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 2 Nov 2005 15:26 On 2 Nov 2005 00:43:18 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >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. The postulate is 'w=c', idiot. >[snip] 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 2 Nov 2005 15:34 On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 03:46:29 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+nanae(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:3bsfm1l2ephlrtp3r6bj9pfu6m590uajth(a)4ax.com: > >>>> 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. nothng to do with BaTh. > >> 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. nothng to do with BaTh. > >It is contrary to observation. While it is true that moving charges create >a magnetic field, there is no reverse electric field detected. Shows how little you know about electricity. > >> 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. Shows how little you know about electricity. Never heard of back emf, eh? How do you think chokes work? >> 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. Shows how little you know about electricity. >>>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. Shows how little you know about anything >>>>>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. How convenient for the true believers. >>>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. The above 'closing speeds' are wrt observers on Earth. > >>>> 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? Silly question. 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 2 Nov 2005 15:35 On 1 Nov 2005 16:26:31 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 22:37:04 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> > >[snip] > >> >>> >> >>>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. >> >> You cannot answer without resorting to standard LET. >> Why don't you admit it. >> >> SR is just a subset of LET. > >Why do you keep bringing up LET? > >Why do you keep saying things about SR when you admit you don't >understand SR? I understand LET...of which SR is a pathetic subset. 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 2 Nov 2005 16:13 HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:bb8im19q3g0bq2du782qci5s3url8c4vkm(a)4ax.com: > On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 03:46:29 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+nanae(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:3bsfm1l2ephlrtp3r6bj9pfu6m590uajth(a)4ax.com: >> > >>>>> 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. > > nothng to do with BaTh. > >> >>> 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. > > nothng to do with BaTh. Without it, BaT(h) has already fallen. >>It is contrary to observation. While it is true that moving charges >>create a magnetic field, there is no reverse electric field detected. > > Shows how little you know about electricity. There is NO 'Henri's 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. > > Shows how little you know about electricity. Again, you are making comments that just make you look bad. > Never heard of back emf, eh? > How do you think chokes work? I know how chokes work. NOT by what you are calling a reverse electric field. Back EMF has the same relationship to your 'reverse electric field' that an elephant has to a gnome. The expanding(contracting) magnetic field lines cut through the wires of the coil and induce a counter EMF that bucks the current from the imposed voltage (or attempt to maintain the current flow in the external circuit when you open the circuit contacts and get an arc from the self inductance of the coil). It is a changing MAGNETIC field inducing an electric potential. Your mythical 'reverse electric field' has nothing to do with lines of magnetic force inducing a voltage into a wire. >>> 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. > Shows how little you know about electricity. Gnome. >>>>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. > > Shows how little you know about anything I am just going by what you said. >>>>>>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. > How convenient for the true believers. Gnome. >>>>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. > > The above 'closing speeds' are wrt observers on Earth. Unless you are talking about the speed wrt the observers on earth, in which case the speeds are NOT closing speeds, but relative velocities. So, what point were you trying to make? How DO thoses c-v photons gain enough energy to get up to c? >>>>> 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? > > Silly question. Yes. Any 'why' question is a silly question as far as science is concerned. -- 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: Henri Wilson on 2 Nov 2005 17:20
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 21:13:49 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:bb8im19q3g0bq2du782qci5s3url8c4vkm(a)4ax.com: > >>>>>> 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. >> >> nothng to do with BaTh. >> >>> >>>> 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. >> >> nothng to do with BaTh. > >Without it, BaT(h) has already fallen. > >>>It is contrary to observation. While it is true that moving charges >>>create a magnetic field, there is no reverse electric field detected. >> >> Shows how little you know about electricity. > >There is NO 'Henri's 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. >> >> Shows how little you know about electricity. > >Again, you are making comments that just make you look bad. > >> Never heard of back emf, eh? >> How do you think chokes work? > >I know how chokes work. NOT by what you are calling a reverse electric >field. > >Back EMF has the same relationship to your 'reverse electric field' that an >elephant has to a gnome. > >The expanding(contracting) magnetic field lines cut through the wires of >the coil and induce a counter EMF that bucks the current from the imposed >voltage (or attempt to maintain the current flow in the external circuit >when you open the circuit contacts and get an arc from the self inductance >of the coil). > >It is a changing MAGNETIC field inducing an electric potential. You are leaning ....(slowly) > >Your mythical 'reverse electric field' has nothing to do with lines of >magnetic force inducing a voltage into a wire. It's the same principle. The fields are generated in the dielectric around the moving charge. The bubble remains close to the charge but drowns out the applied 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. > >> Shows how little you know about electricity. > >Gnome. > >>>>>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. >> >> Shows how little you know about anything > >I am just going by what you said. The MMX DID NOT prove the non-existence of an aether. In fact, it dramatically upgraded aether theories to include the Lorentz contractions. Accordingly, in LET WITH CONTRACTIONS, the MMX should have given a null result. I must start a new thread about this. > >>>>>>>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. > > >> How convenient for the true believers. > >Gnome. > >>>>>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. >> >> The above 'closing speeds' are wrt observers on Earth. > >Unless you are talking about the speed wrt the observers on earth, in which >case the speeds are NOT closing speeds, but relative velocities. > >So, what point were you trying to make? >How DO thoses c-v photons gain enough energy to get up to c? Obviously the objects responsible for the gas jets were moving towards Earth at considerable speed. The gas jets themselves were emitted at very high speed wrt these objects, making the total speed wrt earth >c. That can happen ...but I wouldn't expect it to be very common. > >>>>>> 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? >> >> Silly question. > >Yes. Any 'why' question is a silly question as far as science is concerned. Well, we know the answer to 'why do we see light?' only too well. 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". |