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 19:48 On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:17:05 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >HW@.. wrote: >> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:46:51 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >>>> >>>>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. > >The point is that you now have admitted that the BaT >predicts what the light curve should look like, despite >the fact that you called this light curve a "willusion". > >But according to you, the BaT predicts a light curve >quite different from this: >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. > >Wrong prediction -> theory falsified. >BaT is falsified. There are other factors to consider. >>>>>>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. > >Indeed they do. > >> 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. > >I do not need a picture to understand that >different parts of a rotating star have different >radial velocities. That is not the point. You seem to want to avoid the important point. ......which is that in a rotating star, the average radial velocity (wrt a distant observer) of all elements of a particular spherical layer is not the same as that of another layer. >>>>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. > >You have no sense of proportions, have you? >Of course a rotating star will broaden the black body >spectrum, but only to such a small degree that it >never will be detectable. > >As you so correctly said above, all stars are rotating. >And all stars radiates a black body spectrum. >The broadening of the BB spectrum due to the stars rotation >is never observable. OK you accept that it happens. >>>>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. > >I have. >Different parts of the star have different >radial velocity _because the star is rotating_. >So what? I DON'T BELIEVE YOU RAN IT. You refuse to accept the truth. > >>>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. > >I think you know that the BaT predicts the same >light curve for 10um as for visible light. there are several factors to be considered apart from the one I gave. > >>>Another falsification of the BaT. >> >> >> in your dreams. > >In the real world. > >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: bz on 25 Oct 2005 00:16 "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote in news:1130198692.816264.53140(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > > Henri Wilson wrote: >> 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? > > You don't place bounds on the v in c+v. c' can be smaller than c. Exactly right, Dr. Gisse. BaT doesn't place bounds on velocity. SR does. That presents Henri with a problem. >> >> 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. http://www.suzy.co.nz/suzysworld/Factpage.asp?FactSheet=116 http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mrockets.html >> Initially the propellent moves in the opposite direction to the rocket >> motion wrt base. I think you are confusing yourself. The mass of the rocket is moving, as a unit, in the direction that the .2 c BaT photon is going. The exhaust from the rocket is going in the opposite direction, to provide the 'action-reaction' push. We don't know where the base is, nor do we care. >> When the rocket speed wrt base equals the propellent speed wrt the >> rocket, the propellent speed wrt base becomes zero. In order for the rocket to accelerate in one direction, the reaction-mass of the fuel must be ejected from the rocket at a much higher velocity in the other direction. >> Further acceleration by the rocket sees the propellent also moving in >> the rocket direction wrt base. Acceleration doesn't have eyes, so IT can't see anything. >> So energy is eventually required to accelerate both rocket and >> propellent in the same direction wrt base. Forget about the base, it could be in any direction by now. >> As the rocket approaches c wrt base, so does the propellent speed...and >> in the same direction. No, the exhaust must go in the opposite direction from the rocket. >> KE approaches 1/2mc^2. Expended energy dissipated as heat must be at >> least that. >> Total final energy = mc^2 > Oh you are using Newtonian kinematics, to prove the validity of the > "BaT", while using an example derived from special relativity? > > Well, that is WRONG, ****head! For so many g*dd*mn reasons. Please, watch the language. No need for such terms. Leave them to A**r*cl*s and his ilk. > Newtonian mechanics sets c=oo, and SR sets c = constant in all inertial > frames. > > Your analysis is dead on arrival because you are using a theory that is > incompatable with the premise of your theory. > > Your analysis is dead on arrival due to the above plus E = mc^2 is > derived from SR and not Newton. I asked for you to show me otherwise > and since you are incapable of doing it, my point stands. > >> >> 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. I agreed already that in SR universe we can't reach c with matter. But in BaT universe, c isn't a magic number. Newtonian Relativity says that I can keep accelerating, and if you run the numbers, without relativistic mass increase as you approach c, you will find that it is easy for the rocket to exceed c.... And it would IF we lived in a BaTty universe. > That is derivable from SR, not Newton. Goddamn you are dumb. He is just a bit muxed up. No need to be rude. Name calling makes the name caller look bad. >> However, maybe some of the accelerating energy could come from an >> external source... magic? > No sh*t. Perhaps we could test the hypothesis of c'=c+v using that > method. > > Henri just thought of the concept now known as the "particle > accelerator". Only a century and change late Henri, good job! -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Eric Gisse on 25 Oct 2005 04:09 bz wrote: [snip] > >> > > >> >I agree. OK in SR, bad for BaT. > >> > >> why? > > > > You don't place bounds on the v in c+v. c' can be smaller than c. > > Exactly right, Dr. Gisse. BaT doesn't place bounds on velocity. SR does. I don't have a doctorate, or even a bachelor's. I am, however, a bad student. At the very least I am on par with Henri, because I too can be very loud about my ignorance. [snip] > > > Oh you are using Newtonian kinematics, to prove the validity of the > > "BaT", while using an example derived from special relativity? > > > > Well, that is WRONG, ****head! For so many g*dd*mn reasons. > > Please, watch the language. No need for such terms. Leave them to A**r*cl*s > and his ilk. He makes the same elementry mistakes over and over. Patience is not the solution. The tone was set and continues to be set by Henri who insists on not calling me by my actual name. I am not the type of person to take the high road. [snip]
From: Henri Wilson on 25 Oct 2005 04:43 On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 04:16:31 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote in >news:1130198692.816264.53140(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > >>> >I agree. OK in SR, bad for BaT. >>> >>> why? >> >> You don't place bounds on the v in c+v. c' can be smaller than c. > >Exactly right, Dr. Gisse. BaT doesn't place bounds on velocity. SR does. > >That presents Henri with a problem. > > >>> >> 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. > >http://www.suzy.co.nz/suzysworld/Factpage.asp?FactSheet=116 > >http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mrockets.html > > >>> Initially the propellent moves in the opposite direction to the rocket >>> motion wrt base. > >I think you are confusing yourself. The mass of the rocket is moving, as a >unit, in the direction that the .2 c BaT photon is going. > >The exhaust from the rocket is going in the opposite direction, to provide >the 'action-reaction' push. We don't know where the base is, nor do we >care. > >>> When the rocket speed wrt base equals the propellent speed wrt the >>> rocket, the propellent speed wrt base becomes zero. > >In order for the rocket to accelerate in one direction, the reaction-mass >of the fuel must be ejected from the rocket at a much higher velocity in >the other direction. > >>> Further acceleration by the rocket sees the propellent also moving in >>> the rocket direction wrt base. > >Acceleration doesn't have eyes, so IT can't see anything. > >>> So energy is eventually required to accelerate both rocket and >>> propellent in the same direction wrt base. > >Forget about the base, it could be in any direction by now. > >>> As the rocket approaches c wrt base, so does the propellent speed...and >>> in the same direction. > >No, the exhaust must go in the opposite direction from the rocket. A good example of the futility of arguing with non physicists. Bob, If the propellent is moving at 1000 m/sec wrt the rocket and the rocket has reached a speed of 1001 m/sec wrt base, what is the speed of the propellent wrt base? When the rocket reaches 2900000000 m/sec, what is that speed? > >>> KE approaches 1/2mc^2. Expended energy dissipated as heat must be at >>> least that. >>> Total final energy = mc^2 > > > >> Oh you are using Newtonian kinematics, to prove the validity of the >> "BaT", while using an example derived from special relativity? >> >> Well, that is WRONG, ****head! For so many g*dd*mn reasons. > >Please, watch the language. No need for such terms. Leave them to A**r*cl*s >and his ilk. > >> Newtonian mechanics sets c=oo, and SR sets c = constant in all inertial >> frames. >> >> Your analysis is dead on arrival because you are using a theory that is >> incompatable with the premise of your theory. >> >> Your analysis is dead on arrival due to the above plus E = mc^2 is >> derived from SR and not Newton. I asked for you to show me otherwise >> and since you are incapable of doing it, my point stands. >> >>> >>> 