Henry fumble nomination "A vertical beam in one frame is a vertical beam moving sideways in another"
Inertial
illustration of gamma factor in case of a vertical light clock seen from a
moving frame...
From: ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Moving Mirror Proves Einstein Wrong
Message-ID: <ua62k5t6e8a4vhdrh...@4ax.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 22:33:54 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.51.14.187
"I repeat. NO LIGHT BEAM moves diagonally in the moving frame. Just plot the
bloody thing like I did and see for yourself.
A vertical beam in one frame is a vertical beam moving sideways in
another...send one up the middle of a light pole and see."
Dirk Van de moortel
00cab245$0$15633$c3e...@news.astraweb.com
He is right.
http://groups.google.be/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/3ab66c8a924b181
"A beam is a collection of photons or pulses.
As seen or measured in a moving frame, each
photon or pulse follows a tilted path.
The beam itself, being defined by looking at
or measuring two of its points simultaneously (!)
remains vertical in all such moving frames."
He's fooled almost every unexperienced crakpot-debunker with it.
You're just his next victim. Make sure you don't end up with a
fumble entry of your own ;-)
Happy 2010!
Dirk Vdm
Inertial
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p%p0n.50886$pV....@newsfe23.ams2...
I actually also already replied to him with that distinction. The photons
(or wavecrests if you like) travel diagonally but at any instance the set
of current positions of them is a vertical line. It depends on whether you
define a beam as where photons are at a given time, or the path the photons
follow.
Of course, regardless his dismissal of the illustration of length
contraction in a moving light-clock by saying that is nonsense.
Inertial
I'll withdraw that particular nomination for a fumble .. as it does depend
on how you define a "beam".
However, Henry is still saying the the photons (or wavecrests) do not follow
a diagonal path in the moving frame, rather that are travelling vertically
in both frames .. which is fumble enough !!
Dirk Van de moortel
Whatever fumble he ever made, it's already in the list.
Brain too shallow to create new ones.
Dirk Vdm
Inertial
True .. just the same misunderstandings over and over again. its still funny
watching them when they happen though .. but they novelty does fade :)
Cheers
Paul B. Andersen
Ralph's confusion about the vertical beam is indeed deep.
June 2000:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics.new-theories/msg/a1b33d6c8809f87e
http://tinyurl.com/7sc4x5
September 2001:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/eaa81cff76adffac
http://tinyurl.com/7ymup3
October 2001:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4bf452fe5e4029e6
http://tinyurl.com/7eqdry
A conversation from 2001: (about the MMX)
|Paul:
| And the first part of your comment in your demonstration is correct.
| The "light beam" consisting of the instant positions of the contiguous
| photons (or "crests" or whatever you call the elements) is indeed
| vertical. But this is a trivial, obvious fact; believing it to
| be a new realization is rather pathetic.
|
|Henry:
| OBVIOUS FACT???? Yes, it's obvious now that I have demonstrated it!
| Neither you nor anyone else had a clue about it before. Don't bullshit
| me Anderson!
| Up till now everyone assumed that a full continuous beam of light
| followed a diagonal trajectory. That is plainly wrong. I have now put
| the record straight.
|
|Paul:
| You are making a giant fool of yourself.
| I should probably feel sorry for you.
|
| It is of course absolutely ridiculous to assume "that a full
| continuous beam of light followed a diagonal trajectory".
| From whence have you got the stupid idea that anybody ever
| could have believed something so utterly impossible?
|
| Look:
| /\
| / \
| / \
| / \
| / \
| / \
| S S'
|
| This is the "classical" figure of the _light path_ of
| the transverse arm. S is the source when the "light element"
| (photon or pulse or whatever you call it) is emitted.
| S' is its position when it is hit.
|
| How could S emit a continuous beam, move from S to S' while
| doing so, and have that full continuous beam of light follow
| the diagonal trajectory as drawn?
|
| Don't you see how ridiculous it is to believe that this
| impossibility was what this figure was meant to illustrate?
|
|Henry:
| I say both Michelson and SR are wrong in assuming anything
| moves diagonally at c. Michelson can be excused for believing
| this but the SR reasoning is blatantly circular.
And a conversation from 2002:
Paul B. Andersen wrote
|
|"HenriWilson" wrote:
||
|| Paul B. Andersen wrote:
|||
||| "HenriWilson"wrote:
||||
|||| Let's make sure we are talking about the same thing here Paul.
|||| 1) send a pulse of light vertically and measure its time to
|||| reach a target.
|||| 2) let an observer move past at the same instant and also
|||| measure its travel time.
|||| 3) SR says that the light pulse moves diagonally at c in the
|||| moving observer''s frame. (that is the first error)
|||| [..]
|||| It never occured to any of its followers that the basic
|||| assumption was wrong.
|||| THE PULSE DOES NOT MOVE DIAGONALLY AT C IN THE MOVING FRAME.
|||| THE PULSE MOVES VERTICALLY AT C IN ALL MOVING FRAMES.
||| Now you have screwed up thoroughly, Henry. :-)
||| This is quite different from what you have claimed previously,
||| which was trivially true.
||| Now you are stupidly wrong.
|| Because your religion says so?
||| I foresee a lot of evasive maneuvers, and a lot of running
||| away from your own statements, because there is now way
||| you will ever admit having done the giant blunder you just
||| have done. Is there? :-)
|| What blunder? Maybe you have never been able to see the facts
|| before. Your faith has always blinded you.
| Read it again, Henry.
| Think this time.
| There is no way you can fail to see your giant blunder.
|
| We are talking about the path of one short, single pulse from
| one event to another. You are claiming that this path which
| is vertical in the stationary frame also must be vertical in the
| moving frame.
| This is so obviously wrong that I refuse yo believe that
| you don't see it.
|
| The trivially true claim you have made before, and which never
| was disputed by anyone is:
| When a light source emits a continuous beam, then this
| _beam as a whole_ will appear vertical to all observers.
|
| That is something entirely different!
|
| Paul
He probably have realized since then that a short pulse
(or a light element, or photon) does indeed 'move diagonally'
but he never has come around to admit so.
The closest he has come is to state:
"Whatever is moving diagonally, isn't light."
--
Paul
Henry Wilson DSc
They ain't photons and that's too hard for dinky anyway
>Of course, regardless his dismissal of the illustration of length
>contraction in a moving light-clock by saying that is nonsense.
>
Henry Wilson...
Save the Planet....support my ONE-AND-A-HALF CHILD policy.
www.scisite.info/solution.html
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>On 05.01.2010 00:31, Inertial wrote:
>>
>> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote in
>> message news:AQu0n.22574$xC7....@newsfe06.ams2...
>>> Inertial <relat...@rest.com> wrote in message
>>> Whatever fumble he ever made, it's already in the list.
>>> Brain too shallow to create new ones.
>>
>> True .. just the same misunderstandings over and over again. its still
>> funny watching them when they happen though .. but they novelty does
>> fade :)
>>
>> Cheers
>
>Henry's confusion about the vertical beam is indeed deep.
BWAhHHHhAnhahahahhahaha!
I was waiting for little eric and wormey to join in so we could see the WHOLE
of the EPG trying to convince one another that I couldn't possibly be right...
Hahahahahhahaha! This thread is hilarious...
I wonder which synagogue pays these suckers to spend their whole 24/7 trying to
defend their favorite son's image as the world's greatest genius.
.....my grandma might have been jewish but that doesn't prevent me from
recognizing bullshit when I see it.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
news:g0bak5d5dkvtie9jp...@4ax.com...
Yes .. they are photons. They are whatever it is that light is.
The whole 'beam' travels diagonally from when it was first emitted to when
it arrives at the destination. The current positions of the
photons/waves/whatever-it-is-you-think-light-is is oriented verctically.
But it moves (as a whole) diagonally. It also grows from the bottom
(assuming the light source is continuing to emit light vertically upward in
its frame).
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 00:09:36 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <som...@somewhere.no>
> wrote:
>
>>On 05.01.2010 00:31, Inertial wrote:
>>>
>>> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> message news:AQu0n.22574$xC7....@newsfe06.ams2...
>>>> Inertial <relat...@rest.com> wrote in message
>
>>>> Whatever fumble he ever made, it's already in the list.
>>>> Brain too shallow to create new ones.
>>>
>>> True .. just the same misunderstandings over and over again. its still
>>> funny watching them when they happen though .. but they novelty does
>>> fade :)
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>
>>Henry's confusion about the vertical beam is indeed deep.
>
> BWAhHHHhAnhahahahhahaha!
An insane laugh?
> I was waiting for little eric and wormey to join in so we could see the
> WHOLE
> of the EPG trying to convince one another that I couldn't possibly be
> right...
You aren't
> Hahahahahhahaha! This thread is hilarious...
Only when there is any suggestion that you are correct. The beam is
oriented vertically and moves diagonally
> I wonder which synagogue pays these suckers to spend their whole 24/7
> trying to
> defend their favorite son's image as the world's greatest genius.
You're delusional again
> .....my grandma might have been jewish but that doesn't prevent me from
> recognizing bullshit when I see it.
Yet you fail to recognise the stench from your own ... maybe you've become
immune to it after so many years
Henry Wilson DSc
OK, for understanding my animation, you have now fallen below little eric ,
wormey, Andersen, dinky and diaper on the 'most dopey' scale. If you keep this
up, you'll fall below the chimp.
But you still haven't accepted that a light beam consists of a line of photons,
and not an area made from an infinite number of diagonal lines.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 13:07:22 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:g0bak5d5dkvtie9jp...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 09:38:51 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>
>>>>you
>>>>define a beam as where photons are at a given time, or the path the
>>>>photons
>>>>follow.
>>>
>>> They ain't photons and that's too hard for dinky anyway
>>
>>Yes .. they are photons. They are whatever it is that light is.
>>
>>The whole 'beam' travels diagonally from when it was first emitted to when
>>it arrives at the destination. The current positions of the
>>photons/waves/whatever-it-is-you-think-light-is is oriented verctically.
>>But it moves (as a whole) diagonally. It also grows from the bottom
>>(assuming the light source is continuing to emit light vertically upward
>>in
>>its frame).
>
> OK, for understanding my animation,
nothing to do with your animation
> you have now fallen below little eric ,
> wormey, Andersen, dinky and diaper on the 'most dopey' scale. If you keep
> this
> up, you'll fall below the chimp.
>
> But you still haven't accepted that a light beam consists of a line of
> photons,
Yes .. I have .. I've been telling YOU that
> and not an area made from an infinite number of diagonal lines.
I never claimed it was. you moron
The set of photons/wave/whatever that comprise/are the light are oriented
vertically at any given time, and the set moves diagonally (according to the
moving observer) as it continues to grow from the bottom for as long as the
light source continues to emit. This is very very basic stuff.
Henry Wilson DSc
So basic that nobody saw it tilI pointed it out. None of your colleagues can
see it even now.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
No .. its just common sense. The individual photons/waves/whatever take a
diagonal path. The set of them at any given time is vertically oriented and
follows a diagonal path. The only thing just moving sideways is the source.
The light and the beam have motion vertically as well (so combined that
gives you a diagonal motion).
> None of your colleagues can
> see it even now.
I'm sure they can.
Paul B. Andersen
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 00:09:36 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"<som...@somewhere.no>
> wrote:
>
>> On 05.01.2010 00:31, Inertial wrote:
>>>
>>> "Dirk Van de moortel"<dirkvand...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> message news:AQu0n.22574$xC7....@newsfe06.ams2...
>>>> Inertial<relat...@rest.com> wrote in message
>
>>>> Whatever fumble he ever made, it's already in the list.
>>>> Brain too shallow to create new ones.
>>>
>>> True .. just the same misunderstandings over and over again. its still
>>> funny watching them when they happen though .. but they novelty does
>>> fade :)
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>
>> Henry's confusion about the vertical beam is indeed deep.
I find it entertaining to read some of Ralph's old postings about this.
Here is one from 2001.
It's the ol' "boats in river" analogy of Michelson's illustration
of the light in the MMX arm which is transverse to the ether flow.
In September 2001 Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| For the analogy to be valid, the "boat beam as a whole"
| must always be vertical to any observer.
| So how do we do that, Henry?
| We must of course dispatch the boats in an upstream direction,
| e.g. with a speed component v upstream:
|
| like this:
| /
| c/
| /__
| v
|
| Drawn in the bank (arm) frame:
|
| -----------/--------------
| /
| /
| / <- v water (ether) flow
| /
| -----------|--------------
|
| In the bank frame:
| The direction in which each boat is moving is vertical,
| and the speed is sqrt(c2-v2).
| The "boat beam as a whole" is vertical!
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
| The drawing will be the same in the water frame; each
| consecutive boat is dispatched from a point to the right of
| the previous:
|
| -----------/--------------
| 1/
| 12/
| 123/
| 1234/
| -----------|--------------
| -> v (point on bank where the boats are dispatched)
|
| In the water frame:
| The path of each individual boat (marked with numbers) is diagonal,
| thus the direction in which each boat is moving is arcsin(v/c)
| right of vertical, and its speed is c.
| The "boat beam as a whole" is vertical!
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ralph Rabbidge responded:
| Herein lies the fallacy.
|
| The boats do not have to point upstream for the simple reason that
| the banks are moving horizontally at the same speed as the boat.
| This is what really happens:
| In this diagram, the river is at rest. The boat and banks (MMX apparatus)
| are moving to the left at Vr. The vertical dash represents the boat.
| The river is just a symbolic rest frame. It has no viscosity or mass
| so the boat can move unhindered in a sideways direction!
|
| ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ <--V (earth frame)
| |
| | River(at rest)
| |
| |
| |
| | ^ Vb
| ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ _|_
| 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 <- time
|
| The problem is that mathematicians usually don't have particlarly high spatial
| or mechanical abilities and don't have the observant eye of the physicist or
| engineer. Nor do they have much opportunity to experience physical/mechanical
| phenomena first hand.
| The result is that they got this whole picture completely ballsed up and we
| ended up with an erroneouos theory based on a misinterpretation.
>
> BWAhHHHhAnhahahahhahaha!
Indeed! :-)
> I was waiting for little eric and wormey to join in so we could see the WHOLE
> of the EPG trying to convince one another that I couldn't possibly be right...
Of course you are right, Ralph.
Ralph Rabbidge, with his observant eye of the physicist, and his first
hand experience with physical/mechanical phenomena realizes right away
what the rest of us idiots miss: What _really_ happens is that boats move
sideways through the water - upstream!
> Hahahahahhahaha! This thread is hilarious...
Indeed! :-)
But keep it up.
I have a huge reservoir of old Ralph Rabbidge gems.
--
Paul
Henry Wilson DSc
<paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
>On 07.01.2010 01:47, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 00:09:36 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"<som...@somewhere.no>
>> wrote:
>>>> True .. just the same misunderstandings over and over again. its still
>>>> funny watching them when they happen though .. but they novelty does
>>>> fade :)
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Henry's confusion about the vertical beam is indeed deep.
>
>I find it entertaining to read some of Henry's old postings about this.
>| Herein lies the fallacy.
>|
>| The boats do not have to point upstream for the simple reason that
>| the banks are moving horizontally at the same speed as the boat.
>| This is what really happens:
>| In this diagram, the river is at rest. The boat and banks (MMX apparatus)
>| are moving to the left at Vr. The vertical dash represents the boat.
>| The river is just a symbolic rest frame. It has no viscosity or mass
>| so the boat can move unhindered in a sideways direction!
>|
>| ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ <--V (earth frame)
>| |
>| | River(at rest)
>| |
>| |
>| |
>| | ^ Vb
>| ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ _|_
>| 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 <- time
>|
>| The problem is that mathematicians usually don't have particlarly high spatial
>| or mechanical abilities and don't have the observant eye of the physicist or
>| engineer. Nor do they have much opportunity to experience physical/mechanical
>| phenomena first hand.
>| The result is that they got this whole picture completely ballsed up and we
>| ended up with an erroneouos theory based on a misinterpretation.
>
>>
>> BWAhHHHhAnhahahahhahaha!
>
>Indeed! :-)
As I explained to inertial, in aether theory, a diagonal light beam DOES exist
in a moving light clock. That is because a spherical light beam is emitted from
the source and the ray that hits the detector in the moving frame is not the
same vertical one that hits it in the source frame. Since there is an aether,
the diagonal beam moves at c.
I have animated this truism at: www.scisite.info/movingframe.exe
Our light clock uses a very narrow and parallel laser beam...in which case
Einstein's pathetic 'aether variation' cannot and does not apply.
>> I was waiting for little eric and wormey to join in so we could see the WHOLE
>> of the EPG trying to convince one another that I couldn't possibly be right...
Henry Wilson DSc
Yes, all this is made quite clear in my animation.
>The light and the beam have motion vertically as well (so combined that
>gives you a diagonal motion).
It still gets to the top in the same time.
What moves diagonally does not move at c but at sqrt(c^2+v^2)
That should be obvious because there is no aether.
>> None of your colleagues can
>> see it even now.
>
>I'm sure they can.
PA just proved he cannot.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Nothing left to comment on
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
So you finally agree with me. The beam moves diagonally.
>>The light and the beam have motion vertically as well (so combined that
>>gives you a diagonal motion).
[snip Henry irrelevance to the subject of direction of motion]
Henry Wilson DSc
No 'light beam' moves along a particular diagonal. No light beam leans over.
The only light beam present remains vertical in all frames. So does a flag pole
>>>The light and the beam have motion vertically as well (so combined that
>>>gives you a diagonal motion).
>
>[snip Henry irrelevance to the subject of direction of motion]
>
>
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 09:39:45 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:n9kck599tq6ucin67...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 19:08:39 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>>> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>No .. its just common sense. The individual photons/waves/whatever take
>>>>a
>>>>diagonal path. The set of them at any given time is vertically oriented
>>>>and
>>>>follows a diagonal path. The only thing just moving sideways is the
>>>>source.
>>>
>>> Yes, all this is made quite clear in my animation.
>>
>>So you finally agree with me. The beam moves diagonally.
>
> No 'light beam' moves along a particular diagonal.
Yes .. it does. To see the path a physical object moves along, you take a
given point in that object (at a fixed location within it) and take a set of
the location it has over time. That corresponds to the path of the object
as a whole.
Pick any point within the beam, and it follows a diagonal path. It is
perfectly valid therefore to say that the beam itself follows that path.
The beam also grows downwards as long as the source continues to emit light.
Once the source goes off, the beam stays a fixed length and moves diagonally
in a path parallel to all the 'bits' of it.
This is incredibly basic stuff . .why the fuck are you arguing about it?
> No light beam leans over.
Never said it did
> The only light beam present remains vertical in all frames. So does a flag
> pole
That's exactly what I said