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 6 Sep 2005 13:20 Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: >>>>>>> ->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? .... >>>> 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'? It doesn't matter. c = 1/SQRT(permeability*permittivity) whatever the state of motion of the observer. > If they are measured, then measured again after accelerating for > 10000 seconds at 0.00001c/sec^2, do they have the same value? Interestingly, yes. > How do you know the answer to that question? Only from a superficial knowledge of Maxwell's equations. I'm not a physicist, and have never pretended to be one. I have never made the required measurements myself, and would have to look up how it is done. But I know that Maxwell's equations have been shown to work very well over the entire range of conditions that have ever been seen, so I trust them. > Do they have the same value at the source? Yes. > If so, light moves at c wrt the source. Of course. That is common to relativity and your BaT. >>> 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. Perhaps. What do you think I misread? What would a correct reading be? >>> 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. SR, too. Same in both. >>>> 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 Lagrange > points. You have no idea how idiotic that sounds. >>> 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? Just from a general knowledge of relativity 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. > > rubbish.. > I don't need to lie. You do need to lie. It gives you a feeling of importance that you can't get from reality. >>>>> 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. The source and mirrors are not moving at all relative to the frame of the next mirror. > It certainly does NOT disprove the BaT. George showed exactly how and why it disproves the BaT. You didn't like the result; You rejected the result; You speculated about some problems you think it must have. But those speculations have no basis in fact. Their only basis is in your dislike of the experimental results. >>> 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. George's explanation won't vanish simply because you think it is wrong. Anyone can read it and judge for themselves. >>>> 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... That phrase is usually intended as irony, so I will treat it as such. >>> 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.. No, there is no aether in Maxwell's equations, and no aether in relativity. An explicit and famous result of relativity is that the notion of an aether is made unecessary, irrelevant, and obsolete. Relativity gave aether the boot. Relativity is what killed the idea that there is an aether. > You don't appear to have the abillity to change. > You are prematurely senile. This may seem incredible, but as far as I recall, never in my entire life have I accused anyone of being boring. I've certainly thought it plenty of times, but never expressed the thought aloud or in print, to anyone. You are very boring. You must be *awfully* boring for me to say so. Let's review: You are obsessed with relativity. You are wrong about almost every fact concerning relativity. You adamantly refuse to learn. You lie about it. You insult when you can't think of anything else to say. You are very boring. All because you are mentally ill. Consider the advice I gave Jim: Find something else to do. You are not stupid. Your illness makes you look stupid, but I can see that you aren't. I'm sure that if you find something of interest that has nothing to do with relativity, you will be able to master the subject and contribute to the field. Even if you are in your seventies, you can learn something new and fun. You learned to be annoying on the Internet; You can learn to be helpful just as easily. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: Henri Wilson on 6 Sep 2005 17:21 On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 16:38:33 +0200, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel(a)epfl.ch> wrote: > >"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). Read the Pound-Rebka experiment. Light accelerates as it falls and blue shifts according to NM. GR syas light sped remains constant but space shrinks. Not surprisingly, it ends up with the same equation for blue shift. > >- What exactly is your Doppler equation, and why? >- And how do you get the Sagnac effect with your theory? > >Harald > 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 Sep 2005 17:45 On 6 Sep 2005 10:20:43 -0700, "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote: >Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: > >>>>>>>> ->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? >... >>>>> 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'? > >It doesn't matter. c = 1/SQRT(permeability*permittivity) >whatever the state of motion of the observer. Maxwell's equations describe how light will move wrt its source. If the two constants are measured at the source, then the equations hold. They do not in any way relate to incoming light. Why should they? > >> If they are measured, then measured again after accelerating for >> 10000 seconds at 0.00001c/sec^2, do they have the same value? > >Interestingly, yes. .....and you have performed this experiment? > >> How do you know the answer to that question? > >Only from a superficial knowledge of Maxwell's equations. >I'm not a physicist, and have never pretended to be one. >I have never made the required measurements myself, and >would have to look up how it is done. But I know that >Maxwell's equations have been shown to work very well >over the entire range of conditions that have ever been >seen, so I trust them. They haven't. > >> Do they have the same value at the source? > >Yes. > >> If so, light moves at c wrt the source. > >Of course. That is common to relativity and your BaT. > >>>> 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. > >Perhaps. What do you think I misread? What would a correct >reading be? The observer has been removed from the above experiment. Tell me why the two pulses should travel through space together (if there is no aether).. > >>>> 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. > >SR, too. Same in both. It is a postulate of SR, not a proven fact. > >>>>> 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 Lagrange >> points. > >You have no idea how idiotic that sounds. Oh really? Do you know what Lagrange points are? Have you ny idea what is the currect explanation for brightness curves that typically contain a 'dip' on the upslope? There isn't any. The BaT now provides one. > >>>> 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. >> >>>>> 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. > >The source and mirrors are not moving at all relative to the >frame of the next mirror. No wonder you are not a physicist..... > >> It certainly does NOT disprove the BaT. > >George showed exactly how and why it disproves the BaT. >You didn't like the result; You rejected the result; You >speculated about some problems you think it must have. >But those speculations have no basis in fact. Their only >basis is in your dislike of the experimental results. George was wrong. He thought that during rotation, the source moves towards the next mirror. It doesn't. It moves at right angles to it. > >>>> 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. > >George's explanation won't vanish simply because you think >it is wrong. Anyone can read it and judge for themselves. It is clearly wrong. >> >> That applies to an imaginary medium called the aether.. > >No, there is no aether in Maxwell's equations, and no >aether in relativity. An explicit and famous result of >relativity is that the notion of an aether is made >unecessary, irrelevant, and obsolete. Relativity gave >aether the boot. Relativity is what killed the idea >that there is an aether. there is nothing wrong with relativity....but the Einstein version is flawed. > >> You don't appear to have the abillity to change. >> You are prematurely senile. > >This may seem incredible, but as far as I recall, never in >my entire life have I accused anyone of being boring. I've >certainly thought it plenty of times, but never expressed >the thought aloud or in print, to anyone. > >You are very boring. > >You must be *awfully* boring for me to say so. > >Let's review: > >You are obsessed with relativity. >You are wrong about almost every fact concerning relativity. >You adamantly refuse to learn. >You lie about it. >You insult when you can't think of anything else to say. >You are very boring. > >All because you are mentally ill. You are a raw beginner who admits to knowing nothing about physics and you have the audacity to come in here swinging....as though you are an expert. You are a joke...a typical indoctrination victim who has read a few popular science magazines and has been completely hypnotized by the complex jargon of the einsteinian religion.. Root's attitude, "I cannot understand a word of it...but it is so impressively complicated it surely couldn't be all complete nonsense. I guess I had better believe it.". >Consider the advice I gave Jim: Find something else to do. >You are not stupid. Your illness makes you look stupid, >but I can see that you aren't. I'm sure that if you find >something of interest that has nothing to do with relativity, >you will be able to master the subject and contribute to the >field. Even if you are in your seventies, you can learn >something new and fun. You learned to be annoying on the >Internet; You can learn to be helpful just as easily. Go away root. Try alt.tiddlywinks. > > -- 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 7 Sep 2005 06:19 Jeff Root wrote: > 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. Hooray!!!!!!This is what I have been saying on this group forever; that the observers MAKE MISTAKES!!!!!! Because the train rider is denied the information about the REAL situation (being able to know that he is moving), he is MISTAKEN/TRICKED as to the true situation. He can easily get it right by drilling a hole in the floor, and coming back later to see where the ray ACTUALLY was headed when the train was in motion. Must we be condemned to believe a falsehood about light propagation forever, because the passenger has the WRONG information, and reaches the WRONG conclusion???????/ Not yours t! > > > 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. Yep! That amazing bulb again, which gives each and every emitted photon instruction on which 'speed' to leave at, according to whether it is headed forward, down, or otherwise. haha > > > 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. A photon emitted directly forward will have velocity c+v Others will be subject to vector calculations. Get it now? > > > 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. Done and dusted to those who escaped the AE brainwash Jim G c'=c+v
From: jgreen on 7 Sep 2005 06:46
Jeff Root wrote: >> > Only from a superficial knowledge of Maxwell's equations. > I'm not a physicist, and have never pretended to be one. > I have never made the required measurements myself, and > would have to look up how it is done. But I know that > Maxwell's equations have been shown to work very well > over the entire range of conditions that have ever been > seen, so I trust them. I (we?) don't question these things which seem to work (sagnac included); it is the interpretation of the "why" which is wrongly attributed to c=c+v Example: SR claims that c=frequency x wavelength when one or the other changes because of magic- the other defaults to that value which ALWAYS gives c! I say that c is ALWAYS assumed in the data, and that actual measurement of the photon velocity (as per through a toothed wheel experiment) has NEVER been done (with a moving emr source) Example: George is correct- sagnac DOES indicate motion (rotation), but as he admitted privately to me, the interference 'face' is due to an alteration in time taken for the photons to travel to their points of interaction. I say that that change in time is due to a change in c, brought about by c'=c+v. Think about it :-( If sagnac works because the interference point depends on the time taken for the rays to arrive at that position, BECAUSE velocity is a factor of time (and distance, which we didn't argue changed for the dimensions of the machine), a change in the velocity of the plane changes the interference position and the sagnac works! So given the info that c is invariant from source, (and therefore c'=c+v) a physicist/techno can build a sagnac which works perfectly well Jim G c'=c+v |