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: Eric Gisse on 1 Sep 2005 20:55 Henri Wilson wrote: > 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. No, I haven't. Just because you say it, doesn't mean it is true. > > > > >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. It is much easier to say that you have than actually explain it or link to where you explained it. Right? > > > > >[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. Put up or shut up. > > > >> 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. You finally got something right. Congratulations. I knew it was possible, but I didn't expect to see it within my lifetime. > > >> >> 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. To be fair, Black holes are predicted by NM. But NM has been empirically falsified, so your point is irrelevant. > > > > >> > > >> >Gravitational redshift. > > > >Well? > > ...all predicted by upgraded NM. NM is empirically wrong, all the fiddling in the world cannot change that simple fact. It also doesn't predict gravitational redshift. > > > > >> > > >> >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. It must be easy to be you. Everything written by scientists you can dismiss by simply saying "written by a realtivist", without even addressing his points. > Notice how he changed all the official figures to the ones he wanted....hahaha! Prove it. > > > >> >> 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. NM is *WRONG*. No amount of fiddling can fix that! NM has been dead and buried for a century now. If you need me to explain how NM has been falsified, I don't understand how you can be so arrogant when you don't even know of the subject of which you speak. > > > 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: Jeff Root on 2 Sep 2005 02:18 Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: >>>>> 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. Knowing nothing about physics at all is one thing. Being unable to answer a specific question about physics because you know it will bring down your belief system is a totally different thing. You obviously know roughly as much about physics as I know. Although we don't know exactly the same things, our areas of knowledge overlap greatly. But you have a serious mental problem which expresses itself as an obsession with relativity, delusions about what relativity theory says, and an inability to distinguish your delusions from reality. >> 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.. I'm not especially smart. I'm smart enough to have learned a little bit about physics in general and relativity theory in particular, and I'm smart enough to distinguish your delusions from reality. Most people could do that. I presume that the question you refer to is this one: 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? It seems to me that "properties of space" is an adequate answer. Your inclusion of the word "absolute" adds nothing to the description, but aside from possibly being somewhat misleading, it doesn't hurt, either. I would go along with "an absolute property of space" as a fairly reasonable description of why light is always measured to move with speed 'c' in vacuum with respect to an observer, nomatter what the state of motion of the source. As I indicated, though, it would more precisely be stated as "properties" rather than "property", since there are two properties: permeability and permittivity. James Clerk Maxwell found that c = 1/SQRT(permeability*permittivity). >>>>> 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" That is a very perceptive description of your obsession with the ballistic theory. You claim "The BaT predicts and explains the majority of variable star light curves." Yet it has never predicted or explained even one light curve. When asked for evidence that the BaT really does what you claim, you had nothing to show. Nothing. You couldn't produce even one light curve match. >> 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 can see it. Almost everyone can see it. You can't see it even when it is placed right in front of you. That has been done many, many times in these newsgroups. >>> 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? No, I don't, although I'm sure there must be some. Some applications of physics do not involve relativity at all. In any case, you lied about studying 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 stated relevant facts. Very obvious facts, at that. >>> 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. As George Dishman showed you in detail, in conversations over a period of months, the Sagnac experiment definitely disproves the BaT. >>> At least every known experiment supports it...and it IS >>> a physical theory. You have not shown even ONE experiment which supports it. In fact, you haven't even shown one experimental result from one experiment which supports it. All you have shown is one light curve which fails to match the light curve you were trying to match. >> 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. You don't know of any. Not one. >>> 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. What is the use of such an assertion? Anyone reading this thread can see for themselves who is delusional. It occurs to me, though, that even if your condition hasn't yet been medically diagnosed, it probably will be, after you become unable to care for yourself. Most likely it isn't apparent in occasional interactions with people, but anyone seeing you and talking with you daily would quickly notice that you have some kind of severe mental illness. They will want to know what your problem is, so they can know how best to handle you. > Have you thought about blowing yourself up amongst a busload > of Batists? "Batists" are people who believe in the BaT? Goofy. .... >> 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 Sagnac experiment shows that the BaT is wrong. You looked at the experimental results and rejected them because they disprove the BaT. >>> 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! Just because I'm not familiar with applicability of the BaT to specific experiments doesn't mean I can't see that you are lying when you claim that "The BaT predicts and explains the majority of variable star light curves." >> 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... Your problem isn't with religion or relativity-- It is with delusions, paranoia, and detachment from reality. >>> 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. Special relativity was based on observations by Oersted, Ampere, Henry, Faraday, Lenz, Ohm, Maxwell, and many others. >>> ..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. High places or low, people don't like to admit they have been wrong all their lives. Still, people change religious affiliation. People change political allegiance. People change their minds about racial stereotypes. People change their minds about how diseases are caused and transmitted. People change their minds about what causes stars to shine. People change their minds about whether the Earth is at the center of the Universe. People change their minds about what is the greatest rock group of all time. People change their minds about whether computers will only be used by a handful of the largest corporations, or by everybody. On this one subject, though-- relativity-- nobody is able to change. There is a secret, worldwide agreement that it is better to perpetuate the error forever rather than admit that a mistake was made. Whenever anyone finds out about the mistake, they are either brought into the club or fired. If they have to be fired, they are silenced so that they can never talk about it. I, of course, am either a member of the club, or I'm too stupid to realize that I've been indoctrinated, and part of my indoctrination was to make me tell you about the coverup in such a way that it would appear ridiculous. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: George Dishman on 2 Sep 2005 06:32 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:uo4fh11a5p0c9sptnsr5r01npjm1083irr(a)4ax.com... > 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? What has that question to do with what I said? The answer is that so far it hasn't produced a single correct curve, you have only tried two though. George
From: Henri Wilson on 2 Sep 2005 18:54 On 1 Sep 2005 23:18:23 -0700, "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote: >Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: > >>>>>> The fact is you peope think we don't understand it because >>>>>> in fact there is no real theory to be understood. >>>>> >>>> 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? >>> >> 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.. > >I'm not especially smart. I'm smart enough to have learned >a little bit about physics in general and relativity theory >in particular, and I'm smart enough to distinguish your >delusions from reality. Most people could do that. > >I presume that the question you refer to is this one: > > 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? > >It seems to me that "properties of space" is an adequate >answer. Your inclusion of the word "absolute" adds nothing >to the description, but aside from possibly being somewhat >misleading, it doesn't hurt, either. I would go along with >"an absolute property of space" as a fairly reasonable >description of why light is always measured to move with >speed 'c' in vacuum with respect to an observer, nomatter >what the state of motion of the source. As I indicated, >though, it would more precisely be stated as "properties" >rather than "property", since there are two properties: >permeability and permittivity. James Clerk Maxwell found >that c = 1/SQRT(permeability*permittivity). OK Now remove the observer: ->S1_________p->___________ <-S2 Why should the two pulses remain together as they travel across space? Obviously they cannot be traveling at the same speed wrt BOTH sources. What, other than a property of space, could possibly bring about this situation? I know this is a bit hard for you but please try to understand the question. >> "If your faith is strong enough, you will find proof of it >> everywhere you look" > >That is a very perceptive description of your obsession >with the ballistic theory. You claim "The BaT predicts and >explains the majority of variable star light curves." >Yet it has never predicted or explained even one light curve. >When asked for evidence that the BaT really does what you >claim, you had nothing to show. Nothing. You couldn't >produce even one light curve match. You are free to use my program yourself. It now includes figures for magnitude variation. > >>> 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 can see it. Almost everyone can see it. You can't see >it even when it is placed right in front of you. That has >been done many, many times in these newsgroups. Charged particles behave according to different laws that just happen to include the same 'gamma' term as SR. So what? That was known before Einstein was born. > >>>> 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? > >No, I don't, although I'm sure there must be some. Some >applications of physics do not involve relativity at all. > >In any case, you lied about studying relativity. You are partly right. I rejected it from the start. I don't think my lecturer even believed it..... and his doubts probably rubbed off. >>> 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. > >As George Dishman showed you in detail, in conversations >over a period of months, the Sagnac experiment definitely >disproves the BaT. > >>>> At least every known experiment supports it...and it IS >>>> a physical theory. > >You have not shown even ONE experiment which supports it. >In fact, you haven't even shown one experimental result >from one experiment which supports it. All you have shown >is one light curve which fails to match the light curve >you were trying to match. I did..and you admitted you aren't even familiar with the terms I used. Why should I contiunue wasting time with a troll like you? >>> 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. > >What is the use of such an assertion? Anyone reading this >thread can see for themselves who is delusional. > >It occurs to me, though, that even if your condition hasn't >yet been medically diagnosed, it probably will be, after you >become unable to care for yourself. Most likely it isn't >apparent in occasional interactions with people, but anyone >seeing you and talking with you daily would quickly notice >that you have some kind of severe mental illness. They will >want to know what your problem is, so they can know how best >to handle you. ....says Root....whilst looking in a mirror.... >>> 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 Sagnac experiment shows that the BaT is wrong. Dishman told you that. You are just repeating what he said. You don't know the first thing about sagnac. >You >looked at the experimental results and rejected them >because they disprove the BaT. I know of nothing that disproves the BaT. I certainly know of no process that would cause all starlight to travel to little planet Earth at precisely c.. Do you? >> >> Many reputations are at stake. >> People in high places don't like to admit they have been wrong >> all their lives. > >High places or low, people don't like to admit they have >been wrong all their lives. Still, people change religious >affiliation. People change political allegiance. People >change their minds about racial stereotypes. People change >their minds about how diseases are caused and transmitted. >People change their minds about what causes stars to shine. >People change their minds about whether the Earth is at the >center of the Universe. People change their minds about >what is the greatest rock group of all time. People change >their minds about whether computers will only be used by >a handful of the largest corporations, or by everybody. People rarely change there minds about thing that were taught early in life by trusted mentors. As the Pope said, "give me a child before the age of five and I will have it for life". > >On this one subject, though-- relativity-- nobody is able >to change. There is a secret, worldwide agreement that it >is better to perpetuate the error forever rather than admit >that a mistake was made. Whenever anyone finds out about >the mistake, they are either brought into the club or fired. >If they have to be fired, they are silenced so that they >can never talk about it. > >I, of course, am either a member of the club, or I'm too >stupid to realize that I've been indoctrinated, and part of >my indoctrination was to make me tell you about the coverup >in such a way that it would appear ridiculous. If it wasn't for the internet, the truth would probably never come out....and that applies to more thikngs than relativity. > > -- 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: Jeff Root on 3 Sep 2005 13:32
Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: >>>>>>> The fact is you peope think we don't understand it because >>>>>>> in fact there is no real theory to be understood. >>>>>> >>>>> 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? >>>> >>> 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.. >> >> I'm not especially smart. I'm smart enough to have learned >> a little bit about physics in general and relativity theory >> in particular, and I'm smart enough to distinguish your >> delusions from reality. Most people could do that. >> >> I presume that the question you refer to is this one: >> >> 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? >> >> It seems to me that "properties of space" is an adequate >> answer. Your inclusion of the word "absolute" adds nothing >> to the description, but aside from possibly being somewhat >> misleading, it doesn't hurt, either. I would go along with >> "an absolute property of space" as a fairly reasonable >> description of why light is always measured to move with >> speed 'c' in vacuum with respect to an observer, nomatter >> what the state of motion of the source. As I indicated, >> though, it would more precisely be stated as "properties" >> rather than "property", since there are two properties: >> permeability and permittivity. James Clerk Maxwell found >> that c = 1/SQRT(permeability*permittivity). > > OK Now remove the observer: > > ->S1_________p->___________ > <-S2 > > Why should the two pulses remain together as they travel > across space? As I said immediately above in the passage you are replying to, c = 1/SQRT(permeability*permittivity). > Obviously they cannot be traveling at the same speed wrt > BOTH sources. The two pulses DO travel at the same speed relative to both sources. That was known-- as you say below-- "before Einstein was born." > What, other than a property of space, could possibly bring > about this situation? As I said immediately above in the passage you are replying to, it seems to me that "properties of space" is an adequate answer. As I indicated, though, it is more precisely stated as "properties" rather than "property", since there are two properties: permeability and permittivity. > I know this is a bit hard for you but please try to > understand the question. Offhand, I'm not aware of anything other than properties of space which could bring about the situation. >> That is a very perceptive description of your obsession >> with the ballistic theory. You claim "The BaT predicts and >> explains the majority of variable star light curves." >> Yet it has never predicted or explained even one light curve. >> When asked for evidence that the BaT really does what you >> claim, you had nothing to show. Nothing. You couldn't >> produce even one light curve match. > > You are free to use my program yourself. It now includes > figures for magnitude variation. Apply it to a random selection of binaries. Twenty or so might be enough if the selections are truly random. If that turns up anything interesting, I might take a closer 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 can see it. Almost everyone can see it. You can't see >> it even when it is placed right in front of you. That has >> been done many, many times in these newsgroups. > > Charged particles behave according to different laws that > just happen to include the same 'gamma' term as SR. So what? > That was known before Einstein was born. The gamma term you refer to was worked out by Fitzgerald in 1889, ten years after Einstein was born. The gamma term in SR applies to charged particles because it applies to everything. >>>>> 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? >> >> No, I don't, although I'm sure there must be some. Some >> applications of physics do not involve relativity at all. >> >> In any case, you lied about studying relativity. > > You are partly right. I rejected it from the start. I don't > think my lecturer even believed it..... and his doubts probably > rubbed off. You have never taken a course in relativity. >>>> 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. >> >> As George Dishman showed you in detail, in conversations >> over a period of months, the Sagnac experiment definitely >> disproves the BaT. >> >>>>> At least every known experiment supports it...and it IS >>>>> a physical theory. >> >> You have not shown even ONE experiment which supports it. >> In fact, you haven't even shown one experimental result >> from one experiment which supports it. All you have shown >> is one light curve which fails to match the light curve >> you were trying to match. > > I did..and you admitted you aren't even familiar with the > terms I used. You can't cover up the fact that you lied about experimental evidence for the BaT by claiming that I wasn't familiar with some terms you used. > Why should I continue wasting time with a troll like you? I can't think of any reason. >>>> 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. >> >> What is the use of such an assertion? Anyone reading this >> thread can see for themselves who is delusional. >> >> It occurs to me, though, that even if your condition hasn't >> yet been medically diagnosed, it probably will be, after you >> become unable to care for yourself. Most likely it isn't >> apparent in occasional interactions with people, but anyone >> seeing you and talking with you daily would quickly notice >> that you have some kind of severe mental illness. They will >> want to know what your problem is, so they can know how best >> to handle you. > > ...says Root....whilst looking in a mirror.... I don't have any reply here, but I wanted to leave the above intact so it wouldn't appear that I was trying to hide it, however pointless that would be. >>>> 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 Sagnac experiment shows that the BaT is wrong. > > Dishman told you that. No, George *showed* *you* that. I followed the entire discussion between the two of you. I followed George's explanations and arguments. I understood them, and what they imply. > You are just repeating what he said. I am repeating what he *showed* you. > You don't know the first thing about sagnac. I know enough about it to understand how it works and how it disproves the BaT-- which is more than you know. >> You looked at the experimental results and rejected them >> because they disprove the BaT. > > I know of nothing that disproves the BaT. Lots of other people do, though. > I certainly know of no process that would cause all starlight > to travel to little planet Earth at precisely c.. Do you? c = 1/SQRT(permeability*permittivity). >>> Many reputations are at stake. >>> People in high places don't like to admit they have been wrong >>> all their lives. >> >> High places or low, people don't like to admit they have >> been wrong all their lives. Still, people change religious >> affiliation. People change political allegiance. People >> change their minds about racial stereotypes. People change >> their minds about how diseases are caused and transmitted. >> People change their minds about what causes stars to shine. >> People change their minds about whether the Earth is at the >> center of the Universe. People change their minds about >> what is the greatest rock group of all time. People change >> their minds about whether computers will only be used by >> a handful of the largest corporations, or by everybody. > > People rarely change there minds about thing that were taught > early in life by trusted mentors. As the Pope said, "give me a > child before the age of five and I will have it for life". The examples I listed are largely examples of people going against what they learned early in life. Not everyone can do that-- you for example-- but most can. It isn't rare. Most people are able to change. Most people DO change, because they continue to learn even when they are old. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis |