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 5 Oct 2005 16:29 On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:11:29 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:64u5k1p9ehdpu5t9bppems72m33cke7hsg(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 10:45:06 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>>And I told you, and you agreed, that the light >>>is not moving normally to the mirrors, but that >>>is beside the point. >> >> George, the 'c' component is not....but the 'v' component IS. > >And as I told you the result is the vector >sum for Ritzian theory which produces a null >prediction. If you disagree, show your >prediction and how you get it. George, I know you love rotating frames. Why don't you plot the instantaneous direction of movement of the source in the frame of the first mirror. You will find it is perpendicular. Your earlier analysis didn't include the movement of the mirror frame. > >>>Henri, what is needed is >>>for you to take the experimental setup of Sagnac >>>and derive a prediction using your theory. Show >>>your working so that other people can understand >>>how to apply your equations for their own >>>experiments. That is what a theory is, something >>>that anyone can use as a predictive tool. >> >> I have already told you why I don't believe the sagnac effect is related >> to >> light speed. > >I don't care what you believe, if you want to >claim you have a theory, you have to make it >available for people to use. That's what a >theory is! If you don't know what the BaT implies then you shouldn't be here. > >>>My expectation is that applying your BaT to the >>>Sagnac will give the same null prediction that >>>using Ritzian theory gives, but you have never >>>said how what you call "BaT" differs from Ritz. >> >> It is the same. >> It is easier to write 'BaT'. > >Sure, but knowing they are the same means now I >don't have to keep qualifying my answers to say >Ritz is falsified but BaT might not be if it >differs. They are both falsified by Sagnac. rubbish. You are starting to dream, like Andersen does. > >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".
From: Henri Wilson on 5 Oct 2005 16:30 On 5 Oct 2005 02:12:15 -0700, "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote: >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. Very interesting but irrelevant. Please send the $200 anyway. > > -- Jeff, in Minneapolis 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: George Dishman on 6 Oct 2005 04:51 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:f0d8k1tjj2b8k5paid4fha5ajm5kh80adi(a)4ax.com... > 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. You don't know much about physics, do you. Open a textbook sometime. George
From: George Dishman on 6 Oct 2005 04:57 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:1jd8k15muqi85pq2rto42t6lg6rrempmnl(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 23:11:29 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:64u5k1p9ehdpu5t9bppems72m33cke7hsg(a)4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 10:45:06 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >>> wrote: >>> > >>>>And I told you, and you agreed, that the light >>>>is not moving normally to the mirrors, but that >>>>is beside the point. >>> >>> George, the 'c' component is not....but the 'v' component IS. >> >>And as I told you the result is the vector >>sum for Ritzian theory which produces a null >>prediction. If you disagree, show your >>prediction and how you get it. > > George, I know you love rotating frames. > > Why don't you plot the instantaneous direction of movement of the source > in the > frame of the first mirror. Because it is the speed of the light that matters, we have already discussed all this. > You will find it is perpendicular. > > Your earlier analysis didn't include the movement of the mirror frame. Of course it did Henri. I even did an animation that showed you the rotation of the beams was in the same direction, remember? >>>>Henri, what is needed is >>>>for you to take the experimental setup of Sagnac >>>>and derive a prediction using your theory. Show >>>>your working so that other people can understand >>>>how to apply your equations for their own >>>>experiments. That is what a theory is, something >>>>that anyone can use as a predictive tool. >>> >>> I have already told you why I don't believe the sagnac effect is related >>> to >>> light speed. >> >>I don't care what you believe, if you want to >>claim you have a theory, you have to make it >>available for people to use. That's what a >>theory is! > > If you don't know what the BaT implies then you shouldn't be here. I know what Ritz syas, the Sagnac experiement will give a null result. You keep suggesting BaT won't so I have to conclude either you can't do the math or BaT is different to Ritz. >>>>My expectation is that applying your BaT to the >>>>Sagnac will give the same null prediction that >>>>using Ritzian theory gives, but you have never >>>>said how what you call "BaT" differs from Ritz. >>> >>> It is the same. >>> It is easier to write 'BaT'. >> >>Sure, but knowing they are the same means now I >>don't have to keep qualifying my answers to say >>Ritz is falsified but BaT might not be if it >>differs. They are both falsified by Sagnac. > > rubbish. You are starting to dream, like Andersen does. Then it's up to you to show how you get a non-null prediction, and you need to start by identifying how BaT differs from Ritz. George
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 6 Oct 2005 08:00
In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Wed, 05 Oct 2005 20:14:32 GMT <f0d8k1tjj2b8k5paid4fha5ajm5kh80adi(a)4ax.com>: > 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. OK, I'll bite. Why wouldn't they apply? And what equations *do* apply? In any event, space isn't truly empty, though intergalactic space is probably pretty desolate. [.sigsnip] -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. |