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: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 31 Oct 2005 17:52 "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:805dm1ljecqc5euugqq1fvhr7ed7dtsujg(a)4ax.com... | 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. Of course. I'll tell you where else you'll find negative frequencies too. Run a recording backwards, or run a read head forwards faster than the tape. If we set off for the far reaches of space at 2c relative to Earth, a 100 MHz FM radio station beamed to the ship would sound like it was a backward recording. The signal is still there. At first is would sound normal, then as we accelerated it would get lost, and as we continue to accelerate it would reappear running in reverse. Androcles | > | > | > | >| > | >| >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 1 Nov 2005 02:22 On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 22:52:05 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:805dm1ljecqc5euugqq1fvhr7ed7dtsujg(a)4ax.com... >| On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 00:22:45 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote: >| >| >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. > >Of course. I'll tell you where else you'll find negative frequencies >too. Run a recording backwards, or run a read head forwards >faster than the tape. >If we set off for the far reaches of space at 2c relative to Earth, >a 100 MHz FM radio station beamed to the ship would sound like it >was a backward recording. The signal is still there. >At first is would sound normal, then as we accelerated it would >get lost, and as we continue to accelerate it would reappear running >in reverse. >Androcles It's just a convention though.. We will still hear a positive number of beats per second. 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: bz on 1 Nov 2005 06:21 HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:ic5dm1p50dv81ae3p87t8nnd5pvdut6i9l(a)4ax.com: > 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". Which is a true statement for an Einsteinian universe. By the way, it is not a postulate but a result and prediction of the postulates of Einstein. >>>>>>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. Your 'reverse field bubble theory' is an adhoc invention that you added to BaT to attempt to explain why BaT breaks down in experiments. 2 points for imagination. But you have neither quantified nor justifed your theory. Einstein's 'composition of velocities' formula was a RESULT of his postulates. Yours is NOT. Yours can not be justified without adding more postulates to BaT. >>>>>>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 And rejected by most of the reviewers. >>>>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. No. The mechanical ether theory postulated that the drift wrt the ether would be detectable with a certain magnitude. No such drift was 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. You told me that some stars are moving away at more that c from the earth. The stars near the edge of our detection limits appear to be moving away at high enough velocities that stars on opposite sides have 'closing velocities' of over -c. > > Think of molecules in a gas at 3K. What is the probability of one moving > at c? WRT what? >>>>> 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? the character of light. > 1) Is it due to an absolute a property of space or an Einstein > postulate? I don't know. > 2) Is it not what really happens? It appears to happen. All our tests indicate that it is what is happening. It is the best explanation for what we see. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Jerry on 1 Nov 2005 06:53 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 01:18:07 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > >> H. Wilson, 2005. > > > >Not peer reviewed. > > Reviewed on sci.physics.relativity Repeatedly and scathingly rejected. Jerry
From: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 1 Nov 2005 07:44
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:1r5em1hjg2fnlct5jg2asb11bi4e7fb1fr(a)4ax.com... | On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 22:52:05 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote: | | > | >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:805dm1ljecqc5euugqq1fvhr7ed7dtsujg(a)4ax.com... | >| On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 00:22:45 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote: | >| | | >| >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. | > | >Of course. I'll tell you where else you'll find negative frequencies | >too. Run a recording backwards, or run a read head forwards | >faster than the tape. | >If we set off for the far reaches of space at 2c relative to Earth, | >a 100 MHz FM radio station beamed to the ship would sound like it | >was a backward recording. The signal is still there. | >At first is would sound normal, then as we accelerated it would | >get lost, and as we continue to accelerate it would reappear running | >in reverse. | >Androcles | | It's just a convention though.. | We will still hear a positive number of beats per second. That's like saying we always travel a positive number of miles an hour. Your convention isn't my convention, my convention allows me to travel a negative number of miles in an hour to get back home again. Sometimes I feel like a partial success. The least useful thing I have ever done is prove Wilson wrong. Androcles. |