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: bz on 24 Aug 2005 02:03 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:of7ng1pt0580h8mi08hn1uj1e8l3i30253@ 4ax.com: > My graphs will probably remain upside down though.....brightness increasing > downwards. > Please put in a switch that lets us invert them so they can be properly compared to magnitude graphs. Also, as previously requested, a distance limit stopping point so we don't have to keep guessing at when to hit the button to get a precise distance. -- 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
From: Paul B. Andersen on 24 Aug 2005 03:55 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:28:42 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:18:48 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Henri Wilson wrote: > > >>>>>The idea is indeed very stupid...and it is obviously hard for you to accept the >>>>>fact that such stupidity underlies your own belief system. >>>>>You have ben fooled Paul, by the world's greater ever hoaxer. >>>> >>>>So you know the idea: >>>>"the invariance of the speed of light >>>>implies the existence of a preferred frame" >>>>is stupid, but you claim it anyway? >>> >>> >>>Don't lie. I do not claim any universal preferred frame exists. >>>I am one of the few TRUE relativists here. >> >>Can't you read? >>I did NOT say that you claim a preferred frame exists. >> >>I said you claim that invariance of the speed of light >>_implies_ that a preferred frame exist. >>Which you do. >> >>And which is an idea so stupid that only a full blown >>crank like you can claim it. > > > Look Paul, the 'invariance of light speed' is a meaningless expression anyway. > Do you mean invariance wrrt the source? Do you mean invariance wrt little > planet Earth? Do you mean invariance of light's 'closing speed' between two > objects? If you still don't know what 'invariance of the speed of light' means, any further explanation would be futile. It simply is beyond you. > To me, the claim that light speed wrt all observers is invariant is a sign of > some kind of mental disorder akin to acute self-delusion. Your inability to understand it is noted - a long time ago. > However the claim doesn't necessarily require a preferred frame. Distorting > space will achieve the same result. > Trouble is, the same space will need an infinite number of distortions to > accommodate all events that take place in it. You are babbling again. Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 24 Aug 2005 18:03 On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 09:55:04 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:28:42 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >> >>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>> >>>>On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:18:48 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >> >>>>>>The idea is indeed very stupid...and it is obviously hard for you to accept the >>>>>>fact that such stupidity underlies your own belief system. >>>>>>You have ben fooled Paul, by the world's greater ever hoaxer. >>>>> >>>>>So you know the idea: >>>>>"the invariance of the speed of light >>>>>implies the existence of a preferred frame" >>>>>is stupid, but you claim it anyway? >>>> >>>> >>>>Don't lie. I do not claim any universal preferred frame exists. >>>>I am one of the few TRUE relativists here. >>> >>>Can't you read? >>>I did NOT say that you claim a preferred frame exists. >>> >>>I said you claim that invariance of the speed of light >>>_implies_ that a preferred frame exist. >>>Which you do. > >> >>>And which is an idea so stupid that only a full blown >>>crank like you can claim it. >> >> >> Look Paul, the 'invariance of light speed' is a meaningless expression anyway. >> Do you mean invariance wrrt the source? Do you mean invariance wrt little >> planet Earth? Do you mean invariance of light's 'closing speed' between two >> objects? > >If you still don't know what 'invariance of the speed of light' means, >any further explanation would be futile. > >It simply is beyond you. I know what it means according to LET. I know that SR is just an unsubstantiated extension of LET. >> To me, the claim that light speed wrt all observers is invariant is a sign of >> some kind of mental disorder akin to acute self-delusion. > >Your inability to understand it is noted - a long time ago. > >> However the claim doesn't necessarily require a preferred frame. Distorting >> space will achieve the same result. >> Trouble is, the same space will need an infinite number of distortions to >> accommodate all events that take place in it. > >You are babbling again. way above YOUR head. > >Paul 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 24 Aug 2005 18:11 On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 06:03:31 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:of7ng1pt0580h8mi08hn1uj1e8l3i30253@ >4ax.com: > >> My graphs will probably remain upside down though.....brightness >increasing >> downwards. >> > >Please put in a switch that lets us invert them so they can be properly >compared to magnitude graphs. OK. I can do that ...with a fair bit of effort. I accept 'upside down' is a nuisance. > >Also, as previously requested, a distance limit stopping point so we don't >have to keep guessing at when to hit the button to get a precise distance. You can set the 'starting distance' with a combo box. Just plugin the distance you want and click the 'brightness curve' button. The program accepts that figure and will give you the appropriate curves. 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: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 24 Aug 2005 18:15
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:5hrpg1pnuunap0aov21l4qauser0m71p4u(a)4ax.com... | On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 09:55:04 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" | <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: | | >Henri Wilson wrote: | >> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:28:42 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" | >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: | >> | >> | >>>Henri Wilson wrote: | >>> | >>>>On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:18:48 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" | >>>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: | >>>> | >>>> | >>>> | >>>>>Henri Wilson wrote: | >> | >> | >>>>>>The idea is indeed very stupid...and it is obviously hard for you to accept the | >>>>>>fact that such stupidity underlies your own belief system. | >>>>>>You have ben fooled Paul, by the world's greater ever hoaxer. | >>>>> | >>>>>So you know the idea: | >>>>>"the invariance of the speed of light | >>>>>implies the existence of a preferred frame" | >>>>>is stupid, but you claim it anyway? | >>>> | >>>> | >>>>Don't lie. I do not claim any universal preferred frame exists. | >>>>I am one of the few TRUE relativists here. | >>> | >>>Can't you read? | >>>I did NOT say that you claim a preferred frame exists. | >>> | >>>I said you claim that invariance of the speed of light | >>>_implies_ that a preferred frame exist. | >>>Which you do. | > >> | >>>And which is an idea so stupid that only a full blown | >>>crank like you can claim it. | >> | >> | >> Look Paul, the 'invariance of light speed' is a meaningless expression anyway. | >> Do you mean invariance wrrt the source? Do you mean invariance wrt little | >> planet Earth? Do you mean invariance of light's 'closing speed' between two | >> objects? | > | >If you still don't know what 'invariance of the speed of light' means, | >any further explanation would be futile. | > | >It simply is beyond you. | | I know what it means according to LET. | I know that SR is just an unsubstantiated extension of LET. | | >> To me, the claim that light speed wrt all observers is invariant is a sign of | >> some kind of mental disorder akin to acute self-delusion. | > | >Your inability to understand it is noted - a long time ago. | > | >> However the claim doesn't necessarily require a preferred frame. Distorting | >> space will achieve the same result. | >> Trouble is, the same space will need an infinite number of distortions to | >> accommodate all events that take place in it. | > | >You are babbling again. > >> Paul haven't understood my experiment at all. > >>You are babbling. > >I was in Greece this summer. > >I didn't understand a word. > >They were babbling. > >Paul Androcles |