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 30 Oct 2005 15:59 On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 10:56:41 -0000, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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: >> 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. No it is smaller than that. It is infinitesimal. It is the same size as a line on a graph. Didn't you ever study maths George? > >>>> 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. The point where the moving blades of scissors cross is also real is it George? >>> >>>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". You seem to believe that photons are like ball bearings. In that case, their diagonal speed is sqrt(c^2+v^2). >>>> >>>> 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. My animation shows the difference between a diagonal beam (purple) and the diagonally moving 'infinitesimal point'. How can you compare the two? Are you being deliberately stubborn? >> 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. Sorry George, that's the essence of SR. It works in LET, it fails in SR. >>>> 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. Well does it move at 'c' vertically? Does it take the same time to reach the top no matter who goes past? > >> Your problem George is that you think photons are like ball bearings. > >Sort of, they are like other sub-atomic particles. So you claim to know something about the structure of photons eh George? Tell us more..... > >> 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. But its axis is not diagonal. It remains vertical. Similarly, if a hole was drilled through the lead shot, the holes would remain lined up vertically.. > >> 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. This is bloody stupid. Can you not get it into your head that the diagonal 'path' is just a line on a graph. It is the path taken by an infinitesimal part of something. Do you understand what 'infinitesimal' means George? I gather you don't. A photon might be small but it is certainly not infinitesimal. >> 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. Whatever moves along the graphed path of an infinitesimal point is not light and it moves at sqrt(c^2+v^2) >>> >>>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. George, don't talk nonsense. You are starting to look like a complete fool. You are proving that you have no understanding of physics at all. >> 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. Each droplet APPEARS to move diagonally. In fact, the paths of each infinitesimal point inside each water molecule travels along a different diagonal at the speed sqrt(u^2+v^2). The drops take the same time to reach the ground no matter how fast Einstein moves. >>>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". You should know what 'infinitesimal' means. > >>> 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. Is this a magic photon designed by the fairies, George? Infinitesimal points don't have physical properties George. >>>> 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. irrelevant drivel. > >Einstein's explanation applies to the individual >photons, not the nebulous concept of a beam. well, I have shown you why he is plainly wrong. >>> >>>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. You 'correction' of my output is wrong. >>>>>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. HoHohahahaha!!! Whoever measured that? You are quoting a postulate not a proven fact. > >This post is getting too long and a visitor has arrived >so I'll respond to the Sagnac stuff separately. > >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 30 Oct 2005 16:12 On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 12:59:44 -0000, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >Continued ... > > >"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> >>>>>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. > >_Your_ visualisation is incomplete. I'm sure you >can include what's missing if you think about it. >You are visualising the ends of the paths correctly >but not thinking about what happens between. In the >mirror frame, the paths become curved and the speed >is not constant. In the TABLE frame, the CLOSING SPEED between the beam and the moving mirror is c, all the way from the source. The beam travels in a straight line from the source. The travel length is greater than the source/mirror distance. For the opposite beam, the distance is shorter. There is your answer. The BaTh is not refuted by sagnac. It predicts exactly the same fringe shift as aether theories, of which SR is a pathetic subset. >>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. > >Please stop wasting my time with that nonsense, the >speed of the lab relative to the aether does not >appear in SR nor do any of the aether effects on >instruments. In fact aether theory is incapable of >giving a true explanation and relies on the fact >that all aether effects cancel out so that it can >borrow the SR analysis by using the Lorentz Transforms. I will not waste any more time on this George. If you refuse to recognize truth when it stares at you then there is nothing more I can do. >> I am content to acept that no matter how the table rotates, the speed of >> light >> from each member wrt the next remains c. > >You often say you are happy to accept things that >are obviously wrong. Apply the Galilean transforms >and see for yourself. In the table frame, the closing speed between the beam and the moving mirrors is always c. that is all that matters. The paths lengths of the opposite beams are different. End of topic. > >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 30 Oct 2005 16:19 On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 01:40:45 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote: > >"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. That's a terminology. As far as I'm concerned, frequency is 'beats per second', which has to be positive by nature. I cannot see why subtracting a positive number of 'beats/second' shold make those beats negative. > >Androcles. 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 30 Oct 2005 16:37 On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 12:15:52 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >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. > >You MUST use Einstein's 'composition of velocities' formula to calculate >the velocity of one as seen from the other in an Einsteinian universe. > >> Their closing speed is still 1.2c. > >Correct, but closing speed is NOT the speed they see, it is the speed as >seen by an observer that is NOT involved in their motion. That is merely a postulate, not a proven fact. > >>>Strangely enough, that is just about what they act like in our universe >>>too. >> >> Who said that? > >Experimenters at various labs that have been colliding particles for >decades. Google is your friend. What happens to charged particales in accelerators is an entirely differnet matter. > >>>> 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. > >Who said? Reference? I can't find any. Google is your enemy. H. Wilson, 2005. >>>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. > >A statement like that shows a lack of a scientific outlook. > >It never will be proven. Science can NEVER prove anything. > >That is why I said it has never been disproven. On the otherhand, much >evidence exists that invalidates and disproves BaT. I know of no evidence to that effect. Everything points to the BaTh being absolutely correct. Everything also points to SR being just a subset of LET. >>>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. > >Correct, for an Einsteinian universe. The calculations, however would give >a value as stated above. > >In a BaTty universe, the source receeding faster than c could easily have a >component emitting photons faster than c in our direction. Light moves at c wrt its source...c+v wrt any observer. >> It cannot be made to happen anyway. > >I agree. In an Einsteinian universe, that is true. such doesn't exist. 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 30 Oct 2005 17:07
On 30 Oct 2005 12:28:37 -0800, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no> wrote: > >Henri Wilson skrev: >> On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:41:26 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >> >Now you can say that this is because the factors >> >you didn't take into consideration matter, Henri. >> > >> >And if they matter, you can't claim that the BaT predicts >> >this light curve: >> >www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg >> >because factors that matter are not taken into consideration. >> > >> >Or do the laws of nature change according to which phenomena >> >you are explaining away, Henri? :-) >> >> Be patient Paul and all will be explained in due course. >> Much has already. > >Indeed. >The light curves are exactly as expected >according to conventional theory. >It's all explained. Paul, your theory has NO explanation as to why many stars vary in brightness. >> >>>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. >> >> >> >> >> >> Based on BaTh predictions, there is now good evidence that IR in many stars >> >> comes from a lower layer than the visible. >> > >> >Evidence based on BaT predictions! :-) >> >Great, Henri. >> >The predictions of a theory is EVIDENCE! :-) >> > >> >Your stupidity never cease to amaze, Henri. >> >> Paul, on TV last light there was a program about a new pill that can be taken >> to alleviate fear. >> Would you like me to send you some in case your fear of being wrong all your >> life becomes overwhelming? > >Nothing _I_ do can make _your_ stupidity any >less amazing, Henri. Paul, SR is just a subset of LET. Accept it please. If any SR predictions are true then you should start seriously looking for an absolute frame. SR reverts to LET when it tries to provide a physical reason why pulses of light from differently moving sources should travel together across space. v<-S1_________________________p-> ->uS2 > >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". |