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: George Dishman on 26 Oct 2005 07:16 "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:qnatl15nshaqa8m547smiemjl78b4tvin5(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:56:56 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>"Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote in message >>news:1130237062.882954.46320(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >>> >>> 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. >> >>Given a rocket plus fuel moving at any speed, some >>exhaust is expelled such that it is still moving >>in the same direction as the rocket but at lower >>speed, for momentum to be conserved the speed of >>the rocket must have been increased. >> >>In the limit, consider a rocket which ejects its >>exhaust at an ever increasing relative speed such >>the the exhaust is always at rest relative to the >>base. All the energy extracted from the fuel is >>in the form of kinetic energy of the rocket or >>heat in the exhaust. > > You are correct... but it would be SOME rocket!! Sure, I was just making the point that it is hard to place limits on rocket capability without some understanding of the specifics. >>>> >> However, maybe some of the accelerating energy could come >>>> >> from an external source... >>>> >>>> magic? >>> >>> No, like Eric said: Particle accelerator. >> >>An accelerator gives a high velocity exhaust but >>still needs fuel. For an external source, consider >>carrying only antimatter and reacting it with the >>ISM collected in something like a ramjet. The mass >>of the ISM is also converted to energy. > > You all completely missed my point. I was responding to Jeff's comment, not yours. > Some rockets are fired from holes in the ground, like bullets from a gun. > In > that situation, the fuel that does the initial accelerating is EXTERNAL to > the > rocket. > > get it now? I always did. See the other current thread where I am arguing that the best technology we have for interstellar probes would be based on a solar sail for exactly that reason or try my calculator: http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/solar/Calculator.html George
From: George Dishman on 26 Oct 2005 07:21 "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote in message news:1130278175.696539.202770(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > George replied to Jeff, who was replying to other guys: > >> >> >> However, maybe some of the accelerating energy could come >> >> >> from an external source... >> >> >> magic? >> >> > No, like Eric said: Particle accelerator. >> >> An accelerator gives a high velocity exhaust but >> still needs fuel. For an external source, consider >> carrying only antimatter and reacting it with the >> ISM collected in something like a ramjet. The mass >> of the ISM is also converted to energy. > > I think what Eric and I had in mind was that the particle > plays the role of Henri's rocket, in the scenario set up > by BZ: playing tag with a slow photon. I hadn't been following that part of the thread and using an accelerator as the rocket motor can give relativistic exhaust speed but at the price of efficiency. That may be worthwhile if you have unlimited energy, e.g. solar power or matter/anti- matter reaction, but limited reaction mass. George
From: Jeff Root on 26 Oct 2005 08:36 Henri Wilson wrote: > Jeff Root already told you very politely to > shut up before you make an even bigger fool of yourself. I said no such thing. Eric knows that I didn't say that, Bob knows I didn't say that, George knows I didn't say that, and I know I didn't say that. You lie and blame the lie on someone else. You are an intelligent adult, but you have the emotional maturity and morals of a four-year-old. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: bz on 26 Oct 2005 08:27 HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:35atl15nvt1th103rf11do5dcnh42ab062(a)4ax.com: > On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:38:49 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>"Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote in news:1130237062.882954.46320 >>@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: >> >>> Bob Zinn replied to Eric Gisse, >>> who was replying to Henri Wilson: >>> >>.... >>> >>> 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". >> >>I never argued against that. I quite agree that no rocket can achieve unlimited speed relative to its starting point in the real universe and in an Einsteinian universe, but I am trying to point out that in a BaTers newtonian universe a rocket could exceed the speed of light. I do this by showing that the rocket CAN catch a slow photon. If any body with mass can catch any photon by chasing it down, then mass can move faster than light. >>I said [quote] >>From: bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> >>Message-ID: <Xns96F86BC263075WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139> >>.... >> >>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? > > I'm sure this is happening continuously. How can you be sure? No evidence of sub/super luminal photons has ever been found. > How would we know? When you ask me such questions, it sounds like you are not sure. > That is not the original problem. The point is that in a universe where c+v and c-v photons exist, there is no basis for 'limiting' mass to less than the speed of light as light has no speed limit. Logic says that if photons could move at a speed different from c in unstressed vacuum, then mass would have no speed limit. It is because photons move at c that mass can never reach c. >>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. >>[unquote] >> >> >>> 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. >> >>Which had nothing to do with the possiblity of [in a BaTty universe] >>catching a photon moving at 0.1 c with a rocket ship that moves at 0.2 >>c. >> >>.... >> >>> Henri's point here is valid and relevant. >> >>Henri's 'valid' points are not relevant. They are smoke screens. > > You obviously don't like to see one of your own kind supporting me. On the contrary, I have no objection. I am quite willing to support you when you are right. But in this case, the point he was supporting you upon is one upon which I had no disagreement with you. It also was unimportant to the point I was trying to make. ..... >>> Henri is mentally ill. >> >>I am not a qualified mental professional. I make no judgements. > > As a qualified psychologist, I have already categorized the contributors > to this group. As a qualified expert, perhaps you can tell me if the rumor is really true that most psychologist go into psychology because they think they are themselves crazy and want to know how to hide it? > Most come under the heading of 'would-be-if-I-could-be'. Those are usually recognizable by their claims to have found undiscovered flaws in 'accepted' physics. Not that such claims are necessarily irrational, but that the lengths to which they go to support their delusions are extraordinary. The biggest clue is that they are NOT asking for others to help them find the flaws in their idea. ..... >>That remains to be seen. I have given up arguing with Henri. I sometimes >>see a 'weak spot' in his 'logic' and try to point it out to him. He >>usually invents a new phenomina to fill the hole. > > I just base my arguments on real physics. I can't go wrong that way. Would it were so. Real physics is not based on willusions. Real physics is based on observable, identifiable, verifiable phenomina. Theories must be consistent with all data. BaT must be continually propped up with new w-theories as inconsistencies are pointed out. It started with the invention of 'extinction'. I have still not heard a mechanism for extinction that will speed up the c- v photons. ..... -- 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: George Dishman on 26 Oct 2005 15:50
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:v6mql1psi0br3f201aslthtrvhefu0421j(a)4ax.com... > 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. Then why introduce the point? Your response seems somewhat short when I was only agreeing with you. >>>>> 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. That is correct inference from the fact that the path length is greater and the postulate that the speed is invariant. > 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. So if I stand in front of you with a torch shining upwards, it emits light but if I walk past you what is emitted is something other than light? That's possibly the most ridiculous statement I've heard in a long time. >>> 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? Because your program shows that the diagonal path of each photon or flash or wavefront on the top diagram is longer than the vertical line showing the corresponding path on the bottom diagram. >>>>> 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. Exactly, which is what Einstein assumed. > BUT ALL THE WAVECRESTS REMAIN > VERTICALLY ALIGNED in the moving frame. Yes, that is also true. Nobody is disputing it. >>> 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). Sure, interpret it as a flash or a wavefront or a photon or whatever, the length of the diagonal line is always going to be greater than the vertical line. >>>>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. Indeed but you would just get a solid green triangle so it wouldn't convey anything. Your approach is sensible. However, you have shown finite length elements so for consistency I think your picture should look like this http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/hw4.png >>>>> 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. It is a mrker on the light beam, for example a wavefront as you suggested. > There is no connection with light or Maxwell's equations. Of course there is Henri, they define the motion of the light. The diagram is just a history of that motion with the light leading the diagonal trace. > 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. Indeed, that would be what you got from an angled but non-moving laser, but remember the light progresses at right angles to the wavefront ;-) >>> 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. The vertical line is a plot of the history of one wavefront in the rest frame of the laser. In fact it is the plot of all the wavefronts which lay on top of each other. In the moving frame the lines are equivalent plots of the same wavefronts but the motion means they are no longer superimposed. >>>>> 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. Nope. Einstein is illustrating the consequence of the postulates, the path length are demonstrably different, the postulates require the speed to be invariant, therefore logically the times must be different. There are three related parameters and you are trying to fix the wrong one. > 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. From what you said, I can tell your visualisation is incomplete. > 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. No, in the mirror frame, the speed is continuously varying between the mirrors. >>>>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. It would be, if that is what I had said, but I didn't. Here it is again: >>> 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. No, you are just in denial. The speed of light has been measured many times. >>>>> 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. Ritz says the light is emitted at c relative to the source, hence it is c+mv in the lab frame where 'm' is a factor that depends on the number of mirrors. Why do you think that isn't correct? >>> 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 crucial point is that _any_ consistent theory must make the same prediction for _any_ experiment regardless of what frame you choose to do your calculations. Do the calculation properly and this time take into account the variable speed between the mirrors (and source and detector of cousre) and you _must_ get the same answer as in the lab frame or the co-rotating table frame. That answer is a prediction of a null output. >>> 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. If by "tThe conventional explanation" you mean SR then you are wrong. SR says the speed in the lab frame is c while Ritz says it is modifed by the motion of the source. If they differ in one frame, they must differ in all. That's basic Galilean relativity. >>>>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. Indeed, and I must be careful to distinguish between the light and the source, I hadn't noticed you changed the subject :-( > 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. Correct, therefore there is no Doppler, but I thought we had agreed that some time ago. Hoewever, in both those frames, the speed of the light varies between the mirrors, but in different ways. As I said, this all gets devilishly complex, the lab and rotating table-centred frames are simpler and all must give the same result. If you want to carry on considering the mirror frames by all means do so but you need to start taking other effects into account. >>> 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. Simply showing by symmetry that the incident speed is c if the previous emission speed is c. > the true situation is at: > http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/george1.jpg Rotate the diagram so that the rays are parallel and you get the same as mine. > 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. Yes, in the lab frame but in that frame the speed isn't c since you have to vector add the speed of the source. It is c in the either mirror frame but as you said there is no radial motion in that frame. You have mixed bits from two different frames. >>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. No, as you said above "the source does not move radially wrt the first mirror." >>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. No, it is emitted and received at c but it varies along the path. Think about "c minus angular velocity times radius" and see if the penny drops. This is just a consequence of the Galilean transforms. George |