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 1 Nov 2005 17:42 On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 19:18:26 -0000, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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> >>> >>>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. George, now give your leading car a sideways speed component as well as the 30 m/s instantaneous speed component in the direction of the second car. The second car has to point diagonally to reach the first. It takes longer than 20 seconds to catch it and moves more than 800 metres. Thus the travel distance of the light beam is the hyponenuse of the triangle. the closing speed is c. ...and the path lengths are different for the opposing beams. >> 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. I would say that in the mirror frame, the light arrives at c and is therefore reflected at c....which makes it the same situation as light from the source towards the first mirror. >>> >>>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. You car analogy was plainly wrong. You have to move the leading car sideways as well as forward. > >> 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. I should imagine ring gyros are calibrated empirically anyway. >>> >>>> 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. No your car example was wrong. Try again. > >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 1 Nov 2005 17:48 On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 12:36:34 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >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. All right, you have a negatively moving relative phase vector. You still record a positive number of 'beats per second'. Both of you are describing a convention. If that is the accepted terminology then I wont argue. .....but I still insist that FREQUENCY - as in 'beats per second' - is by nature always positive. 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 17:50 On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 12:44:03 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote: > >"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. Message rating: minus 3 bottles. PS: are you posting in HTML? 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 18:18 On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 11:21:36 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:ic5dm1p50dv81ae3p87t8nnd5pvdut6i9l(a)4ax.com: > >> 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. Nonsense, it is a very logical concept. A charge moving between two conected electrodes constitues a currect and will generate a reverse field. You should know that. Its very basic. I have extended that to situations where the charge is moving nearly as fast as the field itself. It naturally remains as a 'bubble' in the vicinity of the charge. > >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. w=c = c(c+v)/(c+v) = (c+v)/(1+vc/c^2) Can I have my Nobel now please? > >>>>>>>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. It was undetectable becasue the apparatus contracts. Contrary to p[opular belief, the MMX DID NOT disprove the presence of an aether. >>> >>>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. There are reports of gas jets emitting doppler shifted light indicating speeds >c. > >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. that's a teaching of the fictitious 'big bang religion'. > >> >> Think of molecules in a gas at 3K. What is the probability of one moving >> at c? > >WRT what? wrt any other. >> >> So what causes light pulses from two differently moving sources to >> traverse space together? > >the character of light. 0/10 > >> 1) Is it due to an absolute a property of space or an Einstein >> postulate? > >I don't know. I do. It's called the BaTh. > >> 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. There have been absolutely NO tests, so don't be so smug in your ignorance. 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 18:19
On 1 Nov 2005 03:53:38 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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. Only by indoctrinated fools who have not presented ONE argument that refutes it. > >Jerry 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". |