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: jgreen on 27 Nov 2005 17:42 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 27 Nov 2005 00:13:23 -0800, jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote: > > > > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On 24 Nov 2005 00:01:52 -0800, jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote: > >> > > >> > >> You are a bit behond us Jim. > >> It is turning out to be a very complicated problem. > > > >Is "behond" a Wilsonism, or a typo? > >Is it "behind" or "beyond" > > Maybe you are 'behind' in some areas and 'beyond' in others. > > >Get back to basics. I presume, after all the argi between you and > >George, that he would have sent you his sagnac animation (demo of why > >it works) > > Actually I sent it to him. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac1.exe Explorer blocks it from me (citing secrity) > > George seems to have disappeared since I sent him my latest sagnac animation. > That's not surprising. It shows clearly why the sagnac DOES NOT refute the > BaTh. > > >What I could never pin down, were the FIXED; airframe, earth, or > >hirdygirdy. > >The reference point in time AND position, could not be determined, from > >the information > >(as regards the emission and receival of the light) > > It is a very complicated problem The SR (actually LET) analysis is vastly > oversimplified and wrong. > > What my demo shows is that two opposite beams which leave the first 45 mirror > at right angles DO NOT meet up at the same point even though the BaTh says > their travel times are equal (in the opoosite directions). Neither would bullets fired from identical guns. DHR's get so involed with the magic of "c", that the don't realise that they USE magic, in order to SHOW it! Jim G c'=c+v
From: Eric Gisse on 27 Nov 2005 18:25 jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote: > Henri Wilson wrote: > > On 27 Nov 2005 00:13:23 -0800, jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote: > > > > > > > >Henri Wilson wrote: > > >> On 24 Nov 2005 00:01:52 -0800, jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > >> You are a bit behond us Jim. > > >> It is turning out to be a very complicated problem. > > > > > >Is "behond" a Wilsonism, or a typo? > > >Is it "behind" or "beyond" > > > > Maybe you are 'behind' in some areas and 'beyond' in others. > > > > >Get back to basics. I presume, after all the argi between you and > > >George, that he would have sent you his sagnac animation (demo of why > > >it works) > > > > Actually I sent it to him. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac1.exe > > Explorer blocks it from me (citing secrity) It does not surprise me that not only that you use internet explorer, but that you are unable circumvent a security warning. [snip]
From: Henri Wilson on 27 Nov 2005 22:04 On 27 Nov 2005 14:42:15 -0800, jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 27 Nov 2005 00:13:23 -0800, jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote: >> >> > >> >Henri Wilson wrote: >> >> On 24 Nov 2005 00:01:52 -0800, jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You are a bit behond us Jim. >> >> It is turning out to be a very complicated problem. >> > >> >Is "behond" a Wilsonism, or a typo? >> >Is it "behind" or "beyond" >> >> Maybe you are 'behind' in some areas and 'beyond' in others. >> >> >Get back to basics. I presume, after all the argi between you and >> >George, that he would have sent you his sagnac animation (demo of why >> >it works) >> >> Actually I sent it to him. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac1.exe > >Explorer blocks it from me (citing secrity) Just change your security settings temporarily. ..tools/internet options/advanced >> >> George seems to have disappeared since I sent him my latest sagnac animation. >> That's not surprising. It shows clearly why the sagnac DOES NOT refute the >> BaTh. >> >> >What I could never pin down, were the FIXED; airframe, earth, or >> >hirdygirdy. >> >The reference point in time AND position, could not be determined, from >> >the information >> >(as regards the emission and receival of the light) >> >> It is a very complicated problem The SR (actually LET) analysis is vastly >> oversimplified and wrong. >> >> What my demo shows is that two opposite beams which leave the first 45 mirror >> at right angles DO NOT meet up at the same point even though the BaTh says >> their travel times are equal (in the opoosite directions). > >Neither would bullets fired from identical guns. DHR's get so involed >with the magic of "c", that the don't realise that they USE magic, in >order to SHOW it! > >Jim G >c'=c+v 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: donstockbauer on 27 Nov 2005 22:09 "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". ************************* Well, you're still young. Perhaps a stint in the Peace Corps??????
From: George Dishman on 28 Nov 2005 10:20
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:njq9o1t917m2mn9fh0ns9ckpg87uoklfl4(a)4ax.com... .... > George, I woke up with another bright idea. > > Please run my program: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac1.exe > > See how the two paths don't meet at the same point. I know, I pointed out that error to you some time ago but you ignored me. If you recall a recent discussion about how to calculate the speed of the light between the mirrors, I gave you a statement that said it was the magnitude of the vector sum of the tangential speed of the source and a vector of magnitude 'c' whose direction was such that the resultant hit the detector (or next mirror). It should be obvious that light that doesn't hit the detector plays no part in creating the output. In fact this is not too important because the the effect is second order and you are trying to explain a first order behaviour. > That is why the BaTh is getting the same travel times for different path > lengths. > What we have to look at are the fronts of the original beam that DO meet > at the > same point on the final screen. Exactly, that's what I was telling you weeks ago. > Think of the main beam as being broad with > continuous 'dispersion'. Right, that is important. > The fact is, lines that eventually meet at the same point do not start out > parallel. Err, no they start out at right angles for the three mirror setup but if the centre of the beam hits the detector when stationary, then the light we are interested in is slightly to the side of centre when it is rotating. > I will discuss this with you next time. It is becoming quite complicated. George |