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 26 Sep 2005 16:58 <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message news:1127720880.625665.58140(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > George Dishman wrote: >> <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message >> news:1127636909.093068.229090(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > >> > At what elapsed time after BB, did quasars form? What are their life >> > expectancies? At what DISTANCE (age) have they been observed??? >> >> http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/quasars.html >> >> George > > Ta George. Starter for 10, I'm sure you'll find better. > It would seem that the discovery of one close handy would be very bad > news :-) Well there isn't as much free gas around these days as back then but hypothetically if a nearby galaxy collided with a large dense cloud, it could become a quasar I suppose (there are problems of density with that which I am ignoring for the sake of argument). That would definitely be very bad news to the point of sterilising our galaxy depending on how close it was! George
From: Henri Wilson on 26 Sep 2005 17:20 On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:23:40 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 20:22:48 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>> >>>Some light will always hit at "the midpoint" >>>of the combining mirror, and what happens in >>>that point is only determined by the phase >>>difference of the two light paths that >>>actually hit that point. If the fringes shifts, >>>it means that the phase difference changes, >>>which only can mean that the length difference >>>of the light paths have changed. >>> >>>The ballistic theory predicts no length difference >>>of the light paths (measured in wavelengths) >>>and thus no fringe shifts when the Sagnac ring rotates. >>> >>>But the fringes do shift when the Sagnac ring rotates. >>> >>>Sagnac falsifies the ballistic theory. >>> >>>No other conclusion is possible. >> >> >> This whole posting would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. >> You are making it all up just to suit your own theory. > >Was this the best you can do? >Since you cannot refute my arguments, >you flee the discussion. no point in discussing something about which YOU know nothing. > > >> The truth is, the sagnac principle relies on the fact that light has its own >> built-in 'gyro' in the form of an 'axis'. >> It is not directly related to changes in light speed. Rather, the rotation of >> the axes at each reflection gives rise to fringes when the >> beams reunite (at different angles). > > >This is very funny even if it is pathetic, :-) >You are making it all up just to suit your own theory. > >So the Sagnac interferometer works in an entirely different >way than other interferometers? Yes. >The interference pattern is formed by different laws of nature? >The interference pattern is moving, not because the path length >difference between the two beams is changing, but because >the photons are rotated? :-) Well, Paul, your alternative 'SR' explanation assumes an aether exists. I think I prefer mine. > >There is no limit to the stupidities you can invent >to explain why the ballistic theory doesn't predict >what it predicts, is it? > >> PS: You wont find this in any book. > >I wonder why. :-) > >Seriously, Henri. >If you really believe your fantasies yourself, >you have a serious sanity problem. > >But you do not really believe it, of course. Ask yourself: What happens to the axis of a photon when it bounces off a mirror? What happens to the axis of a photon when it bounces off a MOVING mirror? > > >Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
From: Eric Gisse on 26 Sep 2005 21:07 Henri Wilson wrote: [snip] > > no point in discussing something about which YOU know nothing. The less things change, the more they stay the same. [snip] > > Well, Paul, your alternative 'SR' explanation assumes an aether exists. The less things change, the more they stay the same. Why is it you refuse to accept what practically every other scientists knows : SR is not an aether theory? > > I think I prefer mine. Obviously. > > > > >There is no limit to the stupidities you can invent > >to explain why the ballistic theory doesn't predict > >what it predicts, is it? > > > >> PS: You wont find this in any book. > > > >I wonder why. :-) > > > >Seriously, Henri. > >If you really believe your fantasies yourself, > >you have a serious sanity problem. > > > >But you do not really believe it, of course. > > Ask yourself: > What happens to the axis of a photon when it bounces off a mirror? > What happens to the axis of a photon when it bounces off a MOVING mirror? How do you define the photon's axis? God knows you refuse to go with convention and go with what everyone else uses. Or is that Don1? I forget, the idiots merge together when I'm not paying attention. > > > > > > >Paul > > > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe > > "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
From: jgreen on 27 Sep 2005 05:54 George Dishman wrote: > <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message > news:1127720880.625665.58140(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > George Dishman wrote: > >> <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message > >> news:1127636909.093068.229090(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >> > > >> > At what elapsed time after BB, did quasars form? What are their life > >> > expectancies? At what DISTANCE (age) have they been observed??? > >> > >> http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/quasars.html > >> > >> George > > > > Ta George. > > Starter for 10, I'm sure you'll find better. > > > It would seem that the discovery of one close handy would be very bad > > news :-) > > Well there isn't as much free gas around these days > as back then but hypothetically if a nearby galaxy > collided with a large dense cloud, it could become a > quasar I suppose (there are problems of density with > that which I am ignoring for the sake of argument). > That would definitely be very bad news to the point > of sterilising our galaxy depending on how close it > was! > > George Oh well, it least it might kill off these fungi which are giving my groin hell! :-) But the "bad news" I mentioned is for THE THEORY, George! Quasars as per those faqs can ONLY be at long distance, for BB to shape up (occurred only in the very young universe). So if any are seen around here.......... ...."good night, nurse"! Cheers Jim
From: George Dishman on 27 Sep 2005 13:08
<jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message news:1127814856.490827.50300(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > George Dishman wrote: >> <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message >> news:1127720880.625665.58140(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > >> > George Dishman wrote: >> >> <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message >> >> news:1127636909.093068.229090(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> >> > >> >> > At what elapsed time after BB, did quasars form? What are their life >> >> > expectancies? At what DISTANCE (age) have they been observed??? >> >> >> >> http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/quasars.html >> >> >> >> George >> > >> > Ta George. >> >> Starter for 10, I'm sure you'll find better. >> >> > It would seem that the discovery of one close handy would be very bad >> > news :-) >> >> Well there isn't as much free gas around these days >> as back then but hypothetically if a nearby galaxy >> collided with a large dense cloud, it could become a >> quasar I suppose (there are problems of density with >> that which I am ignoring for the sake of argument). >> That would definitely be very bad news to the point >> of sterilising our galaxy depending on how close it >> was! >> >> George > > Oh well, it least it might kill off these fungi which are giving my > groin hell! :-) > But the "bad news" I mentioned is for THE THEORY, George! Quasars as > per those faqs can ONLY be at long distance, for BB to shape up > (occurred only in the very young universe). So if any are seen around > here.......... .... remembering that they aren't ... > ..."good night, nurse"! Again just wishful thinking Jim. Firstly what I said does not conflict with the theory so if a new quasar formed, it wouldn't be a problem for big bang, though it might raise questions about our understanding of the threshold density at which a gas cloud can condense into stars versus the density needed to power a quasar. On the other hand, since we see a greater density of quasars at high red shift, their existence in fact supports the big bang, conditions were significantly different in the past. It is your alternative of some sort of steady state that has the problem. George |