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: Paul B. Andersen on 26 Oct 2005 17:19 Henri Wilson skrev: > On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:40:04 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:17:05 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > >> > > >>>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. > > > >Such as? > > day/night temperature variation. > Star shape > Local extinction > Long term extinction, if any. You are funny, Henri. :-) You claim that you by assuming that Algol is a star orbited by a large planet can make the BaT predict the observed light curve. (A ridiculous assumption, of course.) Yet you claim that there are so many other unknown factors to consider that you cannot make the BaT predict the correct light curve. Why did you then claim that you had made the BaT produce the correct light curve? > >>>>>>>>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. > > > >I didn't avoid that point. > >I said why it is irrelevent. > >All the radiation comes from the same layer, the photosphere. > > > >>>>>>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. > > > >So do you accept that this effect is way too small > >to be observed? > > Not really. It depends on the rotation speed and what is deemed significant. > ...but let's not worry about it to much. ...because the effect is way too small to matter? > >>>>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. > > > >What the hell are you fussing about? > > You refuse to accept the truth. > Androcles is right about you. What the hell are you fussing about? Which truth haven't I accepted? The obvious truth which I have stated over and over: Different parts of the star have different radial velocity _because the star is rotating_. So what? > >>>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. > > > >And the factor you gave was that different parts of the spectrum > >are emitted from different depths of the star. > >That is wrong, so you have still to mention a single factor. > > How do you know it is wrong. You are guessing. I know you are wrong because I know something about stars. YOU are ignorant, and make up whatever ridiculous physical processes that suite you. You are not even guessing. You are fantasizing. > > > >So what are the factors to be considered? > > > >The truth is simple, Henri. > >The BaT is falsified. > >Again. > > Androcles is definitely right about you. Quite. The ultimate argument. The great genius Androcles says I am wrong. Nothing more to discuss, then. Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 26 Oct 2005 17:56 On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:50:41 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >news:v6mql1psi0br3f201aslthtrvhefu0421j(a)4ax.com... >>> >>>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. The postulate says the speed of LIGHT is invariant. It should be plainly obvious to anyone with even half a brain that no light BEAM moves along any one of the infinite number of infinitesimally thin diagonal lines that represent the paths if infinitesimal elements of the light beam that is vertical in the rest frame. What moves up a diagonal is an infinitesimal point. It is not a physical entity. >> 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. Are you playing dumb? Have you ever plotted a point on a graph? Does it have any physical significance? Do something useful for once George and plot the 'wavecrests' of your emitted beam.. . Use a laser. > >>>> 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. IT IS NOT THE DIAGONAL PATH OF A PHOTON. It is a diagonal line showing the path of an infinitesimal point of the vertical beam. > >>>>>> 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. It is NOT what Einstein assumed. He assumed that the whole beam went up ONE diagonal and moved at c. Is that what you are saying too? Geez, this is so obviously wrong I cannot see how anyone would be stupid enough to even consider it. > >> BUT ALL THE WAVECRESTS REMAIN >> VERTICALLY ALIGNED in the moving frame. > >Yes, that is also true. Nobody is disputing it. Well can you not see tat hte line of vertical wavecrests constitute the light beam. IT REMAINS VERTICAL IN BOTH FRAMES. Your problem George is that you think photons are like ball bearings. Consider this: You have a machine gun that can fire either spherical lead shot or normal elongated bullets. Fire a machine gun vertically, first with the lead shot. As seen in a moving frame, the centre of each shot moves diagonally. Since the shot is symmetrical there is no obvious way to tell which way up it is. However each shot moves along a different diagonal path. Now do the same with the bullets. In the moving frame, as before, the centre of each bullet moves along its own unique diagonal. Only one bullet centre moves along any particular diagonal. However, NOW, the axis of each bullet is angled wrt the diagonal...because each element of the bullet emerges from the barrel at a slightly different time. It remains vertical..so that all the bullet axes are still lined up vertically. Another important point is that the bullets take the same time to reach their target no matter who measures that time. If you cannot follow this I will have to give up on you. >>>> 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. Of course...which means that the infintesimal point that follows each diagonal path moves at sqrt(c^2+v^2) and NOT at 'c', as Einstein stupidly believed. I'm afraid he spent too much time misinterpreting the way in which raindrops moved past train windows. >>>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 Unfortunately the thickness of each lines is limited to one screen pixel. > > http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/hw4.png No that is not right. If all the infiniteximal e,ements were plotted, it WOULD REALLY BE a solid green triangle...with a vertical RHS represnting the whole beam in the moving frame. >> 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. A 'point' > >> 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. No light beam moves diagonally. > >> 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 ;-) That is irrelevant. >>>> 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. George, I think you should spend a litle more time thinking about this. You seem utterly confused. Come back when you have worked out what is really happening. >>>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. ...and that epitomizes Einstein's ignorance. He really believed that the solitary infinitesimal dimensionless point which when plotted against time created a diagonal line, somehow constituted a light beam moving at c along that same path. How bloody stupid can one get? see this full stop . Is that a light beam moving at c? You seem to believe it is. >> 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. well use you head and complete it. .but you are limited to pixels.....so you wont improve on what I have presented. > >> 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. I think you should only consider the instantaneous OWLS as the light actually hits the mirror. In the mirror frame that is c. >>> >>>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. In TWLS experiments with no moving parts.. ....and according to the BaTh, in such experiments TWLS = OWLS = c. So you and many others are right.... but for the wrong reasons. The value of the universal constant 'c' has been accurately established using TWLS experiments. >>>>>> 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? because of what I said above.. .you should only consider the instantaneous OWLS as the light actually hits the mirror. That is c. > >>>> 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. You saw my diagram. The path lengths are obviously different in both diirections. > >>>> 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. the SR explanation is really an aether one. Following my 'revelation', it now appears that the BaTh is the only plausible explanation. >>>> >>>> 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 :-( again, you should only consider the instantaneous OWLS as the light actually hits the 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. > >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. I am content to acept that no matter how the table rotates, the speed of light from each member wrt the next remains 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. I think it is wrong. > >> 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. I dont understand that. The horizontal line is the rest state. The slanted line is the path of the ray that reaches the centre of the mirror during rotation. (with the source at the same point in each case) > >> 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. Yes I undertand what you are saying... but that is taken into account when the reflection from the first mirror is considered. It is also moving at 45 wrt the beam...so you have a rather complicated reflection process occuring. I think you will find that it explains your question. >>>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." But the mirror moves slightly while the light is in flight. > >>>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. you should only consider the instantaneous OWLS as the light actually hits the mirror. In the lab frame that mirror is moving at 45 wrt the beam. > >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 26 Oct 2005 18:01 On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:00:13 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: >In sci.physics, HW@..(Henri Wilson) ><HW@> > wrote >on Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:46:24 GMT ><7h9tl19q0qqkcra0e16ct34vcuc0piocqn(a)4ax.com>: > >[snip rocket-propelled commentary for brevity] > >> Ghost, why do you always want to make simple things seem hard? > >Don't look at me; the Universe is what you're fighting. :-) > >> >> My point was that the propellent ends up travelling in the >> same direction as the rocket wrt base. That applies in NM or SR. > >Depends on the rocket's performance. Given any rocket >at rest with respect to the launch base, some of the >propellant will have to go in the other direction (assuming >it doesn't hit the base), and, if the rocket's going fast >enough (i.e., greater than the exhaust velocity), some of it >will go in the same direction. > >Now...how much is going in the opposite direction, and how much >the same direction? > >Or is that not the question you wished to ask? We were talking about a hypotheticl rocket that was capable of reaching near c wrt base. Since propellant speeds are never likely to be greater than about 0.0001 c, you can assume that most of the propellant ends up moving in the same direction as the rocket. forget all that SR rubbish. A claim was wrongly made that the propellant always moved in the opposite direction to the rocket, wrt base. > >[.sigsnip] 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 26 Oct 2005 18:18 On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 12:27:14 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:35atl15nvt1th103rf11do5dcnh42ab062(a)4ax.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". >>> >>>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. where are the references for this velocity. I gather you are saying that it is impossible for any light source to ever catch up with its own light. I agree with that on energy grounds. No self contained 'rocket' can have enough energy to get beyond c let alone catch previously emitted light.. I base that on E=mc^2.....which has nothing to do with SR. >>>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? Every time you move you change the relative velocities of photons raching you. > >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. We aren't sufficiently sensitive to detect individual photons. > >> 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. You must try to make meaningful statements. Speed relative to what? Speed LIMIT relative to what? > >It is because photons move at c that mass can never reach c. relative to what? > >>>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. You don't even understand the problem. >>>> 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? Psychology classes are invariably top heavy with mixed up, hormonally unbalanced females, most of whom drop out when they come up against the inevitable course in stats. > >> 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. Bob, I don't really care if you spend the rest of your life deluding yourself into believing that a vertical light beam becomes a diagional light beam in a moving frame. I know it is not true. I have demonstrated why. If you are too stupid or stubborn to run my program and try to understand it that is not my problem. > >.... >>>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. And vertical light beams don't become diagonal one. > >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. That's because you have no imagination and little understanding of physics. > > >.... 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 26 Oct 2005 18:19
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:00:13 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: >In sci.physics, HW@..(Henri Wilson) ><HW@> > wrote >on Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:00:01 GMT ><4m6ul1dbvgu34f1rlplfccl12sc14j522b(a)4ax.com>: >> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 03:02:26 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> >> wrote: >> >>>"Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote in news:1130278175.696539.202770 >>>@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. >>>> >>> >>>Right. If c'=c+v then there will be c'=c-v photons traveling at v<<c. >>> >>>Those photons could be caught and even passed by a mass traveling < c. >>> >>>If mass can pass 'slow photons' that mass would be traveling faster than >>>light. >>> >>>That leaves Henri to explain WHY c should appear to be a limit to how fast >>>mass can move. >> >> There is no limit. It's just very hard to get even close to c >> because of the energy situation which I have already explaioned. > >7 TeV protons aren't close enough for you? > >m_p = 1.67262171 * 10^-27 kg >m_p * c^2 = 1.50327743 * 10^-10 J > = 938.272029 MeV > >(1/2) * m_p * c^2 = 469.1360145 MeV > >The LHC has way more than enough energy to generate superluminal >photons easily. However, superluminal photons have never been >observed in any accelerator. Perhaps someone from the c'=c+v >crowd can tell us precisely why? > >SR has an answer, and judging from the many experiments conducted >thus far, it's consistent with the Universe. > >> >> >> Photons and bits of matter are impinging on Earth at a whole >> range of speeds, including many >c.. > >Two words: Cerenkov radiation. it's up there. > >[.sigsnip] 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". |