OWLS is not equal to c
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus?
Next: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
From: Henri Wilson on 9 Jun 2005 05:28 On 6 Jun 2005 20:56:06 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 6 Jun 2005 04:29:33 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >You ARE a complete failure. >> >> Silly boy! > >Why do you automatically assume that I'm male? Like my real >name, "Jerry" is gender-ambiguous. It is a common diminutive >for Geraldine. Ever heard of supermodel Jerry Hall? > >Pig. We don't have any girls here. They can't understand physics. > >Jerry HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Henri Wilson on 9 Jun 2005 05:29 On 6 Jun 2005 21:33:49 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 6 Jun 2005 04:29:33 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> >(sigh) >> >Download Filipas and Fox and -read- it. All of your objections >> >are answered. You have nothing to stand on. >> >http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/Filippas_Fox_1964.pdf >> >> You don't really think that experiment proves anything >> do you? It contains so many asumptions it could produce >> any answers you can name. > >>From the nature of your response, it is obvious that >you are incapable of providing valid criticism of the >experimental setup or understanding the math. Hence >you resort to rhetoric, hoping that nobody notices >the complete emptiness of your words. SRians are desperate for anything that might even remotely support their illogical pseudo-aether theory. > >Jerry HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Henri Wilson on 9 Jun 2005 05:32 On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 23:50:11 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in >news:v53en2-mnu.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net: > >> In sci.physics, bz >> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> >> wrote >> on Mon, 6 Jun 2005 11:44:49 +0000 (UTC) >> <Xns966D44A70B5E5WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139>: >>> H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>> news:30a8a11lhguqj8peohbfp0c25auhismk4r(a)4ax.com: >>> >>>> According to the BaT, light will move at c wrt every component in the >>>> apparatus and therefore the travel time in both directions will be the >>>> same. >>>> >>> >>> how can it do so when different components are traveling at different >>> velocities wrt the apparatus. For example, in a paricle accelerator. >>> >>> I thought BaT said light will move at c wrt the emitting body >>> irrespective of the motions of anything else in the universe. >> >> No, BaT merely says light moves at c *only* with respect to the >> emitting body *at* the point of the emission. > >ok. > >> After that, the >> photon slows down, speeds up, changes direction, etc. like >> any other Galilean particle moving at speed c, when encounting >> gravitational fields and moving observers. > >How would you compare this to SR/GR photons? SG/GR says absolutely nothing about photons when they aren't being observed. > >> In one example, if hot gasses swirling around a black hole are >> emitting at c, we would measure the photons moving slower than c. >> >> However, MMX cannot measure this change. (It wasn't designed to.) > >Henri keeps saying that photons emitted by particles moving near c in a >particle accelerator won't show c'=c+v because of [insert hand waving >here]. > >I want a real explaination, not hand waving. I don't want to discuss particles in accelerators or their decay products. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Henri Wilson on 9 Jun 2005 06:02 On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 02:49:37 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:p6q9a1h563g91m2lbdellnbloku9p9pt5r(a)4ax.com: > >> The above statement refered to experiments in which all components are >> mutually at rest. > >"wrt every component in the apparatus" doesn't seem to make that point very >clearly. In fact it would seem to imply the opposite. > >>>I thought BaT said light will move at c wrt the emitting body >>>irrespective of the motions of anything else in the universe. >> >> It does. >> What's wrong with that? > >It means that photons emitted by moving particles in an accelerator should >move at c+v where v is the velocity of the particle, irrespective of the >motion of anything else in the universe, including so called EM frames, >whatever those are. Look bz, particle accelerators don't contain much ordinary matter but they are filled with 'fields' (whatever they are). I don't want to speculate about what might happen when a particle of matter (whatever that is) happens to change into something else. AS I have sais\d many times, if I hit a golf ball at v and it breaks into two in flight, the two pieces continue on at v, initially. Anything might happen when a particle breaks into EM. > >> Incidentally, a decaying particle cannot be assumed to constitute a >> normal source. > >It can under SR/GR. If it can't under BaT, that is a strike against BaT. But it doesn't necessarily 'decay'. It merely changes from one form to another. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: bz on 9 Jun 2005 10:04
H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:983ga157jop9hl561fpd4se2s67aadcaii(a)4ax.com: > On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 02:49:37 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:p6q9a1h563g91m2lbdellnbloku9p9pt5r(a)4ax.com: >> > >>> The above statement refered to experiments in which all components are >>> mutually at rest. >> >>"wrt every component in the apparatus" doesn't seem to make that point >>very clearly. In fact it would seem to imply the opposite. >> >>>>I thought BaT said light will move at c wrt the emitting body >>>>irrespective of the motions of anything else in the universe. >>> >>> It does. >>> What's wrong with that? >> >>It means that photons emitted by moving particles in an accelerator >>should move at c+v where v is the velocity of the particle, irrespective >>of the motion of anything else in the universe, including so called EM >>frames, whatever those are. > > Look bz, particle accelerators don't contain much ordinary matter but > they are filled with 'fields' (whatever they are). > I don't want to speculate about what might happen when a particle of > matter (whatever that is) happens to change into something else. Stars are filled with fields and no 'ordinary matter', yet you speculate about what might happen in them. > > AS I have said many times, if I hit a golf ball at v and it breaks > into two in flight, the two pieces continue on at v, initially. > Anything might happen when a particle breaks into EM. We have some pretty good ideas what DOES happen. We got those ideas from watching what happens in places INCLUDING accelerators. >>> Incidentally, a decaying particle cannot be assumed to constitute a >>> normal source. >> >>It can under SR/GR. If it can't under BaT, that is a strike against BaT. > > But it doesn't necessarily 'decay'. It merely changes from one form to > another. 'Decay' is usually used to refer to the transition of an excited atom/molecule to a lower level of excitement. This often involves the emission of a photon. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap |