Two Moving Mirrors Highlight The Stupidity of SR.
Henry Wilson DSc
S--------pulse->--------------0.9c<M1---0.1c<M2
The mirrors are moving towards the source at vastly different speeds.
The source emits pulses and the experiment is arranged so that both mirrors are
adjacent when a pulse reaches them.
By what stretch of the imagination can any relativist claim that the pulse
bounces of the faster mirror at a much smaller speed (wrt that mirror) than the
slower mirror (wrt that mirror), even though its incident speed is much higher
(wrt M1)?
This is what we have.
Pulse closes on M1 at 1.9c and departs at 0.1c.
Pulse closes on M2 at 1.1c and departs at 0.9c.
I mean, this is ludicrous.... Do the mirrors contain fairies or something?
This is so stupid that only a real idiot would try to defend it.
Neither the mirrors nor the pulse has any connection with the source. In fact
the source could be a galaxy that disappeared a billion years ago. Why should a
pulse of light behave as SR claims?
If you want even more proof of the stupidity, just add another pulse source
that is moving wrt the first one...and let's see how you analyse the reflected
pulse speeds.
Henry Wilson...
Save the Planet....support my ONE-AND-A-HALF CHILD policy.
www.scisite.info/solution.rtf
eric gisse
[...blah blah blah...]
We get it. You don't understand SR.
Every time you make a thought experiment and apply SR, you get confused and
can't possibly understand how it works. As it has gone for the last TEN
FUCKING YEARS.
Find a new hobby.
wnc
> Consider the case of two moving mirrors and a source that emits light pulses.
sir, i am not sure i agree,
what kind of mirrors, glass over silver?
if yes then you have to model many interfaces
before anything else
good bye
Paul B. Andersen
> Consider the case of two moving mirrors and a source that emits light pulses.
>
> S--------pulse->--------------0.9c<M1---0.1c<M2
>
> The mirrors are moving towards the source at vastly different speeds.
> The source emits pulses and the experiment is arranged so that both mirrors are
> adjacent when a pulse reaches them.
>
> By what stretch of the imagination can any relativist claim that the pulse
> bounces of the faster mirror at a much smaller speed (wrt that mirror) than the
> slower mirror (wrt that mirror), even though its incident speed is much higher
> (wrt M1)?
One can but wonder why Ralph Rabbidge with the false degrees pretend
to believe that 'relativists' claim what he must know they don't.
Or is Ralph Rabbidge with the false degrees really such a giant idiot
as he pretend to be?
According to SR, the speed of the incident light relative to M1 is:
c_i = (c+0.9c)/(1+0.9) = c
The speed of the reflected light relative to M1 is:
c_r = (c-0.9c)/(1-0.9) = c
The speed of the incident light relative to M2 is:
c_i = (c+0.1c)/(1+0.1) = c
The speed of the reflected light relative to M2 is:
c_i = (c-0.1c)/(1-0.1) = c
> This is what we have.
>
> Pulse closes on M1 at 1.9c and departs at 0.1c.
> Pulse closes on M2 at 1.1c and departs at 0.9c.
>
> I mean, this is ludicrous.... Do the mirrors contain fairies or something?
> This is so stupid that only a real idiot would try to defend it.
Indeed. :-)
Are you such an idiot?
Can you name such an idiot?
> Neither the mirrors nor the pulse has any connection with the source. In fact
> the source could be a galaxy that disappeared a billion years ago. Why should a
> pulse of light behave as SR claims?
Quite.
Why does the light from quasars, which at the time of emission
were moving at high speed relative to the earth, and which may
have disappeared billions of years ago, bounce off telescope mirrors
at the speed c relative to little planet Earth?
Is it your fairies who are adjusting the speed of the light?
Now when you have stated what SR doesn't predict for the scenario,
I challenge you to explain what your emission theory predicts.
Answer these questions, please:
What is the speed of the incident light relative to M1 and M2?
What is the speed of the reflected light relative to M1 and M2?
What is the speed of the light reflected from M1 relative to S?
What is the speed of the light reflected from M2 relative to S?
I bet you can't answer.
Prove me wrong!
--
Paul
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>On 02.01.2010 09:10, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>> Consider the case of two moving mirrors and a source that emits light pulses.
>>
>> S--------pulse->--------------0.9c<M1---0.1c<M2
>>
>> The mirrors are moving towards the source at vastly different speeds.
>> The source emits pulses and the experiment is arranged so that both mirrors are
>> adjacent when a pulse reaches them.
>>
>> By what stretch of the imagination can any relativist claim that the pulse
>> bounces of the faster mirror at a much smaller speed (wrt that mirror) than the
>> slower mirror (wrt that mirror), even though its incident speed is much higher
>> (wrt M1)?
>
>One can but wonder why Ralph Rabbidge with the false degrees pretend
>to believe that 'relativists' claim what he must know they don't.
>Or is Ralph Rabbidge with the false degrees really such a giant idiot
>as he pretend to be?
>
>According to SR, the speed of the incident light relative to M1 is:
>c_i = (c+0.9c)/(1+0.9) = c
>The speed of the reflected light relative to M1 is:
>c_r = (c-0.9c)/(1-0.9) = c
>
>The speed of the incident light relative to M2 is:
>c_i = (c+0.1c)/(1+0.1) = c
>The speed of the reflected light relative to M2 is:
>c_i = (c-0.1c)/(1-0.1) = c
hahahahahahahhahha! Why do you go to all that trouble to restate the second
postulate? am comletely aware of that.
>
>> This is what we have.
>>
>> Pulse closes on M1 at 1.9c and departs at 0.1c.
>> Pulse closes on M2 at 1.1c and departs at 0.9c.
>>
>> I mean, this is ludicrous.... Do the mirrors contain fairies or something?
>> This is so stupid that only a real idiot would try to defend it.
>
>Indeed. :-)
>Are you such an idiot?
>Can you name such an idiot?
Paul Andersen.. He explains it with circular logic.
>> Neither the mirrors nor the pulse has any connection with the source. In fact
>> the source could be a galaxy that disappeared a billion years ago. Why should a
>> pulse of light behave as SR claims?
>
>Quite.
>Why does the light from quasars, which at the time of emission
>were moving at high speed relative to the earth, and which may
>have disappeared billions of years ago, bounce off telescope mirrors
>at the speed c relative to little planet Earth?
If they do, which I doubt, it is probably because they pass through the Earth's
atmosphere. The OWLS of light from distant galaxies has never been measured, so
you are making false claims anyway.
>Is it your fairies who are adjusting the speed of the light?
OWLS has never been meaasured...so don't lie and try to make out it has.
>Now when you have stated what SR doesn't predict for the scenario,
>I challenge you to explain what your emission theory predicts.
>
>Answer these questions, please:
You answer MY questions.
A stray pulse of light 'closes on' M1 at 1.9c and leaves it at 0.1c.
The same pulse 'closes on' M2 at 0.1c and leaves it at 1.9c.
How come?
>What is the speed of the incident light relative to M1 and M2?
>What is the speed of the reflected light relative to M1 and M2?
>What is the speed of the light reflected from M1 relative to S?
>What is the speed of the light reflected from M2 relative to S?
Do you want to know what SR says or the truth?
>I bet you can't answer.
>Prove me wrong!
Unproven postulates have no place in science. Nor does circular logic.
Henry Wilson...
Save the Planet....support my ONE-AND-A-HALF CHILD policy.
www.scisite.info/solution.html
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
news:1qf7k51509a9vpeng...@4ax.com...
No .. you claimed before to not know what the postulates said (and your
posts about them showed that was correct), nor did you care what they said.
Obviously you need educating.
Henry Wilson DSc
Why don't you stick a bloody cow turd in your mouth so you can't open it?
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Then I'd be spewing shit like you .. One of you is more than enough. You're
the one who said you tried to read SR but found it incoherent (so obviously
weren't able to understand it) and said that you neither know nor care what
hte SR postulates say. You speak only from ignorance and ego.
eric gisse
So you never said any of that?
It sounds rather much like many of the things you say on a daily basis.
Paul B. Andersen
That was my very point, thanks for comfirming my words:
"One can but wonder why Ralph Rabbidge with the false degrees pretend
to believe that 'relativists' claim what he must know they don't."
>
>>
>>> This is what we have.
>>>
>>> Pulse closes on M1 at 1.9c and departs at 0.1c.
>>> Pulse closes on M2 at 1.1c and departs at 0.9c.
>>>
>>> I mean, this is ludicrous.... Do the mirrors contain fairies or something?
>>> This is so stupid that only a real idiot would try to defend it.
>>
>> Indeed. :-)
>> Are you such an idiot?
>> Can you name such an idiot?
>
> Paul Andersen.. He explains it with circular logic.
You have just confirmed that you know that 'relativists' don't
defend the claim you attribute to them:
"By what stretch of the imagination can any relativist claim that the pulse
bounces of the faster mirror at a much smaller speed (wrt that mirror) than the
slower mirror (wrt that mirror), even though its incident speed is much higher
(wrt M1)?"
That makes your statement a deliberate lie.
>
>>> Neither the mirrors nor the pulse has any connection with the source. In fact
>>> the source could be a galaxy that disappeared a billion years ago. Why should a
>>> pulse of light behave as SR claims?
>>
>> Quite.
>> Why does the light from quasars, which at the time of emission
>> were moving at high speed relative to the earth, and which may
>> have disappeared billions of years ago, bounce off telescope mirrors
>> at the speed c relative to little planet Earth?
>
> If they do, which I doubt, it is probably because they pass through the Earth's
> atmosphere. The OWLS of light from distant galaxies has never been measured, so
> you are making false claims anyway.
>
>> Is it your fairies who are adjusting the speed of the light?
>
> OWLS has never been meaasured...so don't lie and try to make out it has.
Don't even try, Ralph.
You don't have to measure the OWLS to compare the speed of light from
different sources. We know that the speed of light from different sources
is the same independent of the speed of the source.
>
>> Now when you have stated what SR doesn't predict for the scenario,
>> I challenge you to explain what your emission theory predicts.
>>
>> Answer these questions, please:
>
> You answer MY questions.
> A stray pulse of light 'closes on' M1 at 1.9c and leaves it at 0.1c.
> The same pulse 'closes on' M2 at 0.1c and leaves it at 1.9c.
>
> How come?
One can but wonder why Ralph Rabbidge with the false degrees choose
to repeat the deliberate lie after having admitted that it is just that.
>
>> What is the speed of the incident light relative to M1 and M2?
>> What is the speed of the reflected light relative to M1 and M2?
>> What is the speed of the light reflected from M1 relative to S?
>> What is the speed of the light reflected from M2 relative to S?
>
> Do you want to know what SR says or the truth?
>
>> I bet you can't answer.
>> Prove me wrong!
>
> Unproven postulates have no place in science. Nor does circular logic.
Thanks for yet again confirming my words.
So I will have to do the calculation you can't do.
According to the emission theory where Galilean relativity applies:
The speed of the incident light relative to M1 = 1.9c
The speed of the incident light relative to M2 = 1.1c
The speed of the light reflected from M1 relative to S = 2.8c
The speed of the light reflected from M2 relative to S = 1.2c
If we instead of two moving mirrors have one moving source S1
approaching the mirror at 0.9c and another S2 approaching
at 0.1c, we get:
The speed of the reflected light from S1 relative to the mirror = 1.9c
The speed of the reflected light from S2 relative to the mirror = 1.1c
We know that some objects, such as quasars, are moving at high speed
relative to the mirror in the telescope. We also know that the speed
of all the light entering the telescope is the same from all sources.
Why is that, Ralph?
Are your beloved fairies adjusting the speed?
--
Paul
Henry Wilson DSc
<paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
>On 06.01.2010 02:06, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:28:22 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"<som...@somewhere.no>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 02.01.2010 09:10, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>>>> Consider the case of two moving mirrors and a source that emits light pulses.
>>>>
>>>> S--------pulse->--------------0.9c<M1---0.1c<M2
>>>>
>>>> The mirrors are moving towards the source at vastly different speeds.
>>>> The source emits pulses and the experiment is arranged so that both mirrors are
>>>> adjacent when a pulse reaches them.
>>>>
>>>> By what stretch of the imagination can any relativist claim that the pulse
>>>> bounces of the faster mirror at a much smaller speed (wrt that mirror) than the
>>>> slower mirror (wrt that mirror), even though its incident speed is much higher
>>>> (wrt M1)?
>>>
>>> According to SR, the speed of the incident light relative to M1 is:
>>> c_i = (c+0.9c)/(1+0.9) = c
>>> The speed of the reflected light relative to M1 is:
>>> c_r = (c-0.9c)/(1-0.9) = c
>>>
>>> The speed of the incident light relative to M2 is:
>>> c_i = (c+0.1c)/(1+0.1) = c
>>> The speed of the reflected light relative to M2 is:
>>> c_i = (c-0.1c)/(1-0.1) = c
>>
>> hahahahahahahhahha! Why do you go to all that trouble to restate the second
>> postulate? am comletely aware of that.
>
>>>> This is what we have.
>>>>
>>>> Pulse closes on M1 at 1.9c and departs at 0.1c.
>>>> Pulse closes on M2 at 1.1c and departs at 0.9c.
>>>>
>>>> I mean, this is ludicrous.... Do the mirrors contain fairies or something?
>>>> This is so stupid that only a real idiot would try to defend it.
>>>
>>> Indeed. :-)
>>> Are you such an idiot?
>>> Can you name such an idiot?
>>
>> Paul Andersen.. He explains it with circular logic.
>
>You have just confirmed that you know that 'relativists' don't
>defend the claim you attribute to them:
> "By what stretch of the imagination can any relativist claim that the pulse
> bounces of the faster mirror at a much smaller speed (wrt that mirror) than the
> slower mirror (wrt that mirror), even though its incident speed is much higher
> (wrt M1)?"
>
>That makes your statement a deliberate lie.
no ....just a deliberate embarassment for any relativist.
>>>> Neither the mirrors nor the pulse has any connection with the source. In fact
>>>> the source could be a galaxy that disappeared a billion years ago. Why should a
>>>> pulse of light behave as SR claims?
>>>
>>> Quite.
>>> Why does the light from quasars, which at the time of emission
>>> were moving at high speed relative to the earth, and which may
>>> have disappeared billions of years ago, bounce off telescope mirrors
>>> at the speed c relative to little planet Earth?
>>
>> If they do, which I doubt, it is probably because they pass through the Earth's
>> atmosphere. The OWLS of light from distant galaxies has never been measured, so
>> you are making false claims anyway.
>>
>>> Is it your fairies who are adjusting the speed of the light?
>>
>> OWLS has never been meaasured...so don't lie and try to make out it has.
>
>Don't even try, Henry.
>You don't have to measure the OWLS to compare the speed of light from
>different sources. We know that the speed of light from different sources
>is the same independent of the speed of the source.
Since when did anyone know that?
>>> Now when you have stated what SR doesn't predict for the scenario,
>>> I challenge you to explain what your emission theory predicts.
>>>
>>> Answer these questions, please:
>>
>> You answer MY questions.
>> A stray pulse of light 'closes on' M1 at 1.9c and leaves it at 0.1c.
>> The same pulse 'closes on' M2 at 0.1c and leaves it at 1.9c.
>>
>> How come?
>
>One can but wonder why Henry Wilson choose
>to repeat the deliberate lie after having admitted that it is just that.
>
>>
>>> What is the speed of the incident light relative to M1 and M2?
>>> What is the speed of the reflected light relative to M1 and M2?
>>> What is the speed of the light reflected from M1 relative to S?
>>> What is the speed of the light reflected from M2 relative to S?
>>
>> Do you want to know what SR says or the truth?
>>
>>> I bet you can't answer.
>>> Prove me wrong!
>>
>> Unproven postulates have no place in science. Nor does circular logic.
>
>Thanks for yet again confirming my words.
>So I will have to do the calculation you can't do.
>
>According to the emission theory where Galilean relativity applies:
>
>The speed of the incident light relative to M1 = 1.9c
>The speed of the incident light relative to M2 = 1.1c
>The speed of the light reflected from M1 relative to S = 2.8c
>The speed of the light reflected from M2 relative to S = 1.2c
....wrt the source...
>If we instead of two moving mirrors have one moving source S1
>approaching the mirror at 0.9c and another S2 approaching
>at 0.1c, we get:
.....different experiment...
>The speed of the reflected light from S1 relative to the mirror = 1.9c
>The speed of the reflected light from S2 relative to the mirror = 1.1c
....what kind of nonsense is THIS?
>We know that some objects, such as quasars, are moving at high speed
>relative to the mirror in the telescope. We also know that the speed
>of all the light entering the telescope is the same from all sources.
>
>Why is that, Henry?
>Are your beloved fairies adjusting the speed?
Light speeds become ~c by the time they reach the Earth's telescopes.
Paul B. Andersen
Quite.
The speed of light is c relative to the source and Galilean relativity
applies, but your beloved fairies adjust the speed of light to be
always c relative to little planet Earth.
BTW, Ralph, how do your fairies know how much to slow or accelerate
the speed of light? Do they have any other reference than the source?
--
Paul
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>On 06.01.2010 21:07, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>BTW, Henry, how do your fairies know how much to slow or accelerate
>the speed of light? Do they have any other reference than the source?
I suspect you are slowing going mad.
The Earth's atmosphere acts like a local aether. The Earth's telescopes are
usually on the ground. The distance between intrinsic photon 'wavecrests' is
reduced proportionally during a deceleration.
eric gisse
You know we have telescopes that ARE NOT in the atmosphere, right?
Androcles
"eric gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hi35dl$but$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
> ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 23:18:10 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>>
>>>On 06.01.2010 21:07, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:50:03 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>>> <paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>>>> We know that some objects, such as quasars, are moving at high speed
>>>>> relative to the mirror in the telescope. We also know that the speed
>>>>> of all the light entering the telescope is the same from all sources.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is that, Henry?
>>>>> Are your beloved fairies adjusting the speed?
>>>>
>>>> Light speeds become ~c by the time they reach the Earth's telescopes.
>>>
>>>Quite.
>>>The speed of light is c relative to the source and Galilean relativity
>>>applies, but your beloved fairies adjust the speed of light to be
>>>always c relative to little planet Earth.
>>>
>>>BTW, Henry, how do your fairies know how much to slow or accelerate
>>>the speed of light? Do they have any other reference than the source?
>>
>> I suspect you are slowing going mad.
>>
>> The Earth's atmosphere acts like a local aether. The Earth's telescopes
>> are usually on the ground. The distance between intrinsic photon
>> 'wavecrests' is reduced proportionally during a deceleration.
[...]
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
I do.
......but Paul was using data from pre HST telescopes.
eric gisse
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:12:53 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 23:18:10 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>> <som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 06.01.2010 21:07, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:50:03 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>>>> <paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
>>>>>
>
>>>>Quite.
>>>>The speed of light is c relative to the source and Galilean relativity
>>>>applies, but your beloved fairies adjust the speed of light to be
>>>>always c relative to little planet Earth.
>>>>
>>>>BTW, Henry, how do your fairies know how much to slow or accelerate
>>>>the speed of light? Do they have any other reference than the source?
>>>
>>> I suspect you are slowing going mad.
>>>
>>> The Earth's atmosphere acts like a local aether. The Earth's telescopes
>>> are usually on the ground. The distance between intrinsic photon
>>> 'wavecrests' is reduced proportionally during a deceleration.
>>
>>You know we have telescopes that ARE NOT in the atmosphere, right?
>
> I do.
Then why do you say such pointlessly stupid things?
Androcles
> ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:12:53 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 23:18:10 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>>> <som...@somewhere.no> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 06.01.2010 21:07, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:50:03 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>>>>> <paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>Quite.
>>>>>The speed of light is c relative to the source and Galilean relativity
>>>>>applies, but your beloved fairies adjust the speed of light to be
>>>>>always c relative to little planet Earth.
>>>>>
>>>>>BTW, Henry, how do your fairies know how much to slow or accelerate
>>>>>the speed of light? Do they have any other reference than the source?
>>>>
>>>> I suspect you are slowing going mad.
>>>>
>>>> The Earth's atmosphere acts like a local aether. The Earth's telescopes
>>>> are usually on the ground. The distance between intrinsic photon
>>>> 'wavecrests' is reduced proportionally during a deceleration.
>>>
>>>You know we have telescopes that ARE NOT in the atmosphere, right?
>>
>> I do.
>
Paul B. Andersen
I see.
1. Galilean relativity applies
2. The speed of light is c relative to source
3. The speed of light is c relative to the air
So when a photon from a receding source enters
the atmosphere, it speeds up.
From where do your fairies get the energy to
accelerate the photon?
--
Paul
Henry Wilson DSc
Same place they get energy to accelerate photons that go from glass to air, I
suppose.
Paul B. Andersen
And from where is that in _your_ model?
In QED a photon _always_ move at the speed c. When
it appear to go slower in a dense transparent medium,
it is because it interacts with the atoms in the medium
(absorption - re-emission).
This is experimentally verified, because when a light pulse
is sent through glass, the very front of the pulse will
move with the speed c, while the 'main part' of the pulse
will move with the speed c/n.
That is, a few photons will find a way 'right through',
without interacting with the atoms.
And note: the photons don't loose or gain energy in
the process.
But in your model, the speed of the photons are changing,
and the energy is given by the speed.
So I ask again:
You claim that when a photon from a receding source
enters the atmosphere, it speeds up.
From where do your fairies get the energy to
accelerate the photon?
--
Paul
Henry Wilson DSc
<paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
>On 07.01.2010 22:14, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:54:21 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
>>
>>>> The Earth's atmosphere acts like a local aether. The Earth's telescopes are
>>>> usually on the ground. The distance between intrinsic photon 'wavecrests' is
>>>> reduced proportionally during a deceleration.
>>>
>>> I see.
>>> 1. Galilean relativity applies
>>> 2. The speed of light is c relative to source
>>> 3. The speed of light is c relative to the air
>>>
>>> So when a photon from a receding source enters
>>> the atmosphere, it speeds up.
>>> From where do your fairies get the energy to
>>> accelerate the photon?
>>
>> Same place they get energy to accelerate photons that go from glass to air, I
>> suppose.
>
>And from where is that in _your_ model?
>
>In QED a photon _always_ move at the speed c.
...which is one reason it is bullshit.
>When
>it appear to go slower in a dense transparent medium,
>it is because it interacts with the atoms in the medium
>(absorption - re-emission).
>This is experimentally verified, because when a light pulse
>is sent through glass, the very front of the pulse will
>move with the speed c, while the 'main part' of the pulse
>will move with the speed c/n.
More bulllshit. There would be no 'main part'. Rather a probability
distribution of speeds.
>That is, a few photons will find a way 'right through',
>without interacting with the atoms.
>And note: the photons don't loose or gain energy in
>the process.
Even more bullshit. How can they 'interact with an atom' without transmitting
some momentum to that atom?
>But in your model, the speed of the photons are changing,
>and the energy is given by the speed.
>
>So I ask again:
>You claim that when a photon from a receding source
>enters the atmosphere, it speeds up.
> From where do your fairies get the energy to
>accelerate the photon?
Maxwell's equations. The air is a dielectric medium.
The photons move to their natural balance with the medium. When they speed up
relative to Earth, they accelerate some atoms away from Earth by
electric/magnetic interaction. That results in a nett cooling of those upper
atmosphere atoms because of the density gradient.
Sue...
================
>
> Henry Wilson...
>
> Save the Planet....support my ONE-AND-A-HALF CHILD policy.
> www.scisite.info/solution.html
I am with you all the way. I just put half of
my investment portfolio behind a new start-up
company that is making one legged trousers.
The savings in materials cost is phenomenal.
Sue...
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>On Jan 9, 3:38�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
>================
>>
>> Henry Wilson...
>
>>
>> Save the Planet....support my ONE-AND-A-HALF CHILD policy.
>> � � � � � � � � � �www.scisite.info/solution.html
>
>I am with you all the way. I just put half of
>my investment portfolio behind a new start-up
>company that is making one legged trousers.
You lost the lot. The halves are strictly 'top' or 'bottom'.
>The savings in materials cost is phenomenal.
>
>Sue...
The 'fraction' can be adjusted up or down to achieve desired population goals.
How would you go making 0.9387587537 of a shoe?
Sue...
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 14:01:05 -0800 (PST), "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 9, 3:38 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson ) wrote:
>
> >================
>
> >> Henry Wilson...
>
> >> Save the Planet....support my ONE-AND-A-HALF CHILD policy.
> >> www.scisite.info/solution.html
>
> >I am with you all the way. I just put half of
> >my investment portfolio behind a new start-up
> >company that is making one legged trousers.
>
> You lost the lot. The halves are strictly 'top' or 'bottom'.
HA! My stock has doubled already. Now I have a
legging company and a Bermuda shorts company.
>
> >The savings in materials cost is phenomenal.
>
> >Sue...
>
> The 'fraction' can be adjusted up or down to achieve desired population goals.
> How would you go making 0.9387587537 of a shoe?
Same way you build a 25 pin 24 wire DB cable;
Pay one person to build the whole assembly and
pay another person to remove the unwanted material.
A team of shoe testers would remove just about the
right amount of material by pre-walking the products.
Sue...
"Never criticise another 'till you have walked a
mile in his shoes. That way you will have a head
start and he will have to chase you barefoot."
--Unknown
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>On Jan 9, 6:28�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson) wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 14:01:05 -0800 (PST), "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Save the Planet....support my ONE-AND-A-HALF CHILD policy.
>> >> � � � � � � � � � �www.scisite.info/solution.html
>>
>> >I am with you all the way. �I just put half of
>> >my investment portfolio behind a new start-up
>> >company that is making one legged trousers.
>>
>> You lost the lot. The halves are strictly 'top' or 'bottom'.
>
>
>HA! My stock has doubled already. Now I have a
>legging company and a Bermuda shorts company.
But you have cut your market in half. What about some hats or neckties for all
those top halves?
Paul B. Andersen
> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:43:40 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
>> So I ask again:
>> You claim that when a photon from a receding source
>> enters the atmosphere, it speeds up.
>> From where do your fairies get the energy to
>> accelerate the photon?
>
> Maxwell's equations.
I see.
According to Maxwell's equations, EM-radiation speeds up when
it comes from vacuum to air.
> The air is a dielectric medium.
> The photons move to their natural balance with the medium. When they speed up
> relative to Earth, they accelerate some atoms away from Earth by
> electric/magnetic interaction. That results in a nett cooling of those upper
> atmosphere atoms because of the density gradient.
You are still able to invent entertaining nonsense, Ralph.
Well done! :-)
--
Paul
Sue...
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 23:51:40 -0800 (PST), "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Jan 9, 6:28 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson) wrote:
> >> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 14:01:05 -0800 (PST), "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> Save the Planet....support my ONE-AND-A-HALF CHILD policy.
> >> >>www.scisite.info/solution.html
>
> >> >I am with you all the way. I just put half of
> >> >my investment portfolio behind a new start-up
> >> >company that is making one legged trousers.
>
> >> You lost the lot. The halves are strictly 'top' or 'bottom'.
>
> >HA! My stock has doubled already. Now I have a
> >legging company and a Bermuda shorts company.
>
> But you have cut your market in half. What about some hats or neckties for all
> those top halves?
That requires buying more raw materials.
I'll just put the other half of the portfolio in
fertility clinics and prey that it all evens out.
Sue...
eric gisse
[...]
> Maxwell's equations. The air is a dielectric medium.
> The photons move to their natural balance with the medium. When they speed
> up relative to Earth, they accelerate some atoms away from Earth by
> electric/magnetic interaction. That results in a nett cooling of those
> upper atmosphere atoms because of the density gradient.
Could you perhaps tell us which E&M book you studied which told you that
Maxwell's equations permit the _speedup_ of electromagnetic waves as the
enter a dielectric medium?
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>[...]
>
>> Maxwell's equations. The air is a dielectric medium.
>> The photons move to their natural balance with the medium. When they speed
>> up relative to Earth, they accelerate some atoms away from Earth by
>> electric/magnetic interaction. That results in a nett cooling of those
>> upper atmosphere atoms because of the density gradient.
>
>Could you perhaps tell us which E&M book you studied which told you that
>Maxwell's equations permit the _speedup_ of electromagnetic waves as the
>enter a dielectric medium?
The same one that told me they speed up when exiting glass into air.
Henry Wilson DSc
<paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
>On 06.01.2010 02:06, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:28:22 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"<som...@somewhere.no>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> If they do, which I doubt, it is probably because they pass through the Earth's
>> atmosphere. The OWLS of light from distant galaxies has never been measured, so
>> you are making false claims anyway.
>>
>>> Is it your fairies who are adjusting the speed of the light?
>>
>> OWLS has never been meaasured...so don't lie and try to make out it has.
>
>Don't even try, Henry
>You don't have to measure the OWLS to compare the speed of light from
>different sources. We know that the speed of light from different sources
>is the same independent of the speed of the source.
Why becasue you read it in a book about Einstein?
>>> Now when you have stated what SR doesn't predict for the scenario,
>>> I challenge you to explain what your emission theory predicts.
>>>
>>> Answer these questions, please:
>>
>> You answer MY questions.
>> A stray pulse of light 'closes on' M1 at 1.9c and leaves it at 0.1c.
>> The same pulse 'closes on' M2 at 0.1c and leaves it at 1.9c.
>>
>> How come?
>
>>> What is the speed of the incident light relative to M1 and M2?
>>> What is the speed of the reflected light relative to M1 and M2?
>>> What is the speed of the light reflected from M1 relative to S?
>>> What is the speed of the light reflected from M2 relative to S?
>>
>> Do you want to know what SR says or the truth?
>>
>>> I bet you can't answer.
>>> Prove me wrong!
>>
>> Unproven postulates have no place in science. Nor does circular logic.
>
>Thanks for yet again confirming my words.
>So I will have to do the calculation you can't do.
>
>According to the emission theory where Galilean relativity applies:
>
>The speed of the incident light relative to M1 = 1.9c
>The speed of the incident light relative to M2 = 1.1c
>The speed of the light reflected from M1 relative to S = 2.8c
>The speed of the light reflected from M2 relative to S = 1.2c
>
>If we instead of two moving mirrors have one moving source S1
>approaching the mirror at 0.9c and another S2 approaching
>at 0.1c, we get:
>
>The speed of the reflected light from S1 relative to the mirror = 1.9c
>The speed of the reflected light from S2 relative to the mirror = 1.1c
>
>We know that some objects, such as quasars, are moving at high speed
>relative to the mirror in the telescope. We also know that the speed
>of all the light entering the telescope is the same from all sources.
>
>Why is that, Henry?
>Are your beloved fairies adjusting the speed?
Is this the same Paul Andersen who claims that stellar aberration has been
shown to be the same for every object in the universe, accurate to ten decimal
places thus proving that all starlight arrives at precisely c wrt little planet
earth?
Paul B. Andersen
So you know that that the speed of light is always c even outside
of the atmosphere. (Hipparcos)
So I will ask you again:
We know that some objects, such as quasars, are moving at high speed
relative to the mirror in the telescope. We also know that the speed
of all the light entering the telescope is the same from all sources,
even when the telescope is outside of the atmosphere.
Why is that, Henry?
Are your beloved fairies adjusting the speed?
--
Paul
Henry Wilson DSc
<paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
>On 11.01.2010 01:46, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:50:03 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@somewhere.no> wrote:
>>
>>> Why is that, Henry?
>>> Are your beloved fairies adjusting the speed?
>>
>> Is this the same Paul Andersen who claims that stellar aberration has been
>> shown to be the same for every object in the universe, accurate to ten decimal
>> places thus proving that all starlight arrives at precisely c wrt little planet
>> earth?
>
>So you know that that the speed of light is always c even outside
>of the atmosphere. (Hipparcos)
WRT its source it is, yes.
>So I will ask you again:
> We know that some objects, such as quasars, are moving at high speed
> relative to the mirror in the telescope. We also know that the speed
> of all the light entering the telescope is the same from all sources,
> even when the telescope is outside of the atmosphere.
We don't know that at all.
> Why is that, Henry?
> Are your beloved fairies adjusting the speed?
No Paul, you are making up stories again.
Aberrtion is source speed dependent.
Paul B. Andersen
What kind of mental deficiency makes it possible
to deny indisputable facts, Ralph?
Is in plain stupidity, or does it have a Latin name?
--
Paul
Jerry
Henri, even three years ago you would never have made such a
bone-headed statement. Do you remember the argument we had back
then? I pointed out that the pointing angle of the HST is
continuously adjusted during an exposure to compensate for the
effects of abberation. A typical field may contain objects of
highly varying doppler shift, from nearby stars to far-distant
quasars. If the speed of light entering the HST varies according
to the speed of the originating source, then it is impossible to
compensate simultaneously for each object's aberration.
Your reply back then made far more sense. You stated that the
HST does not orbit in a truly "hard" vacuum. The density of gases
at the altitude of HST is far higher than, say, in interplanetary
space. The HST demonstrates that unification has already occurred
by the time light reaches the altitude of low earth orbit.
I then destroyed the notion that light speed might vary in
interplanetary space. You replied that interplanetary space does
not represent a truly "hard" vacuum. The density of gases in
interplanetary space is far higher than, say, in interstellar
space.
I then destroyed the notion that light speed might vary in
interstellar space. You replied that interstellar space does not
represent a truly "hard" vacuum. The density of gases in
interstellar space is far higher than, say, in intergalactic
space...
Do you remember?
Jerry
Androcles
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:39c11c21-6be8-430a...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 11, 3:12 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:26:35 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b.ander...@somewhere.no> wrote:
> >So you know that that the speed of light is always c even outside
> >of the atmosphere. (Hipparcos)
>
> WRT its source it is, yes.
>
> >So I will ask you again:
> > We know that some objects, such as quasars, are moving at high speed
> > relative to the mirror in the telescope. We also know that the speed
> > of all the light entering the telescope is the same from all sources,
> > even when the telescope is outside of the atmosphere.
>
> We don't know that at all.
>
> > Why is that, Henry?
> > Are your beloved fairies adjusting the speed?
>
> No Paul, you are making up stories again.
>
> Aberrtion is source speed dependent.
Henri, even three years ago you would never have made such a
bone-headed statement.
============================================
The light falls from the star at c+v, but w is a tranverse velocity and
aberration is a function of w.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Aberration.gif
Henry is correct.
=============================================
Do you remember the argument we had back
then? I pointed out that the pointing angle of the HST is
continuously adjusted during an exposure to compensate for the
effects of abberation.
===============================================
That's ok, so it should be, bonehead. The star's velocity relative to
the reference frame of the telescope is continually changing.
Trees and houses outside my car or train window move backwards,
I have to turn my head to keep them centred in my field of view.
You having a hard time with the station coming to the train, bonehead?
===============================================
A typical field may contain objects of
highly varying doppler shift, from nearby stars to far-distant
quasars. If the speed of light entering the HST varies according
to the speed of the originating source, then it is impossible to
compensate simultaneously for each object's aberration.
=============================================
Well yeah, I did notice that the other cars and trains and arms and
legs move and I can't keep them centred in the photograph at the
same time as I'm keeping the trees centred, bonehead.
http://ohpixelthis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/motion-blur-1.jpg
In this picture the London Eye came to the camera but the photographer
failed to roll with the Eye.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/London_Eye_Twilight_Motion_Blur_April_2006.jpg
Henry's statement is accurate but vague, as many of mine deliberately
are, but it is not bone-headed. The bonehead is YOU.
<rest of bone-headed crap snipped unread>