GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: bz on 11 Aug 2007 20:29 HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:g7esb39qqfcj90atnss4m3uatmfqa2330j(a)4ax.com: > 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. Neither George nor I believes that some magic mechanism speeds up slow light while at the same time slowing down fast light. >>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. Congratulations. You 'got it'. Even though the pole seems to be moving wrt the mountain as seen from my car, it isn't moving at all wrt the mountain That was exactly my point. In the earth's frame, the light from 'that star' is NOT moving at c+v wrt the star, nor wrt the earth. My distance from a marker on the top of the mountain was 20.125 mi at the beginning and end of my experiment. My distance from the pole was [close to zero] at the beginning of the experiment and [almost exactly] one mile one minute later. By the way YOU calculate things in BaTH, the pole has moved wrt the mountain as measured in my car's frame of reference, and the pole is moving at 60 mph wrt the mountain as measured in the car's iFoR. Now clearly I understand that the pole has maintained its same position wrt the mountain. I am just showing you what BaTH MaTH implies. Of course it doesn't make sense. It should NOT makes sense because it is nonsense, just like the c+v in BaTh. > >>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? Yep. I understand enough about iFoRs to understand why a source moving in a circle is not in an iFoR. I understand enough about iFoRs to understand that 'opening/closing' velocities calculated from the relative velocities of two different objects has nothing to do with the time it takes for the objects to separate or close on each other. Clearly, by BaTH MaTH, that pole will be 60 miles away from the mountain in an hour. Just as clearly BaTH MaTH is wrong, because you and I know that neither the pole nor the mountain is moving. >>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? I confess to stupidity. I have repeatedly tried to help you see the flaws in your reasoning. I admit that this is stupid. I don't believe that it is a sign of intelligence or self confidence to go around insulting others. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: George Dishman on 12 Aug 2007 06:29 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:qeesb3t52v1f5cfherhtmpgest2ml64rej(a)4ax.com... > 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. No, you said "wrt the source" meaning "in the source frame". >>> 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. It is the question to which my answer related, don't try to make me look wrong by implying a different context. >>>>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.... Again, it is just a statement of fact regarding a drawing on a web page which is what we are discussing. >>The answer is correct - you are forgetting you were >>asking about the "standard SR explanation". > > Yes. Thank you. > ..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. Wrong, the postulate only defines the speed, not the value of algebraic differences between two different speeds. >>>>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. You are confused Henry, a postulate about the speed doesn't apply to the sums you do with those speeds. >>> 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. Yes Henry, that IS what you keep saying to me because .. > 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. ... "wrt the source" is synonomous with "in the source frame". To express what you are trying to get across, say "The difference between the speeds in the lab frame is c+/-v.". > THAT IS SHOWN IN THE STANDARD SR SAGNAC DAIGRAM. Of course. >>> 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 am a Senior Principal Engineer in charge of one major project and acting as a formal expert on a number of others. > I'm sorry to have to inform you of this but > you obviously KNOW VIRTUALLY NOTHING ABOUT PHYSICS. Insults are worthless Henry, reality trumps them. >>>>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. Only if you assume the Galilean Transforms apply. In reality they do not. >>> 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. Nope, experiment shows us they are not. >>>>> 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. I'm sure you don't follow it yet, but don't worry, I'll teach you the terminology. George
From: Henri Wilson on 12 Aug 2007 18:55 On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 00:29:00 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:g7esb39qqfcj90atnss4m3uatmfqa2330j(a)4ax.com: > >> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:43:04 +0000 (UTC), bz >> <bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >>>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. > >Congratulations. You 'got it'. Even though the pole seems to be moving wrt >the mountain as seen from my car, it isn't moving at all wrt the mountain > >That was exactly my point. > >In the earth's frame, the light from 'that star' is NOT moving at c+v wrt >the star, nor wrt the earth. > >My distance from a marker on the top of the mountain was 20.125 mi at the >beginning and end of my experiment. > >My distance from the pole was [close to zero] at the beginning of the >experiment and [almost exactly] one mile one minute later. By the way YOU >calculate things in BaTH, the pole has moved wrt the mountain as measured >in my car's frame of reference, and the pole is moving at 60 mph wrt the >mountain as measured in the car's iFoR. Where did this nonsense originate? >Now clearly I understand that the pole has maintained its same position wrt >the mountain. I am just showing you what BaTH MaTH implies. > >Of course it doesn't make sense. It should NOT makes sense because it is >nonsense, just like the c+v in BaTh. Bob, the motion of an observer cannot affect the observed. You have posted some of the worst nonsense I have seen on this NG. ...but then, you ARE a relativist.... >>>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? > >Yep. I understand enough about iFoRs to understand why a source moving in a >circle is not in an iFoR. > >I understand enough about iFoRs to understand that 'opening/closing' >velocities calculated from the relative velocities of two different objects >has nothing to do with the time it takes for the objects to separate or >close on each other. Well why the hell do you think the pole moves wrt the mountain? >Clearly, by BaTH MaTH, that pole will be 60 miles away from the mountain in >an hour. >Just as clearly BaTH MaTH is wrong, because you and I know that neither the >pole nor the mountain is moving. You are obvoiusly using a very funny version of BaTh. >>>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? > >I confess to stupidity. >I have repeatedly tried to help you see the flaws in your reasoning. >I admit that this is stupid. > >I don't believe that it is a sign of intelligence or self confidence >to go around insulting others. Well, I'm sorry but there's a limit to how much stupidity one is prepared to tolerate. 