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: bz on 1 Nov 2005 07:36 HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:1r5em1hjg2fnlct5jg2asb11bi4e7fb1fr@ 4ax.com: > It's just a convention though.. > We will still hear a positive number of beats per second. The phase vector rotates in the oppose direction. All the modulation side bands are reversed in phase also. -- 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: donstockbauer on 1 Nov 2005 07:57 please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. ********************** Is that the cybernetic potential infinity, or the actualized infinity? There is no excluded middle infinity.
From: George Dishman on 1 Nov 2005 14:18 "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:vq3dm19b3tv3uoie6l6etdlcl2sbacl0uc(a)4ax.com... > 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. So far we agree. > The beam is not the horizontal one. It is angled slightly > downwards to meet the mirror in its new position. No, the "new position" is the 600m figure in the car example. You have to use the distance to the mirror at the instant when the light is emitted, not when the light will be reflected, if you choose to use closing speed. > 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? I thought we had agreed that several times before. Perhaps I wasn't clear so I'll go through it again in more detail. In Ritzian theory, the light is emitted at some speed greater than c from the source. The speed can be found by taking the magnitude of the vector sum of the mirror velocity and a vector of magnitude c whose direction is such that the light eventually reaches the detector. >><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 will if you will. I am just clarifying the consequences of the corrected version of what you wrote. > 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. Not near enough, you need to get it within about one part per million IIRC from one of the web pages we discussed some time ago. I'll try to find the reference again if I can. >><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. The distance is to the point of reflection at the instant the light is emitted, the consequence of the motion of the mirror is included in using closing speed so if you adjust the distance too, you double count its effect. George
From: George Dishman on 1 Nov 2005 15:04 "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:k8bam191oeqaaidmdeqccad4pl12pci3i2(a)4ax.com... > 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. "infinitesimal" means of negligible size but finite. A photon like electrons and other fundamental particles is of zero size so smaller than infinitesimal, unless you want to speculate about them being of the Planck size and the consequences of string theory. > It is the same size as a line on a graph. > Didn't you ever study maths George? Enough to highlight the errors in your program Henri. Ad hominems won't get you anyhere Henri, shall we drop them and stick to the science? >>>>> 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? You can plot the path of something that exists or something that is not. The light from the laser is real regardless of what frame you choose. >>>>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 some cases, except that they have zero size and zero mass, in other cases they act like waves. > In that case, their diagonal speed is sqrt(c^2+v^2). That's what any self-respecting 18th century physicist would have believed. Maxwell's equations suggested it was wrong and observation has confirmed that, they move at c in the moving frame too. >>>>> 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? That's the key Henri, you have to compare like with like. If you want to compare one of the diagonal green lines, which is the historical path of one photon, with something in the laser frame, it has to be the historical path of the same photon, not the "beam" as you are trying to do. > Are you being deliberately stubborn? No, I'm being intelligent. Can we drop the insults? >>> 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. No Henri it isn't. As you said before, you have deliberately avoided learning SR so it is to be expected that you will have these misunderstandings. > 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? No, it doesn't move at all. The "beam" always has its base at the aperture of the laser. > Does it take the same time to reach the top no matter who goes past? It doesn't take any time to "reach the top", one end of the beam IS the top (of the beam). How much time does it take a piece of string to reach the end of the piece of string? >>> 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..... I made no such claim. >>> 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.. Einstein's gedanken deals with the length of the path the photon took. It doesn't matter what a photon looks like, only the length of the path it takes is relevant to his illustration of the consequences of the speed being c in both frames. >>> 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. Can you not get it into your head that you have to compare like with like? The length of the line on that graph is being compared with length of the equivalent line for the same "infinitesimal element", if that's what you want to call it, on the laser-frame graph. > It is the path taken by an infinitesimal part of something. > Do you understand what 'infinitesimal' means George? > I gather you don't. Whatever you think it means, you must still compare like with like. The path of the 'infinitesimal' in one frame with the path of the same 'infinitesimal' in the other. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+infinitesimal "a variable that has zero as its limit" "In mathematics, an infinitesimal ... is a number that is greater in absolute value than zero yet smaller than any positive real number." "an abstract description of nearly nothing." "a very small quantity, approaching zero" > A photon might be small but it is certainly not infinitesimal. Right, it has zero size so is smaller than "infinitesimal", unless string theory turns out to be correct. >>> 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) It is pointless to repeat assertions unless you have something to back them up. Experimentally the measured speed is c. >>>>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. Your inability to offer anyhing other than insults is telling. >>> 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. The PATH of each droplet IS diagonal in the train frame while the path of the SAME droplet was vertical in the trackside frame. Compare like with like Henri. > 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). Almost, but not quite ;-) > The drops take the same time to reach the ground no matter how fast > Einstein > moves. Almost, but not quite ;-) >>>>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. I do, better than you it appears. You are highlighting the finite-sized pixel within which the 'infinitesimal element' can be found at the current time and pducing a path of all such pixels where the 'infinitesimal element' was located at previous times. Showing a single pixel of a different colour is a more accurate representation of an 'infinitesimal element' than your multiple pixels. >>>>> 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. Yet more baseless assertions Henri? >>>>> 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. No, you have shown you can't keep the concepts of a beam and an 'infinitesimal element' of that beam distinct. Confusing the two produces your error. >>>>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. What is wrong with your argument is that you aren't comparing like with like. You would be better to show a single diagonal green line and the same element moving vertically in the laser frame. However you choose to show it, you need to compare like with like. The diagram was to illustrate how consistent graphics would look. If you are using a line element for the path, the other way to get consistency is to correct the symbol for the element. That was a minor point intended to be helpful. >>>>... 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? Well I could start with Roemer, but that's beside the point. The gedanken illustrates a consequence by comparing the length of the paths in the two frames, not the directions of the beam in the two frames. Your diagram confirms the path in one is vertical but diagonal in the other. > You are quoting a postulate not a proven fact. All science is based on postulates, it is a fact that no measurement has ever falsified the postulate and any possible deviation is tightly constrained, which is as good as any science can ever get. George
From: Henri Wilson on 1 Nov 2005 17:26
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 20:04:10 -0000, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >news:k8bam191oeqaaidmdeqccad4pl12pci3i2(a)4ax.com... >> 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. > >"infinitesimal" means of negligible size but finite. A >photon like electrons and other fundamental particles >is of zero size so smaller than infinitesimal, unless >you want to speculate about them being of the Planck >size and the consequences of string theory. Talk science, not religion. > >> It is the same size as a line on a graph. >> Didn't you ever study maths George? > >Enough to highlight the errors in your program Henri. >Ad hominems won't get you anyhere Henri, shall we drop >them and stick to the science? How thick is a line on a graph George. Talk science, not religion. >>> >>>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? > >You can plot the path of something that exists or >something that is not. The light from the laser is >real regardless of what frame you choose. You just said it has zero size. Do you know what you mean? If it has zero size it also has zero roperties. OBVIOUSLY. > >>>>>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 some cases, except that they have zero size and zero >mass, in other cases they act like waves. In other words you haven't a clue but will stick rigidly to your religion. >> In that case, their diagonal speed is sqrt(c^2+v^2). > >That's what any self-respecting 18th century physicist >would have believed. Maxwell's equations suggested it >was wrong and observation has confirmed that, they move >at c in the moving frame too. Maxwell's equation are not relevant. There is no wavelike structure moving along each diagonal. There is ONE infinitesimal point on a graph. The only 'wave' remains in the vertical direction of all frames. >>>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? > >That's the key Henri, you have to compare like with like. >If you want to compare one of the diagonal green lines, >which is the historical path of one photon, with something >in the laser frame, it has to be the historical path of the >same photon, not the "beam" as you are trying to do. The diagonal green line is NOT the path of ONE PHOTON. It is the path of an infinitesimal length of one photon. ...and whatever moves up it has a velocity sqrt(c^2+v^2) > >> Are you being deliberately stubborn? > >No, I'm being intelligent. Can we drop the insults? Well if you cannot understand the difference between an 'infinitesimal point on a graph' and a whole 'photon' then you leave yourself open to ridicule. >>> >>>No, I'm saying you are misquoting Einstein and, >>>perhaps unintentionally, creating a strawman. >> >> Sorry George, that's the essence of SR. > >No Henri it isn't. As you said before, you have deliberately >avoided learning SR so it is to be expected that you will >have these misunderstandings. Sorry George, the 'light clock' idea summarizes the principle behind SR and also shows why the whole theory is nonsense from the first chapter. >> 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? > >No, it doesn't move at all. The "beam" always has its >base at the aperture of the laser. The elements that make up the beam remain vertically aligned in all frames. Do you remember my chainsaw experiment? Fasten a chainsaw in your car roof with the blade vertical. Start the saw then drive the car along the road. Do you really believe the chain leans over diaginally in the road frame? Each link in the chain appears to move diagonally but on close inspection it can be seen that the axis of the link remains vertical adn that each infinitesimal section of each link moves along a different diagonal. Do you really think the blade takes any longer to reach the top if different observers time it? >> Does it take the same time to reach the top no matter who goes past? > >It doesn't take any time to "reach the top", one end of the >beam IS the top (of the beam). How much time does it take >a piece of string to reach the end of the piece of string? Talk science, not religion. > >>>> 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..... > >I made no such claim. You said they have zero size. In that case you must surely have some idea of what makes them different from 'nothing'. Please tell us. >>>> 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.. > >Einstein's gedanken deals with the length of the path >the photon took. It doesn't matter what a photon looks >like, only the length of the path it takes is relevant >to his illustration of the consequences of the speed >being c in both frames. He wrongly assumed that photons were like ball bearings and he wrongly postulated that these imaginary objects travel at c in both frames. >>>> 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. > >Can you not get it into your head that you have to compare >like with like? The length of the line on that graph is >being compared with length of the equivalent line for the >same "infinitesimal element", if that's what you want to >call it, on the laser-frame graph. It IS an infinitesimal element...in other words its size approaches zero. ,,,and since the time taken to reach the top is unaffected by observer motion, the speed along the diagonal must be aqrt(c^2+v^2) > >> It is the path taken by an infinitesimal part of something. >> Do you understand what 'infinitesimal' means George? >> I gather you don't. > >Whatever you think it means, you must still compare like >with like. The path of the 'infinitesimal' in one frame >with the path of the same 'infinitesimal' in the other. We aren't really interested in the infinitesimal points. We want to know what the light beam is doing. It remains vertical in all frames and it is only a true 'light beam' in the 'vertical line' that appears to move sideways in the moving frame.. > >http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+infinitesimal > >"a variable that has zero as its limit" > >"In mathematics, an infinitesimal ... is a number that is >greater in absolute value than zero yet smaller than any >positive real number." > >"an abstract description of nearly nothing." > >"a very small quantity, approaching zero" > >> A photon might be small but it is certainly not infinitesimal. > >Right, it has zero size so is smaller than "infinitesimal", >unless string theory turns out to be correct. If it has zero size, George, please tell the world how it differs from 'nothing'. >> Whatever moves along the graphed path of an infinitesimal point is not >> light >> and it moves at sqrt(c^2+v^2) > >It is pointless to repeat assertions unless you have >something to back them up. Experimentally the measured >speed is c. It has never been measured and you know it. >>>> 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. > >Your inability to offer anyhing other than insults is telling. I have explained over and over, in the simplest of terms why Einstein is wrong. You refuse to accept, saying only that 'PHOTONS HAVE ZERO SIZE'. That is meaningless drivel. > >>>> 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. > >The PATH of each droplet IS diagonal in the train frame >while the path of the SAME droplet was vertical in the >trackside frame. Compare like with like Henri. George, if you were able to magnify each droplet a billion times as it moved 'diagonally' past your train window, would you see each molecule moving along the same diagonal? Would the nucleus of each atom move along the same diagonal as the electron shell? No, of course not. > >> 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). > >Almost, but not quite ;-) Why 'not quite' George. Are you about to show you know even less about physics than I thought? > >> The drops take the same time to reach the ground no matter how fast >> Einstein >> moves. > >Almost, but not quite ;-) Why 'not quite' George. Are you about to show you know even less about physics than I thought? >>> >>>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. > >I do, better than you it appears. You are highlighting >the finite-sized pixel within which the 'infinitesimal >element' can be found at the current time and pducing a >path of all such pixels where the 'infinitesimal element' >was located at previous times. Showing a single pixel of >a different colour is a more accurate representation of >an 'infinitesimal element' than your multiple pixels. My representation should be obvious to anyone with inltelligence. >>>>>> 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. > >Yet more baseless assertions Henri? An infinitesimal point IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM NOTHING!!!!!!! >>>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. > >No, you have shown you can't keep the concepts of a >beam and an 'infinitesimal element' of that beam >distinct. Confusing the two produces your error. George, here is an experiment for you. Set up a vertically pointing laser beam. No move past that beam at c/2. How would you detect the presence of the CONTINUOUS beam if you had a photodetector that was only on micron wide? Would you angle the detector at 60 degrees somewhere offset wrt your own vertical or would you place it above you and then move it sideways at -c/2 when the beam was detected? For the former, there would be a very brief and probably unnoticed flash. In other words, the continuous beam exists only in the source frame. Maxwell only applies in the source frame. >>>>>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. > >What is wrong with your argument is that you aren't >comparing like with like. You would be better to show >a single diagonal green line and the same element >moving vertically in the laser frame. However you >choose to show it, you need to compare like with like. > >The diagram was to illustrate how consistent graphics >would look. If you are using a line element for the >path, the other way to get consistency is to correct >the symbol for the element. That was a minor point >intended to be helpful. Each diagonal green line represents the path of a 'wavecrest' of the vertical beam. That should be obvious enough. >>>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? > >Well I could start with Roemer, but that's beside >the point. The gedanken illustrates a consequence by >comparing the length of the paths in the two frames, >not the directions of the beam in the two frames. Your >diagram confirms the path in one is vertical but >diagonal in the other. There is a vertical beam of light in one frame. There is NO diagonal beam of light in the other. Do you want to disagree with that? > >> You are quoting a postulate not a proven fact. > >All science is based on postulates, it is a fact >that no measurement has ever falsified the postulate >and any possible deviation is tightly constrained, >which is as good as any science can ever get. No measurement has ever supported the postulate George. > >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". |