinction argument, but with a threshhold density >below which extinction won't occur. > >I believe this has real problems trying to explain Fizeau-Fresnel "ether >drag". much higher densities involved here. > >Anyway, it looks difficult to quantify accurately. But an explanation of >Fizeau-Fresnel in terms of your theory would be nice. Any ideas? It would be easier to explain Ohm's Law at 1 degK. You seem like the kind of person who would ridicule the suggestion that electrical resistance would suddenly approach zero below a critical threshold temperature....or that the PE effect threshold was nonsense. Timo, physics is riddled with THRESHOLDS. >>>>> What do you say the effect of having "completely empty" space between the >>>>> two plates is? >>>>> >>>>> Likewise, you can measure permeability by measuring inductance. >>>>> >>>> Once again, the field itself turns 'empty space' into 'space with a field'. >>>> >>>>>> Next, you accelerate at 0.0001 c/sec2 for 1000 seconds. >>>>>> What values do you now get for the two constants? >>>>>> What do they imply? >>>>> >>>>> Well, the traditional relativistic view is that moving through empty >>>>> space won't have any effect, so the measurements would be the same as >>>>> before. >>>> >>>> I don't want to hear the 'traditional relativistic view'. >>>> However, the finding might be that the value of the universal constant 'c' is >>>> indeed constant. >>>> >>>> This implies that light emitted by the observer would travel at c wrt that >>>> observer. >>> >>> Sure. It would also mean that light emitted by other sources would travel >>> at c wrt that observer. Unless the Maxwell equations are wrong. Prove >>> that, and you are a long way towards getting your theory accepted. If you >>> can't prove it, then your theory is kaput. >> >> Maxwell's equations are totally meaningless unless a speed reference is >> provided. >> For Maxwell, that reference was a universal medium. > >Use a distance object as the speed reference; doesn't need to be anything >local. A coordinate system doesn't need local matter. Of course, making >measurements will need local matter. But the measurements don't need to be >made in the same region of space in which the Maxwell equations are used >to predict the propagation of fields. Still, where is sufficiently empty >space - below your threshold density - available, and experimentally >accessible? There lies the problem. > >>> 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. >>> >>> What about you? Are you willing to discuss the physics of your theory? >> >> I am always willing. >> I have thought about this a great deal...and repeat what I just stated above. >> Speed must have a reference. >> >> Maxwell's equations do not imply that EM must move at c wrt ALL observers. >> They merely say that light generated by a source should move at the value of c >> determined by an observer who measures the two constants in the source frame. > >Not necessarily the source frame. Essentially, the Maxwell equations imply >that EM moves that c wrt to the coordinate system being used, regardless >of the motion of the source. In general, there is no requirement for the >source to be stationary. No they don't. Einstein said that, not Maxwell. Maxwell assumed an aether as a reference. Einstein merely replaced that aether with a postulate. > >So, for ballistic theories to be correct, the Maxwell equations must be >wrong. However, given that AFAICT your theory is essentially identical to >Maxwellian theory in the presence of even minimal amounts of matter makes >experimental tests difficult. Timo, no matter how or where Maxwell's two constants are measured, they will only produce the value of the universal constant 'c'. It so happens that light is emitted at c wrt its source. Why I dunno. >Galilean ether theories basically mean that Maxwell equations + >permittivity and permeability independent of coordinate system must be >wrong. all speeds must have a reference. Otherwise they are meaningless. Light emitted by a remote source has only one reference...and that certainly isn't little planet Earth....which just happens to harbour lots of religious fanatics who still want to cling to the notion that it really IS the centre of the universe. Maybe all relativists belong in this category. >>>>> If there was an effect, it would be evidence of "ether wind", which brings >>>>> to mind a certain experiment by Trouton and Noble. >>>> >>>> According to aether theories the instruments would physically change so as to >>>> keep the measured values constant. >>> >>> According to SOME ether theories. Only according to ether theories >>> specifically designed to explain such null results. >> >> I think they all do that. > >Any that haven't been falsified by experiment do that. The ones that were >falsified by the experiments in question didn't predict a null result. >Some of the papers from that time make for interesting reading. Trouton's >attempt to measure orientation-dependence of electrical resistance was a >nice try. They wont find a universal aether because there isn't one. Local EM FoRs could easily exist though. Our atmosphere effectively constitutes one such frame. So might the Earth's gravity field. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". |