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: George Dishman on 9 Sep 2005 09:19 <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message news:1126002626.433916.171740(a)g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > 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 Remember, Jim, the clocks ARE the "observers". An observation is a measurement and the measurement in this case is the reading on the clock. > 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? It explains every known measurement and observation in the macroscopic world without exception. > 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. Aberration, contraction and dilation are all facets of the physics and together they explain all the effects we see. George
From: Jeff Root on 9 Sep 2005 10:44 Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: >> > 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. What gives you the idea that the person on the train has been tricked or is mistaken about the true situation? He sees the light go from the ceiling straight down to the floor, and that is exactly what happens. If he doesn't know whether or how the railcar is moving relative to the Earth, then he doesn't know where the light beam will go relative to Earth's center. He will only be mistaken if he *thinks* he knows how the railcar is moving relative to the Earth, but is wrong. I'm sure that isn't the scenario you're interested in. > 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. Or by looking out the window and seeing how the train is moving relative to the Earth. He's smart enough to realize that if he doesn't know how the train is moving relative to the Earth, he can't determine where the light will go relative to the Earth. Duh. > 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! You need to think about the scenario more carefully. >> > 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? No. Show the geometry and the numbers. Say what you have in mind instead of just making vague allusions to what you have in mind. >> > 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 My hope was that you would explain why you think the light must be moving at different speeds in different directions. It seems obvious that it must move at different speeds-- until you try to explain it. You haven't done that. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: Jeff Root on 9 Sep 2005 14:23 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? You may be the very first person to suggest that Maxwell's equations apply at a light ray's source but not elsewhere. Congratulations. >>> 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? Asked and answered. >>> 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. But you can't give an example of Maxwell's equations ever failing. Not even one single case. >>> 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).. Asked and answered. >>>>> 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. Although you won't give an example of Maxwell's equations ever failing, you *will* tell us why Maxwells equations are a postulate of SR, and your explanation will be wrong. Now, tell us why Maxwell's equations are a postulate of 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 Lagrange >>> points. >> >> You have no idea how idiotic that sounds. > > Oh really? > Do you know what Lagrange points are? Yes. That's how I knew to correct your typo in my previous message. You misspelled 'Lagrange'. When I talk about the subject, I emphasize the facts that the Lagrange 'points' are actually volumes of space with fuzzy edges; that real orbits are always dynamic, with the bodies always changing speed; and that the balance is between gravity and inertia, not just between gravitating bodies. You will think that those comments are irrelevant. That's okay. You can ignore them. You got my point even though you don't realize it. > Have you any idea what is the currect explanation for > brightness curves that typically contain a 'dip' on the > upslope? I do now. > There isn't any. > The BaT now provides one. Let me guess: You discovered the dips yourself. You have never seen any reference to such dips by anyone else-- correct? Why only on the upslope? Why not on the downslope? >>>>> 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..... I responded to what you said. What you said was not what you meant. What you *meant* was: In a four mirror Sagnac, the source and mirrors are moving at 90deg wrt the next mirror, in the frame of the lab. In the frame of the next mirror, the source and other mirrors are not moving at all. Galilean relativity, pure and simple. >>> 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. I'll let George respond to that, if he wants to. >>>>> 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. You are just repeating yourself. >>> 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. Probably. But you haven't shown even one flaw in all your years of blustering and computer animations. >>> 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 Oh, really? *This* is what I said: I'm smart enough to have learned a little bit about physics in general and relativity theory in particular, > and you have the audacity to come in here swinging....as > though you are an expert. Why shouldn't I speak out against something which is clearly wrong? Do I need credentials? If so, what credentials will satisfy you? > 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.". There are more things in heaven and earth, Henri, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Or mine. >> 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. The most important advice I gave Jim was to discuss the subject with someone face-to-face. The only person I can think of to suggest in your case is your daughter. One conversation is not enough. You'll need to talk several times before deciding whether you need to make new goals for yourself, what those goals should be, and how to work toward them. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: Henri Wilson on 9 Sep 2005 16:58 On 9 Sep 2005 07:44:52 -0700, "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote: >Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: > >>> > 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. > >What gives you the idea that the person on the train has >been tricked or is mistaken about the true situation? >He sees the light go from the ceiling straight down to the >floor, and that is exactly what happens. > >If he doesn't know whether or how the railcar is moving >relative to the Earth, then he doesn't know where the light >beam will go relative to Earth's center. He will only be >mistaken if he *thinks* he knows how the railcar is moving >relative to the Earth, but is wrong. I'm sure that isn't >the scenario you're interested in. > >> 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. > >Or by looking out the window and seeing how the train is >moving relative to the Earth. He's smart enough to realize >that if he doesn't know how the train is moving relative >to the Earth, he can't determine where the light will go >relative to the Earth. Duh. > >> 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! > >You need to think about the scenario more carefully. > >>> > 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? > >No. Show the geometry and the numbers. Say what you have >in mind instead of just making vague allusions to what you >have in mind. > >>> > 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 > >My hope was that you would explain why you think the light >must be moving at different speeds in different directions. >It seems obvious that it must move at different speeds-- >until you try to explain it. You haven't done that. It doesn't matter where the light is heading. The crucial point that you and Einstein stuffed up is that it takes the same time to go from top to botom no matter who measures that time. > > -- 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: Henri Wilson on 9 Sep 2005 17:28
On 9 Sep 2005 11:23:03 -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? > >You may be the very first person to suggest that Maxwell's >equations apply at a light ray's source but not elsewhere. >Congratulations. It is implied, since it is the source observer who measures the 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? >>> >>> Interestingly, yes. >> >> ....and you have performed this experiment? > >Asked and answered. > >>>> 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. > >But you can't give an example of Maxwell's equations ever >failing. Not even one single case. They mean nothing in a complete vacuum. > >>>> 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).. > >Asked and answered. You cannot answer it without assuming that space has absolute properties. You are a conventional aetherist. >>> SR, too. Same in both. >> >> It is a postulate of SR, not a proven fact. > >Although you won't give an example of Maxwell's equations >ever failing, you *will* tell us why Maxwells equations are >a postulate of SR, and your explanation will be wrong. Since light speed from a moving source has never been measured, it is not surprising that they appear to work. > >Now, tell us why Maxwell's equations are a postulate of SR. Maxwell's equations were designed to apply to a medium, in which an observer measured two constants that determine the speed at which light will travel in that medium. >>>> 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? > >Yes. That's how I knew to correct your typo in my previous >message. You misspelled 'Lagrange'. When an opponent starts to worry about typos, you know you have him beaten. > >When I talk about the subject, I emphasize the facts that >the Lagrange 'points' are actually volumes of space with >fuzzy edges; that real orbits are always dynamic, with the >bodies always changing speed; and that the balance is >between gravity and inertia, not just between gravitating >bodies. > >You will think that those comments are irrelevant. That's >okay. You can ignore them. You got my point even though >you don't realize it. Those comments are definitely NOT irrelevant becasue that is exactly what shows up in the lioght curves. Whatever lies at the 'stable' (60 deg) Lagrange point is fuzzy and does indeed move around. Maybe, in many cases, it is an aggregation of astreoids or similar. I wil be looking more closely at some brightness curves to investigate this more closely. > >> Have you any idea what is the currect explanation for >> brightness curves that typically contain a 'dip' on the >> upslope? > >I do now. > >> There isn't any. >> The BaT now provides one. > >Let me guess: You discovered the dips yourself. >You have never seen any reference to such dips by >anyone else-- correct? they are usually associted with a partial eclipse. > >Why only on the upslope? Why not on the downslope? Some are right at the peak. What is your explanation? > >>>>>> 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..... > >I responded to what you said. What you said was not what >you meant. > >What you *meant* was: In a four mirror Sagnac, the source >and mirrors are moving at 90deg wrt the next mirror, in the >frame of the lab. > >In the frame of the next mirror, the source and other >mirrors are not moving at all. Galilean relativity, pure >and simple. This is the danger of trying to use a rotation frame. > >>>> 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. > >I'll let George respond to that, if he wants to. > >>>>>> 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. > >You are just repeating yourself. I learnt that habit from Paul Andersen. > >>>> 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. > >Probably. But you haven't shown even one flaw in all your >years of blustering and computer animations. see www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/a4.jpg more will follow. > >>>> 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 > >Oh, really? *This* is what I said: > > I'm smart enough to have learned a little bit about physics > in general and relativity theory in particular, > >> and you have the audacity to come in here swinging....as >> though you are an expert. > >Why shouldn't I speak out against something which is >clearly wrong? Do I need credentials? If so, what >credentials will satisfy you? You are so typical of all newcomers to this group. You read a few popular physics articles and think you know everything... and we know nothing. > >> 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.". > >There are more things in heaven and earth, Henri, Than are >dreamt of in your philosophy. Or mine. That's been stated here many times too. > >>> 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. > >The most important advice I gave Jim was to discuss the >subject with someone face-to-face. The only person I can >think of to suggest in your case is your daughter. One >conversation is not enough. You'll need to talk several >times before deciding whether you need to make new goals >for yourself, what those goals should be, and how to work >toward them. > > -- 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. |