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. > >I agreed already that in SR universe we can't reach c with matter. > >But in BaT universe, c isn't a magic number. Newtonian Relativity says that >I can keep accelerating, and if you run the numbers, without relativistic >mass increase as you approach c, you will find that it is easy for the >rocket to exceed c.... And it would IF we lived in a BaTty universe. Bob, there is no mass increase. That is a leftover from aether theory. In relativity, contractions aren't real. >> That is derivable from SR, not Newton. Goddamn you are dumb. > >He is just a bit muxed up. >No need to be rude. Name calling makes the name caller look bad. > >>> However, maybe some of the accelerating energy could come from an >>> external source... > >magic? No, external boosters are used to launch rocket regularly. > >> No sh*t. Perhaps we could test the hypothesis of c'=c+v using that >> method. >> >> Henri just thought of the concept now known as the "particle >> accelerator". Only a century and change late Henri, good job! Geese seems to have discovered drinking. Next he might discover that women are better than his fist. 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: Jeff Root on 25 Oct 2005 06:44
Bob Zinn replied to Eric Gisse, who was replying to Henri Wilson: > >> >> 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 particles and only allows > >> > them to escape in the direction opposite to the light pulse > >> > you are trying to catch. > >> > >> Wrong. > > http://www.suzy.co.nz/suzysworld/Factpage.asp?FactSheet=116 > > http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mrockets.html > >> > Initially the propellent moves in the opposite direction to >> > the rocket motion wrt base. > > I think you are confusing yourself. The mass of the rocket is > moving, as a unit, in the direction that the .2 c BaT photon > is going. > > The exhaust from the rocket is going in the opposite direction, > to provide the 'action-reaction' push. We don't know where the > base is, nor do we care. Henri's purpose in the rocket scenario is to show that a rocket cannot achieve unlimited speed relative to its starting point-- that is, the "base". The fundamental idea of his argument is that the whole mass of propellant which has not yet been used must be accelerated along with the rest of the rocket. That propellant is accelerated in the direction that the rocket is moving. > >> When the rocket speed wrt base equals the propellent speed > >> wrt the rocket, the propellent speed wrt base becomes zero. > > In order for the rocket to accelerate in one direction, the > reaction-mass of the fuel must be ejected from the rocket at > a much higher velocity in the other direction. Henri understands that. What he said is correct. > >> Further acceleration by the rocket sees the propellent > >> also moving in the rocket direction wrt base. > > Acceleration doesn't have eyes, so IT can't see anything. I understand what he meant. He was right: When the rocket is moving away from its starting point at a speed greater than the speed of its exhaust, the exhaust will be moving away from the starting point. > >> So energy is eventually required to accelerate both > >> rocket and propellent in the same direction wrt base. > > Forget about the base, it could be in any direction by now. Henri's point here is valid and relevant. > >> As the rocket approaches c wrt base, so does the propellent > >> speed...and in the same direction. > > No, the exhaust must go in the opposite direction from the rocket. Relative to the starting point, the exhaust is going in the same direction as the rocket. * * * * > >> KE approaches 1/2mc^2. Expended energy dissipated as > >> heat must be at least that. > >> Total final energy = mc^2 > > > Oh you are using Newtonian kinematics, to prove the > > validity of the "BaT", while using an example derived > > from special relativity? > > > > Well, that is WRONG, ****head! For so many g*dd*mn reasons. > > Please, watch the language. No need for such terms. Thanks, BZ! I was thinking about saying the same thing, and a minute later found that you'd already said 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. .... > > That is derivable from SR, not Newton. Goddamn you are dumb. > He is just a bit muxed up. > No need to be rude. Name calling makes the name caller > look bad. Henri is mentally ill. I don't know exactly what kind of mental illness it is, but it is more serious than "just a bit muxed up". Even if physics is the only subject that he has delusions about, this one subject is controlling a large part of his life. And he has managed to drag you and me into it. You are arguing physics with a mental illness, not with a person. > >> However, maybe some of the accelerating energy could come > >> from an external source... > > magic? No, like Eric said: Particle accelerator. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis |