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 4 Sep 2005 17:47 On 3 Sep 2005 10:32:08 -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? > >As I said immediately above in the passage you are replying >to, c = 1/SQRT(permeability*permittivity). .........and how would you describe the movement of the observer who measures these two 'constants'? If they are measured, then measured again after accelerating for 10000 seconds at 0.00001c/sec^2, do they have the same value? How do you know the answer to that question? Do they have the same value at the source? If so, light moves at c wrt the source. > >> 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." You obviously cannot even read properly. > >> 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. Like I said above, how do you know if the constants have the same value if the observer changes speed? According to LET they might ....but not in SR. > >>> 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 has certainly turned up many intersting facts already. I have verified the existance of objects lying at Lagrage points. >> 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. How do you know? >>> >>> 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. rubbish.. I don't need to lie. >>>> >>>> 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. George is wrong. In a four mirror sagnac, the source and mirrors are moving at 90deg wrt the frame of next mirror. It certainly does NOT disprove the BaT. > >> 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. It doesn't. > >>> 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. tell me about it... > >> 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). That applies to an imaginary medium called the aether.. > >>>> 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. You don't appear to have the abillity to change. You are prematurely senile. > > -- 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: jgreen on 6 Sep 2005 06:09 Jeff Root wrote: > Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: > > >> > 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: > > OK. > > > I claim that my car does 200mph; > > OK. Impressive claim. > > > I adjust the speedo to read 50% fast; > > OK. > > > I take the car for a run! Yes! It DOES do 200! > > OK. > > Did you mean the speed of the car was 200 mph or did you > mean the car's speedometer read 200 mph? You seem to have > a lot of problems with ambiguity. > > > 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. > > What it actually showed was why the clock rate changes. > > What did you expect it to show? > > > I am not suggesting for a moment that he set out deliberately > > to mislead; AE made the same mistake in his railway gendankens, > > Really? If there had been a mistake there, it would have been > pointed out a century ago. Hundreds of millions of people have > read about the thought experiments over the years, and thought > about them long and hard, examining them for logical errors. > Many of those people were a lot smarter than me. They didn't > find an error. I didn't find an error when I read about them, > or when I read other people's analysis of them. > > More likely that you made a mistake. > > > 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. > > That sounds like it might have come from a 1960's comic book > version of relativity. I saw a one-page article on cosmology > in a comic book in the mid-1960's. It was badly misleading. > Not the best source for correct information, and a lousy > source for getting a good understanding of a subject. With train stationary, ray from ceiling would strike earth center; when train is in motion, by ANY analysis, the ray's direction is ALTERED- it no longer strikes center. FYI, this is a CHANGE IN VELOCITY; not only in direction, which is integral to velocity, but geometry (pythag) will give the conversion to the changed photon propagation. NB: no clocks here! or do you wish to call on the photon's inate sense of the train's speed, and alter it's expulsion speed from the globe? (Which must be different from those directed in each different direction lol ) Jim G c'=c+v
From: jgreen on 6 Sep 2005 06:30 George Dishman wrote: > "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. Remember, George, that there are NO observers of the rays in question; it all came down to what the clocks read when we came back from the pub! Now, if those clocks were tweaked ......... Also remeber that the train and trackside 'observers' see f*a, as the rays never strike their eyes. > > 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. Can Riemann explain how a change of velocity defaults to c? When the train moves, the DIRECTION of the ray in question alters (it no longer will strike earth center). It is not good enough to say that velocity of light is not altered although it obviously travels a longer path on a different heading. Jim G c'=c+v pS: please send rain (victims of global warming??)
From: Harry on 6 Sep 2005 10:38 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:k477h1pfchfct368g0f0nvoa1c1qpp91h1(a)4ax.com... > On 28 Aug 2005 20:30:24 -0700, "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote: SNIP > Apart from the redshift of light, they have never been properly substantiated. > Redshift is predicted identically by NM. Really? Not according to my calculations (discussed with Androcles some months ago). - What exactly is your Doppler equation, and why? - And how do you get the Sagnac effect with your theory? Harald
From: Jeff Root on 6 Sep 2005 13:08
Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: (You didn't comment on anything quoted, so I snipped it all.) > With train stationary, ray from ceiling would strike earth > center; OK-- You're talking about a light ray going from the ceiling of a railcar straight down to the floor, and beyond. > when train is in motion, by ANY analysis, the ray's direction > is ALTERED- it no longer strikes center. Relative to the world outside the railcar, the ray's direction is altered. Of course, to a person on the railcar, not knowing whether the car is moving, or in which direction or at what speed, the ray's direction is not altered-- it is still going from the ceiling straight down to the floor. > FYI, this is a CHANGE IN VELOCITY; not only in direction, > which is integral to velocity, Yes the velocity has changed, but only in direction. The magnitude of the velocity (speed) is unchanged. > but geometry (pythag) will give the conversion to the > changed photon propagation. I'll let you explain what you had in mind when you wrote that, rather than trying to guess. > NB: no clocks here! or do you wish to call on the photon's > inate sense of the train's speed, and alter it's expulsion > speed from the globe? (Which must be different from those > directed in each different direction lol ) Again, I'll let you explain what you are talking about. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis |