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: Jeff Root on 4 Aug 2005 16:35 Jim Greenfield replied to Paul B. Andersen: >> > 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, How can a prediction made by a theory contradict the theory? Why do you say that because the two clocks are attached to the axle, they must read the same? -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: Henri Wilson on 4 Aug 2005 20:43 On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 09:13:20 -0400, "sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:pcf1f1hlqkj1548ov7apeqnvgm6i1m15go(a)4ax.com... >> 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. > >You can't see it because you deny the Coulomb coupling >that exist between the EM coupling structures and the >matter in their local region of space. No I don't deny that. I modify the concept. In space, EM fields occasionally encompass an atom and drag it along. > >The only proof you can offer it that is mathematically >convenient for folks with an ultra violet catastrophe. > ><< There is in particular one problem whose exhaustive solution >could provide considerable elucidation. What becomes of the >energy of a photon after complete emission? Does it spread out >in all directions with further propagation in the sense of Huygens' >wave theory, so constantly taking up more space, in boundless >progressive attenuation? Or does it fly out like a projectile in one >direction in the sense of Newton's emanation theory? In the first >case, the quantum would no longer be in the position to concentrate >energy upon a single point in space in such a way as to release an >electron from its atomic bond, and in the second case, the main >triumph of the Maxwell theory - the continuity between the static >and the dynamic fields and, with it, the complete understanding we >have enjoyed, until now, of the fully investigated interference >phenomena - would have to be sacrificed, both being very >unhappy consequences for today's theoreticians. >> >--Max Planck > >From Nobel Lectures, Physics 1901-1921, >Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1967 >http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1918/planck-lecture.html > >Sue... >http://www.eso.org/projects/vlti/images/vlti-array-smallsize.jpg bloody hell! Looks like a nice place to live. Great view.... >> >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. >> >> > >> >Paul >> >> >> 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. > 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: Sue... on 4 Aug 2005 21:47 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 09:13:20 -0400, "sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> > wrote: > > > > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:pcf1f1hlqkj1548ov7apeqnvgm6i1m15go(a)4ax.com... > >> 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. > > > >You can't see it because you deny the Coulomb coupling > >that exist between the EM coupling structures and the > >matter in their local region of space. > > No I don't deny that. > I modify the concept. > > In space, EM fields occasionally encompass an atom and drag it along. > > > > >The only proof you can offer it that is mathematically > >convenient for folks with an ultra violet catastrophe. > > > ><< There is in particular one problem whose exhaustive solution > >could provide considerable elucidation. What becomes of the > >energy of a photon after complete emission? Does it spread out > >in all directions with further propagation in the sense of Huygens' > >wave theory, so constantly taking up more space, in boundless > >progressive attenuation? Or does it fly out like a projectile in one > >direction in the sense of Newton's emanation theory? In the first > >case, the quantum would no longer be in the position to concentrate > >energy upon a single point in space in such a way as to release an > >electron from its atomic bond, and in the second case, the main > >triumph of the Maxwell theory - the continuity between the static > >and the dynamic fields and, with it, the complete understanding we > >have enjoyed, until now, of the fully investigated interference > >phenomena - would have to be sacrificed, both being very > >unhappy consequences for today's theoreticians. >> > >--Max Planck > > > >From Nobel Lectures, Physics 1901-1921, > >Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1967 > >http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1918/planck-lecture.html > > > >Sue... > >http://www.eso.org/projects/vlti/images/vlti-array-smallsize.jpg > > bloody hell! > Looks like a nice place to live. Great view.... If a single photon can illuminate all four of those collecters and we find about 1 atom per cubic centimeter in the sparsest regions of interstellar space, do you really think the word *ocassionaly* decribes the interaction of a force with infinite range and further: <<... the removal of just one out of roughly six trillion of the free electrons from a copper sphere 0.62 cm radius 2.48 cm apart would cause enough electric repulsion on the top sphere to lift it, overcoming the gravitational pull of the entire Earth! >> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html You have allowed for light to ?ocassionaly? interact with matter? You are using an unrealistic spatial model for propagting light. You are using an unrealistic model for the way light interacts with matter. This is a realistic model: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif Sue... > > >> >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. > >> > >> > > >> >Paul > >> > >> > >> 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. > > > > > 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: Henri Wilson on 6 Aug 2005 20:30 On 4 Aug 2005 18:47:53 -0700, "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 09:13:20 -0400, "sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> >> wrote: >> >> >> bloody hell! >> Looks like a nice place to live. Great view.... > >If a single photon can illuminate all four of >those collecters and we find about 1 atom per >cubic centimeter in the sparsest regions of interstellar >space, do you really think the word *ocassionaly* >decribes the interaction of a force with infinite range >and further: ><<... the removal of just one out of roughly >six trillion of the free electrons from a >copper sphere 0.62 cm radius 2.48 cm apart >would cause enough electric >repulsion on the top sphere to lift it, >overcoming the gravitational pull of the >entire Earth! >> I'll believe you... > >http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html > >You have allowed for light to ?ocassionaly? interact >with matter? > >You are using an unrealistic spatial model for propagting >light. I wasn't aware that there was any other model for light propagating in 'empty' space. >You are using an unrealistic model for the way >light interacts with matter. I wasn't aware that there was any other model for interaction of light with matter in 'empty' space. >This is a realistic model: >http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif Nah! Too simple. > >Sue... > > >> >> >> >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. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >Paul >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> > >> >> >> 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. 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: Sue... on 6 Aug 2005 20:45
Henri Wilson wrote: > On 4 Aug 2005 18:47:53 -0700, "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 09:13:20 -0400, "sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > >> bloody hell! > >> Looks like a nice place to live. Great view.... > > > >If a single photon can illuminate all four of > >those collecters and we find about 1 atom per > >cubic centimeter in the sparsest regions of interstellar > >space, do you really think the word *ocassionaly* > >decribes the interaction of a force with infinite range > >and further: > ><<... the removal of just one out of roughly > >six trillion of the free electrons from a > >copper sphere 0.62 cm radius 2.48 cm apart > >would cause enough electric > >repulsion on the top sphere to lift it, > >overcoming the gravitational pull of the > >entire Earth! >> > > I'll believe you... > > > > >http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html > > > >You have allowed for light to ?ocassionaly? interact > >with matter? > > > >You are using an unrealistic spatial model for propagting > >light. > > I wasn't aware that there was any other model for light propagating in 'empty' > space. I know of no model for less than two charges, so why would you even consider 'empty' space. A space with two charges, is not empty space. Sue... > > >You are using an unrealistic model for the way > >light interacts with matter. > > I wasn't aware that there was any other model for interaction of light with > matter in 'empty' space. > > >This is a realistic model: > >http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif > > Nah! Too simple. > > > > >Sue... > > > > > >> > >> >> >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. > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >Paul > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 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. > >> > > >> > >> > >> 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. > > > 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. |