Personal Ether Theory (PET Theory?)
train
personal ether . This personal ether, like still air, is stationary
with respect to the observer. Light travels as if it is attached to
this ether and speeds along at a constant velocity to the observer and
the ether.
If a stone skips across a pond, the ripples that radiate from its
point of impact spread evenly in all directions from the point of
impact, the observer being stationary with respect to the pond. It
does not matter which way the stone was moving, as the speed of
radiation of the waves from the point of impact is independent of the
velocity of the stone.
Is this the way light behaves?
T
mpc755
In SR, each frame of reference is its own personal pond.
I have a concept I call Aether Displacement. In Aether Displacement
everyone is moving with respect to THE 'pond'. Light travels at 'c'
with respect to the 'pond'. The 'pond', in AD, is the aether.
dlzc
On Feb 22, 8:23 am, train <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Each and every observer sees the emission of
> light as if they had a personal ether . This
> personal ether, like still air, is stationary
> with respect to the observer. Light travels
> as if it is attached to this ether and speeds
> along at a constant velocity to the observer
> and the ether.
This is called "dragged aether".
> If a stone skips across a pond, the ripples
> that radiate from its point of impact spread
> evenly in all directions from the point of
> impact, the observer being stationary with
> respect to the pond. It does not matter which
> way the stone was moving, as the speed of
> radiation of the waves from the point of impact
> is independent of the velocity of the stone.
>
> Is this the way light behaves?
No. The entire "aether" must appear as if it is at rest with every
observer, or matter propagates through the aether just as light does,
or there is no aether.
David A. Smith
mpc755
Aether pressure must be equally applied in order for there to be
momentum. Matter does not propagate. Waves do. Matter does travel with
respect to the aether. Light waves propagate at 'c' with respect to
the aether.
dlzc
On Feb 22, 11:05 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> Aether pressure must be equally applied in
> order for there to be momentum. Matter does
> not propagate. Waves do. Matter does travel
> with respect to the aether. Light waves
> propagate at 'c' with respect to the aether.
Resurrect Lorentz and Einstein, and make your goody-*ssed argument
with them. What they said about the aether works experimentally, and
your voodoo physics makes sense only to you.
David A. Smith
mpc755
I'm agreeing with Einstein.
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable"
kenseto
> Each and every observer sees the emission of light as if they had a
> personal ether . This personal ether, like still air, is stationary
> with respect to the observer. Light travels as if it is attached to
> this ether and speeds along at a constant velocity to the observer and
> the ether.
No....the aether is stationary and all the objects in the universe are
moving in the stationary aether. The speed of light is independent of
the motion of the source. IOW once a photon is emitted in the aether
by the source its speed is independent of the motion of the source.
The speed of light is a constant math ratio in all frames as follows:
Light path length of the observer ruler is assumed to be its physical
length of (299,792,458 m)/the absolute time content for a clock
second co-moving wth the ruler.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf
Ken Seto
mpc755
> On Feb 22, 10:23 am, train <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Each and every observer sees the emission of light as if they had a
> > personal ether . This personal ether, like still air, is stationary
> > with respect to the observer. Light travels as if it is attached to
> > this ether and speeds along at a constant velocity to the observer and
> > the ether.
>
> No....the aether is stationary and all the objects in the universe are
> moving in the stationary aether. The speed of light is independent of
> the motion of the source. IOW once a photon is emitted in the aether
> by the source its speed is independent of the motion of the source.
> The speed of light is a constant math ratio in all frames as follows:
> Light path length of the observer ruler is assumed to be its physical
> length of (299,792,458 m)/the absolute time content for a clock
> second co-moving wth the ruler.http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf
>
> Ken Seto
>
The aether is not stationary:
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" -
Albert Einstein
dlzc
> On Feb 22, 1:44 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dear mpc755:
>
> > On Feb 22, 11:05 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...
>
> > > Aether pressure must be equally applied in
> > > order for there to be momentum. Matter does
> > > not propagate. Waves do. Matter does travel
> > > with respect to the aether. Light waves
> > > propagate at 'c' with respect to the aether.
