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: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 11 Oct 2005 03:16 "Timo Nieminen" <timo(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.50.0510111651590.14920-100000(a)localhost... | On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, Androcles wrote: | | > "Timo Nieminen" <timo(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: | > | | > | Look, it's really simple: the Maxwell equations predict one thing, you | > | predict a different thing. Either you are wrong, or the Maxwell | > equations | > | are wrong. This is testable. | > | > Look, it's really simple: | > "It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at | > the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries | > which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. "--Albert Einstein, | > 1905. | > It was known 100 yeas ago that Maxwell's equation are wrong. Get over | > it. | | Does the hook hurt your mouth? | Refusal to discuss physics noted. Androcles. | (a) When is 5 hours earlier than 5 hours later than now? | (b) What is the capacitance of a parallel plate capacitor with vacuum | between the plates? | (c) If the Maxwell-modified Ampere's law is wrong, what is the correct | equation? | | -- | Timo
From: jgreen on 11 Oct 2005 04:40 > | > > | >Fair cop; I meant "radially". > | > | You were right the first time. The moon's transverse speed wrt Earth > is much > | greater than its radial speed. > > It's ok, he's 'fessed up. No need to rub it in. Pity there are not more > like him. > It's a whole lot easier than trying to defend what he said, I'm quite > sure he meant > radially anyway. I quite like the guy, he's honest. > Androcles. Sometimes! Ghost loves the maths, but when he came up with a difference in traverse duration from saturn, of two signals emitted simultaneously by a stationary and approaching source ref us, he was so amazed, that he has never addressed the subject again!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jim G c=c'+v
From: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 11 Oct 2005 04:57 <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message news:1129020029.839358.147520(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... |> | > | > | >Fair cop; I meant "radially". | > | | > | You were right the first time. The moon's transverse speed wrt Earth | > is much | > | greater than its radial speed. | > | > It's ok, he's 'fessed up. No need to rub it in. Pity there are not more | > like him. | > It's a whole lot easier than trying to defend what he said, I'm quite | > sure he meant | > radially anyway. I quite like the guy, he's honest. | > Androcles. | | Sometimes! | Ghost loves the maths, but when he came up with a difference in | traverse duration from saturn, of two signals emitted simultaneously by | a stationary and approaching source ref us, he was so amazed, that he | has never addressed the subject again!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | | Jim G | c=c'+v I was actually having a dig at Wilson, whose crackpot ideas of "Wilson Cool Heavies" for planets and his "h-aether theory" have not been retracted, nor his 1/2 spirals that he calls ellipses.Wilson is not about to 'fess up and admit he was wrong. Wilson is out of line, a loose cannon. Androcles.
From: jgreen on 11 Oct 2005 05:22 george(a)briar.demon.co.uk wrote: > Henri Wilson wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:53:00 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > > wrote: > > > > > > > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message > > >news:db4jk1hda18n1gno0lhsmto6rr7hajprip(a)4ax.com... > > >> On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 14:53:39 +0100, "George Dishman" > > > > >>>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. > > > > > >Lucky guess, you didn't say whether you > > >meant a rotating or non-rotating frame. > > > > I thought you could work that out. Non rotating. > > The confusion is because you said "In the mirror > frame, " ... which means 'in a frame in which the > mirror is at rest, i.e. not rotating, hence neither > is the source but then went on to say ".. the source > is moving in a circle around that mirror." > > > >> 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'. > > > > > >Transverse Doppler is another name for time dilation > > >so doesn't occur in Ritzian theory (nor I presume in > > >your BaT). > > > > You have been talking to Jim Greenfield for too long. > > I don't think I can disagree with that! Well up yours! You wouldn't just be miffed because I spotted the flaw in your "time dilation" animation? Now I find I was mislead by the sagnac one as well! No mention in there of "600rpm". It clearly is to represent the rotation of the AIRFRAME; maybe ONE rpm. A completely different kettle of Welsh salmon......... > > > A form of transverse doppler DOES exist in the BaTh...the point being that a > > signal from an orbiting source doesn't come from the point it appears to come > > from. When the source APPEARS directly overhead, it has really moved on a > > little. > > When it IS REALLY directly overhead, light reaching the observer came from a > > point before the vertical and therefore has a transverse velocity component. > > When the signal received is from a point where > the motion is perpendicular to the line of sight, > there is no Doppler. Exactly! THAT is the scenario with a vertical beam in the railway carriage (this ref time dilation, and the "cause" thereof) None there either. Looking at a signal from a > satellite coming from an earlier point, the motion > is generally not perpendicular so you get Doppler > caused by the radial component. The fact that the > signal is offset from the current location due to > aberration doesn't give transverse Doppler, it is > just delayed radial Doppler. roflmto! George, DELAY = time change; time change = VELOCITY change (due to) > > > >> 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. > > > > > >But it does Henri. Doppler would produce a second > > >order output while the Sagnac Effect is first order, > > >and transverse Doppler