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: Henri Wilson on 1 Sep 2005 07:36 On 30 Aug 2005 18:54:05 -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. > >You just proved my point. > >> Relativity is nothing but a disguised aether theory. > >And you just proved it again. > >> ->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? > >And again. You just proved MY point. You know nothing about physics at all. You cannot answer a question that you know will bring down your belief system. > >> Einstein merely replaced the aether with the definition....OWLS = c. > >And yet again. > >Making one erronious assertion after another just shows that >you believe what you want to believe, regardless of what the >facts are. Answer the above question if you are so bloody smart.. > >>>> 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. >> >> There is absolutely no evidence that any aspect of SR is correct. > >So you are saying that you are blind. Other people have no >problem seeing the evidence. Millions of people over the last >hundred years. They *use* relativity theory every day to make >their machines work. Without using relativity, the machines >can't be aligned correctly, can't be timed correctly, can't do >the jobs they were designed to do. If relativity theory were >wrong, the machines which depend on relativity being correct >would fail. If relativity theory were wrong, it would be >immediately be obvious to them. "If your faith is strong enough, you will find proof of it everywhere you look" > >It isn't obvious to you because you have never used relativity >theory. You have never looked for the evidence. You shut your >eyes against it. There is NONE. >> I don't care one iota what you think. > >So you lied about studying relativity Do you know of any physics degree courses that does not include relativity? >> Like I said, it replaces the aether with a blank >> mathematical statement. >> That is not a physical theory at all. It has no physical >> significance or connection. > >Which proves again that you do not understand relativity >theory, and thus are incompetent to say anything about it. You are coming across as a pathetic failure. You have not made one constructive statement even remotely associated with physics. You are merely preaching religion. >> I can tell you a lot about the BaT if you want to know >> all about it. > >I know that it was disproved long ago. Its predictions >were wrong. If you have a new theory which gives correct >predictions, it isn't the BaT. It was never disproved. Stop preaching. > >> At least every known experiment supports it...and it IS >> a physical theory. > >You have yet to show even *one* correct prediction made >by your "BaT". All you do is claim. Lots and lots of >empty claims. Again and again and again you claim that >BaT works, but never once a single bit of support for >any of those claims. > >You believe BaT is supported by experiments because you >want to believe it. No other reason. That shows how far >gone you are. Every experiment I know supports the BaT. >> >> It makes no difference to me whether or not you remain self >> deluded for the rest of your life. > >I'm no expert, ....the one truth you have uttered.... >and haven't tried to keep up with any recent >developments, but as far as I know, there are no effective >treatments for the kind of mental illness you have. Every >individual is different, though. It really is a shame that >you never at least had your condition medically diagnosed. You have the mental condition of a religious fanatic. Have you thouight about blowing yourself up amongst a busload of Batists? >> The first chapter is on my website. > >I think I looked at it some time ago, but I'll look again. I'll send the rest if you think you might benefit. >>> But my main interest >>> would be related to science education. I'll admit that >>> I'm amused by the goofy ideas people have about how the >>> world works. Yours is a rather extreme case, though. >>> I'm more interested in the goofy ideas of normal people. >> >> Anyone would think I invented the Ballistic theory. >> Haven't you heard of Walter Ritz? > >Certainly. He worked out the mathematical description of >the frequencies of spectral lines, fundamental to quantum >mechanics. he did a lot more than that. He developed the BaT. >> Unfortunately he died prematurely. I and others are merely >> taking up where he left off. > >The ballistic theory of light was shown to be wrong long ago. >That hasn't changed with time. You would have to make some >fundamental change in it, so that it would be a completely >new theory. So far, you haven't done that. correction, the BaT was never shown to be wrong. DeSitter made some fundamental errors. >> >> The BaT predicts and explains the majority of variable star >> light curves. Is that not evidence? > >It has never predicted or explained even one light curve. >You showed ONE light curve drawn by a program you wrote, and >compared it to the light curve of ONE star. The two did not >match. That is all you've done. > >> The BaT explains the MMX. >> The BaT say that if all apparatus components are mutually >> at rest, TWLS = OWLS = c.....backed by experiment. >> (you cannot even understand why) > >I admit that I am not competent to argue these points. Well what the hell are you doing on this relativity NG? Go away until you learn something about the subject! >It is far easier to make an assertion than to show the >assertion to be right or wrong. You make assertions >unsupported by evidence, and I don't have the knowledge >or inclination to try to show whether or not they are >supportable. I will leave that to others, who have >already done it. Typical religious drivel... >> Physical theories, yes. >> >> Not one experiment was used in the formulation of SR. It was a >> mathematical exercise entirely. > >Correct. It was based entirely on observations. It was based on LET. >> ..but you relativists still believe that the Earth as the >> centre of the universe as far as starlight is concerned. > >Your assertion is obviously untrue. You are not so mentally >deranged as to believe it. So you are lying when you say it. >You lie in order to maintain your other beliefs, which are >more plausible, though equally untrue. > >>> I have answered your questions. Answer mine. >> >> You cannot answer any hard questions. > >I can answer some hard questions, but not others. >Same as you. > >Here's a question for you: > >>> 1) Millions of physicists, engineers, technicians, students, >>> and interested laymen have failed to notice glaringly obvious >>> contradictions in relativity over the last 80-some years. >>> You see the contradictions, but even when you explain them to >>> people smarter than you, they still don't see them. >> >> They will be ridiculed ostracised and lose their jobs if they >> agree. > >Why would anyone ridicule, ostracise, or fire someone who >agrees that there are glaringly obvious contradictions in >relativity? What purpose would such actions serve? Many reputations are at stake. People in high places don't like to admit they have been wrong all their lives. > > -- Jeff, in Minneapolis 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: George Dishman on 1 Sep 2005 09:41 "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote in message news:1125553667.528007.170290(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: > >> George's clock is running at a CHANGED rate, but this scenario >> is supposed to show WHY that rate (time dilation) occurs. > > That's correct. > > The animation was intended to show why the clock rate changes. Let me correct you both again. The animation was never intended to show WHY time dilation occurs. It was only what Jim asked for, a more detailed explanation of a magazine article which showed how we could deduce that IF the speed of light is the same for all observers THEN time dilation must occur. If I wanted to show Jim WHY it occurs, it would be necessary to explain Riemann geometry to him and that is far beyond his mathematical abilities. Sorry Jim, no offence meant, we all have our limits mine being tensors. George
From: George Dishman on 1 Sep 2005 10:03 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:p1pdh119qcokfoevnnsh9c2esc2b4dcp2q(a)4ax.com... > On 30 Aug 2005 18:54:05 -0700, "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote: > >>Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: .... >>> I can tell you a lot about the BaT if you want to know >>> all about it. >> >>I know that it was disproved long ago. Its predictions >>were wrong. If you have a new theory which gives correct >>predictions, it isn't the BaT. > > It was never disproved. Stop preaching. Even if you don't accept De Sitter's work, it was disproved by Sagnac. I know you have chosen to ignore that fact but you can still offer no viable explanation why the experiment and devices based on the effect don't produce a null result. > Every experiment I know supports the BaT. Except binary star observations and Sagnac. >>The ballistic theory of light was shown to be wrong long ago. >>That hasn't changed with time. You would have to make some >>fundamental change in it, so that it would be a completely >>new theory. So far, you haven't done that. > > correction, the BaT was never shown to be wrong. DeSitter made some > fundamental > errors. Correction, Sagnac showed it to be wrong. >>> The BaT predicts and explains the majority of variable star >>> light curves. Is that not evidence? >> >>It has never predicted or explained even one light curve. >>You showed ONE light curve drawn by a program you wrote, and >>compared it to the light curve of ONE star. The two did not >>match. That is all you've done. We all await Henri's new-and-improved simulation with bated breath. >>> The BaT explains the MMX. >>> The BaT say that if all apparatus components are mutually >>> at rest, TWLS = OWLS = c.....backed by experiment. >>> (you cannot even understand why) >> >>I admit that I am not competent to argue these points. Henri is correct, Ritz is compatible with the MMX which goes to show why no amount of positive results is of any use, incorrect theories need to be eliminated by falsification. That's why I want to see Henri's program predictions for non-variable spectroscopic binaries, they are the only systems that can produce a result. > Well what the hell are you doing on this relativity NG? > Go away until you learn something about the subject! sci.astro (where I am reading this and I think Jeff is too) is an astronomy group where your discussion relating to binary star data was entirely appropriate. >>> Not one experiment was used in the formulation of SR. It was a >>> mathematical exercise entirely. >> >>Correct. It was based entirely on observations. > > It was based on LET. Untrue, it was based on consideration of Maxwell's Equations. >>>> 1) Millions of physicists, engineers, technicians, students, >>>> and interested laymen have failed to notice glaringly obvious >>>> contradictions in relativity over the last 80-some years. >>>> You see the contradictions, but even when you explain them to >>>> people smarter than you, they still don't see them. >>> >>> They will be ridiculed ostracised and lose their jobs if they >>> agree. Wrong, they would become famous because that is how all progress is made. You only have to look at 1998 when SNe results were published showing the expansion of the universe was accelerating to see that. Those results went against GR and every known model of cosmology yet they are accepted. We still can't explain them but the people who published them have not had their careers damaged, quite the reverse. >>Why would anyone ridicule, ostracise, or fire someone who >>agrees that there are glaringly obvious contradictions in >>relativity? What purpose would such actions serve? > > Many reputations are at stake. > People in high places don't like to admit they have been wrong all their > lives. No, but the next generation takes great delight in casting aside the misconceptions of the past and the old guard know it's better to adapt than be left in a backwater. Einstein made exactly that mistake over QM. Henri hasn't a clue how science works in the real world. George
From: Henri Wilson on 1 Sep 2005 19:46 On 31 Aug 2005 17:21:32 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 29 Aug 2005 19:38:30 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> > >> >Henri, your denial is always amusing. Why is it accelerators based on >> >SR's kinematics work while those based on Newtonian kinematics abjectly >> >fail >> >> Geese, answer this please: >> >> <-S1________P->___________O >> ->S2 >> >> S1 and S2 are remote light sources that emit simultaneous pulses when tey are >> adjacent. >> >> SR claims that both pulses travel towards O at the same speed. >> Does this mean that an absolute property of space determines that common speed? > >It is certaintly an observed property of space, whether or not you >agree is irrelevant because you refuse to read literature or do >experiments. I don't know why space is that way. You have asked me that >at least a half dozen times before and the answer remains the same: I >don't know. Thank you Geese, you have proved my point that Einstein's relativity is just a disguised version of aether theory. > >Now why don't you explain me why high energy physics can't be predicted >with your "c+v theory". Don't bother responding if all you are gonna do >is invoke a conspiracy. I have many times. > >[snip] > >> >> Give up physics, Geese. You don't have the aptitude. >> > >I asked it before, but oddly enough you never responded. When exactly >did you get your degree in physics? None of your business. >> The relativists probably murdered him. > >Yessss...clearly! The eeeevil relativists clearly have it in for you >too. Better watch your back! (lol) > >Your paranoia is fascinating! > >> >Hah you actually believe that? >> > >> >Were his contributions to statistical physics and quantum mechanics >> >garbage too? I think the only reason you don't rag on Einstein's other >> >works is because you don't even have the base familiarity to carry on >> >an introductory discussion about them. >> >> We are discussing Einsteinian relativity Geese. > >Odd. You hate upon Relativity and say things like "physics was hijacked >by Einstein", yet you refuse to discuss anything else Einstein has >done? Do you insulate yourself from history on purpose or is it just >another facet of your disfunction? well he didn't get his doctorate for relativity, that's for sure. >> >> Apart from the redshift of light, they have never been properly substantiated. >> > >> >*sigh* >> > >> >Gravitational lensing. For example, the deflection of light by the sun. >> >Also, lensing about galaxies. > >Well? > >> > >> >Black holes. Saggitarius A*, what is there? > >Well? ....all predicted by upgraded NM. > >> > >> >Gravitational redshift. > >Well? ....all predicted by upgraded NM. > >> > >> >Equivalence principle. While it isn't a prediction, rather a postulate, >> >a large number of things can be culled from GR using equivalences >> >derived from the equivalence principle. Such as redshift. >> > >> >...GPS? You still won't acknowledge the obvious. Even when someone >> >takes an inordinate amount of time to teach you the details of the >> >system you fundamentally misunderstand. >> > >> >http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html > >Well? written by a relativist. Notice how he changed all the official figures to the ones he wanted....hahaha! >> >> The BaT say that if all apparatus components are mutually at rest, TWLS = OWLS >> >> = c.....backed by experiment. (you cannot even understand why) >> > >> >Explain how your theory is different from Newtonian mechanics. > >I honestly want to see you try to answer this. NM needs upgrading...otherwise it is basically the same. 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 1 Sep 2005 19:49
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 15:03:28 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:p1pdh119qcokfoevnnsh9c2esc2b4dcp2q(a)4ax.com... >> On 30 Aug 2005 18:54:05 -0700, "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote: >> >> Many reputations are at stake. >> People in high places don't like to admit they have been wrong all their >> lives. > >No, but the next generation takes great delight in >casting aside the misconceptions of the past and >the old guard know it's better to adapt than be left >in a backwater. Einstein made exactly that mistake >over QM. Henri hasn't a clue how science works in >the real world. Isn't it strange how the BaT can produce almost all variable star brightness curves? Isn't it strange that their periods are generally so constant that they MUST be linked to orbit period. No other process could be so stable. > >George > 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. |