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 22:55 On 3 Nov 2005 15:04:23 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 10:54:55 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >> >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 are simply too ignorant to undestand it. >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. It is usually pretty obvious. >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. You are right. It hasn't. 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 22:54 HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:p33lm1dj5g5i6a9kabkefe7ivdko55cq9u(a)4ax.com: > 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. But that is NOT a theory. It is insufficient, by itself. You must also assume/postulate other laws of physics. Therein lies the rub. Einstein had two basic postulates: 1) the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. 2) light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. You need a postulate like 1. postulate 2 different in an important way from your only postulate. It refers to propagation in empty space. You say nothing about propagation at all, you only say it leaves the source at c. In an Einsteinian universe, light leaves the emitter at c also. This is not a postulate but a result of the postulates. Another result is that light always arrives at the absorber at c. This is due to the FIRST postulate that says the laws are the same in all inertial frames of reference. In a Henri universe we know nothing about the propagation nor the velocity of light at the absorber. What do you have in place of Einstein's postulate 1? -- 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 4 Nov 2005 15:36 On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 03:54:48 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:p33lm1dj5g5i6a9kabkefe7ivdko55cq9u(a)4ax.com: > >> On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 10:54:55 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> >> wrote: >> The BaTh has only one postulate...light initially leaves its source at c >> wrt that source. >> >> Do you disagree with that? > >No. But that is NOT a theory. It is insufficient, by itself. > >You must also assume/postulate other laws of physics. Therein lies the rub. > >Einstein had two basic postulates: >1) the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames >of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. Note: he didn't say the answers would be the same in all frames. >2) light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which >is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. ....a totally meaningless statement. Speed is always relative. Empty space has no reference points. >You need a postulate like 1. >postulate 2 different in an important way from your only postulate. >It refers to propagation in empty space. You say nothing about propagation at >all, you only say it leaves the source at c. > >In an Einsteinian universe, light leaves the emitter at c also. This is not a >postulate but a result of the postulates. Another result is that light always >arrives at the absorber at c. This is due to the FIRST postulate that says >the laws are the same in all inertial frames of reference. An einsteinian universe is the same as an aetherists universe. "All light emitted at a 'point' in space travels at a common speed which is determined solely by properties of that space".... as measured by a particular observer. "What's wrong with that?", you ask. Plenty! Just remove the observer. Then it has absolutely no way of explaining why light pulses from differently moving sources should travel together through space UNLESS it assumes that space has absolute properties. >In a Henri universe we know nothing about the propagation nor the velocity of >light at the absorber. > >What do you have in place of Einstein's postulate 1? Do you understand what 'ballistic' means? 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 4 Nov 2005 16:35 Henri Wilson wrote: [snip] > > > >What do you have in place of Einstein's postulate 1? > > Do you understand what 'ballistic' means? Why do you find it so difficult to answer a basic question about your theory? The only reason you answer questions with questions all the time is because you don't understand your own theory well enough to discuss it. [snip useless sig]
From: bz on 4 Nov 2005 21:16
HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:3ugnm1lu0pne63uil1av96qrk0fraiq5e4(a)4ax.com: > On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 03:54:48 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > >>HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:p33lm1dj5g5i6a9kabkefe7ivdko55cq9u(a)4ax.com: >> >>> On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 10:54:55 +0000 (UTC), bz >>> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>> The BaTh has only one postulate...light initially leaves its source at >>> c wrt that source. >>> >>> Do you disagree with that? >> >>No. But that is NOT a theory. It is insufficient, by itself. >> >>You must also assume/postulate other laws of physics. Therein lies the >>rub. >> >>Einstein had two basic postulates: >>1) the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all >>frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. > > Note: he didn't say the answers would be the same in all frames. That is the implication, when things are properly transformed to account for differences in location and velocity. >>2) light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c >>which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. > > ...a totally meaningless statement. > Speed is always relative. Empty space has no reference points. Failure to comprehend does not imply meaninglessness. He carefully specifies how to measure both space and time a bit later in the paper. >>You need a postulate like 1. >>postulate 2 different in an important way from your only postulate. >>It refers to propagation in empty space. You say nothing about >>propagation at all, you only say it leaves the source at c. >> >>In an Einsteinian universe, light leaves the emitter at c also. This is >>not a postulate but a result of the postulates. Another result is that >>light always arrives at the absorber at c. This is due to the FIRST >>postulate that says the laws are the same in all inertial frames of >>reference. > > An einsteinian universe is the same as an aetherists universe. Nope. But even if it were, the Einsteinian aether is not the same as pre Einsteinian ether. Einstein forever laid to rest the mechanistic ether as envisioned by Maxwell. > "All light emitted at a 'point' in space travels at a common speed which > is determined solely by properties of that space".... as measured by a > particular observer. You added the 'observer' to the quote and you failed to attribute the quote. > "What's wrong with that?", you ask. > > Plenty! Just remove the observer. You put 'm in, you take 'm out. > Then it has absolutely no way of explaining why light pulses from > differently moving sources should travel together through space UNLESS > it assumes that space has absolute properties. Without the mythical 'observer' then it doesn't matter what travels where. If an imaginary tree falls in an imaginary forest in an imaginary universe that has no observers, no one can hear the applause of the audiences' 'one hands clapping' to show their [dis]approval of your objection. >>In a Henri universe we know nothing about the propagation nor the >>velocity of light at the absorber. >> >>What do you have in place of Einstein's postulate 1? > > Do you understand what 'ballistic' means? Do you understand what 'state your postulates and elucidate their mathematical implications' means? And don't go ballistic on us. If you have a theory rather than a WAG conjecture, then you can start from your postulates and derive the laws of motion for light in your universe your universe. You can show how the basic postulate causes the reverse field bubble to develop as a natural consequence of c'=c+v. You can show why BaT diffraction gratings are speed rather than wavelength sensitive as they would be in an Einsteinian universe. You can show how c-v photons gain energy in their trip through interstellar space while c+v photons lose excess energy so they both arrive at earth at c, whereas in an Einsteinian universe all photons travel and arrive at c. You can show why Henri cepheid variable don't show enhanced stellar aberration due to the c+v and c-v photons arriving early and late. Aberration being (in an Einstinian universe) due to the light following that 'slanted' path relative to the earths motion around the sun (but only in an Einstinian universe). You can show why the parallax of double stars is not influenced by the c+v and c-v photons, changing as the stars orbit each other. You can show why the spectra of spectrascopic binaries is behave as they do. So, since you believe we live in a BaT(h) universe, show us the math, show us the evidence. -- 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 |