doesn't exist in Ritzian theory. > > > > Well I haven't looked into that. > > Sorry, I should have said it produces continuous > movement of the fringes, not a static shift (as I > mentioned before). The gamma factor is second order. > > > The main point is that there is no significant > > radial velocity between the source and the first mirror. > > Right, unlike viewing the Moon or a satellite from > the surface of the Earth where the observer's offset > from the centre creates a radial component. As long > as the distance between the source and mirror is > constant, you get no Doppler. And yet George claims there IS transverse doppler in the train scenario, and WHERE in SR does it say that the shortenning of the train ALSO involves the ceiling approaching the floor???????????????? SR is ONE directional; An airplane changes its note as it flies over because the distance to it alters; a helicopter hoverring above at constant altitude does NOT exhibit a different note than if on the ground below. You need to understand the CAUSE of doppler ref emr; it is due to relative velocity of the emr particles, not magical frequency/wavelength changes. (snip) Jim G c=c'+v
From: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 11 Oct 2005 05:43
<jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message news:1129022542.245488.163810(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... | | george(a)briar.demon.co.uk wrote: | > Henri Wilson wrote: | > > On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:53:00 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> | > > wrote: | > > | > > > | > > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message | > > >news:db4jk1hda18n1gno0lhsmto6rr7hajprip(a)4ax.com... | > > >> On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 14:53:39 +0100, "George Dishman" | > > | > > >>>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. | > > > | > > >Lucky guess, you didn't say whether you | > > >meant a rotating or non-rotating frame. | > > | > > I thought you could work that out. Non rotating. | > | > The confusion is because you said "In the mirror | > frame, " ... which means 'in a frame in which the | > mirror is at rest, i.e. not rotating, hence neither | > is the source but then went on to say ".. the source | > is moving in a circle around that mirror." | > | > > >> 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'. | > > > | > > >Transverse Doppler is another name for time dilation | > > >so doesn't occur in Ritzian theory (nor I presume in | > > >your BaT). | > > | > > You have been talking to Jim Greenfield for too long. | > | > I don't think I can disagree with that! | | Well up yours! | You wouldn't just be miffed because I spotted the flaw in your "time | dilation" animation? Now I find I was mislead by the sagnac one as | well! No mention in there of "600rpm". It clearly is to represent the | rotation of the AIRFRAME; maybe ONE rpm. | A completely different kettle of Welsh salmon......... Dishman is a idiot, he thinks the speed of light is infinite when the permittivity and permeability of a medium falls to zero. Obviously he's an aetherialist, like Wilson. | > | > > A form of transverse doppler DOES exist in the BaTh...the point being that a | > > signal from an orbiting source doesn't come from the point it appears to come | > > from. When the source APPEARS directly overhead, it has really moved on a | > > little. | > > When it IS REALLY directly overhead, light reaching the observer came from a | > > point before the vertical and therefore has a transverse velocity component. | > | > When the signal received is from a point where | > the motion is perpendicular to the line of sight, | > there is no Doppler. | | Exactly! THAT is the scenario with a vertical beam in the railway | carriage | (this ref time dilation, and the "cause" thereof) | None there either. | | Looking at a signal from a | > satellite coming from an earlier point, the motion | > is generally not perpendicular so you get Doppler | > caused by the radial component. The fact that the | > signal is offset from the current location due to | > aberration doesn't give transverse Doppler, it is | > just delayed radial Doppler. | | roflmto! | George, DELAY = time change; time change = VELOCITY change (due to) v = dx/dt does not mean v = dy/dt. Einstein's (1 -cos(phi).v/c) f' = f ---------------------------- sqrt(1 - (dx/dt)^2/c^2) reduces to f' = f(1 -cos(phi).v/c) = f(1 -cos(90 degrees).v/c) = f(1 - 0) = f and there is no transverse shift. The phuckwit Einstein thinks v = dy/dt as well as dx/dt. | > | > > >> 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. | > > > | > > >But it does Henri. Doppler would produce a second | > > >order output while the Sagnac Effect is first order, | > > >and transverse Doppler doesn't exist in Ritzian theory. | > > | > > Well I haven't looked into that. | > | > Sorry, I should have said it produces continuous | > movement of the fringes, not a static shift (as I | > mentioned before). The gamma factor is second order. | > | > > The main point is that there is no significant | > > radial velocity between the source and the first mirror. | > | > Right, unlike viewing the Moon or a satellite from | > the surface of the Earth where the observer's offset | > from the centre creates a radial component. As long | > as the distance between the source and mirror is | > constant, you get no Doppler. | | And yet George claims there IS transverse doppler in the train | scenario, and WHERE in SR does it say that the shortenning of the train | ALSO involves the ceiling approaching the floor???????????????? | SR is ONE directional; Yep... v = dx/dt, not dy/dt. | An airplane changes its note as it flies over because the distance to | it alters; a helicopter hoverring above at constant altitude does NOT | exhibit a different note than if on the ground below. | You need to understand the CAUSE of doppler ref emr; it is due to | relative velocity of the emr particles, not magical | frequency/wavelength changes. | "Ignorance is educable; stupidity is forever".--wisest thing Uncle Snipcrap ever said. Androcles. |