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 24 Oct 2005 19:10 On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 11:42:19 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > ><HW@..> wrote in message news:li1ol19gggtqml7m0rdic4srciltnvfjkn(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 08:51:29 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>>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. > >GR predicts the ripples move at the speed of light. I don't care. > >>>> 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. > >Right, so when you want to know the length of the >path, it is the length of that diagonal. That's >the basis of Einstein's illlustration. the faulty basis. He assumed the light would take longer to get to the top because it had a longer path. Of course in reality the light beam takes the same time to get to the top. It is not light that moves up each diagonal. > >> A line has >> no thickness. It cannot constitute light or anything else. > >See below. > >>>> 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. > >Right, that's why I say your program illustrates >that Einstein was correct. bull! How can you say that? > >>>> 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. > >No, it's right, the "conventional view" relates to the >path taken, not the orientation of elements. In fact >when discussing it I usually describe the source as a >photographic flash bulb to make it clearer. > >> 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. > >Yes, if you had a series of flashes, that would be true, >but the illustration relates to the path length for a >single flash so that is not contrary to the conventional >view. Instead of flashes, think in terms of 'moving wavecrests' George. Plot the path of each wavecrest. It is diagonal. BUT ALL THE WAVECRESTS REMAIN VERTICALLY ALIGNED in the moving frame. >> The vertical green dashes could be taken as elements of finite lengths if >> you >> like. > >Indeed, consider the light from a car indicator. You >would have elements with equal length gaps between them. Like I said, the best method is to plot the points that represent consecutive wavecrests (whatever a wavecrest is). > >>>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. > ><from above> >> A line has >> no thickness. It cannot constitute light or anything else. > >Indeed, I made a mistake. You are right about the orientation >of the element, the mistake is that the entire element sweeps >out an area, the diagonal line trailing behind the element >should be wider. That's why I use infinitesimal elements. With an infinite number of these, the diagonal line would be continuous. ..as wide as the whole beam...if you see what I mean. > >>>> 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. > >Correct. Each element in your diagram or the flash from >the bulb as I put it moves at the speed of light, because >it is light. Not so. It is a point on a graph.....nothing physical. There is no connection with light or Maxwell's equations. The purple laser beam in my demo is a REAL diagonal light beam. All the elements follow each other up the same diagonal. That is a distinctly diffferent situation. >> Why should it? It isn't a light beam. It isn't anything. It certainly is >> not >> governed by maxwell's equations. > >Of course it is Henri. How can you say the light from >a laser isn't light? That's just bizarre. The vertical line of elements IS light. The diagonal plot of each infinitesimal element is NOT light. >> 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. > >The locus has a key property - length. It has indeed. ..and the time taken for each element to travel the length of the diagonal is the same as that taken by the same element in the rest frame. In other words, the element 'moves up' the diagonal at sqrt(c^2+v^2) NOT at 'c'. Einstein' major error was to claim that each element constituted a light beam moving at c in the moving frame. The theory works in LET if one uses a spherical light source instead of a laser. ...one that emits continuous beams in all 360 degrees. (part three of my demo, unfinished). You can see what happens. In this case a true diagonal beam DOES exist, moving at c through the aether....but the actual beam is different for each speed of the moving frame. >>>>>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. > >In that case you haven't actually tried to do it, >you are just saying you did. I can visualize what happens. It is exactly the same as the conventional explanation. The path lengths are different and the light speed remains c everywhere. Even the kick of each mirror is normal to the next mirror IN THAT MIRROR'S FRAME. >>>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). > >Sorry Henri, I don't respond to accusations of what other >people might have said. I know Paul understands SR and >you admit you don't so I'm not surprised you don't follow >him. Do you not believe that light leaves its source at c? ....I find that extraordinary. > >> Are you seriously suggesting that it leaves at some other speed? > >Light will be measured to move at c in any inertial >frame, that's been known for a century now. How has it been known when it has never been measured? You are starting to rave and preach, George. >>>> 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. > >That's what Ritz predicts, I agree Ritz is wrong. I agree you are wrong and Ritz never said that. > >> It always travels at c relative to the (moving) point representing the >> centre >> of the next mirror. > >Yes, that's correct and follows from the above since >the next mirror is moving at mv relative to the lab >frame. The mirror is moving in a circle in the frame of the next mirror. That's the crucial point, George. > >> The path lengths are differnet in either direction ..just as in the >> conventional explanation. > >Right, in the lab frame, but the path length difference >matches the speed difference hence to propagation times >are the same in Ritz, hence a null prediction No George. I have just explained why not. The conventional explanation applies. >>> >>>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. > >Exactly, not the centre of the table. It revolves around that too. We must be careful here to disciminate between the ROTATING and NON-Rotating frames of the first mirror. In the former, the source does not move or rotate. In the latter, the source moves in a circle. In both cases, CMIIW, the source does not move radially wrt 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. > >Yes, that is exactly what I showed in this diagram: > > http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/speed.gif I haven't