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: Henri Wilson on 9 Oct 2005 17:50 On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 01:00:10 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: >In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> > wrote >>>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/redshift.exe >>> >>>If I wanted to use your redshift program I'd rewrite it in Java. :-P >> >> Java is terrible to use. The code is pretty easy though. > >Would you prefer C#? I'm quite happy with basic. It's easy and quick enough. >> >>>And even then, there's the issue of the Eolas patent, which basically >>>precludes, among other things, applets and objects without a license. >> >> I am not trying to make money out of my programs. > >You are not. However, website designers are worried about >the Eolas patent, as they should be; many Web pages include >applets, which can be construed as extrenal programs whose >display is embedded within a hypermedia (HTML) page, and >are thereby using the patent. > >To their credit, Eolas is on record as stating that they'll >license noncommercial usage of their patent, and there is >a workaround using dynamic Javascript. Another good reason for not using Java. 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 17:59 On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 14:53:39 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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 Now that you have gotten the picture right , please explain it to the other morons here. We have an approximate example of this in the case of the moon orbiting the earth...with the earth circling the sun and also rotating about its own axis. All the time, there is no radial motion between earth and moon....but light from the moon is 'transversely doppler shifted'. Similarly, there is no radial motion between any mirror of the Sagnac and the previous one. If you want to write a joint paper on this I am quite willing. I think the world should know why Sagnac DOES NOT refute the BaTh. .. > >George 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 18:04 On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 15:09:55 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >"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. The moon is rotating around the earth, which is also rotating daily. The moon's radial speed wrt Earth is zero. It wouldn't make any difference if the earth rotated in 1 day, 28 days or 1000 days. Sagnac DOES NOT refute the BaTh. Sagnac clearly supports either my transverse doppler theory' my 'photon axis' theory or good old fashioned aether, of which SR is a subset. .. 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: Timo Nieminen on 9 Oct 2005 18:21 On Sun, 9 Oct 2005, it was written: > 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: > >>> 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. Sure, but I still don't see how it can be explained in terms of ballistic emission theories with extinction. The density is high enough so there should be essentially immediate extinction. So why dragging? > >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. Sure. Especially the physics of complex systems. People believe that superconductors exist since they can be experimentally demonstrated and there are working theoretical explanations. If you can provide a reproducable lab experiment and a working theory, then people will believe you. Otherwise, you have an ad hoc proposal that appears to be experimentally untestable, contrary to currently accepted theory that works very well in laboratory experiments, and is, in the orthodox view, not needed. At the very least, if you can develop some real theory - quantitative, and not just hand-waving - then you're over the first hurdle. > >> 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. Yes. According to Maxwell, EM waves and changes in EM fields move at c wrt the ether. Note that this means not at c wrt the source when the source is moving. > Einstein merely replaced that aether with a postulate. The Maxwell equations holding in all inertial coordinate systems, and permittivity and permeability of free space being the same in all inertial coordinate systems gives you Maxwellian electrodynamics, with EM waves at c relative to the _observer_ in all cases. I think it's interesting that whereas EM waves at c relative to observers means EM waves are not at c relative to a moving source, the SR composition of velocities means that you can have both: c wrt observers and c wrt sources at the same time. -- Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/ E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
From: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 9 Oct 2005 18:42
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no> wrote in message news:1128892063.167128.258600(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... | | 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 Ok... You asked for it. Androcles |