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 12 Nov 2005 15:53 On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 16:48:50 -0000, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >news:dl51a0$td0$1(a)news.freedom2surf.net... >> >> "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >> news:mg5an1dg95m92cg1ji7l4pf2cj9cunpr1k(a)4ax.com... >>> >>> Scientifically speaking, the size of the infinitie number of >>> infinitesimal >>> elements is 1/infinity >> >> Nope, it is infinity/infinity. Do you really want to go >> off down another sidetrack? > >That could have been clearer, the total of elements is >infinity/infinity which is finite. > >I could perhaps also have pointed out that each wavefront >is perpendicular to the direction of the beam. It is not >clear which way your are breaking it into elements. > >George > No matter. It is patently obvious that what moves diagonally at sqrt(c^2+v^2) is not a beam of light. 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 12 Nov 2005 16:28 On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 15:12:11 -0000, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >news:k5rsm1lubih0v1k2b0dpm5lt4c2i9jrfjf(a)4ax.com... >>>> Maxwell's equation are not relevant. >>> >>>Of course they are Henri. >> >> Are you losing your marbles George? >> Do you have the faintest idea what Maxwell's equations describe? >> They relate to a lossless resonance between an electric field and a >> magnetic >> one in a dielectric material. It turns out that a solution involves a wave >> moving at c where the value of c is found via the two measured constants. >> >> I fail to see how an infinitesimal point can represent a wavelike process >> moving at c. > >Easy, I gave you that answer lower in the post: > >>>The size of the point on the graph does not 'approach zero' >>>Henri, it is _precisely_ zero as is true for all mathematical >>>points. To relate it to the real world, you need a definition, >>>for example you might identify the point as the intersection of >>>a particular wavefront with a ray, which is itself defined as a >>>mathematical line passing down the central axis of the laser. > >>>> There is no wavelike structure moving along each diagonal. There is ONE >>>> infinitesimal point on a graph. >>> >>>There is infinitesimal point on your graph which indicates >>>the motion of the wavefront. When a wave near the top of >>>your display was emitted, the laser was near the left edge >>>of the screen so the diagonal line marks the path it took. >>>How you relate your point on the graph to that wavefront is >>>for you to define. >> >> The only wavelike structure in any frame follows a vertical path in that >> frame. > >Try illustrating the wavefronts as short lines >perpendicular to their direction of motion. In >the laser frame, it might look like this (drawn >side by side as I can't animate in ASCII): > > - > - > - > | | | | | | |-| | | | | | | > |-| | | |-| | | |-| | | |-| > | | |-| | | | | | | |-| | | > > >So you get wavefronts coming out the top of the >laser tube at regular intervals. I can't show the >mirrors at the ends. > >See how that works in the moving frame. Each point >on your graph is the centre of one of those wavefront >segments show as "-" above. That's right. ...but you have only drawn one point of the wavefront. There is an infintie number, each one moving along a different diagonal. If you represented them all, you would have a broad diagonal line. > >> The whole path is moving sideways in the moving frame. >> George, when you drive past a light pole, does it lean over diagonally? >> If ants are crawling up it, do their bodies point diagonally? >> >> Of course not!! > >The path of each ant is diagonal which is what we >are discussing, but if you want to go into more >detail, consider what the above diagram would look >like in the moving frame. The ant bodies remain aligned vertically in the moving frame. Each infinitesimal element of an ant (infinitely smaller than a molecule) follows a diagonal path. The ants take the same time to reach the top no matter who moves past. >As you said of Maxwell's >Equations, "a solution involves a wave moving at c" >and the magnetic fields still exist and are still >governed by Maxwell's Equations in the moving frame. Maxwell's equation applies to a wave that is symmetrical around an axis. You 'diagonal field' is skewed. The only true wave remains vertical in all frames. >> You keep thinking in terms of the paths of infinitesimal elements. > >That's what your simulation depicts, according to what you >have told me. Actually I am thinking in terms of wavefronts >moving in accordance with Maxwell's Equations. The purple laser beam in my demo represents that. The green elements are completely different. > >> The whole beam remains aligned vertically in all frames. > >Yes, we have agreed that several times. The line of >narrow segments of wavefronts remains vertically >aligned while each segment moves diagonally. ....and the axis of wave symmetry remains vertical in all frames. >>>> ..and whatever moves up it has a velocity sqrt(c^2+v^2) >>> >>>Talk science, not religion Henri. >> >> I take it from that, you are starting to realize your error. >> ..It obviously has a velocity sqrt(c^2+v^2) > >No, scientifically speaking, if we measure it we find >it has a speed of c whether we understand why or not. >That is an empirical statement. You are simply preaching the unproven second postulate. That is hardly a scientific statement George. > >You have a religious conviction that Galilean relativity >should hold and therefore you expect on faith that the >speed will be sqrt(c^2+v^2). It obviously is. It isn't light. It is a point on a graph. It can move at any speed. >>>>>> Are you being deliberately stubborn? >>>>> >>>>>No, I'm being intelligent. Can we drop the insults? >>>> >>>> Well if you cannot understand the difference between an 'infinitesimal >>>> point on >>>> a graph' and a whole 'photon' then you leave yourself open to ridicule. >>> >>>If you don't know that a plotted point on a graph is not >>>'infinitesimal' but of zero size then I'm not the one >>>who will be ridiculed. Similarly if you don't know that >>>the mathematical point must be related to the object >>>being described by some definition (which you have so >>>far omitted) to relate the maths to the physics. >> >> George, I will try to make my point even MORE clear. >> >> You drive your car past an archer who fires an arrow vertically into the >> air. >> In your frame, each minute element of that arrow moves along a diagonal >> path. >> >> ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC, EVERY SUCH INFINITESIMAL DIAGONAL PATH HAS AN >> ARROW >> GOING UP IT. > >No. In my interpretation of _your_ world, if the archer >fires a series of arrows, each arrow would be seen to >be still vertical but it would be flying along a diagonal >path relative to the car. Of course. but each part of the arrow moves along a different diagonal.... and the arrow takes the same time to reach the top no matter how fast the car moves. > >The series of arrows would also still be in line vertically >because, although each is moving diagonally, the archer is >also moving sideways (relative to the car) and stays directly >beneath the line as he fires. > >What Maxwell's equations say is that arrows always move in >the direction of the shaft. :-o But you claim they are moving diagonally. You have now identified your own mistake. >> You have somehow turned one arrow into an infinite number. Brilliant!!!! > >You did that when you talked of a beam, which is a >collection of wavefronts. It is a collection of infinitesimal elements. >>> >>>And it is that diagonal path that is being described. You >>>simply keep proving Einstein was right. >> >> He said each link moves at the same speed vertically and diagonally. > >He took as a postulate that it would be the same because >that is what Maxwell's Equations tell us as you said >above, "a wave moving at c where the value of c is found >via the two measured constants." > >> It obviously moves at sqrt(u^2+v^2) > >If you prefer faith to measurement. You know there has never been such a measurement, George. > >>>> Do you really think the blade takes any longer to reach the top if >>>> different >>>> observers time it? >>> >>>"the blade" doesn't take any time to "reach the top", >>>it is "each link" that moves from bottom to top, and yes >>>scientific measurements show that the time _does_ depend >>>on the motion of the instrument measuring that time. >> >> Yes I meant each 'link'. >> >> Bull. >> That is just the postulate. > >And that is the whole point of the gedanken, he >is demonstrating a consequence of the postulate. > >> It has never been proved. > >A thought experiment can never prove a postulate. ....a postulate can never prove itself either...particularly when that postulate was based on a thought experiment anyway. >>>You said I claimed they had structure. How could something >>>of zero size have structure Henri? >> >> That's what I asked you. >> If it doesn't have structure, then it is no different from 'nothing'. > >That is your faith. I am saying photons are as much >like ball-bearings as electrons or quarks, I made no >other claim to have knowledge of any structure more >fundamental than any of those particles. Anything that has zero size and no properties must be 'nothing'. >>>> In that case you must surely have some idea of what makes them different >>>> from 'nothing'. Please tell us. >>> >>>Momenergy (hate that word but that's what they call it). >> >> Preaching your religion again George? >> How can something that has no volume, no properties and is >> indistinguishable >> from 'nothing' suddenly possess energy and momentum? > >That it possesses energy and momentum is what distinguishes >it from 'nothing'. How does your 'nothing' possess energy George? >>>Very good Henri, you're starting to think. So how do >>>you define the mathematical point on the graph that >>>represents the raindrop? If it is falling in a vacuum >>>then using the centre of momentum of the drop would be >>>reasonable. Nothing "infinitesimal" is involved at all. >> >> You are moving into a differnet area here. If you want to consider >> raindrops as >> rigid spheres then you will find that the momentum of each in your moving >> frame >> increases to p*sqrt(u^2+v^2) > >Momentum is frame dependent. For your laser, note that >moving the laser will give the usual Doppler effect >for an observer and the change in frequency gives a >change in momentum. Standard NM. > >> ...so let's stick with arrows. They are more like photons than are >> raindrops. > >Actually they aren't, rigid ball bearings are probably >closest. So you DO have a model for a photon, eh George? Tell us about it. >>>It is obvious. With knowledge of science as well as >>>intelligence, the error is also obvious, you are not >>>comparing like with like, just playing word games >>>comparing "the beam" versus an "infinitesimal element". >> >> George, the question is, do the links of the 'photon chainsaw' move >> diagonally at c or at sqrt(v^2+c^2)? > >No Henri, that isn't the question. Einstein is illustrating >a consequence of the postulate so the question is "Assuming >the links move at c, what other conclusions can we draw?". >Finding differences between that and the conclusions if >we assume the speed is sqrt(v^2+c^2) then provides a means >to test the postulate. well it has never been adequately tested. No direct measurement of OWLS from a moving source has ever been achieved. >> >> But George, can you not see that no continuous WAVE follows the >> 'wavefront' up its unique diagonal? > >Try drawing wavefronts and see what happens. I have. That's what my program shows. They all move up diffrent diagonals. Surely you have enough intelligence to see that. Even Paul Andersen can. >> In my demo, the purple beam represents such a continuous wave. It is >> obviously quite different from the 'green element'. > >Since the wavefront has to be a solution of Maxwell's >Equations, that would indicate you have another error >that we haven't discussed yet. Drawing the wavefronts >will help you find it. You'll probably learn more that >way than if I just tell you. You are raving. Wavefronts have nothing to do with this. >Try adding such a detector to your animation when you do >the wavefronts and see how they are related to the tube. > >> If the beam was perfectly narrow and parallel, you wouldn't see it at all. >> You would only detect a minute flash. > >Well obviously, the same is true in both frames as your >detector is passing through the beam briefly, but the >angle that has to change if you want to see anything at >all. You didn't understand my point. >>>in the laser frame, you have choices to make. >> >> George, I have shown only a small number of representative elements. >> Obviouslky >> I cannot draw an infinite number. >> If I used your idea, I would end up with one wide rainbow instead of lots >> of narrow green ones. > >My suggestion is that you should draw just one as >it can be representative of all. By drawing a number of them, I show how the beam remains vertically aligned in the moving frame. >>>frame. Do you want to disagree with that, because that's >>>what you have to do to prove him wrong? >> >> Yes I certainly do want to disagree with that. >> What moves diagonally is NOT the wavefront of a light beam moving at c. > >Well in what direction does an individual wavefront >move? A 'wavefront' is perpendicular to the wave axis. Wavefronts really exist only in the source frame. >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: Henri Wilson on 12 Nov 2005 16:40 On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:35:04 -0000, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >news:9r5an1pjg0a2vce62k32juf9345b93kp9b(a)4ax.com... George, George, George. I have finally woken up to your (and MY) complete misinterpretation of the problem. We have both been arguing about whether or not the fringes will move during constant angular rotation...and of course they don't. We should only be considering what happens during angular ACCELERATION !!!!!! That is when the two path lengths change. That is when more 'wavelengths' fit into one path than the other. That is when fringes move. Path lengths chaneg because each mirror accelerates slightly as light from the previous one is in flight. Small second order effect, you say. No way! It is the whole basis of operation. Actually, you have shown that the BaTh does what it should do. It expects NO fringe shifts under constant rotation. BUT!!!! The standard SR explanation says that there WILL BE a continuous fringe shift during steady rotation. Sagnac proves SR to be wrong!!! > >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: Henri Wilson on 12 Nov 2005 16:41 On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 04:48:34 GMT, "Black Knight" <Androcles(a)castle.edu> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >news:dq6an1t2ua653vhr2unrjjr1e3dvgj5krj(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:36:18 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >> HW. >Message rating several casks. >Androcles. All right A, the joke is over. It is next morning and you should have sobered up by now. 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 12 Nov 2005 16:45
On 11 Nov 2005 14:56:24 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >[snip] > >> I think E = mc^2 follows from Maxwell's equations, >> EM-radiation has momentum. > >That seemed highly reasonable to me. > >Though I was hoping for Henri to do it instead of you. I just like to watch you sqirm when your SRian colleagues have to continually correct you out of pure embarrassment. > >> >> Paul 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". |