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: Black Knight on 12 Nov 2005 18:40 "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:7glcn11pvbhaqj75r03kkh8nl44qvq2tqm(a)4ax.com... > 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. Message rating several casks Androcles.
From: Black Knight on 12 Nov 2005 18:40 "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:0mlcn197uu5d7383ug28ct9oav3t2ij5kq(a)4ax.com... > 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. Message rating several casks Androcles.
From: Black Knight on 12 Nov 2005 18:58 "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:raocn1dhrvibti1pho71old2ghsl06mjbp(a)4ax.com... > 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. You started it, you are now keeping it up. Sober up and tell me what was so wrong with my Sagnac analysis, drunken abo. Androcles.
From: bz on 12 Nov 2005 21:15 HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:omncn19cle09dml5jjtgdc7ib6bcsuvh0l(a)4ax.com: > 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!!! So, you are saying that BaT predicts the fringes will shift during a- acceleration and return to original position when contant a-velocity is reached while SR predicts the fringes will move during acceleration and maintain a constant position when a constant velocity is reached? In otherwords BaT predicts return to original position upon ceasation of acceleration while SR predicts return to original position upon ceasation of rotation. If I understand the implications, it should be easy to tell the difference. Also, a light ring gyro should measure angular acceleration rather than angular position. -- 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: Eric Gisse on 12 Nov 2005 23:20
bz wrote: [snip] > > If I understand the implications, it should be easy to tell the difference. You should have seen by now that Henri has zero interest in testing his theory. [snip] |