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: The Ghost In The Machine on 14 Nov 2005 00:00 In sci.physics, Black Knight <Androcles(a)castle.edu> wrote on Mon, 14 Nov 2005 02:54:14 GMT <q%Sdf.23782$MD5.10477(a)fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>: > > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message > news:id1l43-6bg.ln1(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net... >> In sci.physics, HW@..(Henri Wilson) >> <HW@> >> wrote >> on Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:28:41 GMT >> <31jfn1546p3ru42u224idk8pkur7l4ktf1(a)4ax.com>: >>> 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. >> >> And these are....? >> >> Point us at a website. One possibility, for instance, is >> >> http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm >> >> which apparently contemplates a c'=c+v hypothesis when >> it comes to binary stars. It's far from proof and >> doesn't even begin to contemplate various easily >> observed artifacts such as spectrographic data; >> nor does it have any actual data to speak of. >> >> But it's a start. > > $1,000,000,000,000 in your pocket is no money to speak of, but it's > a penny for every photon in the light from V 1493 Aql... merely a start. > Some of us know when we are wealthy. > Androcles. > OK. Any other stars that show this c'=c+v phenom? This is only one out of a million. -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: Henri Wilson on 14 Nov 2005 03:09 On 13 Nov 2005 17:47:19 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> 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. > >No turmoil whatsoever. You can't read, can't understand, can't >remember, and are trying to reinvent the usenet record. Don't put >words into Andersen's fingers that you are incapable of documenting >because he didn't type it. > >The usenet records document that YOU fantasized it. You >have misread the fact that the points on the perimeter of >a Sagnac interferometer are not inertial but are in an accelerated >reference frame, into a belief that fringes shift only during >accelerated rotation. Not the same thing. >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3d26da562d00945a > >YOU thunk it up, and YOU are stunningly misinformed. > >Fringes have been observed to shift during constant rotation. >The theory of how fringes would shift during accelerated rotation >is, to the best of my knowledge, not well-developed, and would >in any case be irrelevant to any practical application of the >technique, >http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/packard/Competition/Gyros/LaserRingGyro/Steadman/StedmanReview1997.pdf >or any use of the technique to distinguish between ballistic >theory and relativity. > Sorry. I was assured by either Andersen or Dishman (I've forgotten which) that there is no fringe dshift during constant rotation. It wasn't MY idea. I was lectured on how the change is integrated over time so that total angular displacement can be calculated and presented directly. When I queried the accuracy of such a system, I was told that the thing DOES drift a little and has to be recalibrate regularly. So let's face it YOU HAVEN"T A CLUE. >Jerry 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 14 Nov 2005 03:10 On 13 Nov 2005 16:19:39 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >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. geese, you are so stupid you have forgotten the topic. 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 14 Nov 2005 03:44 Henri Wilson wrote: [snip] I guess you can't show what I ask for. Your theory of light doesn't satisfy Maxwell's equations, despite your protests to the contrary.
From: Black Knight on 14 Nov 2005 07:42
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message news:fjhl43-8th.ln1(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net... > In sci.physics, Black Knight > <Androcles(a)castle.edu> > wrote > on Mon, 14 Nov 2005 02:54:14 GMT > <q%Sdf.23782$MD5.10477(a)fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>: >> >> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in >> message >> news:id1l43-6bg.ln1(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net... >>> In sci.physics, HW@..(Henri Wilson) >>> <HW@> >>> wrote >>> on Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:28:41 GMT >>> <31jfn1546p3ru42u224idk8pkur7l4ktf1(a)4ax.com>: >>>> 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. >>> >>> And these are....? >>> >>> Point us at a website. One possibility, for instance, is >>> >>> http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm >>> >>> which apparently contemplates a c'=c+v hypothesis when >>> it comes to binary stars. It's far from proof and >>> doesn't even begin to contemplate various easily >>> observed artifacts such as spectrographic data; >>> nor does it have any actual data to speak of. >>> >>> But it's a start. >> >> $1,000,000,000,000 in your pocket is no money to speak of, but it's >> a penny for every photon in the light from V 1493 Aql... merely a start. >> Some of us know when we are wealthy. >> Androcles. >> > > OK. Any other stars that show this c'=c+v phenom? This is only > one out of a million. Nova Herculis 1934. Algol. d-Ceph. Polaris. What do you want, a list of all known variables? READ Sekerin. Look at diagram 2, its as simple as it could be. Slow light passes fast light if the start of the race is far enough away. *I* predicted V1493 Aql in 1987, I just didn't know when or where it would happen. I predict another just like it, too. Some of us work with REAL, EXISTING data, others go hunting for black holes where bright green flying elephants lay their eggs. That's the difference between a scientist and a fuckwit. Androcles. |