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 17 Nov 2005 10:39 "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis ^^^^^^^^^^ OK, Andersen, you have convinced me. Your stupidity IS so gigantic that you do not understand why your statement is nonsense. Please don't forgive me for not having doubted that. I'm sure it will happen again. Androcles.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 17 Nov 2005 10:54 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:51:35 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 23:07:00 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >>><paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 15:48:41 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >>>>><paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Wavefronts really exist only in the source frame. >>>>>> >>>>>>Quite. >>>>>>When I go out in my boat, the wavefronts disappear >>>>>>as soon as I start moving. Whatever is hitting my boat so hard >>>>>>are not wavefronts, they are only infinitesimal points. >>>>>> >>>>>>Paul >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>A fine laser beam is not like the ocean surface Paul. >>>> >>>>The light from a laser and a water surface wave have >>>>that in common that they both have wave fronts which >>>>are physical entities that exist independent of frames >>>>of reference. >>>> >>>>It is incredible stupid to claim that a physical entity >>>>- any physical entity - exists in one frame of reference >>>>but not in another. >>>> >>>>And what is even more remarkable is that I have to point >>>>out to you that the statement: >>>>"Wavefronts really exist only in the source frame." >>>>is mindless babble. >>>>It should be self evident to any sane person. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>However, in case you are correct, I shall look through my telescope to see if >>>>>star light is really coming to us via cosmic ships. >>>> >>>>If you from the cosmic ship Tellus ever look through >>>>a telescope, be sure to notice the stellar aberration. >>>>Having done so, you can kick and shout: >>>>WHATEVER IS COMING FROM THAT STAR, MOVING WITH CHANGING >>>>DIRECTION, IS NOT LIGHT, IT IS ONLY INFINITESIMAL POINTS. >>>> >>>>That will make you look exactly as intelligent as you are. >>> >>> >>>Geez, Paul, you are becoming more amusing every day. >>> >>>Stars emit light in all directions. >>>A vertical telescope moving sideways will always pick up part of the starlight >>>that moves directly down its centre. >>> >>>You just don't understand any of this, do you? >> >>Say, Henri. >>Have you emptied the bottle you owe Androcles? >>Read what you wrote above when you sober up, >>and have a good laugh. >> >>Look Henri. >>Pick a distant star, say 500 LY away. >>Point your telescope at it, so that the image is at the centre. >>Measure the absolute angle of your telescope. >>Repeat 6 month later. >>The telescope will now point in a direction 22 arcsecs >>different from the first time. >> >>The parallax is negligible. The light path is the same, >>nameley a straight line from the star to the Earth. >>So why are the angle of the light path different? >>It is caused by the different velocity of the Earth >>at the two occations. We are observing the star from >>two different frames of reference. >>Both frames are moving relative to the star. > > > So what? Ligth leaves the star spherically. Still drunk? Didn't you get it? There is but one light path - the path from the Star to the Earth. (We can neglect the small parallax angle which is only 0.0006 of the aberration angle) It is obviously utterly irrelevant that the star emits light in all other directions that don't hit the Earth, so why the hell are you stating this stupidity? The only light path of interest is the one that hits the Earth! The _direction_ of that light path is down the middle of our telescope. The direction of that single light path changes throughout the year because the velocity of the frame of reference (Earth) changes throughout the year. > This is in no way related to our discussion. You are diverting attention from > the fact that SR is proved to be nonsense. It is related to your incredible stupid statements: "Wavefronts really exist only in the source frame." and: "Whatever is moving diagonally isn't light. It is infinitesimal points." To be consistent, you have to claim: "WHATEVER IS COMING FROM THAT STAR, MOVING WITH CHANGING DIRECTION, IS NOT LIGHT, IT IS ONLY INFINITESIMAL POINTS." Now Henri, what is it that hits the CCD in our telescope? Is it light? It cannot be, can it? Because whatever moves along paths with different directions in different frames cannot be light, can it? Paul
From: Black Knight on 17 Nov 2005 11:15 "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis Ok, deleted as requested. Androcles.
From: Henri Wilson on 17 Nov 2005 17:20 On 17 Nov 2005 05:51:27 -0800, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 16 Nov 2005 06:10:53 -0800, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: snip religious propaganda. >> You claimed above somewhere that the diagonal speed of the points had been >> measured > >Where? I said the speed of light had been measured. > >> and found to be c. That is not true and you know it. > >TWLS has been measured and found to be c, always, and >you know it, and that is what I said. You claimed the diagonal speed of the elements was also c. >> >I don't care, it doesn't affect the length of the diagonal path. >> >> It affects what is supposed to be moving along each diagonal. > >Nope, what comes out of a laser it is still light whether you >move your hand or not. I am still waiting for you to explain >why it affects the length of the path because if it doesn't >it is irrelevant. >> I don't care what you laser is. >> Its beam is made up of an infinitte number of infinitesimally thin vertical >> lines. > >The field is continuous over the width. Your approach of >breaking it into a large number of finite segments is >giving you problems. > >> Work out what happens to each one of those. > >By your own argument, none of them exists since they >are infinitesimal. That is nonsense of course but if you >want to use that argument in the moving frame, it also >applies in the laser frame. I'm afraid you are so hopelessly indoctrinated, your brain has ceased to function freely. > >> According to you, a laser beam would disperse in all directions, in the source >> frame. > >No, according to Maxwell's Equations, a point source produces >spherical wavefronts. I think that was Huygens idea. Why should it be appropriate for lasers? They didn't know anythiong about lasers then. >> >> >Points aren't, no. Not in either the laser or moving >> >> >frames, but the light whose location is represented >> >> >by those points is still light, the ants are still ants. >> >> >> >> and they are still vertical at any instant in all frames. >> > >> >How does that affect the path length of the 1.1mm disc >> >shaped wavefronts? >> >> George, I think you are trying to tell me that the wavefronts are lined up like >> this in the moving frame: >> >> _ >> _ >> _ >> _ >> _ >> >> or this: >> >> \ >> \ >> \ >> \ >> \ >> >> They do neither, >> >> They remain like this: >> >> _ >> _ >> _ -> >> _ >> _ >> >> In all frames. > >No, what I am saying is that you can integrate over all the >inifinitesimal elements to apply Maxwell's Equations (ME) >and the result tells you the direction power will flow. If you >start with a horizontal wavefront and apply ME then the >wavefront will move vertically like this which is obviously >wrong: > >> _ >> _ >> _ ^ >> _ | >> _ >> >> In all frames. > >What you will find is that the result in the moving >frame becomes like this with each wavefront moving >diagonally towards the top right. > >> \ >> \ >> \ -> >> \ >> \ > >Try to work out what the wavefronts look like inside >the laser as they bounce between the mirrors and >you should finally understand. > >> >What comes out of a green laser is light Henri, even if >> >you move your hand while holding it. >> >> It is only light in the vertical direction, in all frames. > >It is light in all frames. The beam is also vertical in all frames. >The difference is that the wavefronts are propagating in the >diagonal direction. George, there is no hope for you. Tell me this: Here are two laser beams: | / | / | / | / Do you really honestly believe you can make one exactly like the other simply by moving it sideways at the right speed. That is what you are claiming. Can you not see how your acute indoctrination syndrome has turned you into a mental cripple? >> >> >Which part of "constant" escapes you? >> >> >> >> None. >> >> The fact that both observers calculate the same value for c from the constants >> >> escapes me...since the beam DOES NOT approach them at the same speed. >> > >> >The fact that they find the same values means the speed must be >> >the same. That was exactly Einstein's route from the equations to >> >the postulate. >> >> But we know they are not thsame. >> The beam approaches the two observers at different speeds. > >Do we? That is YOUR competing postulate and the point is that >it conflicts with Maxwell's Equations where the speed is defined >by the constants. It is bloody obvious that if the two observers are in relative motion, no light beam can approach them at the same speed. That is unless you want to tear up the whole of physics as it stands. >> >> Snip what you don't want to hear. > >Snip what has no scientific content, like the comment above. >If all you can do is toss insults around, you are obviously >unable just justify your assertions, you reduce them to >religious claims, and there is no point in taling about it any >farther. I'm giving up on you George. You are a hopeless case. I have now straightened you out about sagnac and shown why SR is fundamentally wrong from its first assumption. If you are too stubborn to accept the truth, that is not my problem. >> It matters not how wide the beam is. It still doesn't spontaneously disperse in >> all diagonal directions as you seem to think it does. > >Think about shining a laser onto a pinhole. The width is >very important in a classical analysis. I'm not shining any laser through a pinhole. I'm moving sidways past a laser beam. Do you really believe the beam give a hoot how fast I am moving? >> >> >> >> Not 'very small' but 'infinitesimal'. >> > >> >Same thing Henri. >> >> Not the same George. > >Exactly the same Henri, open a textbook on basic calculus. Calculus doesn't work to well with 'very small' increments, George. I'm beginning to realize you know very little about anything. >> The wavefront is nothing more than a line on a graph. >> It is infinitesimally thin and has no light-like properties. > >Let me remind you of what you said above: > >> The wavefront is horizontal. > >That horizontal line is merely a mathematical trick, it >marks the highest field strength in a region but the >field is actually a sine wave filling the volume of the >beam. That propagating sine wave is what is called >light (both fields of course but I'm keeping it simple >here). plain nonsense. Give up George... to save yourself further embarrassment. SR was a flawed attempt to modify aether theory after it was shown that no aether appeared to exist. >> According to you, George, a laser beam would spontaneously disperse in all >> diagonal directions, in the source frame. > >No, according to Maxwell's Equations, the field from any >single one of your "infinitesimal elements" would disperse >in ALL frames. It is the interference between the infinite >number of elements covering the horizontal surface of the >wavefront that allows the beam to avoid dispersing. George, when I move past a vertical laser beam, I don't see it suddenly dispersing in all directions. You are plain dumb!! Like all SRians. Androcles is rioght. There is no point in aguing with totally indoctrinated people like you. > >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 17 Nov 2005 17:32
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:54:34 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:51:35 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >>>Look Henri. >>>Pick a distant star, say 500 LY away. >>>Point your telescope at it, so that the image is at the centre. >>>Measure the absolute angle of your telescope. >>>Repeat 6 month later. >>>The telescope will now point in a direction 22 arcsecs >>>different from the first time. >>> >>>The parallax is negligible. The light path is the same, >>>nameley a straight line from the star to the Earth. >>>So why are the angle of the light path different? >>>It is caused by the different velocity of the Earth >>>at the two occations. We are observing the star from >>>two different frames of reference. >>>Both frames are moving relative to the star. >> >> >> So what? Ligth leaves the star spherically. > >Still drunk? >Didn't you get it? >There is but one light path - the path from the Star to the Earth. Are you under the impression that the star is emitting all its light in one particular direction, as with a narrow laser beam? >(We can neglect the small parallax angle which is only 0.0006 of > the aberration angle) >It is obviously utterly irrelevant that the star emits light >in all other directions that don't hit the Earth, >so why the hell are you stating this stupidity? > >The only light path of interest is the one that hits the Earth! >The _direction_ of that light path is down the middle of >our telescope. You really are funny today. >The direction of that single light path changes throughout the year >because the velocity of the frame of reference (Earth) changes >throughout the year. Very good Paul. You are improving. > >> This is in no way related to our discussion. You are diverting attention from >> the fact that SR is proved to be nonsense. > >It is related to your incredible stupid statements: >"Wavefronts really exist only in the source frame." >and: >"Whatever is moving diagonally isn't light. It is >infinitesimal points." That is right. Of course I was refering to the plotting, in my frame, of the paths of individual 'points' inside a vertical laser beam as I move horizontally past it. George Dishman is too dumb to understand that but I thought you might have a little more sense. > >To be consistent, you have to claim: >"WHATEVER IS COMING FROM THAT STAR, MOVING WITH CHANGING > DIRECTION, IS NOT LIGHT, IT IS ONLY INFINITESIMAL POINTS." You are quoting me completely out of context and you know it. tat has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic or anything I have said. >Now Henri, what is it that hits the CCD in our telescope? >Is it light? >It cannot be, can it? >Because whatever moves along paths with different directions >in different frames cannot be light, can it? The star emits a sphere of light Paul. The wavefronts are spherical. Didn't you know that. When my telescope moves sideways, a different radius vector of the sphere goes down the middle of my telescope. What could be more simple? I cannot see why you should have any trouble understanding that. > >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". |