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: bz on 12 Aug 2007 20:50 HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:6m3vb39nk0g1qh7hd7on7q5koeuac83n28(a)4ax.com: > On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 00:29:00 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:g7esb39qqfcj90atnss4m3uatmfqa2330j(a)4ax.com: >> >>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:43:04 +0000 (UTC), bz >>> <bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >>> > >>>>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. >> >>Congratulations. You 'got it'. Even though the pole seems to be moving >>wrt the mountain as seen from my car, it isn't moving at all wrt the >>mountain >> >>That was exactly my point. >> >>In the earth's frame, the light from 'that star' is NOT moving at c+v >>wrt the star, nor wrt the earth. >> >>My distance from a marker on the top of the mountain was 20.125 mi at >>the beginning and end of my experiment. >> >>My distance from the pole was [close to zero] at the beginning of the >>experiment and [almost exactly] one mile one minute later. By the way >>YOU calculate things in BaTH, the pole has moved wrt the mountain as >>measured in my car's frame of reference, and the pole is moving at 60 >>mph wrt the mountain as measured in the car's iFoR. > > Where did this nonsense originate? Henri Wilson's BaTH explanation of the Sagnac effect and his insistence on v light = c+/-v Just going back over the kinds of 'measurements' you have been making. > >>Now clearly I understand that the pole has maintained its same position >>wrt the mountain. I am just showing you what BaTH MaTH implies. >> >>Of course it doesn't make sense. It should NOT makes sense because it is >>nonsense, just like the c+v in BaTh. > > Bob, the motion of an observer cannot affect the observed. > You have posted some of the worst nonsense I have seen on this NG. > ..but then, you ARE a relativist.... Then why do you think that the opening/closing velocity of the source/light/mirror as seen in the lab frame has any effect on the light going around the ring? Why do you think that the motion around the barycenter can effect the VELOCITY of the light emitted by a body? >>>>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? >> >>Yep. I understand enough about iFoRs to understand why a source moving >>in a circle is not in an iFoR. >> >>I understand enough about iFoRs to understand that 'opening/closing' >>velocities calculated from the relative velocities of two different >>objects has nothing to do with the time it takes for the objects to >>separate or close on each other. > > Well why the hell do you think the pole moves wrt the mountain? I don't. But I was using the same kinds of procedures that yield the 'wrt' figures that you keep using 'as measured from some other iFoR'. Clearly, it doesn't work in my example and it doesn't do what you have been concluding in your examples, either. >>Clearly, by BaTH MaTH, that pole will be 60 miles away from the mountain >>in an hour. >>Just as clearly BaTH MaTH is wrong, because you and I know that neither >>the pole nor the mountain is moving. > > You are obvoiusly using a very funny version of BaTh. HW's version is kind of funny, with all the ad-hoc additions that have been glued on. Of course, I am not sure I am up to date on the latest hoc hacks, but I think I have been true to your basic ideas. >>>>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? >> >>I confess to stupidity. >>I have repeatedly tried to help you see the flaws in your reasoning. >>I admit that this is stupid. >> >>I don't believe that it is a sign of intelligence or self confidence >>to go around insulting others. > > Well, I'm sorry but there's a limit to how much stupidity one is > prepared to tolerate. Yes, but I have tried my best to understand your idea of BaTH and point out the obvious problems, without insulting you. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: bz on 12 Aug 2007 23:28
HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:404vb3ppom4i6p6qjvmvufpm45g9a8phss@ 4ax.com: > ... just calculate how the light from an orbiting star will move > towards a distant observer, AS SEEN BY A THIRD OBSERVER. The speed, as seen by the third party observer (closing speed), has no effect upon what is observed by the 'distant observer'. The distant observer sees the light arriving at c wrt that distant observer, no matter the velocity of the source or the 'distant observer'. Just like the mountain and the telephone pole I mentioned in another article, the motion, if any of the third party observer [me in my car], the relative velocity of the star and the distant observer [or the telephone pole and the mountain] are NOT the 'real velocities' observed by the 'distant observer' [or the 'telephone pole'/mountain]. Of course, the transit time for the light [or the telephone pole] depends on the relative velocity, as measured by the 'distant observer'('c') [or the telephone pole (0 mph)] and the distance between source {at time of emission} and observer {at time of arrival} with motion of source before and after emission having no effect on transit time and motion of observer before and after instant of arrival having no effect on transit time. And in the mountain/telephone pole example, the distance between the pole and the mountain is a constant 20.125 miles even though the pole has moved a mile in a minute [in relation to my car] while the mountain is still 20.125 miles away because the section of the road followed a cord of a 20.125 mile radius circle. That cord was exactly one mile long. The car's distance from the mountain did vary somewhat during the minute, but I only measured the distance to the mountain and pole at two points, giving the 'illusion' that the pole moves at 60 mph wrt the mountain [as measured in the iFoR of my car]. Do you now see why George and I have tried to tell you that wrt measurements are NOT made by a third party, they must be measured by the observer that you are reporting the motion 'wrt'. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap |