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: bz on 3 Aug 2005 15:54 "sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:42f11cc4$0$18650$14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk: > > "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message > news:Xns96A78DCA73BA6WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... >> "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in >> news:1123091999.580984.298710 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: >> >> > >> > bz wrote: >> >> "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in >> >> news:1123076729.211267.18360(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> >> >> QM is a statistical theory...and stats don't work too well with a >> >> >> sample size of ONE. >> >> > >> >> > Did someone say the *sample* size was one ? >> >> > >> >> > Santa can deliver 2.3 toys to *ONE* house >> >> > with a high degree of certainty that each >> >> > child in the house will get a toy. >> >> >> > BZ: Only if Santa restricts his deliveries to a small portion of the >> > globe. >> > << I see no reason for a single photon to be longer than one cycle.>> >> > >> > Sue: Well maybe it has to be at least four cycles in case >> > some astromnomer wants to cut it into four pieces. >> > http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2000/phot-26-00.html >> >> Naw, they just need for 4 photons to arrive from the same source at the >> same time. > > Ya care to show us where that feller is on the periodic table? > Photon on the periodic table? Two rows up from hydrogen, and one row to the left. -- 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: Sue... on 3 Aug 2005 16:08 bz wrote: BS Sue: What are the assumtions of the formalism called quantum mechanics? Sue...
From: Henri Wilson on 3 Aug 2005 17:01 On 3 Aug 2005 13:01:32 -0700, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no> wrote: > >Henri Wilson skrev: >> On 3 Aug 2005 03:35:20 -0700, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >Henri Wilson skrev: >> >> On 2 Aug 2005 08:01:12 -0700, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >How is your foot, Henri? :-) >> >> >> >> To coin a favorite SRians phrase, >> >> "Paul you simply don't understand the theory" >> > >> >And which theory are you referring to? >> > >> >Is it this theory: >> >| light loses a minute amount of momentum every time it drags an atom >> >along. >> >| If the momentum lost is, on average proportional to momentum (all wrt >> >the >> >| source frame) then the decrease would be an exponential one. >> >| As you know small sections of an exponential can appear fairly >> >linear. >> >| Hence the resultant redshift (wrt source frame) is virtually >> >proportional >> >| to distance from source. >> >> That is ONE very sound theory >> >> >or is it this theory: >> >| molecules in rare space DO tend to unify the speed of all light >> >| traveling in any particular direction. >> > >> >I have no problem understanding either of them. >> >But I also understand that they contradict each other. >> >> They do not contradict. ...the slow and fast light from a star merely slows at >> different rates. >> Im not adamant about the unification theory becasue I cannot see how Earth >> observers could detect doppler shifts in light from faraway stars. > >.. and thus contradicting the "slowing light" theory. > >Is it beginning to dawn to you? :-) Are you plain dumb after your beer binge....or just acting. > >> >I will give you a hint: >> >All the light "going in the same direction" >> >do not have to come from the same source. >> >> I think I told YOU that....and I suggested that this fact might >> be instrumental >> in unifying the speed of all light in any particular direction. > >Henri, Henri, Henri .. :-) > >I rest my case. > >Paul, amused HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: jgreen on 4 Aug 2005 07:02 Paul B. Andersen wrote: > jgreen(a)seol.net.au skrev: > > Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote: > > > > Thanks- I needed a good laugh! > > > > > > Fools laugh at what they don't understand. > > > > And how big a fool(or coward), does it take to rabbit on about > > EARTH rotation, when the issue has NOTHING to do with that? > > We are discussing the rotation of an axle perpendicular to the earth, > > and the earth rotation has nothing to do with the scenario; > > ONLY the difference in gravity. > > I don't know what YOU are discussing, but what I > was answering in the posting you responded to was > this particular challenge defined by Sue: > | You are of course welcome to advance an opinion > | about how an axel should behave if it were repeating > | a geosynchronous clock to the ground or if it were > | repeating a ground clock to a geosynchronous satellite. > | Neither you nor Bz seem able to interpret what Einstein's > | relativity say's the shaft should do. > > My answer is what GR "say's the shaft should do". > And whether you like it or not, the Earth IS rotating. > And the rotation of the Earth IS relevant to GR's > prediction of what "the shaft should do". > > However, this was not my main point with "one Earth > rotation" in my scenario, see below. > > The apparent paradox is this: > If the top of the axle (or shaft) rotates at a slower > rate than the bottom, the axle should be twisted, > and "wind up" more and more as time passes. > I show that this isn't so. > To do that we can compare the number of turns done > by the bottom and the top of the axle when it points > in two different directions relative to the distant stars. > If the number of turns are equal, it will not twist. > I have - somewhat arbitrarily - chosen to compare the number > of turns of ends of the axle each time the axle points > in the same direction, that is after "one Earth rotation". > > > I don't expect you to answer-----you cannot! > > But I did. Below is my answer again. > This is what GR say will happen. > I challenge you to find and point out an inconsistency. > Your opinion of GR is irrelevant. > The challenge is to point out an inconsitency > in GR, showing that there is a real paradox. > > Let there be a clock A on the ground at equator. > Let there be a clock B in geostationary orbit. > Let both clocks be on the same radius. > (on the same line through the center of the Erth) > > Let A measure the proper duration of one Earth rotation to be T. > Then, according to GR, B will measure the proper > duration of one Earth rotation to be longer, T + delta_T. > > Let there be an axle between the two clocks. > Let this axle rotate in such a way that there is no > mechanical stress in the axle. > Let the axle rotate N times during one Earth rotation. > > A will measure the rotational frequency to be f_g = N/T > while B will measure it to be f_s = N/(T + delta_T). > > So the ground clock will measure the axle to rotate > faster than the satellite clock will, but both will > agree that the axle rotates N times per Earth rotation. > > frequency * duration = number_of_rotations > f_g*T = N > f_s*(T + delta_T) = N > > Loosly said: > "The satellite clock will see the axle rotate slower, > but for a longer time." > > I do not expect you to point out an inconsistency, > because there are none. > I do however expect you to laugh at what you don't understands. > Fools do. After all your pathetic attempts to duck the question, it STILL remains!! You claim here that the axle does NOT twist under GR. Since two of the clocks are ATTACHED to the axle, they MUST read the SAME time. But GR says the high unconnected (different gravity) one runs differentlty. This is a CONTRADICTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! of the "theory" Jim G c'=c+v > > Paul
From: jgreen on 4 Aug 2005 07:58
bz wrote: > "sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in > news:42f11cc4$0$18650$14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk: > > > > > "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message > > news:Xns96A78DCA73BA6WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > >> "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in > >> news:1123091999.580984.298710 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: > >> > >> > > >> > bz wrote: > >> >> "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in > >> >> news:1123076729.211267.18360(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: > >> >> > >> >> >> QM is a statistical theory...and stats don't work too well with a > >> >> >> sample size of ONE. > >> >> > > >> >> > Did someone say the *sample* size was one ? > >> >> > > >> >> > Santa can deliver 2.3 toys to *ONE* house > >> >> > with a high degree of certainty that each > >> >> > child in the house will get a toy. > >> >> > >> > BZ: Only if Santa restricts his deliveries to a small portion of the > >> > globe. > >> > << I see no reason for a single photon to be longer than one cycle.>> > >> > > >> > Sue: Well maybe it has to be at least four cycles in case > >> > some astromnomer wants to cut it into four pieces. > >> > http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2000/phot-26-00.html > >> > >> Naw, they just need for 4 photons to arrive from the same source at the > >> same time. > > > > Ya care to show us where that feller is on the periodic table? > > > > Photon on the periodic table? > Two rows up from hydrogen, and one row to the left. Maybe higher still? The little fellas are pretty small compared to the mass a H (but we're on the right track) Jim G c'=c+v |