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 31 Oct 2005 15:20 "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:u3dam156sb0bku1lckfsu0ad2ndchrfk4j(a)4ax.com... > <snip my stuff on the mirror frame> > > In the TABLE frame, the CLOSING SPEED between the beam and the moving > mirror is > c, all the way from the source. Two cars driving along the road, the first moving at 30m/s and the second moving at 40m/s, closing speed 10m/s. The first has a head start of 200m. The second car catches the first when the first car has moved 600m and the second has travelled 800m. To find the time, you divide the separation at the start by the closing speed, 200 / 10 = 20s. "Closing speed" is the rate at which the separation is decreasing. What you try to do below is divide the 600m by 10m/s which gives you the wrong answer. > 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. No. To get the time taken, you use the separation between the source and mirror at the instant the light is emitted. That is simply the distance measured when the table is not rotating. That distance is unchanged by the rotation and as you said the closing speed is always c so the time is also unchanged by rotation. You have again proved that Ritz predicts a null result. <snip irrelevant aether comments> > 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 happy to accept what you have again proved, Ritz predicts a null result for Sagnac. <snip previous mirror frame points> > In the table frame, the closing speed between the beam and the moving > mirrors > is always c. > that is all that matters. Right, and that gives a null prediction. > The paths lengths of the opposite beams are different. No, see the example of the cars above to learn how to use closing speed correctly. > End of topic. OK. George
From: Paul B. Andersen on 31 Oct 2005 16:37 Henri Wilson wrote: > 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. Considering that we are discussing Algol which according to conventional theory is an eclipsing binary, that is a pretty stupid statement, isn't it? :-) You know, Henri, conventional theory have a very simple explanation for why the light curves are different in IR and visible light. Have you forgotten that I calculated it for you? The BaT cannot explain that. Yet another falsification of the BaT. >>>>>>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 It's kind of sad that you are too stupid to understand how stupid this is. But of course, if you weren't that stupid, you wouldn't have written it. Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 31 Oct 2005 17:00 On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 20:20:03 -0000, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >news:u3dam156sb0bku1lckfsu0ad2ndchrfk4j(a)4ax.com... >> ><snip my stuff on the mirror frame> >> >> In the TABLE frame, the CLOSING SPEED between the beam and the moving >> mirror is >> c, all the way from the source. > >Two cars driving along the road, the first moving at 30m/s >and the second moving at 40m/s, closing speed 10m/s. The >first has a head start of 200m. The second car catches the >first when the first car has moved 600m and the second has >travelled 800m. > >To find the time, you divide the separation at the start >by the closing speed, 200 / 10 = 20s. "Closing speed" is >the rate at which the separation is decreasing. What you >try to do below is divide the 600m by 10m/s which gives >you the wrong answer. > >> 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. > >No. To get the time taken, you use the separation between >the source and mirror at the instant the light is emitted. >That is simply the distance measured when the table is not >rotating. That distance is unchanged by the rotation and >as you said the closing speed is always c so the time is >also unchanged by rotation. No. 'c' is the closing speed of the beam and the next mirror, the direction of which is 45 degrees. The beam is not the horizontal one. It is angled slightly downwards to meet the mirror in its new position. The distance is greater than in the non-rotating case. > >You have again proved that Ritz predicts a null result. George, at what speed (in the table frame) is the light reflected from the first mirror towards the next mirror? > ><snip irrelevant aether comments> > >> 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 happy to accept what you have again proved, Ritz >predicts a null result for Sagnac. It does not...and stop repeating something you would like to be true but isn't. I realize you are trying desperately to convince yourself but you aren't impressing me. I now think it might predict a fringe shift of 1/root2 times the classical one. That would be near enough to the same. > ><snip previous mirror frame points> > >> In the table frame, the closing speed between the beam and the moving >> mirrors >> is always c. >> that is all that matters. > >Right, and that gives a null prediction. No the path lengths are distinctly different in either direction. >> The paths lengths of the opposite beams are different. > >No, see the example of the cars above to learn how to use >closing speed correctly. That is a linear example. Sagnac involves 45 degrees. > >> End of topic. > >OK. > >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 31 Oct 2005 17:01 On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 00:22:45 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:32eam15m1fn6tgdluokaj7qi1g7e3bfkv2(a)4ax.com... >| 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. > >That's a terminology. > >| I cannot see why subtracting a positive number of 'beats/second' shold make >| those beats negative. > >Cos the negative beats can't be seen, which is why you can't see 'em. >Androcles. OK. That sounds logical. > > > > >| > >| >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". 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 31 Oct 2005 17:15
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 01:18:07 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:3team117852125v5ak8iu4nea0ol440oe0(a)4ax.com: > >>>>> >>>>>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. > >1) it is a definition, not a postulate. (the meaning of closing speed). >2) When we are speaking of an Einsteinian universe, we play by those rules. >Arguing 'it is not a proven fact' is only allowed re the real universe. We >were NOT talking about the real universe, we were talking above about in an >Einsteinian universe. I wasn't refering to that aspect. I was refering to "but closing speed is NOT the speed they see". > >>>>>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. > >1) the results of the collisions are independent of HOW the particles got >to the velocities involved. >2) as far as we can tell, everything that happens inside an accelerator is >consistent with what happens outside an accelerator. It is also consistent with my 'reverse field bubble' theory. >>>>>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. > >Not peer reviewed. Reviewed on sci.physics.relativity >>>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. > >Sagnac, Gratings, muons, lack of mechanism for 'extinction' speeding up c-v >photons. > >> Everything also points to SR being just a subset of LET. > >A successful theory that is more basic. > >If there were a LET that effected light, wouldn't it ALSO effect matter? If >it effected matter, there would be drag and other effects that are NOT >seen. Aether theories insist that the aether can never be detected. > >>>>>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. > >Picture one of your orbiting stars moving away just a little faster than >light, in parts of the orbit, it would be slower than c. No stars are moving at anywhere near c wrt any other stars. Think of molecules in a gas at 3K. What is the probability of one moving at c? >>>> It cannot be made to happen anyway. >>> >>>I agree. In an Einsteinian universe, that is true. >> >> such doesn't exist. > >I agree. >That indicates we live in an Einsteinian universe. >In a BaTty universe, such could exist. So what causes light pulses from two differently moving sources to traverse space together? 1) Is it due to an absolute a property of space or an Einstein postulate? 2) Is it not what really happens? 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". |