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: Eric Gisse on 7 Nov 2005 18:07 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 7 Nov 2005 01:06:02 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >Henri Wilson wrote: > > > >[snip contentless response] > > > >How about responding to my post here? > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b2c67482fbea6402?dmode=source&hl=en > > > >Or are you incapable of complying with my simple request? > > > I don't have time Geese. Liar. > > 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: donstockbauer on 7 Nov 2005 18:10 Now, now. Kiss and make up.
From: Henri Wilson on 7 Nov 2005 19:07 On 7 Nov 2005 15:11:23 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 6 Nov 2005 15:54:55 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Geese, I am quite aware that you have a driving ambition to be just like me. >> However I really don't think you have what it takes... so you might as well >> give up now.. > >Whats the matter, Henri? Can't do that either? You showed me the code >but you can't explain it? > >You are egar to spawn a thousand post thread about your AMAZING THEORY >yet you are completely unwilling to take the time to POST A SINGLE >DERIVATION? You manage to ignore every one of my requests, all the >while repeating how they are infact CORRECT. > >> >> >> HW. Geese, it isn't a god idea to tell people about one's new discoveies before they are completely publicized. They will be stolen. I've given away too much already. 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 7 Nov 2005 19:14 On 7 Nov 2005 05:59:38 -0800, "george(a)briar.demon.co.uk" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 10:31:41 -0000, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >> >news:h3rfm11mk9sladl6qt8le2093f8l7ik3qe(a)4ax.com... >> >> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 19:18:26 -0000, "George Dishman" >> >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >... >> Let's go back to the non-rotating table frame. >> >> Here, the beam moves at very nearly c+v/root2v towards the mirror''s new >> position when the beam arrives. After each reflection, it continues at >> c+v/root2 wrt the table. The second beam moves at c-v/root2 towards the third >> mirror's new position. > >You have an extra "v" in the first formula, just a typo I assume. >Barring that, you have this part correct. > >> This approach gives a similar answer to your classical analysis except that the >> fringe shift should be about 35% of the 'aether prediction', (I think). > >No, you are forgetting that, in the non-rotating table frame, the >detector moves during the time the light is moving. The distance >in c+v/sqrt(2) direction will be increased while that in the >c-v/sqrt(2) >direction is decreased. The fractional change in distance is the >same as the change of speed hence times are unaffected. There is another consideration that I (and you) have omitted. The ray that moves diagonally from the source to the point where the mirror is located on its arrival DOES NOT start out heading in that direction. In the table frame, the whole beam appears to move at 45 degrees, like the green beam in my demo. I'll have to think about this a bit more before I enlarge on it. Can't draw it here. >> >> No your car example was wrong. Try again. >> > >> >The motion of the mirror in the source frame is at a fixed >> >radius so the distance doesn't change. >> >> your car example was still wrong. > >No, my car analogy explained what "closing speed" means. >If you think the conclusion was wrong, it was your attempt to >use closing speed which was an inappropriate method. I can >agree with that in the multiple mirror setup since the light, >source/detector and mirrors don't follow the same path but >it is perfectly correct for the fibre gyro setup where the light >follows a circumferential path. You used 'closing component in the direction of the line joining the two cars'. You have to move the leading car diagonally at 45 deg. Then your figures will be different. > >George 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 7 Nov 2005 21:04
donstockbauer(a)hotmail.com wrote: > Now, now. Kiss and make up. Why? He is blatantly lying again. |