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: Eric Gisse on 22 Oct 2005 06:40 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:26:27 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > > > > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message > >news:h148l1972bdn5s7mebdb2095netb78ddn8(a)4ax.com... > > >> Can you not see that you are quoting the aether explanation. You seem to > >> think > >> that space has absolute properties that determine light speed. > > > >I know you have chosen not to understand SR, you said > >so a few weeks ago. That doesn't alter the fact that > >the explanation it provides for Sagnac is trivially > >simple. > > Of course it is simple. It has no physical basis. It is just circular maths. Show us the maths of your theory so we can test it for circularity. > > >> Imagine a completely remote sagnac interferometer with mirrors 1 million > >> LYs > >> apart. Are you suggesting that the speed of the beam is determined by > >> something > >> other than its relationship with its source? If so, what might that > >> 'something' > >> be? > > > >The geometry of spacetime. You might want to think > >of it as an extension of Pyhtagoras to 4D. > > George, physically speaking, there is NO spacetime. Mabey, but it is the best description we have. > It is just a maths tool. So? > > > > >> I think you are just a good old fashioned aetherist. > > > >I can't help the mistakes you make, you have said > >ignorance is your choice. > > brainwashing is yours then.. > > >>>Wrong, the aether principle says the speed > >>>is c relative to the aether, not the lab. > >>>You are still just demonstrating you don't > >>>understand either Henri. > >> > >> So how do YOU explain why light speed travels at anything other than c wrt > >> its > >> source, in the case of the huge remote interferometer. > > > >See news:dfaarq$9ag$1(a)news.freedom2surf.net > > can't get it. > > > > >>>>>> As always, SR reverts to LET when it tries to go physical instead of > >>>>>> plain mathematical. > >>>>> > >>>>>You do that, SR uses geometry alone to derive the > >>>>>LTs and is then mathematical. > >>>> > >>>> SR uses LET geometry. > >>> > >>>Wrong again. The geometry of LET is 3d Euclidean, the > >>>geometry of SR is 4d Riemann with signature (+---). > >> > >> very funny. > > > >Fact Henri, but then you have chosen to remain ignorant > >of SR, or at least so you told me. > > Try as I may, I cannot understand bullshit. It wouldn't compromise your position to understand SR and still have a opinion that is counter to it. The only reason you "cannot understand" is because you are incapable of learning anything that doesn't agree with your preconcieved notion of how the universe works. > > I don't wish to be associated with any theory that is based on the obvious > fallacy that a vertical light beam in one frame becomes a diagonal light beam > in another. > That is plain nonsense. So its always vertical then? How about if I emit a photon, then catch up to it? Is it still going vertical relative to me? > > > >>>No speculation at all Henri, just the empirical result. > >> > >> ...and I say the result is due to factors unknown at this stage. > > > >Irrelevant, the result is known. That is what 'empirical' > >means. > > If the result agrees with anything you want it to prove, it is for the wrong > reasons. So you are dismissing observational evidence because you know it is wrong, even though you can't explain why it is wrong? > > >> > >> Well, for tyhe MMX, assumptions might have to be made about the reflection > >> of > >> normally incident light from a sideways moving mirror. In the sagnac, the > >> mirrors are at 45, so the light gets a 'kick' at each reflection according > >> to > >> the BaTh. > >> I still think they are equivalent....but I could be wrong. > > > >There is no 'kick' even in Sagnac. I showed you months > >ago that the light arrives at c so when it leaves at c, > >the speed is the same. Again, you are just rehashing > >old ground. > > I don't accept that. > Too many assumptions are involved. It can never be directly verified. That is a cop-out. "I have to think too much" is what it boils down to. You wouldn't understand the explanation anyway. Remember this? "Try as I may, I cannot understand bullshit." > > > > >>>> No I don't believe sagnac is a test of Ritz. > >>> > >>>Tough luck, it involves the speed of light emitted > >>>from a moving source which is how Ritz differs from > >>>other theories. > > >> > >> So what determines the speed of the beam in the large apparatus mention > >> above? > >> You cannot answer that can you. > > > >I have already told you many times but that is irrelevant. > >The apparatus you describe would measure the speed. Sagnac > >measures the speed from a moving source in the lab and the > >result is c. > > No it doesn't . > The speed of the source is normal to the next mirror's movement. > > >>>> It involves rotation and all the > >>>> complications that go with that.. > >>>> Ritz requires straight lines. > >>> > >>>No, Ritz is supposed to be a scientific theory > >>>for light propagation which means I can apply > >>>it to any situation I like. Those are the rules. > >> > >> Ritz and the BaTh say that light moves at c wrt its source. > > > >Exactly, yet in Sagnac it moves at c relative to the lab > >inertial frame even though the source is moving in that > >frame, ergo Ritz is wrong. > > So was Einstein then. Lorentz was correct. > There is at least a 'local aether'. I am sure you have evidence to support that assertion? > > > > >> LET accepts that light can move at c+v wrt an observer BUT that the > >> observer > >> will always MEASURE the speed of that light as 'c' because his meassuring > >> equipment will physically change tom make that happen. > > > >Correct. > > > >> SR says the same... with the proviso that every observer carries his own > >> 'personal aether frame' around with him. > > > >Wrong, if that were true, the light between your two > >mirrors 1 million LYs apart would need to move at some > >composite speed if viewed by two observers passing > >each other on the path between the mirrors and both > >influencing (e'g' dragging) the aether. Both would > >measure a speed other than c in such a composite-aether > >theory. > > Yes..so SR breaks down in any physical situation.. That conclusion does not follow. How do you even know SR "breaks down", you admit you don't understand it! > > >In reality, the speed measured by each observer > >is c and SR explains that by the geometry of spacetime. > >It is the metric which is physical. > > Never verified. Then test it then. Oh wait, you can't - you don't understand SR. "Try as I may, I cannot understand bullshit." > > > > >> This is just a mathematical trick. > > > >Sorry Henri, as long as you choose to remain ignorant of > >how SR works, you'll never understand the physical basis. > >We went a long way to starting you off but you decided > >not to respond so I'll leave it at that. Nobody can force > >you to learn and I don't intend to waste my time trying. > > Geoge, expressing 3D space and time as a 4D graphic achieves nothing new. > It might impress a lot of little kids but that's about all. METRIC, Henri, METRIC. Not graphic. Do you even know what a metric is? Can you say ANYTHING qualitative or quanitative about the idea of a metric that shows you have had the education to understand it? > > > > >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: Robert on 22 Oct 2005 20:10 On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 11:36:54 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:d51kl1tj9vvemc5f4go35ej7e7coi91621(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:26:27 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>>news:h148l1972bdn5s7mebdb2095netb78ddn8(a)4ax.com... >> >>>> Can you not see that you are quoting the aether explanation. You seem to >>>> think >>>> that space has absolute properties that determine light speed. >>> >>>I know you have chosen not to understand SR, you said >>>so a few weeks ago. That doesn't alter the fact that >>>the explanation it provides for Sagnac is trivially >>>simple. >> >> Of course it is simple. It has no physical basis. It is just circular >> maths. >> >>>> Imagine a completely remote sagnac interferometer with mirrors 1 million >>>> LYs >>>> apart. Are you suggesting that the speed of the beam is determined by >>>> something >>>> other than its relationship with its source? If so, what might that >>>> 'something' >>>> be? >>> >>>The geometry of spacetime. You might want to think >>>of it as an extension of Pyhtagoras to 4D. >> >> George, physically speaking, there is NO spacetime. > >There is a nice artists impression of a binary >system on the LISA site home page: > >http://lisa.jpl.nasa.gov/ > >The middle link illustrates gravitational waves, >ripples in spacetime: > >http://lisa.jpl.nasa.gov/popups/ripples.html There isn't any 'spacetime' there. Just 'movement in space'. > >Those ripples should carry off energy, a prediction >confirmed by Hulse and Taylor. > >http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/psr1913.htm > >> It is just a maths tool. > >Maths tools don't change the orbits of stars, that >takes something physical. The energy is transported >as ripples in spacetime so spacetime must be physical. Bullshit. Spacetime doesn't describe any physical quantity. It is just a bit of maths. .. > >>>> I think you are just a good old fashioned aetherist. >>> >>>I can't help the mistakes you make, you have said >>>ignorance is your choice. >> >> brainwashing is yours then.. > >No, I check for myself as far as I can. Most of SR >is within my capabilities. SR is within the capabilities of anyone who cannot see that a vertical light beam doesn't suddenly become a diagonal one in a moving frame. > >>>>>Wrong, the aether principle says the speed >>>>>is c relative to the aether, not the lab. >>>>>You are still just demonstrating you don't >>>>>understand either Henri. >>>> >>>> So how do YOU explain why light speed travels at anything other than c >>>> wrt >>>> its >>>> source, in the case of the huge remote interferometer. >>> >>>See news:dfaarq$9ag$1(a)news.freedom2surf.net >> >> can't get it. > >If your server has retired the post, Google has >it: > >http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.astro/msg/75f05646b8cd1bec > >There's a lot that is past history but you seemed >to be making some relevant comments on the SR >aspects near the bottom. Anyway, if you want to >know how SR (and I) explains the invariance of >the speed of light, that post will get you started. > >>>>>> SR uses LET geometry. >>>>> >>>>>Wrong again. The geometry of LET is 3d Euclidean, the >>>>>geometry of SR is 4d Riemann with signature (+---). >>>> >>>> very funny. >>> >>>Fact Henri, but then you have chosen to remain ignorant >>>of SR, or at least so you told me. >> >> Try as I may, I cannot understand bullshit. > >Strange, you produce it well enough ;-) > >Seriously though, it is a fact that LET and SR use >completely different geometries. > >> I don't wish to be associated with any theory that is based on the obvious >> fallacy that a vertical light beam in one frame becomes a diagonal light >> beam >> in another. >> That is plain nonsense. > >Let me quote from your own program introduction: > >"One frame (rest) is equipped with a laser which >sends pulses vertically. ... the path of each >infinitesimal element of each photon is diagonal." > >The phrase "each infinitesimal element of each photon" >is gibberish, a photon is a point particle, but what >we are concerned with is the paths. There can be no such animal as a 'point particle'. Such would be indistinguishable from 'nothing'. >In the rest frame >the path is vertical while in the moving frame you >say yourself that the path is diagonal. Just compare >the red laser line with the purple path. > >You have a small error in your diagram, obviously the >short section at the tip of each diagonal path needs to >align with the path because, if you treat the photon as >extended, then the part farthest from the laser was >emitted earlier so will be laterally displaced from the >end nearest the laser in the moving frame by the amount >the frame moved during the time the element was emitted. My 'movingframe.exe' program is better. Yes, the vertical green dashes are really just there to show how all the ends of the diagonal paths remain in vertical alignment. The point I am getting across is that no continuous beam moves up any one particular diagonal. The diagonals are lines of infinitesimal thickness. What goes up them is certainly not light. >>>There is no 'kick' even in Sagnac. I showed you months >>>ago that the light arrives at c so when it leaves at c, >>>the speed is the same. Again, you are just rehashing >>>old ground. >> >> I don't accept that. > >Check for yourself then: > >http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/speed.gif It's wrong. You didn't use the mirror frame. You used the screen frame. > >> Too many assumptions are involved. It can never be directly verified. > >No assumptions, just what Ritz tells us, the speed of >emission is c relative to the source. that's what Einstein said, too. > >>>>>> No I don't believe sagnac is a test of Ritz. >>>>> >>>>>Tough luck, it involves the speed of light emitted >>>>>from a moving source which is how Ritz differs from >>>>>other theories. >>>> >>>> So what determines the speed of the beam in the large apparatus mention >>>> above? >>>> You cannot answer that can you. >>> >>>I have already told you many times but that is irrelevant. >>>The apparatus you describe would measure the speed. Sagnac >>>measures the speed from a moving source in the lab and the >>>result is c. >> >> No it doesn't . >> The speed of the source is normal to the next mirror's movement. > >Speed is distance divided by time. The distance is >known from the dimensions of the experiment and the >rate of rotation. The time difference is measured >and when you do the sum you find the speed is c. The part of the beam that goes from the source to the centre of the mirror travels at c towards that centre no matter how the apparatus rotates. You already agreed that light from the moon - or any other object in circular orbit - always travels to Earth at c. Sagnac involves the same principle. So the BaTh explanation is exactly the same as any other. Thankyou for clearing this up. >>>> Ritz and the BaTh say that light moves at c wrt its source. >>> >>>Exactly, yet in Sagnac it moves at c relative to the lab >>>inertial frame even though the source is moving in that >>>frame, ergo Ritz is wrong. >> >> So was Einstein then. > >No, SR says the speed should be measured as being >c in the lab frame and it is. > >> Lorentz was correct. > >Sort of, LET gives the right prediction but it does >not say the light moves at c in the lab frame, it >only moves at that speed in the aether frame. > >>>Wrong, if that were true, the light between your two >>>mirrors 1 million LYs apart would need to move at some >>>composite speed if viewed by two observers passing >>>each other on the path between the mirrors and both >>>influencing (e'g' dragging) the aether. Both would >>>measure a speed other than c in such a composite-aether >>>theory. >> >> Yes..so SR breaks down in any physical situation.. > >Nope, the measured speed is c, it is the dragged >aether theories that break down. > >>>In reality, the speed measured by each observer >>>is c and SR explains that by the geometry of spacetime. >>>It is the metric which is physical. >> >> Never verified. > >Invariance of speed is verified by Sagnac, MMX, >aberration, Fizeau, etc.. The physical nature of >the metric was verified by Hulse and Taylor. > >>>> This is just a mathematical trick. >>> >>>Sorry Henri, as long as you choose to remain ignorant of >>>how SR works, you'll never understand the physical basis. >>>We went a long way to starting you off but you decided >>>not to respond so I'll leave it at that. Nobody can force >>>you to learn and I don't intend to waste my time trying. >> >> Geoge, expressing 3D space and time as a 4D graphic achieves nothing new. > >It brings our maths into line with what happens in >reality. Clock ticks are measured to be equally >spaced in 4D, not in 1D as Newton thought. It merely complicates the whole issue unnecesarily and to no advantage. > >George >
From: Eric Gisse on 22 Oct 2005 20:26 Robert wrote: [snip] So...are we supposed to call your Robert now, Henri?
From: Robert on 22 Oct 2005 20:31 On 22 Oct 2005 03:40:18 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:26:27 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >> > >> > >> >The geometry of spacetime. You might want to think >> >of it as an extension of Pyhtagoras to 4D. >> >> George, physically speaking, there is NO spacetime. > >Mabey, but it is the best description we have. It describes nothing physical. 'Spacetime' is just a big word designed to impress little boys. > >> It is just a maths tool. > >So? > > >> >> > >> >> I think you are just a good old fashioned aetherist. >> > >> >I can't help the mistakes you make, you have said >> >ignorance is your choice. >> >> brainwashing is yours then.. >> >> >>>Wrong, the aether principle says the speed >> >>>is c relative to the aether, not the lab. >> >>>You are still just demonstrating you don't >> >>>understand either Henri. >> >> >> >> So how do YOU explain why light speed travels at anything other than c wrt >> >> its >> >> source, in the case of the huge remote interferometer. >> > >> >See news:dfaarq$9ag$1(a)news.freedom2surf.net >> >> can't get it. >> >> > >> >>>>>> As always, SR reverts to LET when it tries to go physical instead of >> >>>>>> plain mathematical. >> >>>>> >> >>>>>You do that, SR uses geometry alone to derive the >> >>>>>LTs and is then mathematical. >> >>>> >> >>>> SR uses LET geometry. >> >>> >> >>>Wrong again. The geometry of LET is 3d Euclidean, the >> >>>geometry of SR is 4d Riemann with signature (+---). >> >> >> >> very funny. >> > >> >Fact Henri, but then you have chosen to remain ignorant >> >of SR, or at least so you told me. >> >> Try as I may, I cannot understand bullshit. > >It wouldn't compromise your position to understand SR and still have a >opinion that is counter to it. > >The only reason you "cannot understand" is because you are incapable of >learning anything that doesn't agree with your preconcieved notion of >how the universe works. In this universe, no vertical beam of light in one frame becomes diagonal in another. If you cannot deduce this yourself then consult my program 'movingframe.exe'. >> I don't wish to be associated with any theory that is based on the obvious >> fallacy that a vertical light beam in one frame becomes a diagonal light beam >> in another. >> That is plain nonsense. > >So its always vertical then? > >How about if I emit a photon, then catch up to it? Is it still going >vertical relative to me? You cannot catch