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: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 11 Sep 2005 18:33 "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote in message news:1126476970.854480.196000(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... | Jim Greenfield wrote: | | > Cut a hole in the floor, and where before the train rider was | > SURE that the beam is vertical, he actually finds out that he | > was mistaken/WRONG, when he sees the beam MISS the eaths | > centre (flat earth) | | My apologies. I said that you hadn't specified what the | person on the train would do with the hole in the floor, | but you *did* say that he sees the beam miss the Earth's | center. We already knew that, though, so it added nothing | to the thought experiment. | | -- Jeff, in Minneapolis What does it matter whether its a raindrop or a photon, a jet from a hose or a beam? Androcles.
From: Eric Gisse on 11 Sep 2005 22:06 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 9 Sep 2005 17:13:04 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >Henri Wilson wrote: > > > >[snip] > > > >> > > >> >Doesn't matter, Newtonian mechanics is empirically falsified. You seem > >> >to fail to grasp that. All it takes is one incorrect prediction. > >> > >> bull. > >> NM was never completed because Einstein hijacked physics. > > > >NM is a complete theory, only wrong. If you want to go down the road of > >MOND, knock yourself out. Just be a little more honest about it. > > > >NM, as it stands, is wrong. It is an approximation, but still wrong. No > >amount of denying can change what was known for over a century. NM does > >not correctly predict the precession of Mercury's orbit. > > Very funny.... > Nobody has tried since Einstein hijacked physics 100 years ago. > We now have plenty of good Newtonian reasons for hte discrepancy. [snip] Is that so? Derive them from first principles, right here, right now. I'm not carrying this conversation any further until you do so.
From: Harry on 12 Sep 2005 06:00 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:s399i155dn5qe261f8ft8q5vibf7vrnak1(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 10:47:58 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > > > > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message > >news:ekv3i1t1db9sqkpui1oj6082v1norhgdu4(a)4ax.com... > >> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 10:16:12 +0200, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel(a)epfl.ch> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message > >>>news:jcd1i11abmioioqoc2ccunab9n2pubil28(a)4ax.com... > >>>> On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 09:54:55 +0200, "Harry" <harald.vanlintel(a)epfl.ch> > >>>wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > > >> > >>>> >at all. Thus ballistic light should move with constant speed wrt the > >>>> >fibre - if not, why not? > >>>> > >>>> Forget the fibre version. ...It's like integrating 0/0. > >>> > >>>It's the most simple and straightforward according to me, and your > >>>argument sounds blurry... > > > >When we started talking about Sagnac, Henri said > >using fibre was simply a case of total internal > >reflection like a standard table but with an > >infinite number of mirrors and he was right of > >course. The only reason he is backtracking is > >because the analysis in the rotating frame is > >trivial as you say and unarguably shows Ritzian > >theory to be untenable. > > only when the wrong equation is used..... Wrong equation follows from wrong assumptions... See below. > >> It's too hard for you. > > > >What Henri means is that he wants everybody to > >"forget the fibre version" because he has no > >argument against it. > > My attitude is that the fringes are not casued by path length difference at > all. They are a consequence of the fact that the two beams are not parallel > when they meet. That argument doesn't even apply when using a fibre. Now let's talk physics, and use for simplicity a hollow fibre with a single point emitter-detector device. According to ballistic light theory: 1. light leaves it at c speed and at 0 angle relative to it. 2. it next reaches it at again c speed and at 0 angle relative to it - at least to very good approximation. 3. the duration d must be approximately d= circumference/c Please explain why you think differently, and how you can obtain a very different equation. Harald
From: jgreen on 12 Sep 2005 18:28 George Dishman wrote: > <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message > news:1126405408.815651.120520(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > > > Jeff Root wrote: > >> Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: > ... > > I was really just going to ask about the comment > to me at the bottom but since this is rehashing > an old conversation with Jim, I'll refresh his > memory. > > >> >> > 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. > > ... and the Earth is moving sideways (whether > he knows it or not). Perhaps- but what is its net motion? The earth rotates, revolves (sun), the milky way galaxy spins (probably on more than one axis), has motion ref other galaxies, globular clusters probably move ref each other......... the entire visible universe may be a unit moving ref other unseen 'parts' of the infinity. So we/you have no idea what the net motion of train or track is. (and never will :-( ) > >> > 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. > > > > Rubbish! Read above again to realise that he IS mistaken- and I can > > prove it! Cut a hole in the floor, and where before the train rider was > > SURE that the beam is vertical, he actually finds out that he was > > mistaken/WRONG, when he sees the beam MISS the eaths centre (flat > > earth) > > We went over this many times Jim but you seem to > have forgotten it all. In the scenario where the > train is moving, the Earth is moving sideways > (inertial motion) with the centre directly below > at the moment the light is emitted so he also > expects the light to miss the centre. If he expects the light to have its path altered (miss the center), then he also knows that it is travelling a longer path (diagonal). If he still thinks it will take the same time to reach the floor, then ergo it is travelling FASTER along the diagonal- UNLESS apriori his speed measurer (clock) has been tweaked. This is what AE did, and afraid to say, you as well > > >> 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. > > > > It certainly is! The passenger thinks he is ststionary ref the line at > > all times, and THAT is why he thinks the beam is VERTICAL at all times. > > Give him the true situation/information, and he deducts the truth. > > He IS stationary and the light IS vertical as > measured by him, it it the Earth that is moving. > That is his "truth". However you cut it, there IS a difference to the passenger between the two scenarios. Archimedes (?) reckoned that he had no way of telling whether a ship was moving if he was in the hold, and denied information from outside (like our passenger). A sudden stop would have told him there was a change in his velocity, but did the ship hit a reef (was already in motion, or did it accellerate( assuming he didn't know fore from aft)? He needed 'Jim's Motion Detector'. This consisits of a monochromatic light source (set single frequency/wavelength) and a filter which will allow ONLY that frequ to pass through, the two being constructed in the same frame. Because c'=c+v, Arch will know when his motion has changed from that in which the Detector was assembled, when the filter blocks the beam- the frequency has altered! Now NASA "knows" this, because they have to alter their filters (read radio receivers) when the motion of space craft ref earth alters........ but the AE component subscribes the phenomenon to magic! > > > NB that I don't make claim as to what he SEES; ... > > All of us I hope are correcting for illusions that > would be caused by the finite light travel time, we > really should be past that sort of diversion. Can't be done until the passenger speaks in tongues "I am wrong in my assumptions about my motion, and the motion of the light which I am "observing!" > > >> >> > 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. > > > > Then it will take longer to reach the floor, as it is travelling a > > LONGER path. Or doesn't v=d/t?? > > "d" and "t" as measured by the passenger > gives v=c. Sure, but if he doesn't know what his motion is, it's wrong. > > > When I have more time, I will get back to George with his animation, > > and see what he can come up with if his clocks tick together, rather > > than assuming that one WILL do more ticks (no offence George) > > I don't know why you think I would take offence when > the work I had done was correct, merely unfinished. > However, which graphic are you talking about, the one > in which the clocks tick simultaneously illustrates > Galilean relativity so the speed of the light is not > c, while the other illustrates SR, the clocks do not > tick at the same coordinate rates and the speed of > light is c on all frames as we observe. Well, we are stuck, because as Henri points out (and I have asked for experimental evidence since whenever), experiments as to c'=c+v or otherwise have NEVER been done! The nearest I can find are assumptive claims as to what is happening with quasars and high energy reactors. All we need to settle the matter is a race between two slugs of emr over a reasonable distance (say Saturn). A few lousy million, after all that has been spent trying to find evidence FOR SR/GR Bye Jim G c'=c+v
From: jgreen on 13 Sep 2005 02:20
Jeff Root 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. Do you REALLY want to stick to this statement????????? The most cursory read of your following finds you admitting that this is exactly what DOESN'T happen. When train is in motion ref earth/track/LINE!!!) an alteration takes place to the light path ACROSS THE UNIVERSE. You admit below that the passenger knows (or SHOULD know, that this is so) (see my reply to George as to why we cannot know what this is in absolute terms) > > > > Rubbish! Read above again to realise that he IS mistaken- and > > I can prove it! Cut a hole in the floor, and where before the > > train rider was SURE that the beam is vertical, he actually > > finds out that he was mistaken/WRONG, when he sees the beam > > MISS the earth's centre (flat earth) Read more carefully before replying, and you will avoid apology (accepted) in subsequent posts > > You are still failing to think the problem through. I know > that because you are leaving out several key pieces of your > argument. Without those pieces, your argument doesn't have > any conclusion. It isn't an argument at all-- just a set > of statements about a scenario, which don't make any point. Point: AE claims time "dilates" because the passenger sees a different length path for the light, than does a trackside observer (longer therefore more time elapsed for photon journey when train moving on track). Here we have established that the passenger was mistaken, due to lack of information; when appraised of the true situation (that the passenger slept through the accelleration), both observers agree that there were NO alterations to time taken from ceiling to floor, because in the moving scenario, both agree the light travels the diagonal (longer), and takes the SAME amount of time to do so, because it is moving faster. (see "Jim's Motion Detector") > > Let me start with the least important bits, mainly to show > that you are in fact leaving things out. > > You suggest parenthetically that Earth can be considered > flat for this thought experiment. I'm pretty sure that > the reason you suggest it is the fact that on a spherical > Earth, the train has to move in a circle, so the direction > of "down" changes constantly, and you wanted to avoid that > complication. Obviously, a flat Earth has no center, so > your scenario would be lost. But all of that is irrelevant > to your problem. The only function of Earth's center in > this thought experiment is as a reference point separate > from the train. We agree a change in direction occurs to the beam when source has motion altered. > > The Earth itself is irrelevant to your thought experiment. > The train could be replaced by a spacecraft, and Earth's > center replaced by a lost sock flying through space at some > distance from the spacecraft. That scenario is completely > equivalent to yours. > > However, I'll stick with your train scenario. > > Rather than suggesting a flat Earth, you could specify > that the experiment takes place over a short distance, > so Earth's curvature isn't a factor. We can still presume > that Earth's center is a mathematical point, so any motion > of the train will cause the light beam to miss it. > > The second relatively unimportant bit is the business about > cutting a hole in the floor. You never say why the hole > is made. You never say how the hole is used. You never > say that the observer looks through the hole or makes some > measurement through it, and you never say what he sees or > measures. It is a gaping hole in your argument. It forces > me to make part of your argument *for* you! Gaping hole in your comprehension :-) > > Now something more important you left out. You claim > that "the train rider was SURE that the beam is vertical". > Apparently you meant vertical relative to Earth. You > didn't say that, so I have to do your work for you and > guess. The experimenatal setup specifies that the light > beam goes straight "down" from the ceiling to the floor, > so, relative to the railcar, the beam obviously *is* > vertical. So you must mean relative to the Earth. > > Next, WHY was the train rider sure the beam was vertical > relative to the Earth? You didn't say. What observation > was his belief based on? You didn't say. If the rider > could not see outside the car, and had no knowledge of > whether it was moving or not, then surely he would know > that he could *not* know whether the beam was vertical > relative to the Earth. Do you agree? If he "knew" f*a, how could he make ANY comment on time dilation? > > If the rider *could* see outside the car, and measure its > motion relative to the earth, then he would be able to > correctly determine whether the beam was vertical relative > to the Earth. Do you agree? ..as I've been saying it foe years............... > > >> 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. > > > > It certainly is! The passenger thinks he is ststionary ref the > > line at all times, and THAT is why he thinks the beam is VERTICAL > > at all times. > > What "line"? This is the first mention of a "line". (sigh) railway line > > If by "line" you mean the light beam, then the passenger > *is* stationary wrt the light beam at all times. > > If by "line" you mean a line from the light source to the > center of the Earth, then, again, the passenger *is* > stationary wrt that line at all times, if the train > follows the curve of the Earth. > > But you imply (without saying) that the passenger thinks > the line is stationary wrt the Earth. Why would he think > that? You didn't say. I see no reason for him to think > that the line is stationary wrt Earth. > > > Give him the true situation/information, and he deducts the truth. > > I agree with that! Thank you. Now you have a passenger who "sees/knows" that the ray which was heading for earth center (or wherever) has had its velocity altered. .........and c (velocity) can NEVER alter under SR (which is why it is wrong for predicting both time dilation, and length contraction, due to velocity) > > > NB that I don't make claim as to what he SEES; the ray NEVER > > strikes the eye of any observer in this dendanken- > > To determine whether the beam hits Earth's center, just put > a photocell down there. That's no problem. So will it be stuch when the train is moving? > > > the whole idea is based on the assumption that c=c+v BEFORE > > the clocks are started (they are not ticking in sync) > > As you pointed out at the start (September 6), there are NO > clocks in this thought experiment. So this comment appears > to be completely irrelevant. If it has any relevance, you > didn't say what it is. > > >> > 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. Check out the triangle; ceiling/floor/diagonal (hypotenuse). Something moving on the vertical reaches the floor quicker than along the diagonal, if the MAGNITUDE of their motions is the same. Think about it! Draw it! Google on "slot clock"! > > > > Then it will take longer to reach the floor, as it is > > travelling a LONGER path. Or doesn't v=d/t?? > > The passenger, stationary wrt the light beam, finds that > the light takes the same amount of time to reach the floor > nomatter how the train is moving relative to the Earth, > since it is always travelling the same path: from the > ceiling to the floor. > > An observer stationary wrt the Earth finds that the light > takes longer to reach the floor when the train is moving, > because the light travels a longer path, as you say. Nope! Same amount of time, as the light travels faster on the longer journey > > You think that the observer on the Earth is right, and > the observer on the train is wrong. See reply to George; they may well both be wrong ref universal absolute time, but I think their clocks will ALL show the same time lapses for the light paths anyway, if the clocks are ticking at the same rate (sync) to begin with. You will find that perseverence with the arguement leads to the clock on the train altering as it increases in velocity with the train, and the railway sleepers (rulers) getting closer together (or apart, George?). The "Old Circular Logic".......rubber rulers and self-altering clocks > > Imagine that the train is on a planet orbiting a distant > star. The train is stopped in the station, but the planet > is moving with enormous speed relative to Earth. Using the > SuperMegaHyperTelescope at the top of Mount Everest to view > inside the train, we see the light beam travel from ceiling > to floor on a long diagonal path. Rubbish! As c'=c+v, the light will travel from its SOURCE at c, and I will see the beam vertical in the carriage. This is the same old same! dhR's ALWAYS assume c=c+v BEFORE begining even a thought experiment. It is due to indoctrination! It takes the light ten > nanoseconds to cover that distance. Yet to the person on > the train, it takes only seven nanoseconds, since it is > going straight down from ceiling to floor. Warning! Do not buy a watch from this person! They have been altered to give results ONLY in agreement with SR. When tested, they are checked against a speedometer which when reading 60mph, show 1 min elapsed every 1500 yards. > > Which observer is right, and which is wrong? They WONT disagree! All their clocks will read the same. When the photons travel the diagonal (train in motion ref track) they do so at higher velocity (speed) and so time taken is the same as for train in the station. > > Think about it. > > >> > 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. Lazy? Draw a diagram, with photons emitted in all directions simultaneously; now try it with source in motion. > >> > > >> > 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. > > > > The hypotenuse ceiling to floor is LONGER than the vertical. > > Relative to the Earth, but *not* relative to a person on > the train. > > > Therfore, unless the photon is moving at different d/t along > > those paths, they wouldn't hit floor simultaneously. > > You say "the photon is moving" (singular), and "they > wouldn't hit... simultaneously" (plural). I can't tell > what things "they" refers to. You clearly are talking > about multiple things, but what? Well unless you have a photon store, you/we can't use the same photons over; so we'll just have to go with hoping that they all behave the same. And as Andro points out, it doesn't matter whether you deal with a raindrop, photon or whatever. > > If you mean that the observer in the moving train and an > observer stationary on the ground could not see a light > pulse from the ceiling of the train hit the floor at the > same time, that depends on where the stationary observer > is located. If he is right beside the train when the light > reaches the floor, then both observers will see the light > hit the floor simultaneously. If he is anywhere else, he > will see it hit the floor later than the person on the > train. see George's comment, and don't obfuscate the situation > > However, I don't think the time lag is what you are > interested in. You are interested in the length of time > it takes the light to go from ceiling to floor. No. What I am interested in, is why AE thinks time has altered (dilated) when it is perfectly obvious that a photon has travelled further from its point of origin in the moving train scenario. (and the passeneger has twigged it as well) > > The observer on the ground sees the light travel a greater > distance, and therefore take a longer time to reach the > floor. > > > This is too repetitive- you either get it or not. > > I get it. You need to think about it more. > > Here is an important question: > > What do you think Einstein's special theory of relativity > is about? Equivalently, why do you think it exists? Why > did Einstein work it out, and why was it accepted by other > physicists? In a nut, he plaigarised the work of other mistaken (Lorentz) people, cobbled together self-proving math formula (aforesaid circular logic), and pulled the greatest con job using unproved assumptions since certain religions were established > > You may have an answer to that question which is different > from mine, so here is an even more important question, > which I really hope you will answer: > > What do George and I think Einstein's special theory of > relativity is about? I don't know, and as you two disagree (twist on a towered clock axle to agree with a clock in space), I'm not even sure that you are on the same page as he is. (Which is why I mentioned clocks when discussing the train time dilation- George had used that approach, the "observer" arguement falling down). It sounded brilliant at the time; remember, no vote was taken when the king appeared in his magic (read non-existant) cloak, and everyone "saw" how wonderful it was! Except me (Henri, Androcles, Spaceman etc) It remains there today, not because there is a hint of truth in it, but because science abhors a vacuum, and being unwilling to admit being mislead for so long, bullishly opposes any attempt to test c=c+v (on which its foundation depends) Equivalently, what reason would > George and I give to the question of why it exists? How > would George and I answer the question of why Einstein > worked it out and why it was accepted by other physicists? ..further up answered > > > When I have more time, I will get back to George with his > > animation, and see what he can come up with if his clocks > > tick together, rather than assuming that one WILL do more > > ticks (no offence George) > > You don't understand what the animation shows. If you > did understand *what* it shows, you would understand > *why* it shows what it does. Don't patronise me! It was I who has pointed out to George that his clocks are not running as per showing WHY SR time dilation occurs. The animation as sent to me (have you actually SEEN it?) appears to have the clocks running out of sync apriori, which is using a postulate to "prove" itself. Want to accept that? Not I! Jim G c'=c+v |