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 17 Sep 2005 19:50 On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:06:45 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:34:46 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >> >>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>> >>>So why keep discussing what is settled a long time ago? >>>The ballistic theory predicts no Sagnac effect. >>>The ballistic theory is falsified. >> >> >> Rubbish. > >What's rubish? >The calculation you did a long time ago showing >that the ballistic theory predicts that the time >has no first order dependency on the speed? > > >> You know that the sagnac supports LET if anything. > >Quite. >Sagnac confirms LET, Michelson's ether theory and SR. >It falsifies the ballistic theory. It has nothing to do with the BaT. > >> It does not rfute the BaT because the light emitted by the source is moving >> normal to hte next mirror IN THAT MIRROR'S FRAME. It is NOT moving at c+v wrt >> that mirror at all. > >Well said. >That's why Sagnac falsifies BaT. It has nothing to do with the BaT. Each member is moving at right angles to the next member in the frame of that next member. > >Paul 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 17 Sep 2005 19:51 On 15 Sep 2005 18:30:13 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: > > >[snip] > >When are you going to reproduce the two seperate derivations that both >George and myself have asked you for? > >If you actually had a degree in applied math, as you have stated in the >past, it shouldn't be too difficult for you to reproduce something you >already did. Sorry Geeese I'm too busy at present. 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 17 Sep 2005 20:37 George Dishman wrote: > "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote in message > news:1126890784.397300.260080(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > George replied to Jeff: > > > >>> George Dishman replied to Jim Greenfield: > >>> > >>>>> >> 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! > >>>>> > > >>>>> > It won't work since all the components move together, > >>>>> > any Doppler shift cancels. Only relative motion produces > >>>>> > a change. > >>>>> > >>>>> But there IS relative motion; the port! > >>>> > >>>> No Jim, you said "This consists of a monochromatic light source > >>>> ... and a filter ... the two being constructed in the same frame." > >>> > >>> George, > >>> > >>> He meant that the monochromatic light source and the > >>> filter were both constructed in the same reference frame. > >>> Like, the same factory. > >> > >> That doesn't make any sense. I think Jim considers > >> that a change of speed would show up as a discrepancy > >> between frequency and wavelength hence could be used > >> to detect motion relative to the aether (or the centre > >> of the universe or 'absolute motion' or something) by > >> seeing an apparent Doppler shift from a source fixed > >> rigidly at some distance from the detector. > > > > He's just talking about motion of the detector relative to > > the light source. It doesn't help his argument at all, > > and it is absurdly limited in its capabilities, but it > > would work just fine. He said: > > > > | But there IS relative motion; the port! and acceleration > > | has taken place since (but not continuing). This is a > > | wooden boat, George. I can point the filter at a source > > | elsewhere (back in port). THAT is the signal which is > > | blocked due to the changed motion ref port. You see, I > > | do have a machine to detect my motion, without MYSELF > > | seeing out; I just watch the filter, and note when > > | signals are blocked. > > > > The fact that the boat is wooden can only be significant > > if he has radio waves in mind. > > But he specifically said "a monochromatic light > source". I guess you're right though. > > > So his detector detects > > radio waves. Whenever the detector is moving relative to > > the transmitter back at the home port, the detector stops > > detecting the monochromatic signal. > > > >>> What he described is an extremely limited version of a > >>> common radio navigational aid. > >> > >> A simple Doppler speed detector? > > > > Yes. > > > >> Could be but what does that prove? > > > > That Jim thinks a machine which detects his motion is > > somehow fundamentally different from detecting his motion > > with his own eyes. I'm curious why he thinks that, but I > > know he wouldn't be able to explain it. > > This was the original comment just after the discussion > of Galilean relativity: > > <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message > news:1126564087.777831.76000(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > 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. > > > What I want to know is how that fits the original > context which was a detector that could distinguish > between the ship moving while the port was at rest > versus the port moving and the ship at rest with > the same relative motion. Jim said "However you cut > it, there IS a difference ..." which could be > determined by 'Jim's Motion Detector'. In other > words he disagrees with Galilean relativity, perhaps > having some sort of 'absolute motion' philosophy > hence his comments about the centre of the universe. > To be honest I think he has just lost the plot, none > of this makes any sense. > > George Try this: Build a monochromatic source and two identical filters which are transparent to that frequency/wavelength only. Place the source and one filter on a rocket, and leave the other behind. With the rocket at speed ref earth, split the source beam, sending one half straight to earth, and the other through the filter --> earth. What do you think will be noticed? Remember, for both to make it to earth AND through the earth based filter, we know that there CANNOT have been a doppler shift between the source and the space based filter, or the beam would have been blocked there!........or did these amazingly talented photons KNOW to change their f/u AFTER passing through the space filter???????? Jeff seems to be (subliminally) aware of what is actually happening to/on the train, when he mentions that SR describes the relationship between the observers , and the "observed" ONLY! This suggests that he realises that the "measurements" are due to the illusions produced by an object's velocity, and how the finite nature of information transfer by way of emr distorts the true situation to these observers. My position is, that although emr is ubiquitous throughout the universe in varying "densities", the "universe" doesn't give a shrug whether information is transfered or not, and WHAT puny humans wrongly perceive and deduce. Objects still exist for the blind, and distance exists between bodies, whether emr passes between them or not. Similarly, velocity of, and that of other objects transitting from one to the other, also "exists". If we are denied the emans to measure it, tough! The universe doesn't care. Observers are mistaken. AE was such an observer. Jim G c'=c+v
From: Jeff Root on 18 Sep 2005 01:59 Jim Greenfield wrote to George Dishman: > Build a monochromatic source and two identical filters which > are transparent to that frequency/wavelength only. > Place the source and one filter on a rocket, and leave the > other behind. > With the rocket at speed ref earth, split the source beam, > sending one half straight to earth, and the other through > the filter --> earth. > What do you think will be noticed? Obviously, both beams reach Earth, and neither beam will go through the filter on Earth. > Remember, for both to make it to earth AND through the earth > based filter, That obviously can't happen. > we know that there CANNOT have been a doppler shift between > the source and the space based filter, That obviously can't happen, either. > or the beam would have been blocked there!........or did > these amazingly talented photons KNOW to change their f/u > AFTER passing through the space filter???????? If you and the light source are moving apart, you observe a lower frequency because each wave starts its journey from a little bit farther away. Simple geometry. > Jeff seems to be (subliminally) aware of what is actually > happening to/on the train, when he mentions that SR describes > the relationship between the observers, and the "observed" ONLY! I didn't just mention it, I explained it to you. > This suggests that he realises that the "measurements" are > due to the illusions produced by an object's velocity, So all measurements of things in motion are due to illusions? That's what you just said. > and how the finite nature of information transfer by way of > emr distorts the true situation to these observers. I thought you were beyond that. You complained when I brought it up. The time delay is not what causes a photon or dropped ball to have a diagonal path in the train thought experiment. > My position is, that although emr is ubiquitous throughout > the universe in varying "densities", the "universe" doesn't > give a shrug whether information is transfered or not, and > WHAT puny humans wrongly perceive and deduce. Nancy? Is that you? > Objects still exist for the blind, and distance exists > between bodies, whether emr passes between them or not. Obviously. > Similarly, velocity of, and that of other objects transitting > from one to the other, also "exists". Obviously. Virtually everything you say is either kindergarten obvious or bonehead wrong. > If we are denied the emans to measure it, tough! The universe > doesn't care. Obviously. > Observers are mistaken. You have not shown that in any of your arguments. An observer will be mistaken in the way you suggest only if he is even stupider than you are. > AE was such an observer. You think Albert Einstein was stupider than you? Do you want to demonstrate how smart you are? -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: George Dishman on 18 Sep 2005 05:33
<jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message news:1127003839.831544.121540(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > George Dishman wrote: .... >> What I want to know is how that fits the original >> context which was a detector that could distinguish >> between the ship moving while the port was at rest >> versus the port moving and the ship at rest with >> the same relative motion. Jim said "However you cut >> it, there IS a difference ..." which could be >> determined by 'Jim's Motion Detector'. In other >> words he disagrees with Galilean relativity, perhaps >> having some sort of 'absolute motion' philosophy >> hence his comments about the centre of the universe. >> To be honest I think he has just lost the plot, none >> of this makes any sense. > > Try this: > Build a monochromatic source and two identical filters which are > transparent to that frequency/wavelength only. > Place the source and one filter on a rocket, and leave the other > behind. OK, that's clear. > With the rocket at speed ref earth, split the source beam, sending one > half straight to earth, and the other through the filter --> earth. > What do you think will be noticed? Good question so far but you should have left it at that. > Remember, for both to make it to > earth AND through the earth based filter, we know that there CANNOT > have been a doppler shift between the source and the space based > filter, or the beam would have been blocked there! That is correct, you just gave half the answer. The filter on the ship is not moving relative to the source so there is no Doppler shift and the second beam passes through. Both beams leave the craft. The second part is what happens on Earth which you didn't address. When they reach Earth, it is moving relative to the source so the Doppler effect means neither beam passes through the Earth filter. Your subsequent comments don't seem related to the above question at all and I can't for the life of me imagine what point you think this gedanken makes. George > ........or did these > amazingly talented photons KNOW to change their f/u AFTER passing > through the space filter???????? > > Jeff seems to be (subliminally) aware of what is actually happening > to/on the train, when he mentions that SR describes the relationship > between the observers , and the "observed" ONLY! This suggests that he > realises that the "measurements" are due to the illusions produced by > an object's velocity, and how the finite nature of information transfer > by way of emr distorts the true situation to these observers. > My position is, that although emr is ubiquitous throughout the universe > in varying "densities", the "universe" doesn't give a shrug whether > information is transfered or not, and WHAT puny humans wrongly perceive > and deduce. Objects still exist for the blind, and distance exists > between bodies, whether emr passes between them or not. Similarly, > velocity of, and that of other objects transitting from one to the > other, also "exists". > If we are denied the emans to measure it, tough! The universe doesn't > care. > Observers are mistaken. AE was such an observer. |