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: HW on 23 Oct 2005 18:36 On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 08:51:29 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Robert" <RB@..> wrote in message >news:1fjll15gh6g48sdvqhf3jvj582j3hql7ae(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 11:36:54 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >>>http://lisa.jpl.nasa.gov/popups/ripples.html >> >> There isn't any 'spacetime' there. Just 'movement in space'. > >Observations like that of Hulse and Taylor tell >me otherwise. > >>>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. > >More verbiage, but that binary system is losing >energy and at the rate the GR predicts. That >energy is being transported by ripples in >spacetime so it is physical, the maths is just >a description of it. George, the ripples are moving in space at a certain time rate. > >> 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. > >Your "movingframe" diagram shows it does. George there is no BEAM moving up one particular diagonal. There is ONE INFINITESIMAL ELEMENT of the beam moving up each diagonal. The Diagonal is merely a line showing the path of one such element. A line has no thickness. It cannot constitute light or anything else. >> >> There can be no such animal as a 'point particle'. >> Such would be indistinguishable from 'nothing'. > >If that's your opinion, then ... I suppose one could talk about the point where moving scissor blades meet... Is IT distinguishable from nothing? > >>>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. > >I've now looked at that too. Consider just the first >of your elements. Its path is outlined by the two >parallel lines that suddenly appear on the upper >diagram. That path is diagonal while its equivalent >in the lower diagram is vertical. That's because the upper plot of the beam is in the moving frame. The lower one shows the beam in the rest frame. > >> Yes, the vertical green dashes are really just there to show how all the >> ends >> of the diagonal paths remain in vertical alignment. > >Of course, nobody is disputing that. Your diagram >confirms the conventional view with the minor error >that your small elements should lie on the diagonal. That is wrong George. The conventional view ignores the fact that the ends of the 'elements' are emitted at different times, during which the source moves along a little. All the elements of the beam remain aligned vertically in both frames. That is what the program is intended to show and it DOES just that. The vertical green dashes could be taken as elements of finite lengths if you like. >The two small elements you illustrate as sine wave >segments show that quite well. you need to use the >purple one at the head of each line in the moving >frame diagram while it is the green one in the >static frame. No George, the program is correct. You will have to study it a bit more closely. >> The point I am getting across is that no continuous beam moves up any one >> particular diagonal. > >The point that Einstein made in his illustration of >the train is that when considering the path of a >single one of your elements, the length is increased >because that path is diagonal. His argument applies >to each element individually. He said each element moves at c. Why should it? It isn't a light beam. It isn't anything. It certainly is not governed by maxwell's equations. Einstein would be correct if an ether existed. >> The diagonals are lines of infinitesimal thickness. What >> goes up them is certainly not light. > >The diagonals are "rays", hypothetical perpendiculars >to the wavefront as in Huygens. No. they aren't even that. They are merely loci of points...lines on a graph...with no physical properties at all. >>>>>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. > >So use Galilean relativity to switch to the mirror >frame and tell me what you get. I get exactly the conventional explanation. Light always moves at c from the source to where the mirror will be when the beam gets there. the path length is longer in one direction than the other. >>>> 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. > >Nonsense. Why are you wasting our time saying >things you know aren't true. Even Paul Andersen agrees that light leaves its source at c (relative to the source). Are you seriously suggesting that it leaves at some other speed? >>>> >>>> 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. > >No, in Ritz it is supposed to be c+mv in the lab frame >(where m is a factor that depends on the number of >mirrors). Well that is wrong. It always travels at c relative to the (moving) point representing the centre of the next mirror. The path lengths are differnet in either direction ..just as in the conventional explanation. >> You already agreed that light from the moon - or any other object in >> circular >> orbit - always travels to Earth at c. > >No I didn't, what we agreed when discussing the Moon was >that there was no transverse Doppler in Ritz. We didn't >discuss speed at all. > >> Sagnac involves the same principle. > >No it doesn't, the light goes round the cicumference or >along chords to the circumference, it never goes to the >centre of the table. The source revolves around the first mirror. George the mistake you have been making all along is that you have calculated the light speed towards the mirror as c + v/root 2. You have ignored the movement of the mirror. c + v/root 2 is the speed wrt the point where the mirror was at the time of emission. The speed of the beam relative to the moving mirror AS IT REACHES the CENTER OF the DISPLACED mirror, is always exactly c. I have now proved conclusively that Sagnac does NOT refute the BaTh. >> So the BaTh explanation is exactly the same as any other. >> >> Thankyou for clearing this up. > >My pleasure, shame you had so manyt errors in your >description. What I have stated hasn't sunken in to you yet. >>>> 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. > >The advantage was that the errors that were a problem >in late nineteenth century were resolved. Ritz can't do >that as witnessed by Sagnac. No matter how much hand- >waving you try, Ritz gives a null prediction which >contradicts the observed result. Ritz gives exactly the same prediction as the conventional one. > >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: HW on 23 Oct 2005 18:47 On 22 Oct 2005 19:42:21 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Robert wrote: >> 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. > >You do not understand SR by your own admission so I fail to see how you >can decide if it is valid or not. > >> >> > >> >> 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. > >So it is vertical in every frame? Every frame that is moving along the horizontal, yes. Have a look at my program again and use your brain if you have one. >> If you cannot deduce this yourself then consult my program 'movingframe.exe'. > >Why should I consult your computer program when you could simply write >out the mathematics of the transformation from one frame to another? Idiot. Just plot the bloody thing....as my program does. Do you have NO scientific ability at all? >> >> 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. > >Odd. > >You have used superluminal muons in examples before, eg: > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/a7b289a357541458?dmode=source&hl=en > >Why the change of tune? Are you now saying massive particles CANNOT go >faster than the speed of light? Poor boy! Do you have NO scientific ability at all? > >Furthermore, E = mc^2 is a prediction of relativity, not the "BaTh". >You cannot derive E = mc^2 classically, and I defy you to show me >otherwise. E=Mc^2 was around long before relativity. >> >> >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. > >What about "willusions" ? The "willusions" match the form of >relativity. Why is that? Probably because relativity is a DElusion. > >Remember, you have a VERY large amount of posts for me to quote. > >> >> >> >> 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. > >You missed my point, Henri. Support the assertion that there is a local >aether frame. You have NO scientific ability at all? >> > >> >How do you even know SR "breaks down", you admit you don't understand >> >it! >> >> I understand what it cannot do. > >No, you do not. Otherwise you wouldn't make up stupid examples time and >again. You wouldn't be asking questions that you know have no answer >within the context of a physical theory. > >> SR cannot explain why simultaneously emitted light pulses from adjacent but >> differently moving sources should travel together through space. >> >> ->S1__________________>p >> <-S2 > >Relativity of simultainety, constancy of the speed of light. It follows >exactly from the postulates of the theory. If you understood the theory >you would know this. > >Within the framework of the theory, its perfectly obvious. >Unfortunately you cannot work within the framework to find the >solution, because you are a goddamn idiot. Definitely NO scientific ability at all? >> Until you can provide an alternative reason why they should, I will maintain >> that only an absolute spatial reference frame could achieve that outcome. > >You can maintain whatever you want, neither the universe nor anyone >else really cares. Poor boy.... really should start another career before it's too late. >> >> "Try as I may, I cannot >> understand bullshit." > >Yes, that is what you said. You are thus unfit to judge the merits of >SR. If you do not understand the theory, how can you possibly know what >it does and does not predict? It predicts exactly what LET predicts...and I CAN understand LET, because it isn't bullshit. It would be a perfectyl sound theory if an aether actually existed. >> >> 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? > >METRIC, Henri, METRIC. Not graph. I should only have to say it once >considering you quoted me saying it! > >The metric preserves the distance between events, this is basic >differential geometry. Poor confused boy. >> What does that achieve. > >What would be the point of telling you? You will either argue that my >explaination is useless or that you don't, in effect, understand it. It IS useless. > >If you really want to know, you can read any of the modern treatments >of special and general relativity where the metric plays a fundamental >role. It's bullshit. 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: HW on 23 Oct 2005 18:52 On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:33:24 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >Robert <RB@..> wrote in news:t9lll1lf8gesdltqsprkbqggf5pbq3t3sa(a)4ax.com: > >>>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. >> >> > >Robert AKA Henri, > >That should be no problem for a BaTer. > >All you need to do is to get up to .2 c (particles much better than that >all the time in accelerators), and catch up to a photon emitted by a >particle going at -0.9c. > >The particle that emits the photon (going in your direction) is going away >from you in the opposite direction from the direction of your travel. > >By the BaT, c'=c+0.9c = 0.1c > >So, if you are going 0.2 c you should have no trouble catching a photon >that is only going 0.1 c relative to you, should you? > >Henri, I am afraid you can't have it both ways. You can't say that massive >bodies can't go faster than c while maintaining that photons move at >c'=c+v. Your approach leads to logical contradictions. Your argument is not related to the problem geesey raised and I answered. The question is, "if someone emits a pulse of light, can they ever catch up with it?" I have replied by saying NO. Even if all the person's MC^2 energy was available to accelerate the last molecule, it could never reach it. Try rocket propulsion theory....remember the exhaust accelerates too, mainly in the same direction as the pulse. 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: HW on 23 Oct 2005 19:01 On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:46:51 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 13:04:44 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >>> >>>You are babbling. >>>Please answer: >>>Does, or does not the BaT predict what >>>the observed light curve should be? >> >> >> It does. It must. > >Ok. >So you claim that the BaT predicts what the light curve >should look like. > >>>If it does, does it then predict this light curve: >>>http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978MNRAS.184..523N&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf >>> or >>>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978MNRAS.184..523N& >>> And retrieve the full article. >>> >>>If it does not, what does it then predict? >>>Nothing? > >The last time I showed you this, >Henri Wilson wrote: >| It is willusory by definition. >| Because light is used for gaining information about the star, it is a >| willusion. >| The task is to find te truth that causes the willusion. > >> If it does not, it is simply because not all factirs have yet been considered >> (in my program anyway) > >It does not. >The factor you haven't considered is that >the BaT is wrong. I used to consider that..but soon realised that it cannot be wrong. >>> >>> >>>>Different layers within the star have different radial velocities...and that >>>>includes gaseous layers far beyond the extremities of the main body. >>> >>>This is caused by the rotation _only_. >>>The orbital motion has nothing to do with it. >> >> >> Run my little program: >> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/radialvs.exe >> >> (select 'star rotation =1' for tidal lock) > >So the star is rotating. Most - ney ALL - stars rotate. Are you able to run my program? It takes only about five seconds to download. You will enjoy it. A picture speaks a thousand words. >>>So according to you, a rotating star should >>>not emit a black body spectrum. >>>It does. >> >> >> Depends how hot it is and how fast it is rotating. > >In Wondersland, yes. >But not in the real world. Can you not see that the light from the edges would be doppler shifted both ways. It the star was rotating fast enough that would broaden the radiation curve away from precise black body. >> >> run my little program: >> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/radialvs.exe >> >> If you cannot see that the green dots have a higher radial velocities wrt the >> observer than the yellow ones then there is something wrong with you. > >Of course, the star is rotating. >Just about _all_ stars are rotating. >So what? You still haven't run the program. >The secondary minimum of Algol is practically unobservable >in visible light, while it is 0.35 magnitudes deep at 10um, >exactly as the conventional theory predicts they should be. >The BaT does _not_ predict that the light curve >in 10um and visible light should be different. Bull. > >Another falsification of the BaT. in your dreams. > >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: Eric Gisse on 23 Oct 2005 19:37
HW@.. wrote: > On 22 Oct 2005 19:42:21 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >Robert wrote: > >> 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. > > > >You do not understand SR by your own admission so I fail to see how you > >can decide if it is valid or not. > > > >> > >> > > >> >> 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. > > > >So it is vertical in every frame? > > Every frame that is moving along the horizontal, yes. What keeps light moving vertical in the new frame if the new frame has a different velocity? > > Have a look at my program again and use your brain if you have one. Do you realise how absurd it is to say "if you want to know what my theory predicts, look at my program" in the context of a physical theory? > > >> If you cannot deduce this yourself then consult my program 'movingframe.exe'. > > > >Why should I consult your computer program when you could simply write > >out the mathematics of the transformation from one frame to another? > > Idiot. Just plot the bloody thing....as my program does. > Do you have NO scientific ability at all? How am I supposed to know if the equations that I deduce are the correct ones if you refuse to show me the ones you use? Instead of whining every time I ask, just show me. > > > >> >> 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. > > > >Odd. > > > >You have used superluminal muons in examples before, eg: > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/a7b289a357541458?dmode=source&hl=en > > > >Why the change of tune? Are you now saying massive particles CANNOT go > >faster than the speed of light? > > Poor boy! Do you have NO scientific ability at all? You can't answer the questions. > > > > >Furthermore, E = mc^2 is a prediction of relativity, not the "BaTh". > >You cannot derive E = mc^2 classically, and I defy you to show me > >otherwise. > > E=Mc^2 was around long before relativity. Good, then you can show me the classical derivation of it. > > > >> >> >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. > > > >What about "willusions" ? The "willusions" match the form of > >relativity. Why is that? > > Probably because relativity is a DElusion. You didn't answer the question. > > > > >Remember, you have a VERY large amount of posts for me to quote. > > > >> > >> >> >> 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. > > > >You missed my point, Henri. Support the assertion that there is a local > >aether frame. > > You have NO scientific ability at all? You didn't answer the question...again. > > > >> > > >> >How do you even know SR "breaks down", you admit you don't understand > >> >it! > >> > >> I understand what it cannot do. > > > >No, you do not. Otherwise you wouldn't make up stupid examples time and > >again. You wouldn't be asking questions that you know have no answer > >within the context of a physical theory. > > > >> SR cannot explain why simultaneously emitted light pulses from adjacent but > >> differently moving sources should travel together through space. > >> > >> ->S1__________________>p > >> <-S2 > > > >Relativity of simultainety, constancy of the speed of light. It follows > >exactly from the postulates of the theory. If you understood the theory > >you would know this. > > > >Within the framework of the theory, its perfectly obvious. > >Unfortunately you cannot work within the framework to find the > >solution, because you are a goddamn idiot. > > Definitely NO scientific ability at all? You didn't understand the answer so you claim "no scientific ability" on my part. Nice job. > > >> Until you can provide an alternative reason why they should, I will maintain > >> that only an absolute spatial reference frame could achieve that outcome. > > > >You can maintain whatever you want, neither the universe nor anyone > >else really cares. > > Poor boy.... really should start another career before it's too late. Fine, you want to play that game? How do you use your applied mathematics degree in your work? > > >> > >> "Try as I may, I cannot > >> understand bullshit." > > > >Yes, that is what you said. You are thus unfit to judge the merits of > >SR. If you do not understand the theory, how can you possibly know what > >it does and does not predict? > > It predicts exactly what LET predicts...and I CAN understand LET, because it > isn't bullshit. It would be a perfectyl sound theory if an aether actually > existed. Except you stated many times that there is an aether. Such as here : "So was Einstein then. Lorentz was correct. There is at least a 'local aether'. " http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/f9fae54daa7d778b?dmode=source&hl=en These are contradicting statements. So were you mistaken in saying there is an aether, or were you mistaken in saying there isn't one? > > >> >> 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? > > > >METRIC, Henri, METRIC. Not graph. I should only have to say it once > >considering you quoted me saying it! > > > >The metric preserves the distance between events, this is basic > >differential geometry. > > Poor confused boy. YOU are the one that is confused. I am not responsible for the gaps in your education. > > >> What does that achieve. > > > >What would be the point of telling you? You will either argue that my > >explaination is useless or that you don't, in effect, understand it. > > It IS useless. How do you know? You can't even use the word "metric" correctly because you do not even understand what it means or how it is used! > > > > >If you really want to know, you can read any of the modern treatments > >of special and general relativity where the metric plays a fundamental > >role. > > It's bullshit. How would you know? You lack the intellectual curiosity required to actually learn the theory, much less critique it without viewing it through the myopic lens that is your "BaT" theory. > > > 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". |