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 5 Oct 2005 02:59 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:o026k118gp7bkogjtjh142i8vl4tp7ubjp(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:06:51 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:0tt5k1tb7afbn1f7d7avltq14eof0kujqe(a)4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 11:27:40 +0100, "George Dishman" > >>> They eventually learnt to allow for a CONSTANT light speed. >> >>No, they just got better instruments that were able >>to measure the very low rotation rates involved. >>Look up the ICRF. >> >>> The still haven't woken up to the fact that all starlight isn't >>> miraculously >>> adjusted (by the fairies) to travel to little planet Earth at exactly >>> 'c'. >> >>Flaunting your inability to comprehend something >>as simple as SR isn't helping your case. > > George, the SRian postulate that all starlight travels to little planet > Earth > at the same speed 'c' is a direct consequence of combining LET with > christianity. Rubbish Henri, it was a consequence of Maxwell's Equations and the _starting_point_ for SR. George
From: George Dishman on 5 Oct 2005 05:11 <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message news:1128499223.209426.270620(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > George Dishman wrote: >> <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message >> news:1128419173.735037.311150(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... .... >> > George, my old computer died on me, losing the email I remember quite >> > vividly (from you) saying how sagnac machine works because the TIME OF >> > TRAVEL of the signal alters. If you cannot see/understand that this >> > refers to VELOCITY, as the DISTANCE does NOT ALTER, that is too bad! >> >> Sadly it seems you also lost my response to your comment, >> the distance does alter Jim, the detector MOVES while the >> light is in transit. In the experiment, the length is >> known to change because we know the speed of rotation of >> the table, the time is measured to change and when you >> calculate the speed as distance/time you always get c. > > "Time" is MEASURED to change????? > Say the path around the machine is 3 meter. Time for circuit of light > is > 10^-8 sec. Now do a fast turn. Let's assume 600 rpm, 10 rev per second. > How much did the 3m alter, 3m * 10^-8 = 300nm, or 10^-15 sec > and how good > is the watch that differentiated between periods stable and rotating. Yellow light has a frequency of 5 * 10^14 Hz so 0.1 of a fringe shift is 2 * 10^-16 sec. I have used interferometers and worked to a tenth of a fringe by eye without too much trouble. Electronics is far better. > Hint; Your clocks (time) are trying to measure the difference between > the flight of a photon over 3m, and 2.999999999999999999999999999m 3.0m versus 3.0000003m and we can measure to better than 0.00000006m. > The time is NOT measured to change! We do not posses the technology to > get anywhere near that accuracy. In fact the technology is much better than the example given above. If you had read the web sites on iFOGs we were talking about, the best can measure a few tens of degrees per hour. They can measure the rotation of the Earth with a bit of care once properly calibrated which is about 100,000 times better than above in a box only a few cm across! Ring lasers are even better. You don't seem to realise just how powerful modern technology has become. >>It is ASSUMED! So how does the commercial kit know how fast it is rotating if we humans only assume it? Where do the numbers on the dial come from Jim? Why don't the planes fall out of the sky? >> As for your stuff on the galaxy and a merry-go-round, the >> correct analogy is that you make the measurement not against >> the horses head but using a gyroscope (or you could say a >> distant mountain if you were on a non-rotating planet). > > Nope. Sirius IS the distant mountain as far as our markers for > direction go. Wrong Jim, find out before speaking. Look up "ICRF" and learn. In particular look up the defining source details and find the average red shift (z factor). >> Astronomers are well aware of the local proper motion of >> stars. That's why you need to learn how astronomy is done >> before criticising. > > It will be 12 billion years before we know what is happening NOW at the > limit of our present vision. Might as well shop local! > > BTW: Do YOU think it likely that the Milky Way has only revolved 60 > times? > It seems much more stable than that. Why do you think stability is related to the number of turns? I can't see why you think there would be a connection. Anyway, to add a bit of education, a galaxy isn't rigid so stars at different radii have completed different numbers of revolutions. The place is very dynamic, the Sun was only created 4.6 billion years ago and will die in a few more. The arms are shock waves that move round at a different speed to the stars in them, so saying "the Milky Way has only revolved 60 times" is an oversimplification. What I would say is that by using small radio sources billions of light years away as a reference (the 'mountain') we can now _measure_ the rotation of the galaxy (around Sag A*) directly using VLBI, and the value is the same as that obtained by measuring the Doppler shift of other parts of the galaxy relative to us. It's about 220 million years at the distance we are from the centre (about 28kly) and we also "bob up and down" through the plane roughly every 80 million years IIRC. These are not contentious figures Jim, I don't understand why you are sceptical. George
From: Jeff Root on 5 Oct 2005 05:12 Henri, On August 26, you wrote: > The whole idea of distorting space to make light speed constant > is clearly as stupid as using Earth centricism to describe the > universe....yet the latter theory prevailed for many centuries > purely through similar religious indoctrination.. I challenged you to support your assertion that "Earth centricism" is stupid: I'll pay you $200 US if you can show that the Earth is NOT at the center of the Universe. I realize that $200 isn't much, but if Earth centrism is really as stupid as you say, it should be easy for you to show that Earth is not at the center, and you will enjoy showing me up. This offer is to Henri Wilson only, and must be accomplished by the end of September 30, 2005. You failed. Here is one answer you could have given: Observations of globular clusters by Harlow Shapley in 1917 lead to the realization that they have a spherical distribution centered on a point about 30,000 light-years away in the direction of the constellation Sagittarius and in line with the visible Milky Way. Shapley deduced that the clusters are distributed around the galactic center. Until then, it had been assumed that the Solar System was near the center of the Milky Way. Here is a page listing the locations of the Milky Way's approximately 150 known globular clusters, and a diagram plotting those locations: http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/globular.html Fifty percent of all globular clusters associated with the Milky Way are located in the constellations Sagittarius, Scorpius, and Ophiuchus, which is where the center of the galaxy is located. Doppler shifts of spectra of the stars making up the clusters show that the clusters orbit the center of the galaxy. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: Kim B on 5 Oct 2005 12:50 On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 22:58:10 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: >George, the SRian postulate that all starlight travels to little planet Earth >at the same speed 'c' Is it the same kind of postulate that make an airplane know, it has to look small when viewed from the ground ? Kim
From: Henri Wilson on 5 Oct 2005 16:14
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 07:59:12 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:o026k118gp7bkogjtjh142i8vl4tp7ubjp(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:06:51 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>>news:0tt5k1tb7afbn1f7d7avltq14eof0kujqe(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 11:27:40 +0100, "George Dishman" >> >>>> They eventually learnt to allow for a CONSTANT light speed. >>> >>>No, they just got better instruments that were able >>>to measure the very low rotation rates involved. >>>Look up the ICRF. >>> >>>> The still haven't woken up to the fact that all starlight isn't >>>> miraculously >>>> adjusted (by the fairies) to travel to little planet Earth at exactly >>>> 'c'. >>> >>>Flaunting your inability to comprehend something >>>as simple as SR isn't helping your case. >> >> George, the SRian postulate that all starlight travels to little planet >> Earth >> at the same speed 'c' is a direct consequence of combining LET with >> christianity. > >Rubbish Henri, it was a consequence of Maxwell's >Equations and the _starting_point_ for SR. Maxwell's equations don't apply in completelyempty space, idiot. > >George > 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". |