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 6 Jul 2005 03:16 On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 23:14:48 -0400, David Evens <devens(a)technologist.com> wrote: >On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 00:36:55 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: >>On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 19:37:11 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >>wrote: >>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>>news:5rlbc1llr15ddr0rfaknl77mkivj5oc7c7(a)4ax.com... >>><snip uncommented text> >>> >>>> George everything in SR follows directly from the unproven first >>>> postulate. >>>> Its stupidity is exemplified by the assumption that a vertical light beam >>>> in >>>> one frame becomes a diagonal beam in another. >>>> >>>> This is plainly wrong....even in LET....and so is the whole theory. >>> >>>Sorry Henry, it is the same in Newtonian physics >>>and in BaT, and is directly observed in the form >>>of stellar aberration. Bradley in 1850 if I'm not >>>mistaken. >> >>1726....proven logically incorrect by Airy's later experiment. > >Which of those two mutually incompatible claims are you wanting to >make? You are free to read about physics Evens. You don't have to spend all your time reading kid's comics. > >>This is not a correct analogy anyway. The light beam that is diagonal in the >>telescope was actually diagonal when emitted. See section 3 of my demo, >>www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe >> >>> >>>George >>> >> >> >>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. 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: George Dishman on 6 Jul 2005 15:28 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:6gcec118mjkih6491c8s5hgv5lhokfnque(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 19:37:11 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:5rlbc1llr15ddr0rfaknl77mkivj5oc7c7(a)4ax.com... >><snip uncommented text> >> >>> George everything in SR follows directly from the unproven first >>> postulate. >>> Its stupidity is exemplified by the assumption that a vertical light >>> beam >>> in >>> one frame becomes a diagonal beam in another. >>> >>> This is plainly wrong....even in LET....and so is the whole theory. >> >>Sorry Henry, it is the same in Newtonian physics >>and in BaT, and is directly observed in the form >>of stellar aberration. Bradley in 1850 if I'm not >>mistaken. > > 1726.... Oops, thanks for the correction. It's given as 1727 here: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-05/2-05.htm > proven logically incorrect by Airy's later experiment. On the contrary, even with the water in the telescope, it still had to be angled. Only the interpretation needs consideration, not the existence of the effect. > This is not a correct analogy anyway. The light beam that is diagonal in > the > telescope was actually diagonal when emitted. See section 3 of my demo, > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe It shows that the grey lines have to be angled compared to the emitting laser for the light to pass down the tube which is precisely what we mean by aberration. Your text seems confused but the diagram illustrates the effect nicely. George
From: George Dishman on 6 Jul 2005 15:58 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:7qcec1dsnmi8odt4jvk55ph91efg8nmclp(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 19:32:56 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:9clbc1l902l73phcqv4e3869hbv8m1es41(a)4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 20:26:32 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >>> wrote: >>>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>>>news:6phub118e0sh0i9ji40kn9mr8qj586cimp(a)4ax.com... >>>>>>> SR contractions cannot be REAL physical changes. Lorentz's are. >>>>>> >>>>>>Well done, SR say that clocks cannot be physically >>>>>>affected by an aether since there isn't one. That >>>>>>is a fundamental difference from LET which relies >>>>>>entirely on aether interactions. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Yet SRians claim that GPS clocks REALLY change. >>>>>> >>>>>>The satellite clocks do not _change_ between >>>>>>ticking on the ground and ticking in orbit but >>>>>>when on the ground they can be synchronised >>>>>>with other ground clocks and when in orbit >>>>>>they have to have a frequency alteration >>>>>>applied to remain synchronised. There is a >>>>>>subtle difference there that might help you. >>>>> >>>>> The satellite clocks tick an N ticks pr orbit before launch and N +n >>>>> ticks >>>>> when >>>>> in orbit. Their rates have physically changed. >>>> >>>>Wrong again. Your efforts to convince me >>>>that you understand SR are not going well. >>>>I've left your previous attempts quoted >>>>for your review. >>> >>> Do you deny that the original observer, in the original frame and using >>> the >>> same time reference, detects a different number of ticks per orbit after >>> launch? >> >>You claimed you understand SR and I am challenging >>you to "put up or shut up" as the saying goes. Prove >>you understand the theory by telling me the SR/GR >>explanation for what is observed. > > George, the only SR explanations for anything are circular. Things happen > because Einstein said they do. OK, so you are not aware of the actual explanation. The more you say, the more you confirm what you try to deny. > Faith is the only force that could drive anyone into believing any of SR. > > On the other hand, the concept of a 'local aether frame' is very logical > and > consistent. Einstein's plagiarized equations might possibly work therein. > >> >>So far you have said "SR contractions cannot be REAL >>physical changes. > > I haven't just SAID it, George. I have PROVED it many times. Don't worry Henri, I agree with you :-) > C>v------------O1>v-----------O2>v1 > > Accelerate the clock to v1. Does it become REALLY 'physically' faster or > slower? Not in the sense that you are using 'physically', and I agree with you entirely. So now tell me the SR explanation for why it is measured to be ticking at a different rate to one that has remainded at the original velocity. You have claimed you understand SR, let's see it. <snip> > I understand SR perfectly well. Go ahead then, tell everyone the answer to the question. >>Wrong again, there is no aether in SR. That's >>just yet another confirmation that you are not >>aware of the SR explanation. > > There IS an aether in SR ..but is is heavily disguised. Nope, wrong yet again. Why don't you just admit you have no idea? Either that or go get a book and copy the answer here just to prove me wrong. You don't even have to understand a word, just copy the text. >>Or to put it another way, you admit don't know >>understand what explanation SR provides. > > An unproven postulate is hardly an explanation George. Of course not, so now you know that the explanation isn't one of the postulates. Does that help? >>It's >>not unusual, the vast majority of the population >>of our planet is ignorant of very existence of >>relativity, but you shouldn't get upset when >>people point out that you are one of them, >>especially when it has clearly been your own >>choice not to find out the basis of SR. > > This of course is the SRians last ditch stand when in a tight corner. > "you don't understand SR" Now how many times have we heard that? So prove me wrong. So far you have given a wrong answer in every post for about the last three weeks. >>What really puzzles me is why you have no >>curiousity as to why tens of thousands of >>people do consider it perfectly credible, >>logical and even obvious while you don't >>even know what it is. You didn't answer, but then there's no reason why you should, I'm just curious. > George, if you start with any postulate, you can set up a theory that is > consistent with that postulate. It may be very impressive and involve very > advanced maths. > That doesn't justify its existence. > > For instance take my "equal density theory" > > This theory is based on the simple postulate that the density of matter in > the > universe is constant throughout. Space simply curves and varies in scale > to > make it so. > This is a perfectly sound postulate and a very neat theory can follow from > it, > explaining refractive index amongst other things. > > Do you understand it, George? You claimed you understood SR, Henri, I have never claimed to understand your "equal density theory". Given the number of grossly wrong answers you have suggested so far, you have succeeded in convincing me that you don't understand it at all and I don't think anyone else in these groups would give you the benefit of the doubt either. George
From: Henri Wilson on 6 Jul 2005 18:43 On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:28:18 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:6gcec118mjkih6491c8s5hgv5lhokfnque(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 19:37:11 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>>news:5rlbc1llr15ddr0rfaknl77mkivj5oc7c7(a)4ax.com... >>><snip uncommented text> >>> >>>> George everything in SR follows directly from the unproven first >>>> postulate. >>>> Its stupidity is exemplified by the assumption that a vertical light >>>> beam >>>> in >>>> one frame becomes a diagonal beam in another. >>>> >>>> This is plainly wrong....even in LET....and so is the whole theory. >>> >>>Sorry Henry, it is the same in Newtonian physics >>>and in BaT, and is directly observed in the form >>>of stellar aberration. Bradley in 1850 if I'm not >>>mistaken. >> >> 1726.... > >Oops, thanks for the correction. It's given >as 1727 here: > >http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-05/2-05.htm > >> proven logically incorrect by Airy's later experiment. > >On the contrary, even with the water in the >telescope, it still had to be angled. Only >the interpretation needs consideration, not >the existence of the effect. Aberration is not the same as what happens to the beam in a light clock or MMX. In the former, the beam that runs down the centre of the telescope was angled originally. If the telescope is pointed exactly perpendicularly, a star whose image appears at the focal centre will in reality be displaced slightly sideways because the star emits a sphericallly. Draw the bloody thing. > >> This is not a correct analogy anyway. The light beam that is diagonal in >> the >> telescope was actually diagonal when emitted. See section 3 of my demo, >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe > >It shows that the grey lines have to be angled >compared to the emitting laser for the light to >pass down the tube which is precisely what we >mean by aberration. Your text seems confused >but the diagram illustrates the effect nicely. That colour problem occurs with some computers. I don't know why. I'll have to change it to black and white. > >George > 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 6 Jul 2005 18:47
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:58:55 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:7qcec1dsnmi8odt4jvk55ph91efg8nmclp(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 19:32:56 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >>> >>>You claimed you understand SR and I am challenging >>>you to "put up or shut up" as the saying goes. Prove >>>you understand the theory by telling me the SR/GR >>>explanation for what is observed. >> >> George, the only SR explanations for anything are circular. Things happen >> because Einstein said they do. > >OK, so you are not aware of the actual explanation. >The more you say, the more you confirm what you try >to deny. > >> Faith is the only force that could drive anyone into believing any of SR. >> >> On the other hand, the concept of a 'local aether frame' is very logical >> and >> consistent. Einstein's plagiarized equations might possibly work therein. >> >>> >>>So far you have said "SR contractions cannot be REAL >>>physical changes. >> >> I haven't just SAID it, George. I have PROVED it many times. > >Don't worry Henri, I agree with you :-) > >> C>v------------O1>v-----------O2>v1 >> >> Accelerate the clock to v1. Does it become REALLY 'physically' faster or >> slower? > >Not in the sense that you are using 'physically', >and I agree with you entirely. So now tell me >the SR explanation for why it is measured to be >ticking at a different rate to one that has >remainded at the original velocity. You have >claimed you understand SR, let's see it. > ><snip> > >> I understand SR perfectly well. > >Go ahead then, tell everyone the answer to >the question. > >>>Wrong again, there is no aether in SR. That's >>>just yet another confirmation that you are not >>>aware of the SR explanation. >> >> There IS an aether in SR ..but is is heavily disguised. > >Nope, wrong yet again. Why don't you just >admit you have no idea? Either that or go >get a book and copy the answer here just >to prove me wrong. You don't even have to >understand a word, just copy the text. > >>>Or to put it another way, you admit don't know >>>understand what explanation SR provides. >> >> An unproven postulate is hardly an explanation George. > >Of course not, so now you know that the >explanation isn't one of the postulates. >Does that help? > >>>It's >>>not unusual, the vast majority of the population >>>of our planet is ignorant of very existence of >>>relativity, but you shouldn't get upset when >>>people point out that you are one of them, >>>especially when it has clearly been your own >>>choice not to find out the basis of SR. >> >> This of course is the SRians last ditch stand when in a tight corner. >> "you don't understand SR" Now how many times have we heard that? > >So prove me wrong. So far you have given a >wrong answer in every post for about the >last three weeks. Well, George, I have just proved GR wrong. Read my thread "GPS GR correrction myth" let me know if you can find a way out of that one :) > >>>What really puzzles me is why you have no >>>curiousity as to why tens of thousands of >>>people do consider it perfectly credible, >>>logical and even obvious while you don't >>>even know what it is. > >You didn't answer, but then there's no reason >why you should, I'm just curious. > >> George, if you start with any postulate, you can set up a theory that is >> consistent with that postulate. It may be very impressive and involve very >> advanced maths. >> That doesn't justify its existence. >> >> For instance take my "equal density theory" >> >> This theory is based on the simple postulate that the density of matter in >> the >> universe is constant throughout. Space simply curves and varies in scale >> to >> make it so. >> This is a perfectly sound postulate and a very neat theory can follow from >> it, >> explaining refractive index amongst other things. >> >> Do you understand it, George? > >You claimed you understood SR, Henri, I have >never claimed to understand your "equal density >theory". Given the number of grossly wrong >answers you have suggested so far, you have >succeeded in convincing me that you don't >understand it at all and I don't think anyone >else in these groups would give you the benefit >of the doubt either. > >George > 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. |