GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Henri Wilson on 14 Aug 2007 05:44 On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:37:55 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >"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. aha!...the old "you don't understand" trick ..... Sign of an idiot in action... 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 14 Aug 2007 06:27 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:n9u2c3pdleu94v6l21la9pqjs4rqvokn01(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:37:55 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >>"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. > aha!...the old "you don't understand" trick ..... You're the one who doesn't understand it .. that much is obvious. > Sign of an idiot in action... Indeed, you do show all the signs of being an idiot.
From: bz on 14 Aug 2007 07:36 HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:u3u2c3hi67er9am1fgope444sa3aum647s(a)4ax.com: >>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. > > Listen you imbecile, what you see is not the truth. That's what a > willusoin is. > [quote] aha!...the old "you don't understand" trick ..... Sign of an idiot in action... [unquote] Henri, whenever you run out of logical arguments, you resort to calling people 'imbecile' or 'idiot'. I strongly suggest that you avoid such language and ad hominem attacks as they just make you look worse. You will notice that in my analogy, the speed of light per se is not involved. Since we are dealing with a car moving at 60 mph and a marker on top of a mountain and a telephone pole that are not moving at, so there should be no 'willusoin'[sic] involved, at all. There is only the willusion that Willson understands what he is talking about to be dispersed. There was one 'mistook' deliberately built into my illustration that you have repeatedly missed. The measured speed of the telephone pole (60 mph) as seen from the iFoR of the car is NOT in the direction of the mountain marker. Trig would have told you that the pole could only move .025 miles wrt the mountain in that minute, so, at best, I can only assume that the pole will be 1.5 miles further away from the mountain, in one hour, not the 60 miles that I claimed. >>> 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? > > The pole and mountain are mutually at rest ...IN ALL FRAMES. The pole's velocity wrt the mountain and the mountain wrt the pole is a constant (value zero MPH when the math is done properly) as calculated from all frames. The light's velocity wrt the star and the light's wrt the earth is a constant (value c when the math is done properly) as calculated from all frames. In both cases, the 'closing velocity' leads to wrong results. -- 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: Eric Gisse on 14 Aug 2007 08:53 On Aug 14, 1:44 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:37:55 +1000, "Jeckyl" <no...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >"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. > > aha!...the old "you don't understand" trick ..... Is it a trick when it is true? http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SRbasedNM.html > > Sign of an idiot in action... > > 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: sean on 14 Aug 2007 09:30
On 6 Aug, 08:44, George Dishman <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > On 5 Aug, 13:45, sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 4 Aug, 18:02, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in messagenews:0jd7b31i2ov9ql32vjg4e9c73mr57r30vr(a)4ax.com... > ... > > > > George, Sean clearly understands that the rays are shown moving at c+/-v > > > > wrt the source. > > > > No, like you Sean thinks the light is launched at c > > > relative to the cource, not c+v, but he then thinks > > > that, as the source moves in a circle, the photons > > > move as if sliding along a rod locked to the source > > > so their path through space becomes something between > > > a cycloid and a sine wave like this: > > > Your too thick for words here. If classical theory > > has light leaving any source always at c then any simulation of this > > would look exactly like your simulation . > > A minor point Sean, "classical theory" should probably > be considered to be Maxwell's Equations, what we are > talking about here is a theory suggested by Ritz about > 50 years after Maxwell. Maybe what you want to talk about is Ritz. But Im not and never have. Thats your disinformation at work as usual. Ritz was just another failed theorist like Lorentz or Einstein so why should I promote his failed concept of light being a particle? Like SR it doesnt explain MMx or sagnac. What Im talking about is a model of light that is based on all the classical *wavelike * observations of light... thats wave...not a particle! ( I dont know ,Maybe not.) > > So its not me speculating > > this rod effect > > you pretend exists. Its the obvious interpretation of > > classical. > > No, the obvious interpretation is light being launched > as you say but therefter obeying the basic laws of > mechanics. What Ritz suggested was that light left the > source at c but after Newton's First Law applied, the Your obvious interpretation of a flawed theory like Ritzs maybe. But Im not suggesting that light should have particle like properties arent I? Why dont you try reading my posts for a change. How many times have I said that all the observations of light point to it being wave like and as having a propoagation speed always at c relative to the source? I never said its particle like . None of the evidence points to it having mass or particle like properties. Thats your delusion. > light would travel in a straight line at constant > speed, the speed and direction having been determined > by the conditions at the time of emission. Your version > does away with that and has the light moving in a curved > path so that it _looks_ straight from the source, even > if the source changes its motion - the light also has to > change to match the motion of the source. > > ... So your soi called incorrect sim you took 3 weeks to > > understand is actually correct. What it took you 3 weeks to realize > > that sirius doesnt move in the universe just because it doesnt move in > > your imaginary sim? > > No, I just couldn't believe that you were abandoning > Newton's First Law, I gave you the benefit of the > doubt and assumed I was misunderstanding your posts. > It turned out I wasn't, you really did mean what you > were saying, at which point there was no way to > continue the conversation scientifically since you > have discarded the basis of all mechanics. Im not abandoning Newtons first law. Newtons first law applies to mass or particles. Since when did I say that light had to be a particle? I would only be abandoning newtons first law if I claimed light was a particle and travelled at c relative to its source What Im saying is that light is a wave and travels at c relative to its source. I wonder what it is you dont understand. Do you think that a wave is a particle? So when a wave crashes on to a shoreline you must think each little water molecule travelled on its own across the ocean to reach you? This definitely isnt the case. > Henry understands Ritz's basic theory, although he > has some trouble with the concept of a 'frame' so > I'll leave it to him to try to explain how light > moves thereafter, you and he should be on the same > side so he should have more successs than I could. Just because henri doesnt like SR doesnt mean we argue the same `side`. In fact he is closer to you than me. Like you, he argues the fantasy that isnt supported by observation that light is a photon. Note I always have argued the exact opposite.. I say light is not a particle or photon but a wave only . Theres a crucial difference between particles and waves you dont understand. Or at least you dont understand the crucial difference between the non particulate medium that light travels through and other particulate mediums like water that also exhibit waves. Look at MMx . What did it tell us? It told us that the aether or vacuum medium allows the passage of light but does not seem to impede the speed of it . This means that it is not a particulate medium. The vacuum seems to not have mass. The other thing the experiment tells us is that light also does not have its speed impeded by the presence and distribution of other mass. Or at least the effect of other mass through gravity. How could it ?** MMx would not give a null result if emr obeyed the same properties as other particles. Therefore emr must not be particulate. And seeing as it does appear to exhibit wave like properties and doesnt seem to exhibit particle like properties.. Its not unreasonable to assume light is not a particle, but rather a wave isnt it? And seeing as this apparent wave like phenomena seems to also be observed to always travel at c only relative to a source(MMX) then why should it be unreasonable to thus assume that light is a wave that always travels at c relative to its source only? Thats what the observations tell us. SR makes up the need of light to travel at c in other frames but not the source??? This is ridiculous and ignores all the observations. ALL the observations tell us it only travels at c relative to the source, not at c in other frames. (**Although as we do know mass does effect the speed of light depending on the density of the medium. But I dont think that you could argue that the diferent speeds of light in different mediums was due to light observing Newtons first law.) Sean www.gammarayburst.com To see accurate simulations showing how classical theory can explain sagnac see... http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb |