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 13 Nov 2005 18:28 On 12 Nov 2005 20:20:05 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >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] Idiot. Learn the facts. 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 13 Nov 2005 18:28 On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 08:58:01 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote in >news:1131855605.794683.277520(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > >> >> 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. >> > >Negative. Idiot. Learn the facts. 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 13 Nov 2005 18:28 On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 09:06:36 GMT, mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >In article <Xns970D1E95F2849WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139>, bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> writes: >>"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote in >>news:1131855605.794683.277520(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: >> >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >>Negative. >> >Imaginary. Idiot. Learn the facts. > >Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, >meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" 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 13 Nov 2005 18:38 On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 23:58:05 GMT, "Black Knight" <Androcles(a)castle.edu> wrote: > >"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: >>>> 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. OK I'll call a truce about rating messages in terms of bottles and casks. It was very impolite of me. Sorry. No more. I cannot recall you sagnac explanation in detail. I didn't plagiarize it, I swear. Incidentally, the idiots are now in complete turmoil because some time ago one of them (I think Andersen) assured me that fringes only shift during angular acceleration whereas Dishman and lackeys say they shift during CONSTANT rotation. >Androcles. Currently, only two people on Earth accept the existence of the planet "Androcles". Let's hope it stays that way. 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 13 Nov 2005 19:19
Henri Wilson wrote: [snip] > > Incidentally, the idiots are now in complete turmoil because some time ago one > of them (I think Andersen) assured me that fringes only shift during angular > acceleration whereas Dishman and lackeys say they shift during CONSTANT > rotation. [snip] Nobody is in turmoil over anything you have said. I still stand by saying that Maxwell's equations do not have solutions that allow for the speed of light to be anything other than c, regardless of the speed of the wave. I am waiting for your counterexample that proves me wrong. Here, I'll do some work for you. ...and if your nice, I'll even show that your theory is incompatable with Maxwell's equations. We seek solutions of Maxwell's equations in a vacuum and in the MKS system. The two curl equations are then: del x E = -@B/@t del x B = epsilion_0*mu_0*@E/@t Hmm, I guess I can't just skip to the end. You need to see it worked through. Take the curl of both equations. **Vector identity: del x del x A [for any vector field A], = del(del*A) - del^2a del x del x E = - del x (@B/@t) del(del*E) - del^2E = -@/@t (del x B) del^2E = e_0*u_0@^2E/@t^2 [Wave equation #1] If you repeat the same analysis on the other curl equation, you get: del^2B= e_0*u_0@^2B/@t^2 [Wave equation #2] Now, Henri, you have two wave equations in E and B. The other two relations aren't necessary for what you want to show. There are the wave equations, now show me how you can obtain a solution that allows the waves to travel faster than the solution's speed OF waves. |