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 3 Nov 2005 17:15 On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 11:06:59 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:1ceim1he57rjnnn8ek1kait3vvbp2cs4us(a)4ax.com: > >>>> 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. You are not leaning ....(not even slowly) It IS observed. Its effect is mistakenly accredited to SR's fictitious 'mass increase'. >>>> 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. Stop trolling . Learn something. >> 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 They ARE traveling at >c wrt Earth. Don't believe the nonsense relativists dish out. >>>> >>>> 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. study the physiology and psychology of the sensory system. 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 3 Nov 2005 17:18 On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 10:54:55 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >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. The BaTh has only one postulate...light initially leaves its source at c wrt that source. Do you disagree with that? 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: Eric Gisse on 3 Nov 2005 18:04 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 10:54:55 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > > >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. > > The BaTh has only one postulate...light initially leaves its source at c wrt > that source. > > Do you disagree with that? No, Henri. What we disagree with is you inventing ways to make your theory work every single time you are presented with an experimental result you can't explain away with a "willusion" or by assautling the integrity of the experimenter. You have no physical theory. You might think you do, but you don't. You can't give us anything other than "c+v" when we as you for the math, but when you are presented with something that your theory can't quite explain you ALWAYS have an explanation at the ready. You are always unable to show how the explanation comes from your theory, but you defend it as if it was all the same. You are incapable of honest and rational discussion of your theory because you seem to manage to think both that your theory is unpublishable because it is incomplete and that it has never been falsified. > > 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: Eric Gisse on 3 Nov 2005 19:01 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 11:06:59 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > > >HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > >news:1ceim1he57rjnnn8ek1kait3vvbp2cs4us(a)4ax.com: > > > > >>>> 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. > > You are not leaning ....(not even slowly) > > It IS observed. Its effect is mistakenly accredited to SR's fictitious 'mass > increase'. Then derive it from "c+v" so we don't have to ask you the same thing over and over. > > >>>> 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. > > Stop trolling . > > Learn something. When are you going to learn SR so you stop making so many basic mistakes? > > >> 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 > > They ARE traveling at >c wrt Earth. > Don't believe the nonsense relativists dish out. This problem is an exercise in both MTW and "Spacetime and Geometry". Just because you don't understand it does not mean it is nonsense. > > > >>>> > >>>> 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. > > study the physiology and psychology of the sensory system. Why are you incapable of answering a direct 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 3 Nov 2005 22:42
On 3 Nov 2005 16:01:58 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 11:06:59 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >> >Such an effect would have quite measureable and distinct effects that are >> >not observed. No gnomes. >> >> You are not leaning ....(not even slowly) >> >> It IS observed. Its effect is mistakenly accredited to SR's fictitious 'mass >> increase'. > >Then derive it from "c+v" so we don't have to ask you the same thing >over and over. Geese, you are totally confused with regard to my theories. >> >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. >> >> Stop trolling . >> >> Learn something. > >When are you going to learn SR so you stop making so many basic >mistakes? Ther is nothing much to learn about complete bullshit. >> >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 >> >> They ARE traveling at >c wrt Earth. >> Don't believe the nonsense relativists dish out. > >This problem is an exercise in both MTW and "Spacetime and Geometry". > >Just because you don't understand it does not mean it is nonsense. It's bullshit propaganda. ....part of the brainwashing process. If you don't give the 'right' answer according to Einsteiniana, you fail your course. >> > >> >Explain it to me, I don't know it well at all. >> >> study the physiology and psychology of the sensory system. > >Why are you incapable of answering a direct question? It would take me a few days. 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". |