>
> > Resurrect Lorentz and Einstein, and make your
> > said about the aether works experimentally, and
> > your voodoo physics makes sense only to you.
>
You are lying. "Matter does not propagate" fails what Einstein and
Lorentz said. Go back to your soap box.
David A. Smith
mpc755
Waves propagate. Matter travels.
train
A small clarification must be made - for the purposes of visualizing
the effects of SRT, it is AS IF an observer situated in an ether
stationary to that observer. I agree that "The entire "aether" must
appear as if it is at rest with every observer..."
This the stone in the pond illustration.In any case 'the velocity of
light is independant of the velocity of the source of light ' do we
all agree?
For those who do, how can you then explain this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
See the diagram in : "Simple inference of time dilation due to
relative velocity"
T
dlzc
> Waves propagate. Matter travels.
Then you agree that you differ wildly from Einstein and Lorentz. How
nice.
David A. Smith
dlzc
On Feb 22, 3:44 pm, train <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 22, 10:58 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 22, 8:23 am, train <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Each and every observer sees the emission of
> > > light as if they had a personal ether . This
> > > personal ether, like still air, is stationary
> > > with respect to the observer. Light travels
> > > as if it is attached to this ether and speeds
> > > along at a constant velocity to the observer
> > > and the ether.
>
> > This is called "dragged aether".
>
> > > If a stone skips across a pond, the ripples
> > > that radiate from its point of impact spread
> > > evenly in all directions from the point of
> > > impact, the observer being stationary with
> > > respect to the pond. It does not matter which
> > > way the stone was moving, as the speed of
> > > radiation of the waves from the point of impact
> > > is independent of the velocity of the stone.
>
> > > Is this the way light behaves?
>
> > No. The entire "aether" must appear as if
> > it is at rest with every observer, or matter
> > propagates through the aether just as light
> > does, or there is no aether.
>
> A small clarification must be made - for
> the purposes of visualizing the effects of
> SRT, it is AS IF an observer situated in an
> ether stationary to that observer.
This is NOT necessary to visualize SRT, unless you insist in splicing
back in that which 100 years of physics has shown to be no more than a
mental crutch.
> I agree that "The entire "aether" must
> appear as if it is at rest with every
> observer..."
Which is not possible, and agree with experiment.
> This the stone in the pond illustration.
> In any case 'the velocity of light is
> independant of the velocity of the source
> of light ' do we all agree?
Not all will agree. Certainly Androcles is of the Newtonian camp, and
will not agree.
> For those who do, how can you then
> explain this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
>
> See the diagram in : "Simple inference
> of time dilation due to relative velocity"
Sure. Duration and distance are two sides of the same coin. If one
sees more of one, one sees less of the other.
The insistence in "visualization" in terms of 2 or 300 year old
popular notion is going to hamper your personal growth. I'd like to
recommend you get and read "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler.
David A. Smith
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
The pond is space with time in it.
mpc755
Matter travels and waves propagate is better semantics. As I said
previously, I agree with Einstein:
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
its aether.
Lorentz atoms go flat. But this is clearly wrong physics.
Mitch Raemsch
mpc755
Clocks 'tick' based upon the aether pressure in which they exist. For
example, if the embankment is at rest with respect to the aether and
the train and embankment are moving relative to one another and they
both occupy the same three dimensional space then the train is less at
rest with respect to the aether than is the embankment.
We have three Observers at M' on the train. They all synchronize their
clocks at 12:00:00. As the Observer walks a clock to B' the clock is
being walked against the 'flow' of the aether. This causes there to be
an additional pressure applied to the clock by the aether and the
clock being walked to B' 'ticks' slower than the clocks at M' and the
clock being walked to A'. The clock being walked to A' is being walked
with the 'flow' of the aether and is under less aether pressure than
both the clock at M' and the clock being walked to B'.
When the clocks get to A', M', and B' they will read 12:00:03,
12:00:02, and 12:00:01, respectively. When a lightning strike occurs
at M', at 12:00:02, the light wave propagates against the 'flow' of
the aether and takes four seconds to reach B'. When the light wave
arrives at B', the clock at B' reads 12:00:05. The light wave
propagates with the 'flow' of aether and takes two seconds to reach
A'. The clock at A' reads 12:00:05 when the light arrives at A'. There
are mirrors at A' and B'. The light is reflected by the mirror at A'
and since the light wave is propagating against the 'flow' of the
aether the light wave takes four seconds to reach M'. The light wave
is reflected by the mirror at B' and since the light wave is
propagating with the 'flow' of the aether the light wave takes two
seconds to arrive at M'. The light from the original lightning strike
at M' arrives simultaneously from A' and B' and the clock at M' reads
12:00:08 when the light wave reaches M'.
bert
No TreBert
train
Let' see
This is a light bulb.
0
This light bulb is moving
t=1 0
t=2 0
t=3 0
This light bulb is switched on and giving off light at t =3
The | shows a wavefront or photons. Only light emitted parallel to the
x- axis is shown
t=1 0
t=2 0
t=3 | 0 |
t=4 | |
t=5 | |
Where is the light source? Since the the speed of light is independent
of the motion of the source it does not matter - but I will draw it
in
t=1 0
t=2 0
t=3 | 0 |
t=4 | 0 |
t=5 | 0 |
Now for the light in the vertical y direction
t=1 0
t=2 0
_
t=3 0
_
t=4
_
t=5
Where is the light source? Since the velocity of light is independent
of the motion of the source , does it matter?
T
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
Only in Einstein's personal version of fairyland
Henry Wilson...
.......provider of free physics lessons
train
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:23:06 -0800 (PST), train <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com>
No more replies to the topic?
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>On Feb 26, 12:12�am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
no. Light is ballistic. Einstein was a hoaxer...end of story.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
news:mdcoo5p2q5r6h1ud4...@4ax.com...
Einstein was one of those to put forward again the notion of light being
made of particles (photons), btw. Physics later reconciled the difference
in quantum theory (an area of physics, Einstein never really fully agreed
with)
And ballistic theories are long ago refuted. Henry is just a well-known liar
and fraud who, for reasons no-one can fathom, tries to perpetuate the dead
ballistic theory.
Henry Wilson DSc
when are you going to say something intelligent
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
I just did .. you are too much of a moron to realize it.
train
> "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in messagenews:mdcoo5p2q5r6h1ud4...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 07:24:31 -0800 (PST), train
> > wrote:
>
> >>On Feb 26, 12:12 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:23:06 -0800 (PST), train
> >>> <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>> >Each and every observer sees the emission of light as if they had a
> >>> >personal ether . This personal ether, like still air, is stationary
> >>> >with respect to the observer. Light travels as if it is attached to
> >>> >this ether and speeds along at a constant velocity to the observer and
> >>> >the ether.
>
> >>> >If a stone skips across a pond, the ripples that radiate from its
> >>> >point of impact spread evenly in all directions from the point of
> >>> >impact, the observer being stationary with respect to the pond. It
> >>> >does not matter which way the stone was moving, as the speed of
> >>> >radiation of the waves from the point of impact is independent of the
> >>> >velocity of the stone.
>
> >>> >Is this the way light behaves?
>
> >>> Only in Einstein's personal version of fairyland
>
> >>> Henry Wilson...
>
> >>> .......provider of free physics lessons
>
> >>No more replies to the topic?
>
> > no. Light is ballistic. Einstein was a hoaxer...end of story.
>
> Einstein was one of those to put forward again the notion of light being
> made of particles (photons), btw. Physics later reconciled the difference
> with)
>
> And ballistic theories are long ago refuted. Henry is just a well-known liar
> and fraud who, for reasons no-one can fathom, tries to perpetuate the dead
> ballistictheory.
But the situation I described would not take place if ballistic
theory was correct. If light behaves for each observer as if the
observer was stationary with respect to a universal ether, then it
still contradicts the Wikipedia illustration of the light bouncing up
an down at an angle relative to the observer who is viewing a moving
light source. The movement of the light source has nothing ( except
for the doppler effect?) to do with the direction of light as viewed
by the observer - why should it? What is the meaning of independent?
T
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>On Mar 2, 4:21�am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in messagenews:mdcoo5p2q5r6h1ud4...@4ax.com...
>>
>> >>> Henry Wilson...
>>
>> >>> .......provider of free physics lessons
>>
>> >>No more replies to the topic?
>>
>> > no. Light is ballistic. Einstein was a hoaxer...end of story.
>>
>> Einstein was one of those to put forward again the notion of light being
>> made of particles (photons), btw. �Physics later reconciled the difference
>> in quantumtheory(an area of physics, Einstein never really fully agreed
>> with)
>>
>> And ballistic theories are long ago refuted. Henry is just a well-known liar
>> and fraud who, for reasons no-one can fathom, tries to perpetuate the dead
>> ballistictheory.
>
>But the situation I described would not take place if ballistic
>theory was correct. If light behaves for each observer as if the
>observer was stationary with respect to a universal ether, then it
>still contradicts the Wikipedia illustration of the light bouncing up
>an down at an angle relative to the observer who is viewing a moving
>light source. The movement of the light source has nothing ( except
>for the doppler effect?) to do with the direction of light as viewed
>by the observer - why should it? What is the meaning of independent?
A vertical light beam remains vertical in all frames. It takes the same time to
get to the top no matter how many observers look at it.
Einstein was an idiot...and so are all his followers.
>T
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> A vertical light beam remains vertical in all frames.
>
Bwhahahahahahahahaha!
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Bullseye.gif
Awilson remains dead from the neck up in all frames.
Inertial
"train" <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:044668eb-f341-47ef...@e19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
It isn't
> If light behaves for each observer as if the
> observer was stationary with respect to a universal ether,
Its only similar to such a silly notion wrt the speed of light being always
c. Of course, that does not explain how different observers all have the
same light travelling at c. You get nonsense from a personal universal
aether in that case.
> ten it
> still contradicts the Wikipedia illustration of the light bouncing up
> an down at an angle relative to the observer who is viewing a moving
> light source.
I'm not sure what figure you are referring to, nor to what contradiction you
are referring.
> The movement of the light source has nothing ( except
> for the doppler effect?) to do with the direction of light as viewed
> by the observer -
Wrong
> why should it?
More to the point, how can it not?
> What is the meaning of independent?
In what sentence?
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Which is the positions of all the light that had been emitted at a given
point in time.
> remains vertical in all frames.
Yes it does. And it travels diagonally in the frame of a relatively moving
observer, so coverse a greater distance.
> It takes the same time to
> get to the top no matter how many observers look at it.
Except it doesn't
> Einstein was an idiot...and so are all his followers.
So what's your excuse for being an idiot?
Inertial
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote in message
news:Xlgjn.153174$X_6.1...@newsfe22.ams2...
Stupid Androcles. You posted an animation that demonstrates that Henry is
correct about the beam remaining vertical (and showing it would move
diagonnally). BAHAHA .. you don't even know when Henry is wrong or right
(though I must admit, in general assuming he is wrong is a good bet).
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:q6rqo51om8ecvkad4...@4ax.com...
>
>> A vertical light beam remains vertical in all frames.
>>
>Bwhahahahahahahahaha!
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Bullseye.gif
That's not a light beam and it isn't vertical in the source frame.
>Awilson remains dead from the neck up in all frames.
To simulate a light beam you have to fire a stream of arrows all with their
shafts aligned.
train
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 06:54:28 -0800 (PST), train <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 2, 4:21 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in messagenews:mdcoo5p2q5r6h1ud4...@4ax.com...
>
> >> >>> Henry Wilson...
>
> >> >>> .......provider of free physics lessons
>
> >> >>No more replies to the topic?
>
> >> > no. Light is ballistic. Einstein was a hoaxer...end of story.
>
> >> Einstein was one of those to put forward again the notion of light being
> >> made of particles (photons), btw. Physics later reconciled the difference
> >> in quantumtheory(an area of physics, