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 5 Nov 2005 16:05 On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 02:16:11 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >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. I have already provided answers to all your concerns. If you are too stupid to understand them that is not my problem. 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: Jerry on 5 Nov 2005 16:22 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 1 Nov 2005 03:53:38 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 01:18:07 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > >> wrote: > > > >> >> H. Wilson, 2005. > >> > > >> >Not peer reviewed. > >> > >> Reviewed on sci.physics.relativity > > > >Repeatedly and scathingly rejected. > > Only by indoctrinated fools who have not presented ONE argument > that refutes it. Correct. Not ONE argument, but HUNDREDS, none of which you have satisfactorily answered. Jerry
From: Jerry on 5 Nov 2005 16:22 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 1 Nov 2005 03:53:38 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 01:18:07 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > >> wrote: > > > >> >> H. Wilson, 2005. > >> > > >> >Not peer reviewed. > >> > >> Reviewed on sci.physics.relativity > > > >Repeatedly and scathingly rejected. > > Only by indoctrinated fools who have not presented ONE argument > that refutes it. Correct. Not ONE argument, but HUNDREDS, none of which you have satisfactorily answered. Jerry
From: Eric Gisse on 5 Nov 2005 17:55 Henri Wilson wrote: > 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. That is what happens when you refuse to talk about the details of your theory. I am flexible, it doesn't have to be c+v - even though that is the only assumption you have given me. You can derive it any way you want, as long as you derive it using your theory. If I say "there is no such thing as a reverse field bubble in the 'BaTh' theory", you have no way of proving me wrong. If you say "there is no length contraction in special relativity", I can easily show you to be incorrect because I have a theory that is mathematical in nature and as such makes concrete predictions that are unable to be influenced by anyone's sophistry. > > >> >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. You spend an amazing amount of time talking about the details of a "bullshit" theory. Just because you think it is bullshit does not mean either that it is or that you can say whatever you want about it and have it be true. > > > >> >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. An utterly irrational and emotional response to something you do not understand. > > If you don't give the 'right' answer according to Einsteiniana, you fail your > course. It is mathematics, not sophistry. Just because you are incapable of learning a mathematical theory and applying it correctly does not mean either that it is bullshit or that the people who have learned it are "brainwashed". > > >> > > >> >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. Then don't give examples you are incapable of explaining. > > > > 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 5 Nov 2005 17:52
HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:9j7qm11q757607098e6q9gro77t73pt4vn(a)4ax.com: > On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 02:16:11 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: ..... >> >>So, since you believe we live in a BaT(h) universe, show us the math, >>show us the evidence. > > I have already provided answers to all your concerns. If you are too > stupid to understand them that is not my problem. I understand your evasive answers. It doesn't matter to me if you answer the questions or not. I have been trying to help you Henri. It is important to YOU to answer the questions. Unless and until you answer them and others, your theory is DOA. No, that is wrong, a store window display dummy is not DOA, it never was alive. -- 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 |