the faintest idea what you are getting at here. the true situation is at: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/george1.jpg The yellow beam is supposed to be collimated and coherent....but it will always have a little deviation and dispersion. Without rotation, the centres of the source and mirrors are lined up parallel (black line). During rotation, the part of the original beam that reaches the mirror centre is drawn diagonally in black. WRT that (moving) mirror, that diagonal light beam arrives with a one way speed of c. The path length is distinctly longer than the parallel one. >hence there is no "kick" in the speed. You finally >agreed with me :-) > > >> I have now proved conclusively that Sagnac does NOT refute the BaTh. > >No, you have now proved that it predicts a null result. >The speed is c and the path in that frame is unchaged >by the rotational speed too. No No. The path changes just as the conventional theory states. >>> >>>My pleasure, shame you had so manyt errors in your >>>description. >> >> What I have stated hasn't sunken in to you yet. > >What you have stated is exactly what I drew on that >diagram and it is dated 1st Feb, 2004. You finally >caught up! No George. Light from the source always has a relative OWLS of c in both the source frame and the next miror frame. The two opposite paths are longer and shorter during rotation, just as the conventional theory states.. > >>>... 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. > >Nope, you just proved it gives a null prediction. No. see my diagram. > >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 24 Oct 2005 19:11 On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 12:59:12 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >HW@.. wrote in news:li1ol19gggtqml7m0rdic4srciltnvfjkn(a)4ax.com: > >> I suppose one could talk about the point where moving scissor blades >> meet... Is IT distinguishable from nothing? >> >> > >Finally, you mention a phenomina that CAN move faster than light. > >Take two intersecting laser beams and move the point of intersection by >moving them like a pair of scissor blades. The point of intersection CAN >move at any velocity you like. that's because it is a mathematical and not a physical entity. 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 24 Oct 2005 19:13 On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:09:42 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >HW@.. wrote in news:li1ol19gggtqml7m0rdic4srciltnvfjkn(a)4ax.com: > >> 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. >> >> > >Henri, you and I have discussed this before. If the ends of the photon >are emitted at different times, they will be in different locations >relative to the vertical in the other frame. They appear to be 'slanted' >just as the beam appears to be slanted. > >Think of shooting a harpoon (with a trailing line) at a whale that is off >the portside of a moving ship. The harpooner has been leading the whale >and fires at the moment that the gun is exactly perpendicular to the side >of the ship and to the motion of the ship. Neglect air resistance and >gravity. > >To the viewers on the ship, the harpoon appears to move in a straight >line, perpendicular to the course of the ship. > >To the viewers floating in a 'stationary' rowboat, near the point where >the whale and harpoon are about to meet, the harpoon and line follow a >diagonal. Each infinitesimal element follows a different diagonal. 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 24 Oct 2005 19:20 On 23 Oct 2005 16:37:06 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >HW@.. wrote: >> On 22 Oct 2005 19:42:21 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> 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. Poor boy.. absolutely no scientific ability whatsoever...but he tries. >> >> > >> >> >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. I want to give you an opportunity to use your own brain geese. >> >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. Look it up >> >> >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. I'll leave it to you. >> > >> >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? I was being sarcastic there. I was merely pointing out that Andersen was an aetherist in disguise. >> >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! I don't want to ever use it. >> >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: Henri Wilson on 24 Oct 2005 19:40
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:20:23 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >HW@.. wrote in news:8o4ol1tufvl4t3q63in7e3melrpcja450g(a)4ax.com: > >> 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. > >So? I raised a new point(tangentially related). >You fail to refute it. > >> The question is, "if someone emits a pulse of light, can they ever catch >> up with it?" > >The question is 'can matter ever travel fast enough to catch photons'? > >In a SR/GR/EEP universe, the answer is 'no'. > >In a BaTer's universe, the answer must be 'yes'. But you appear to say it >is NO. This is a logical contradiction. BaT can't fly. Bob, matter is continually 'catching' photons. Haven't you noticed? That's because it has different relative speeds to the photons. >> I have replied by saying NO. > >OK in SR, bad for BaT. > >> Even if all the person's MC^2 energy was >> available to accelerate the last molecule, it could never reach it. > >I agree. OK in SR, bad for BaT. why? > >> Try rocket propulsion theory....remember the exhaust accelerates too, >> mainly in the same direction as the pulse. > >????. The exhaust accelerates in all directions, the rocket chamber >confines the accelerated paricles and only allows them to escape in the >direction opposite to the light pulse you are trying to catch. Wrong. Initially the propellent moves in the opposite direction to the rocket motion wrt base. When the rocket speed wrt base equals the propellent speed wrt the rocket, the propellent speed wrt base becomes zero. Further acceleration by the rocket sees the propellent also moving in the rocket direction wrt base. So energy is eventually required to accelerate both rocket and propellent in the same direction wrt base. As the rocket approaches c wrt base, so does the propellent speed...and in the same direction. KE approaches 1/2mc^2. Expended energy dissipated as heat must be at least that. Total final energy = mc^2 get it? I say there can never be enough energy in chemical or nuclear bonds to get to c...because maximum available is E=mc^2. However, maybe some of the accelerating energy could come from an external source... 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". |