up. You don't have enough (mc^2) energy in you body to get the last atom up to that speed. >> >Irrelevant, the result is known. That is what 'empirical' >> >means. >> >> If the result agrees with anything you want it to prove, it is for the wrong >> reasons. > >So you are dismissing observational evidence because you know it is >wrong, even though you can't explain why it is wrong? There is no experimental evidence that supports SR. There is no experimental evidence that refutes the BaTh. >> >> Well, for tyhe MMX, assumptions might have to be made about the reflection >> >> of >> >> normally incident light from a sideways moving mirror. In the sagnac, the >> >> mirrors are at 45, so the light gets a 'kick' at each reflection according >> >> to >> >> the BaTh. >> >> I still think they are equivalent....but I could be wrong. >> > >> >There is no 'kick' even in Sagnac. I showed you months >> >ago that the light arrives at c so when it leaves at c, >> >the speed is the same. Again, you are just rehashing >> >old ground. >> >> I don't accept that. >> Too many assumptions are involved. It can never be directly verified. > >That is a cop-out. "I have to think too much" is what it boils down to. > >You wouldn't understand the explanation anyway. Remember this? "Try as >I may, I cannot understand bullshit." > >> >> > >> >>>> No I don't believe sagnac is a test of Ritz. >> >>> >> >>>Tough luck, it involves the speed of light emitted >> >>>from a moving source which is how Ritz differs from >> >>>other theories. >> >> >> >> >> So what determines the speed of the beam in the large apparatus mention >> >> above? >> >> You cannot answer that can you. >> > >> >I have already told you many times but that is irrelevant. >> >The apparatus you describe would measure the speed. Sagnac >> >measures the speed from a moving source in the lab and the >> >result is c. >> >> No it doesn't . >> The speed of the source is normal to the next mirror's movement. >> >> >>>> It involves rotation and all the >> >>>> complications that go with that.. >> >>>> Ritz requires straight lines. >> >>> >> >>>No, Ritz is supposed to be a scientific theory >> >>>for light propagation which means I can apply >> >>>it to any situation I like. Those are the rules. >> >> >> >> Ritz and the BaTh say that light moves at c wrt its source. >> > >> >Exactly, yet in Sagnac it moves at c relative to the lab >> >inertial frame even though the source is moving in that >> >frame, ergo Ritz is wrong. >> >> So was Einstein then. Lorentz was correct. >> There is at least a 'local aether'. > >I am sure you have evidence to support that assertion? The Sagnac definitely DOES NOT refute the BaTh. I have just shown George why this is the case. >> >> Yes..so SR breaks down in any physical situation.. > >That conclusion does not follow. > >How do you even know SR "breaks down", you admit you don't understand >it! I understand what it cannot do. SR cannot explain why simultaneously emitted light pulses from adjacent but differently moving sources should travel together through space. ->S1__________________>p <-S2 Until you can provide an alternative reason why they should, I will maintain that only an absolute spatial reference frame could achieve that outcome. >> >In reality, the speed measured by each observer >> >is c and SR explains that by the geometry of spacetime. >> >It is the metric which is physical. >> >> Never verified. > >Then test it then. > >Oh wait, you can't - you don't understand SR. "Try as I may, I cannot understand bullshit." > >> >> > >> >> This is just a mathematical trick. >> > >> >Sorry Henri, as long as you choose to remain ignorant of >> >how SR works, you'll never understand the physical basis. >> >We went a long way to starting you off but you decided >> >not to respond so I'll leave it at that. Nobody can force >> >you to learn and I don't intend to waste my time trying. >> >> Geoge, expressing 3D space and time as a 4D graphic achieves nothing new. >> It might impress a lot of little kids but that's about all. > >METRIC, Henri, METRIC. Not graphic. > >Do you even know what a metric is? Can you say ANYTHING qualitative or >quanitative about the idea of a metric that shows you have had the >education to understand it? a length in a 4D graph of space and time? What does that achieve.
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 22 Oct 2005 22:00
In sci.physics, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote on 22 Oct 2005 17:26:21 -0700 <1130027181.292522.93000(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>: > > Robert wrote: > > [snip] > > So...are we supposed to call your Robert now, Henri? > Either that, or Henri's starting a club. :-) -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. |