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: David Evens on 8 Jul 2005 03:36 On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 07:16:33 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: >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. So you freely admit that you don't have any idea what claims you made. >>>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 never 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 never done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: George Dishman on 9 Jul 2005 07:02 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:lonoc11hf2jak80a4ivpkr0ntlv41e8oug(a)4ax.com... > 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... .... >>> 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 :) You tell me Henri, you're the one objecting to being told you don't understand the theory. If you can't resolve the problem yourself, we have to infer you don't understand the theory well enough. In fact I pointed out the reason for your error last time you posted it. It really is incredibly obvious but if you are stuck with a Newtonian mindset and are incapable of working with SR/GR then you won't see it. The ball remains in your court. George
From: Henri Wilson on 9 Jul 2005 21:36 On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 12:02:25 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:lonoc11hf2jak80a4ivpkr0ntlv41e8oug(a)4ax.com... >> 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... >... >>>> 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 :) > >You tell me Henri, you're the one objecting >to being told you don't understand the theory. >If you can't resolve the problem yourself, >we have to infer you don't understand the >theory well enough. > >In fact I pointed out the reason for your >error last time you posted it. It really >is incredibly obvious but if you are stuck >with a Newtonian mindset and are incapable >of working with SR/GR then you won't see it. > >The ball remains in your court. George, when the clock is launched, both obserevrs agree that its rate has increased by the same amount. GR is incompatible with that finding....plain and simple... > >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: George Dishman on 10 Jul 2005 07:29 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:7nu0d1tr26tqrt1auroiluv6vuv5mleebj(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 12:02:25 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:lonoc11hf2jak80a4ivpkr0ntlv41e8oug(a)4ax.com... >>> 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... >>... >>>>> 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 :) >> >>You tell me Henri, you're the one objecting >>to being told you don't understand the theory. >>If you can't resolve the problem yourself, >>we have to infer you don't understand the >>theory well enough. >> >>In fact I pointed out the reason for your >>error last time you posted it. It really >>is incredibly obvious but if you are stuck >>with a Newtonian mindset and are incapable >>of working with SR/GR then you won't see it. >> >>The ball remains in your court. > > George, when the clock is launched, both obserevrs agree that its rate has > increased by the same amount. GR is incompatible with that > finding....plain and > simple... Not only is it compatible, GR accurately predicted the amount of the effect and the first satellites had the compensation built in before launch as a result. What is "plain and simple" is that you cannot think outside the Newtonian box and consequently have never grasped the change that relativity introduces. You are stuck with a Lorentzian parody of SR and assume everyone else must share your limitation. George
From: sue jahn on 10 Jul 2005 07:27
"George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:dar0g3$1as$1(a)news.freedom2surf.net... > > "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message > news:7nu0d1tr26tqrt1auroiluv6vuv5mleebj(a)4ax.com... > > On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 12:02:25 +0100, "George Dishman" > > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > > wrote: > > > >> > >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message > >>news:lonoc11hf2jak80a4ivpkr0ntlv41e8oug(a)4ax.com... > >>> 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... > >>... > >>>>> 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 :) > >> > >>You tell me Henri, you're the one objecting > >>to being told you don't understand the theory. > >>If you can't resolve the problem yourself, > >>we have to infer you don't understand the > >>theory well enough. > >> > >>In fact I pointed out the reason for your > >>error last time you posted it. It really > >>is incredibly obvious but if you are stuck > >>with a Newtonian mindset and are incapable > >>of working with SR/GR then you won't see it. > >> > >>The ball remains in your court. > > > > George, when the clock is launched, both obserevrs agree that its rate has > > increased by the same amount. GR is incompatible with that > > finding....plain and > > simple... > > Not only is it compatible, GR accurately predicted > the amount of the effect and the first satellites > had the compensation built in before launch as a > result. Henri has discovered "fools gold" with the revelation that "in flight" red/blue shift is not a valid interpretation of experiments like Pound-Rebka or Vessot. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017 Altho' even Einstein tho't it crucial to the validity of his field equations, most students of the theory today are in agreement that the "falling photon" represents the good professor having a bad hair day. ( did he have any good hair days?) http://www.tomassonhistory.com/Backgrounds/Einstein.jpg :o) Both Newton mechanics and Einstein's field equations predict that oscillating masses should slow as a ponderous body robs their energy. If there is more than that involved, It may show up in work like: http://www.phys.psu.edu/~kgibble/space_clock.html Till then, Henri will keep us on our toes. :o) Sue... > > What is "plain and simple" is that you cannot think > outside the Newtonian box and consequently have > never grasped the change that relativity introduces. > You are stuck with a Lorentzian parody of SR and > assume everyone else must share your limitation. > > George > > |