GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: George Dishman on 10 Aug 2007 13:33 "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:1186657832.224647.233320(a)d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 9, 2:30 am, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >> >> news:1tdkb35gc07k9bp0s6gg30237su7a2pub2(a)4ax.com... >> >> > On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:48:58 -0700, Jerry >> > <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> >> > wrote: >> ... >> >> > I will try to explain Crank. >> >> Jerry is not "Crank". > > We share the same last name, so technically Henri is correct! > > ;-) True, he is close - but no coconut ;-) George
From: Henri Wilson on 11 Aug 2007 18:34 On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:43:04 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:s86nb3l50j13ou9o6q8er9tc2t498togju(a)4ax.com: > >> George, even Paul wont enter this argument becasue he is so embarrassed >> by your confusion. >> George, this is physics. >> Objects can move in an FoR. Objects can move relatively in an FoR. > >But your statements about the light moving at c+v wrt the source [as >measured in the lab frame] makes as much sense as my saying that the >telephone pole I see between my car and the distant mountain is moving at >60 mph wrt that mountain [as measured in the frame of my moving car]. You are even dumber than George. > >The pole is NOT moving wrt the mountain when studied from the mountain. The >mountain is not moving wrt the pole, when studied from the pole's location. >And it would be silly from me to wait one minute and say that the pole had >moved a mile wrt the mountain. In the frame of your car, the pole is NOT moving wrt the mountain. >But that is exactly the kind of thing you are doing when you do your BaTh. > >You are assuming that things which are moving at a constant velocity wrt >each other[zero in my example] can be said to be moving at a different >velocity wrt each other just because they appear to be moving >differentially at that velocity from our viewpoint. Don't you know whata frame is, idiot? >You then expect that >differential velocity to have a real effect on how long it takes the light >to make the trip. It can not effect the transit time because the objects >never REALLY move at that differential velocity. Why is it that all relativists appear to have zero intelligence? www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.
From: Henri Wilson on 11 Aug 2007 18:47 On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:17:06 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:s86nb3l50j13ou9o6q8er9tc2t498togju(a)4ax.com... >>>> Answer the question George. >>> >>>The question is self-contradictory so has to be split: >>> >>>a) In the lab frame, the rays are seen to be moving at c. >> >> ...and at c+v wrt the source. > >No, that answer is in the lab frame, not the source frame. Yes. That's what I said. >> Your statement is a postulate anyway. > >No, it is a statement of fact regarding a drawing >on a web page. True but that's not what I was referrring to. >>>b) In the source frame ("wrt the source"), the rays would >>> be seen to be moving at c. >> >> ....irrelevant relativist raving.... That's the postulate.... >The answer is correct - you are forgetting you were >asking about the "standard SR explanation". Yes. ..and irrespective of its stupid postulate, the rays are shown moving at c+/-v wrt the source...something that is impossible according to the postulate. >>>c) In the lab frame, the difference between the speed of >>> the rays and the speed of the source is c+/-v. >> >> You finally got one right. > >All three are correct, only your comments regarding >them are wrong. You are hopelessly stubborn and confused George. >> George, even Paul wont enter this argument becasue he is so embarrassed by >> your >> confusion. > >No point, he knows what I said was correct and >that trying to educate you is pointless. > >> George, this is physics. > >No Henry, it is semantics. The words "wrt the source" >mean literally that you are making measurements "with >respect to the source", or to put it another way, you >are measuring from the source, or you are measuring >using a coordinate system whose origin is the source. >In this context, that is described as a measurement >"in the source frame". Until you learn this terminology, >you will just keep making these mistakes. George, if that was my intention I would say, "the light is moving art c+v IN THE SOURCE FRAME". That is NOT what I'm syaing at all. I am saying that when observed and measured in the lab frame, the light is seen to be moving at c+/-v wrt the source. THAT IS SHOWN IN THE STANDARD SR SAGNAC DAIGRAM. >> Objects can move in an FoR. Objects can move relatively in an FoR. > >Of course they can, but YOU need to learn the jargon >to be able to say _which_ frame. George, you're obviously just some kind of electronics technician who once worked in a physical laboratory. I'm sorry to have to inform you of this but you obviously KNOW VIRTUALLY NOTHING ABOUT PHYSICS. >>>Not. You can only measure the speed of the cars relative >>>to your measuring instruments. You can then _calculate_ >>>the speed of one car wrt the other, which is effectively >>>predicting wat would be measured if your instrument were >>>in one of the cars measuring the speed of the other, but >>>that is a calculation that requires a coordinate transform >>>so differs between theories. >> >> Coordinate transforms are unnecessary. > >To get from one frame to another you _must_ use a >transform. Relative speeds between two objects are frame independent. >> Relative speeds are the same in all >> frames. > >Some transforms preserve speeds, some do not, and >in reality they are not the same. They ARE the same. >>>> Whether or not that is the same answer one of the drivers would come up >>>> with is >>>> a completely irrelevant. >>> >>>Not at all, it is a _prediction_ of what the driver >>>would _measure_ if he had your instrument in the >>>car with him. That's what the words "with respect to" >>>mean, they say you are using that object as the origin >>>of the measurement coordinate system. If I ask "where >>>is Chicago with respect to Washington?" you could >>>give me distances west and north using Washington as >>>the origin of those numbers. Do you get it yet? >> >> George, you stated above: >> >> ">c) In the lab frame, the difference between the speed of >> "> the rays and the speed of the source is c+/-v." >> >> That means, "in the lab frame, the rays appear to be moving at c+/-v wrt >> the >> source. > >No it doesn't, you are still making the same basic >layman mistake. Do try to learn a little physics >Henry, your errors are getting tedious. .....You don't even know what you are saying half the time. >George > > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.
From: Henri Wilson on 11 Aug 2007 18:50 On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:33:32 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:gu6nb35pmkh8hje75gu65hil4e9hc4ed4t(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 08:30:15 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> Yes for very close distances that is correct....but for nearly all distant >> stars with periods greater than a few days, the VDoppler term is >> negligible. > >No, VDoppler is dominant in every case we have examined. George, I can teach you physics but I cannot force you to learn. >> I thought I made it clear that the VDoppler contribution will determine >> the >> phase shift between velocity and brightnes curves. > >No, you have been saying that velocity and luminosity >(not brightness) should be almost the same shape and >in phase. In fact the ratio of the two components >determines the phase but ADoppler is always negligible >in the real systems we have examined. You haven't examined many at all George. I've looked at hundreds...and they are mainly ADoppler derived. >George > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.
From: Henri Wilson on 11 Aug 2007 18:54
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:21:07 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:k77nb3tqiivi90hjf5oh70nnb3irn560hb(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 08:59:47 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>>news:iupcb3p0d72scb6sqb94peuima6m7f8tiq(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:02:53 +0100, "George Dishman" >> >>>>>Whatever you call it, the spin of a photon is similar >>>>>to that of the javelin but with the proviso that it >>>>>is always xactly aligned with the direction of motion. >>>>>The quantisation of photon spin only allows two values >>>>>which can be thought of as the javelin spinning either >>>>>clockwise or anti-clockwise as seen by the thrower. >>>> >>>> The shaft isn't spinning George. >>> >>>Photons carry angular momentum Henry. >>> >>>> I am taking about the angle between the shaft and the direction of >>>> motion. >>> >>>The angular momentum is quantised and the vector is >>>parallel to the direction of propagation. >>> >>>However, none of that explains how a change of spin, >>>or even a twist, changes the time taken for two >>>javelins to travel the same distance to be different. >>>That is what happens in the Sagnac experiment, photons >>>sent in opposite directions round the ring do not >>>arrive at the detector simultaneously. >> >> It does. Think about the reflections from each moving mirror. > >The incident speed is c so the reflected speed is >c, it does not explain the difference in arrival >times. We covered that in February 2004 from the >file date of this! We werer wrong. At that stage, I had not realised the significance of the 'photon axis tilt'. My conclusion, Light DOES NOT reflect at the incident speed and angle from a moving mirror. > http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/speed.gif Yes it is wrong. >George > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell. |