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 22:46 HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:3bsfm1l2ephlrtp3r6bj9pfu6m590uajth(a)4ax.com: > 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. It is an adhoc invention ADDED to BaT. > A charge moving between two conected electrodes constitues a currect and > will generate a reverse field. That is your adhoc invention, it is not integral to BaT. It is contrary to observation. While it is true that moving charges create a magnetic field, there is no reverse electric field detected. > You should know that. Its very basic. It is NOT very basic. It has never been observed. In fact, there would be no superconductors if there were such a reverse electric field. > 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. You have created an adhoc rationalization to prop up a dying BaT. You will need to continue to add other adhoc rationalizations to get around other uncomforatable facts. >>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? You have to earn it first. >>>>>>>>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 because the apparatus contracts. > > Contrary to popular belief, the MMX DID NOT disprove the presence of an > aether. So, you have become an aetherist. >>>>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. 'Closing speeds', not actual velocities. >>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'. Observations, not explanations. >>> Think of molecules in a gas at 3K. What is the probability of one >>> moving at c? >> >>WRT what? > > wrt any other. closing speeds exceeding c wrt some objects in the universe are quite probable. Actual velocities exceeding c,.... nil. >>> So what causes light pulses from two differently moving sources to >>> traverse space together? >> >>the character of light. > > 0/10 Why do we see light? >>> 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. Your faith is strong. >>> 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. Your faith is strong. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+nanae(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu
From: bz on 1 Nov 2005 23:00 HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:evrfm15ebja4j67j1rsbjmc6i5705fc2md(a)4ax.com: > 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. Everything is 'by convention'. http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/mdft/Positive_Negative_Frequencies.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_frequency http://130.191.21.201/multimedia/jiracek/dga/spectralanalysis/examples.html -- 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: Eric Gisse on 2 Nov 2005 03:43 Henri Wilson wrote: [snip] > >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? Why do you keep assuming the composition of velocities formula is either a postulate or valid for an observer having a coordinate velocity of c? *snaps fingers*, NOW I REMEMBER! You don't understand SR! By god it all makes sense now. [snip]
From: Paul B. Andersen on 2 Nov 2005 06:43 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 22:37:04 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>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? :-) > > We were talking about variable stars in general. No, we were not. Paul B. Andersen wrote: |According to you, the BaT predicts a light curve |quite different from this: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978MNRAS.184..523N&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf | or http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978MNRAS.184..523N& | And retrieve the full article. | |Wrong prediction -> theory falsified. |BaT is falsified. | |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? :-) Henri Wilson wrote: | Be patient Paul and all will be explained in due course. | Much has already. Paul B. Andersen wrote: (the quote at the top) | Indeed. | The light curves are exactly as expected | according to conventional theory. | It's all explained. > Quite obviously eclipsing binaries would vary more or less as predicted by the > BaTh. No, they would not. If you enter the real data of Algol into your program, the light curve predicted by the BaT will be quite different from what is observed, even if you assume it is eclipsing. > No tell me about all the others. Are you fleeing Algol? :-) > Why do 'Miras' vary? Because they are intrinsic variables. But don't divert the attension from the issue. We are still discussing Algol. >>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? > > I have forgotten. Please remind me. You have forgotten it before, and I have reminded you before. But I can remind you again so you can forget it again: The question is: Why is the light curve of Algol different in 10um IR and in visible light? The explanation according to conventional theory is: We have two stars. Algol A: temperature Ta = 12000K, radius Ra = 2.88 solar radii Algol B: temperature Tb = 4880K, radius Rb = 3.54 solar radii Their relative brightness at the wavelength lambda will be: Ba/Bb = (Ra/Rb)^2* W(lambda,Ta)/W(lambda,Tb) where W(lambda,T) is Planck's radiation law. Now we have: (Ra/Rb)^2 = 0.66 W(lambda,Ta)/W(lambda,Tb) = (exp(C/(lambda*Tb))-1)/(exp(C/(lambda*Ta))-1) where C = 0.00144 m degree VISIBLE: ------- In the visible spectrum lambda = 0.5 um. W(0,5um,Ta)/W(0,5um,Tb) = 40 So their relative visual brightness will be: Ba/Bb = 26. That is A is 26 times brigter than B. The binary is 27 times brighter than B. If we assume that the eclipses are 100%, we get the following brightnesses (B as unit): No eclipse = 27 B eclipses A: 1 (primary) A eclipses B: 26 (secondary) The deepness of the minima in magnitudes will be: Primary: 2.5*log(27) = 3.58 magnitudes Secondary: 2.5*log(27/26) = 0.04 magnitudes. We see that the deepness of the primary minimum fits quite well with what is observed. But the secondary minimum is hardly observable at all in the visible spectrum! So don't we see the secondary minimum, then? IR: --- Let us calculate what the deepness of the minima would be in the infra-red, lambda = 10um. We use the same method as above: Ba/Bb = (Ra/Rb)2* W(10um,Ta)/W(10um,Tb) = 1.8 No eclipse = 2.8 B eclipses A: 1 (primary) A eclipses B: 1.8 (secondary) The deepness of the minima in magnitudes will be: Primary: 2.5*log(2.8) = 1.12 magnitudes Secondary: 2.5*log(2.8/1.8) = 0.48 magnitudes. Observation of the secondary minimum at 10um can be found in; http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978MNRAS.184..523N&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf or: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978MNRAS.184..523N& And retrieve the full article. The observed deepness of the secondary minimum is ca. 0.35. A little less deep than what I calculated it should be. However, since B is larger than A, the eclipse will not be 100%, and the minimum _should_ be less deep. >>The BaT cannot explain that. >>Yet another falsification of the BaT. > > rubbish. No, that's not rubish. Convensional theory predicts that the light curves in visible and in IR should be exactly as they are observed to be. That is a confirmation of the theory. BaT predicts that the light curves should be the same. That's a falsification of BaT. Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 2 Nov 2005 15:23
On 1 Nov 2005 15:22:59 -0800, "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote: >Henri, > >Do you feel much more energetic and more in control of >things now than you did a few weeks ago? Go away. This is too hard for you. > > -- Jeff, in Minneapolis 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". |