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: Jeff Root on 2 Nov 2005 21:01 Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: >> 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. I think you understood what I was getting at. The question was intended to be diagnostic of your mental illness. Although you didn't co-operate, your posts of the last couple of weeks are clear enough that, for the first time, I can be pretty sure that you have bipolar disorder. The change in your recent posts indicates that you have entered the manic phase. The good news is that bipolar disorder can often be successfully controlled with proper medical care. When the manic phase ends, and you feel depressed again, recall this suggestion: See a physician, and tell him about your depression. Your friends and family will be thrilled to know that at last you are doing something to help yourself. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: Henri Wilson on 3 Nov 2005 04:46 On 2 Nov 2005 18:01:27 -0800, "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote: > >Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: > >>> 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. > >I think you understood what I was getting at. > >The question was intended to be diagnostic of your mental >illness. Although you didn't co-operate, your posts of the >last couple of weeks are clear enough that, for the first >time, I can be pretty sure that you have bipolar disorder. >The change in your recent posts indicates that you have >entered the manic phase. > >The good news is that bipolar disorder can often be >successfully controlled with proper medical care. > >When the manic phase ends, and you feel depressed again, >recall this suggestion: See a physician, and tell him >about your depression. Your friends and family will be >thrilled to know that at last you are doing something to >help yourself. > > -- Jeff, in Minneapolis Iodine deficiency has been recognized as the main cause of cretinism in the world. Its effect is to stop brain cells from growing property. The whole population of Tibet, for instance, has an IQ that is about 15% lower than average due to iodine deficiency in high altitude water and soils. I suspect that it is this problem which afflicts all Einsteinian relativists. Although the complaint begins in the womb, my suggestion to all Einstein worshippers is that they try to make amends by either eating plenty of seafood or using iodised salt extensively. Maybe one day they might even catch up to the rest of us. 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 3 Nov 2005 05:54 HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:95njm1l0qsahoi6286efdlrjlaoa0t7cc7@ 4ax.com: > Yes. Derived from the postulate. That is how theories work. Ideally, everything can be derived from a few postulates. Then, as long as the postulates are correct, everything that has been derived is correct. Lack of correctness, the invalidation of a prediction, is an indication that a postulate is wrong. That is why your adding ad hoc new postulates to BaT to circumvent invalidating data is 'cheating' in that you have produced a new theory by adding the new postulate. Of course, most of your ad hoc postulates are a priori invalid, so they do not really help revive BaT. -- 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 3 Nov 2005 06:08 please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. ******************** That's why Nature evolved the hive-intelligence.
From: bz on 3 Nov 2005 06:06
HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:1ceim1he57rjnnn8ek1kait3vvbp2cs4us(a)4ax.com: > 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) You are learning ....(slowly) The back EMF of the choke is to your reverse electric field bubble as an elephant is to a gnome. >>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. Such an effect would have quite measureable and distinct effects that are not observed. No gnomes. >>>>> 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. If you have something to say that hasn't been said before, have at it. I think you are just plowing soil that has already been over plowed, over planted and over grazed. Watch out for the gnomes. >>>>>>>>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. That doesn't say anything about those c-v photons and how they get up to c. As for your jets, the velocity is an apparent 'closing' velocity wrt the source, not a velocity wrt earth. http://newton.ex.ac.uk/aip/physnews.211.html [quote] These jets appear to be traveling at greater- than-light speeds. This is actually an optical illusion owing to the alignment of the object relative to us,.... [unquote] http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw71.html >>>>>>> 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. Who is we? Explain it to me, I don't know it well at all. -- 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 |