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 30 Aug 2005 20:50 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 28 Aug 2005 20:30:24 -0700, "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote: > > >Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: > > > >>>>>>> Which do you think is more likely? > > >>> Anyone who attacks something because he doesn't understand it > >>> looks foolish. > >> > >> This is so typical. > >> The fact is you peope think we don't understand it because in > >> fact there is no real theory to be understood. > > > >The theory makes predictions which are checked against > >observations. How can a theory make predictions which are > >checked against observations if there is no real theory? > > > >In the last few months, in discussions with George Dishman, > >you demonstrated many, many times that you do not know what > >predictions relativity theory makes. Every time you tried > >to say what relativity theory predicts, you were wrong. > > > >Other people can say what relativity theory predicts. > >You can't, because you don't know. > > > >If you don't know what relativity theory predicts, you are > >not able to know whether the predictions are right or wrong. > > Relativity predicts exactly what LET predicts ...and for the same reasons. > Relativity is nothing but a disguised aether theory. > > ->S1_________p->___________O > <-S2 > > If two relatively moving light sources emit a pulse of light when they are > adjacent, SR says both pulses travel towards O at the same speed. > > What, other than an absolute property of space could unify the two pulses? Magic! Photons which "know" how fast to arrive at a target; rubber rulers; clocks which "modify" themselves to assure that c=c+v > > Einstein merely replaced the aether with the definition....OWLS = c. > > > > > > >> Well root, it is pretty obvious tat you don't understand WHY > >> relativity is nonsense. > > > >George and others have gone through your arguments with you > >in detail, showing you exactly what errors you made and why > >those errors cause your arguments to fail. I understand > >your arguments, I see the errors in them, and I understand > >why your arguments fail. I carried on an interesting and cordial exchange with George D for quite a time. When arguing "time dilation", he sent me a cleverly constructed animation which purports to show why and how this occurs, with a vertically moving ray within a railway carriage. At first it seemed pursuasive, until I ran it against my own stopwatch. It then became obvious that George's clocks had PRIOR to the motion, assumed c=c+v (ie that dilation WOULD occur). I am still waiting for him to make the necessary corrections. Jeff R cannot seem to see that his "modifications" are based on prior assumption also.........and conclusions arrising from using wrong assumptions are WRONG also. Jim G c'+c+v
From: Jeff Root on 31 Aug 2005 00:10 Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: > You'll never understand! If you modify your GPS clock BEFORE you > begin to compare what they are showing, then that clock is NOT > accurate. See my August 28 reply to you (reposted just now). *YOU* specified a "GpS clock", not me! If you didn't want to use a GPS clock, you shouldn't have specified one. GPS clocks are modified to compensate for gravitational potential and for orbital speed. Since orbital speed is irrelevant in your version of the thought experiment, I guessed that you might mean a clock modified ONLY to compensate for gravitational potential. My first answer in my August 28 post applied to that scenario. I also thought it likely that you intended the clock to not be modified at all. My second answer in my August 28 post applied to that scenario. > You still fail to answer; since the GPS clock was assembled > BEFORE its position was known (on earth, and then taken up), The GPS satellites were all put into orbit at the same altitude. That was by design. It is a 12-hour orbit, so the satellites go around the Earth twice each day. > wHICH clock face at the top is reading correctly after > elapsed time? See the repost of my August 28 reply to you. >> >> >> If a clock were motionless at the top of the axle and >> >> >> not modified at all, so that it is exactly identical to >> >> >> clocks on the ground, it would gain on the clock at the >> >> >> bottom of the axle. If you consider the axle to be the >> >> >> clock at the bottom of the axle, then the modified clock >> >> >> gains on the axle. > > lol! .but we know that doesn't happen, because the modification > is done to keep them the SAME!!!!!!!!!!!!! I apologize. That was a typo. Notice that "modified" in the last sentence clashes with the language of the first sentence. It should have been "unmodified". -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: Jeff Root on 31 Aug 2005 03:13 Jim Greenfield wrote: > I carried on an interesting and cordial exchange with George D > for quite a time. > When arguing "time dilation", he sent me a cleverly constructed > animation which purports to show why and how this occurs, with a > vertically moving ray within a railway carriage. At first it > seemed pursuasive, until I ran it against my own stopwatch. It > then became obvious that George's clocks had PRIOR to the motion, > assumed c=c+v (ie that dilation WOULD occur). I am still waiting > for him to make the necessary corrections. What did you think needed correction? -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: George Dishman on 31 Aug 2005 10:52 <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message news:1125449429.961471.206760(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >> On 28 Aug 2005 20:30:24 -0700, "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote: >> >> >George and others have gone through your arguments with you >> >in detail, showing you exactly what errors you made and why >> >those errors cause your arguments to fail. I understand >> >your arguments, I see the errors in them, and I understand >> >why your arguments fail. > > I carried on an interesting and cordial exchange with George D for > quite a time. > When arguing "time dilation", he sent me a cleverly constructed > animation which purports to show why and how this occurs, with a > vertically moving ray within a railway carriage. What it showed was that _if_ light moved as described by SR then time dilation is required. It wasn't a proof that it occurs. > At first it seemed > pursuasive, until I ran it against my own stopwatch. It then became > obvious that George's clocks had PRIOR to the motion, assumed c=c+v (ie > that dilation WOULD occur). That was because the diagram illustrated SR Jim. Light DOES move at c in SR, not c+v. > I am still waiting for him to make the > necessary corrections. Unfortunately, as Jim knows, the hard drive I had that on died so the source code was lost. I might redo the thing as a Java applet but there seems little point. The diagram was correct as far as it had gone but only showed the SR version. It should have had the Newtonian version on the other side but I had only just started writing that when I lost it. Sorry Jim, I don't know if I can work up the enthusiasm to spend a few weeks redoing something which you didn't understand in the first place judging by your comments above. George
From: jgreen on 1 Sep 2005 00:07
Jeff Root wrote: > Jim Greenfield wrote: > > > I carried on an interesting and cordial exchange with George D > > for quite a time. > > When arguing "time dilation", he sent me a cleverly constructed > > animation which purports to show why and how this occurs, with a > > vertically moving ray within a railway carriage. At first it > > seemed pursuasive, until I ran it against my own stopwatch. It > > then became obvious that George's clocks had PRIOR to the motion, > > assumed c=c+v (ie that dilation WOULD occur). I am still waiting > > for him to make the necessary corrections. > > What did you think needed correction? See if you can understand where this is wrong: I claim that my car does 200mph; I adjust the speedo to read 50% fast; I take the car for a run! Yes! It DOES do 200! George's clock is running at a CHANGED rate, but this scenario is supposed to show WHY that rate (time dilation) occurs. I am not suggesting for a moment that he set out deliberately to mislead; AE made the same mistake in his railway gendankens, but then he had to invest a huge effort in developing a circular logic within the math "proof", in which the rulers shrink to suit the time dilation, and time pass depending on the length of the ruler it traverses. Jim G c'=c+v |