GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Henri Wilson on 13 Aug 2007 18:54 On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 00:50:09 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >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: >> >>>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? This is becoming really amusing. Paul Andersen just explained in great detail how that happens. >Why do you think that the motion around the barycenter can effect the >VELOCITY of the light emitted by a body? The 'closinbg velocity' principle used by SR in its sagnac analysis is exactly that which my BaTh program uses to produce star brightness curves. >>>>>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. I can only conclude you are very confused by all of this. >>>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. Well my theory has stood all the tests and criticism thrown at it by Dishman, Jerry and the rest. I can now produce almost any star brightness curve very accurately using a very narrow set of BaTh rules based on variable light speed.. >>>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. There are now no problems. They have all been sorted out, thanks to some constructive criticism mainly from 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 13 Aug 2007 19:02 On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 03:28:13 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >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'. That's just a silly postulate. 'Closing speed' is what the Bath relies upon to produce brighness curves. >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]. Bob, if the pole and mountain are mutually at rest, they will be mutually at rest no matter what frame is used as a reference. >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'. No Bob. To avoid willusory effects you must not rely on your eyes. You use a line of synched clocks to perfom the time measurments. The you do the calculations for what is effectively an 'instantaneous communication system'. 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 13 Aug 2007 19:23 HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:g9o1c31ien7ak6t6riualc7pi1kdeipi98(a)4ax.com: > On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 03:28:13 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>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'. > > That's just a silly postulate. > > 'Closing speed' is what the Bath relies upon to produce brighness > curves. Closing speed has no effect on transit time. The relative velocity determines the transit time and that velocity can only be measured correctly in the source or target's iFoR. It CAN be calculated correctly from any other iFoR, providing the proper transforms and composition formula are used. >>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]. > > Bob, if the pole and mountain are mutually at rest, they will be > mutually at rest no matter what frame is used as a reference. The POLE is NOT at rest in the car's iFoR, but the mountain is at rest in the car's iFoR. For a moment. Imagine that the earth vanishes suddenly. leaving only the marker that was on the mountain top, the pole and my car. Every star also vanishes but magically the illumination of the three points involved continues and the car continues it's inertial motion. I have a laser range finder and Doppler Ladar in the car with me. I measure the distance to the pole and its speed relative to the car. I measure the distance and relative speed of the marker from the mountain at the beginning and end of that one minute period previously mentioned. I then perform the Henri Wilson calculation and say that the pole is moving at 60 miles per hour wrt the mountain. I have just made the same mistake that you have been making, over and over when you come up with v'=c+/v for the light making the journey from the star to earth. > >>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'. > > No Bob. > To avoid willusory effects you must not rely on your eyes. > You use a line of synched clocks to perfom the time measurments. The you > do the calculations for what is effectively an 'instantaneous > communication system'. When have you used a line of synced clocks between the earth and a distant star? Where did you get an instantaneous communication system? What makes you think that what you are doing is any different from my pole, mountain and car example? -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+nanae(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu
From: Henri Wilson on 13 Aug 2007 21:30 On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 23:23:27 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+nanae(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:g9o1c31ien7ak6t6riualc7pi1kdeipi98(a)4ax.com: > >>>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'. >> >> That's just a silly postulate. >> >> 'Closing speed' is what the Bath relies upon to produce brighness >> curves. > >Closing speed has no effect on transit time. The relative velocity >determines the transit time and that velocity can only be measured >correctly in the source or target's iFoR. > >It CAN be calculated correctly from any other iFoR, providing the proper >transforms and composition formula are used. don't preach your religion to me Bob. I'm will not be impressed. >>>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]. >> >> Bob, if the pole and mountain are mutually at rest, they will be >> mutually at rest no matter what frame is used as a reference. > >The POLE is NOT at rest in the car's iFoR, but the mountain is at rest in >the car's iFoR. What the hell are you talking about? Have you gone raving mad? > >For a moment. Imagine that the earth vanishes suddenly. leaving only the >marker that was on the mountain top, the pole and my car. Every star also >vanishes but magically the illumination of the three points involved >continues and the car continues it's inertial motion. I have a laser range >finder and Doppler Ladar in the car with me. > >I measure the distance to the pole and its speed relative to the car. I >measure the distance and relative speed of the marker from the mountain at >the beginning and end of that one minute period previously mentioned. > >I then perform the Henri Wilson calculation and say that the pole is moving >at 60 miles per hour wrt the mountain. :) That's not how you should measure the speed of something in your frame. >I have just made the same mistake that you have been making, over and over >when you come up with v'=c+/v for the light making the journey from the >star to earth Bob, sort out what you are trying to say and come back later. >>>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'. >> >> No Bob. >> To avoid willusory effects you must not rely on your eyes. >> You use a line of synched clocks to perfom the time measurments. The you >> do the calculations for what is effectively an 'instantaneous >> communication system'. > >When have you used a line of synced clocks between the earth and a distant >star? >Where did you get an instantaneous communication system? >What makes you think that what you are doing is any different from my pole, >mountain and car example? ......an example of incomprehensible relativist logic. 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: Jeckyl on 13 Aug 2007 21:37
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:1v02c3pu2kq6pjg1m44kabu5g2vo0hdgbu(a)4ax.com... > .....an example of incomprehensible relativist logic. That is indeed your problem .. you don't understand relativity. |