Minkowski Metric.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Infinite vs. instant
Next: It's a heatwave
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 2 Jun 2010 19:14 On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 13:24:44 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jun 2, 1:15�pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 2, 4:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Jun 2, 12:30 am, Koobee Wublee wrote: >> > > If light is considered as classical particles that obey the principle >> > > of relativity, then it is true that the null results of the MMX can be >> > > explained away as so. �We have been through this many times over. >> > > <shrug> >> >> > Yes, that is so. However, this does not mean that this explanation is >> > IDENTICAL to the explanation put forward by relativity. >> >> But it is. �<shrug> > >But it's not. <shrug> Explicitly so. <shrug> >It's a remarkable statement of stupidity on your part that if two >DISTINCT models make the same prediction in a single experiment, then >this means that the two models are not distinct after all. > >> >> > Henri's claim >> > was that relativity itself uses the ballistic nature of light in its >> > explanation, and that is a flatly incorrect statement. >> >> Henri is correct. �<shrug> > >Why, no, no he's not. <shrug> He is. ...as always.... Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 2 Jun 2010 19:16 On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 14:00:30 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jun 2, 1:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 2, 1:15 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: > >> > But it is. <shrug> >> >> But it's not. <shrug> Explicitly so. <shrug> >> It's a remarkable statement of stupidity on your part that if two >> DISTINCT models make the same prediction in a single experiment, then >> this means that the two models are not distinct after all. > >The stupidity is your very own to conclude that. We have the >following facts. > >** The ballistic theory of light satisfies the principle of >relativity. > >** The ballistic theory of light explains the null results of the >MMX. > >** The null results of the MMX falsify the principle of relativity. > >** Electromagnetism disproves the principle of relativity because of >the Aether. > >That does not mean the ballistic theory of light is correct. <shrug> > >> > Henri is correct. <shrug> >> >> Why, no, no he's not. <shrug> > >He is correct in stating the first two points above. It is all in the >mathematics. Perhaps, you need to go back studying them after being >unemployed. <shrug> > >> > The self-proclaimed professor does not understand relativity. <shrug> >> >> Ah. But then again, the self-styled retired engineer claims to be the >> only living creature that does understand relativity. <shrug> > >Your truly cannot claim to be the only one who understand relativity. >You see. Relativity has been around for more than 400 years. To >claim so would be a lie. <shrug> > >However, yours truly can rightly claim to be the only one after >Riemann to understand the curvature business well. You know. Metric >not a tensor, the field equations yield many solutions (each one >unique and independent of the others), etc. <applaud> > >> > There are actually an infinite numbers of transformations that would >> > satisfy the null results of the MMX. >> >> Actually, no. As I've just said. <shrug> > >** dt� = k (dt � v dx / c^2) >** dx� = k (dx � v dt) >** dy� = k sqrt(1 � v^2 / c^2) dy >** dz� = k sqrt(1 � v^2 / c^2) dz > >Any value of k (except null) will satisfy the null results of the MMX >and falsify the principle of relativity. <shrug> There is no evidence of an aether or any 'contractions'. So give it up! >Don�t credit me on that one. Lorentz was the first to discover all >these infinite solutions to explain the null results of the MMX other >than the Galilean transform of course. <shrug> > Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 2 Jun 2010 19:27 On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 16:11:48 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >On 01.06.2010 00:36, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> On Mon, 31 May 2010 11:44:39 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >>> >>> When you realized that your analysis was dead wrong, >>> THEN you claimed that "nobody knows what the BaTH predicts for >>> the Fizeau's experiment". >>> >>> Some theory, eh? :-) >> >> I don't have a theory of RI yet for the smple reason that the required data is >> unavailable. > >Quite. >Some theory, who isn't 'yet' able to predict anything for an experiment >which was performed 159 years ago! :-) Well maybe assistant professor Andersen can tell me all about the phase lag that occurs when a photon is absorbed and re-emitted by an atom. That's what I need to know to formulate a BaTh theory on RI. >But a theory which can't predict anything, can't be falsified, >and that's a good thing for a theory of physics. >Right? :-) The theory predicts the only known ballistic effect that can be assessed....variable star curves.... >>>> On the other hand, as Renshaw showed, Fizeau clearly refutes Einstein's silly >>>> theory. >>> >>> Ah. Renshaw. :-) >> >> Yes, did you read it? He points out that wavelength decreases when light slows >> in a medium. Cnsequently, Fizeau annihilates SR. > >Why do you think the obvious triviality that the wavelengths are >shorter in water than in air should 'annihilate SR'? > >"Wavelengths decreases when light slows in a medium. > Consequently, Fizeau annihilates SR." > >Good grief, how stupid! :-) The standard SR explanation doesn't take this into account. >Yet another demonstration of your serious reading comprehension >problem. Renshaw's argument for why the 'conventional' way of >calculating the fringe shift is wrong, is a different one. >And it is hopelessly wrong, as is pointed out numerous times in this NG. > >But you don't know what it is, do you? :-) >Read it again, and see if you can spot it: >http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm He introduces the wavelength shift...which refutes the SR analysis. >>> I love it when you embrace a theory which is wildly different >>>from your own just because it claims SR to be wrong. >>> Remember this? >>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Respectibility.html >>> and this? >>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Belief.html >>> >>> >>> It's very simple, Henry. >>> If we write the speed of light in moving water as c/n + xv >>> Michelson measured x = 0.434 � 0.02 >>> >>> SR predicts x = 0.438, which is in the middle of the error bars. >> >> .....only if it ignores wavelength shift. > >Don't be silly, >There are two ways to calculate the phase difference in an interferometer. >1. By calculating the difference in the transit times of the two beams. >2. By calculating the difference in the number of wavelengths in the two beams. > >In the former method the wavelength doesn't come into the calculation. >In the latter method it is obviously the difference in wavelengths >that make the number of wavelengths different. >Both give the same result. How about doing what Renshaw suggested: 3) By calculating the difference in the transit times of the two beams AND the difference in the number of wavelengths in the two beams. >You can see both calculations here: >http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/FizeauByMM.pdf Now add the two. >>> So if you still claim that Fizeau falsifies SR, >>> then you will have to show that SR really predicts another x than the above. >>> >>> Can you do that, Henry? >>> If you can't, will you then retract your claim? > >The challenge stands: > >Note that the following doesn't depend on theory: >If we write the speed of light in moving water as c/n + xv >then the fringe shift in M&M's repetition of Fizeau will be: > 4.L.v.n^2.x/lambda.c > >Do you refute this Henry? No, there is a phase lag at every interaction between a photon and an atom. >If so, please show what the error is, and write the equation >you think is correct. (4.L.v.n^2.x/lambda.c) multiplied by 'w',...another 'phase lag' factor named after me. Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: spudnik on 2 Jun 2010 19:47 ah, the ballistical theory of the massless rock o'light. Young's two-pinhole experiment, using the light of Sun, definitively destoyed Newton's "theory" of corpuscles, showing that *all* properties of light are wavey, waving throught the medium of space. the only possible exception, if you insist upon looking at it in that way, is the photoelectrical effect, in the device that detects the wave/quantum/"photon" -- because herr doktor-professor Einstein *called* it, that. thusNso: and, of course, they have the best "general interest" science mag., that is not dumbed-down like Sci.Am. etc. ad vomitorium, and includes original resaerch. http://21stcenturysciencetech.com -- click on Articles. thusNso: well, I've got to say, it's hard to see a cake as a wave. y'know, a three-dimensional wave, like the 2D wave that is made, when dropping a stone in the water. thusNso: ladies & germs, nature abhors a refractive index equal to 1.0000..., and I thank Pascal for his dyscovery of it, and damn Einstein for his damn "photon" reification of Newton's God-am corpuscle -- so, let's get on with it! thusNso: Michelson and Morley did not get no results, as has been amply demonstrated by follow-on researchers, and documented by "surfer" herein. Minkowsi's silly statement about time & space --then, he died-- has been hobbling minds, ever since; it is just a phase-space, clearly elaborated with quaternions (and the language of "vectors" that Hamilton created thereby .-) thusNso: what *mathematica* is, is not just a "visualization programme" from the Wolframites! http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/LightMill/light-mill.html Dear Editor; The staff report on plastic bags, given when SM considered a ban, before, refused to list the actual fraction of a penny, paid for them by bulk users like grocers & farmers at markets. Any rational EIR would show that, at a fraction of a gram of "fossilized fuel (TM)" per bag, a) they require far less energy & materiel than a paper bag, and b) that recycling them is impractical, beyond reusing the clean ones for carrying & garbage, as many responsible folks do. As I stated at that meeting, perhaps coastal communities *should* ban them -- except at farmers' markets -- because they are such efficient examples of "tensional integrity," that they can clog stormdrains by catching all sorts of leaves, twigs & paper. But, a statewide ban is just too much of an environmental & economic burden. --Stop British Petroleum's capNtrade rip-off; tell your legislators, a tiny tax on carbon could achieve the result, instead of "let the arbitrageurs/hedgies/daytrippers make as much money as they can on CO2 credits!" http://wlym.com
From: eric gisse on 2 Jun 2010 20:16
...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 13:24:44 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>On Jun 2, 1:15 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Jun 2, 4:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > On Jun 2, 12:30 am, Koobee Wublee wrote: >>> > > If light is considered as classical particles that obey the >>> > > principle of relativity, then it is true that the null results of >>> > > the MMX can be explained away as so. We have been through this many >>> > > times over. <shrug> >>> >>> > Yes, that is so. However, this does not mean that this explanation is >>> > IDENTICAL to the explanation put forward by relativity. >>> >>> But it is. <shrug> >> >>But it's not. <shrug> Explicitly so. <shrug> >>It's a remarkable statement of stupidity on your part that if two >>DISTINCT models make the same prediction in a single experiment, then >>this means that the two models are not distinct after all. >> >>> >>> > Henri's claim >>> > was that relativity itself uses the ballistic nature of light in its >>> > explanation, and that is a flatly incorrect statement. >>> >>> Henri is correct. <shrug> >> >>Why, no, no he's not. <shrug> > > He is. ...as always.... It must be nice to be that self confident about subjects which you know nothing. > > > Henry Wilson... > > .......Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space. |