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: Eric Gisse on 27 Oct 2005 19:57 Paul B. Andersen wrote: [snip] > > Wrong prediction -> theory falsified. > BaT is falsified. No Paul, don't you see? It's all an "WILLUSION"! [snip] Henri plonked me but he keeps talking to you, yet you are worse than I am about shoving his stupidity back in his face.
From: Henri Wilson on 29 Oct 2005 20:43 On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 01:04:28 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:l745m1da6q7kfgjvm13oa1hfiu47h01f0u(a)4ax.com: > >>>I showed that in a BaT universe, there is no reason to suppose that >>>there is any limit on velocity. Yet you and I both accept the fact that >>>it is impossible to accelerate a mass to a velocity greater than c. But >>>in a BaT universe, there should NOT be any such limit, so what is going >>>on? >> >> There isn't any limit. It is just too damn hard to achieve. > >Not hard in a BaT universe. Collide Two beams of protons, each going .6 c and >you would have them colliding at a relative velocity of 1.2 c. > >In an Einsteinian universe, they only collide at 0.882 c. No. Their closing speed is still 1.2c. > >Strangely enough, that is just about what they act like in our universe too. Who said that? >> Atmospheric Muons do it because they are produced in elastic collisions >> with heavy particles traveling at high speed, possibly >c wrt Earth. > >Strange that no one has discovered any traveling faster than c. they discover them regularly. > >>>> In a vacuum, light can impinge on an observer at a whole range of >>>> speeds - and that is what happens. >>> >>>In a BaT universe, that is what would be true. In an Einsteinian >>>universe light can only impinge on any observer at c. >> >> Who cares. > >You appear to care a lot. > >>>You have not been able to disprove the theory that all light impinges on >>>any observer at c. >> >> It has never been disproved either. > >That is what I said. > >You have NOT been able to DISprove the theory that all light impinges on any >observer at c. Typo It has never been proved either. > >>>> It also so happens that not many objects in the whole universe are >>>> moving at anywhere near c wrt any other objects. >>>> There have been recordings of doppler shift indicating gas bodies >>>> moving at >c wrt Earth but the relativists concocted excuses for >>>> these. >>> >>>Henri, if something were actually moving away from earth at speeds > c, >>>the doppler shift would make the frequency negative. On the other hand, >>>calculating CLOSING (opening) speeds for distant objects can easily >>>indicate speeds greater than c. >> >> What the hell are you talking about? >> ...negative frequency????? > >Calculate the doppler shift of light from something going away at c. You end >up with a frequency of zero. (actually, you end up dividing by zero and that >is undefined, but the LIMIT approaches zero) > >Now, calculate the frequency from a source going away faster than c. The >frequency would be negative or imaginary. Its light would not reach you. You wouldn't register any doppler shift. It cannot be made to happen anyway. 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: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 29 Oct 2005 21:40 "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:1j58m1pahavu0kcjiquh9gutl9o33kn9m5(a)4ax.com... | On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 01:04:28 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> | wrote: | | >HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in | >news:l745m1da6q7kfgjvm13oa1hfiu47h01f0u(a)4ax.com: | > | | >>>I showed that in a BaT universe, there is no reason to suppose that | >>>there is any limit on velocity. Yet you and I both accept the fact that | >>>it is impossible to accelerate a mass to a velocity greater than c. But | >>>in a BaT universe, there should NOT be any such limit, so what is going | >>>on? | >> | >> There isn't any limit. It is just too damn hard to achieve. | > | >Not hard in a BaT universe. Collide Two beams of protons, each going ..6 c and | >you would have them colliding at a relative velocity of 1.2 c. | > | >In an Einsteinian universe, they only collide at 0.882 c. | | No. Their closing speed is still 1.2c. | | > | >Strangely enough, that is just about what they act like in our universe too. | | Who said that? | | >> Atmospheric Muons do it because they are produced in elastic collisions | >> with heavy particles traveling at high speed, possibly >c wrt Earth. | > | >Strange that no one has discovered any traveling faster than c. | | they discover them regularly. | | > | >>>> In a vacuum, light can impinge on an observer at a whole range of | >>>> speeds - and that is what happens. | >>> | >>>In a BaT universe, that is what would be true. In an Einsteinian | >>>universe light can only impinge on any observer at c. | >> | >> Who cares. | > | >You appear to care a lot. | > | >>>You have not been able to disprove the theory that all light impinges on | >>>any observer at c. | >> | >> It has never been disproved either. | > | >That is what I said. | > | >You have NOT been able to DISprove the theory that all light impinges on any | >observer at c. | | Typo | It has never been proved either. | | > | >>>> It also so happens that not many objects in the whole universe are | >>>> moving at anywhere near c wrt any other objects. | >>>> There have been recordings of doppler shift indicating gas bodies | >>>> moving at >c wrt Earth but the relativists concocted excuses for | >>>> these. | >>> | >>>Henri, if something were actually moving away from earth at speeds > c, | >>>the doppler shift would make the frequency negative. On the other hand, | >>>calculating CLOSING (opening) speeds for distant objects can easily | >>>indicate speeds greater than c. | >> | >> What the hell are you talking about? | >> ...negative frequency????? | > | >Calculate the doppler shift of light from something going away at c. You end | >up with a frequency of zero. (actually, you end up dividing by zero and that | >is undefined, but the LIMIT approaches zero) | > | >Now, calculate the frequency from a source going away faster than c. The | >frequency would be negative or imaginary. | | Its light would not reach you. | You wouldn't register any doppler shift. | | It cannot be made to happen anyway. Err... you are correct, H, a source going away would emit light that never reaches you, BUT... A negative frequency is what you get when a source approaches you, then passes. Let c = 1, v = 2 f' = f (c+v)/c 3 = 1 * (1+2)/1 -1 = 1 * (-1+2)/-1 because c changes sign, v does not. Androcles.
From: Jerry on 29 Oct 2005 22:29 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 01:04:28 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > >Calculate the doppler shift of light from something going > >away at c. You end up with a frequency of zero. (actually, > >you end up dividing by zero and that is undefined, but the > >LIMIT approaches zero) > > > >Now, calculate the frequency from a source going away > >faster than c. The frequency would be negative or imaginary. > > Its light would not reach you. > You wouldn't register any doppler shift. > > It cannot be made to happen anyway. Why not? Nothing in BaT dictates any sort of cosmic speed limit for moving masses. Jerry
From: George Dishman on 30 Oct 2005 05:56
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:fnpvl152mh7h3rhvc4oi4rad3lne51lrp2(a)4ax.com... > 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. And the speed of any "infinitesimal element" as you describe them in your program, or photons as we know them. > 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. It is the smallest, indivisible piece of light. Your diagram is like tracking the path of a water molecule in the jet from a hose. >>> 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? The thing whose path is being plotted exists and the line is a plot of its path. > 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. And an "infinitesimal point of the ... beam" is what we call "a photon". >>>>> 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. No, he didn't. The source obviously moves while, if the beam went along the diagonal, the source would need to be static. > 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. No, I'm saying you are misquoting Einstein and, perhaps unintentionally, creating a strawman. >>> 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. As I said, nobody is disputing that. > Your problem George is that you think photons are like ball bearings. Sort of, they are like other sub-atomic particles. > 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. Let's consider what you said of the shot: "However each shot moves along a different diagonal path." That remains true of the bullets, each bullet moves along a diagonal path and that is the basis of the argument. > 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. Yes, motion of the source can influence polarisation. See for example how that is used on the CMBR. That doesn't change the fact that each photon travels a diagonal path just as for the shot and bullets. > Another important point is that the bullets take the same time to reach > their > target no matter who measures that time. Sorry Henri, that's just your religious belief showing through again. If the speed of the light along the diagonal is c then the time taken has to be different. That's the whole point, and we know experimentally that the speed is always measured to be c. > 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. It moves at c as measured, you therefore have to revise your belief that the times must be the same. > I'm afraid he spent too much time misinterpreting the way in which > raindrops > moved past train windows. Your diagram shows he was right, the paths are diagonal. >>>>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. OK, you might replace your short line for your "infinitesimal element" by a single pixel of a different colour in that case. It would make more sense anyway if it is supposed to be "infinitesimal". >> 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. I was trying to do a corrected version of yours where there are gaps between light elements. I think I mentioned before, like a car indicator. >>> 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' The location of "an infinitesimal element of light", a photon. >>> 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. If you stand in your garden and shine a torch up at the clouds, you get a beam. That beam doesn't move at all, it stretches from the torch to the cloud. What moves at c is the elements of light that form the collection you call the beam. In fact those elements are emitted and destroyed in a fraction of a second so what is a "beam" anyway? Nothing that forms what you call the beam at one time exists a second later. Einstein's explanation applies to the individual photons, not the nebulous concept of a beam. >>>>> 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. Read it again Henri but this time think about it, I am correct. >>>>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. No, that's your confused alternative, "the beam" is always attached to the laser, it is the "infinitesimal elements" that are moving at c, either vertically in one frame or diagonally in the other. This post is getting too long and a visitor has arrived so I'll respond to the Sagnac stuff separately. George |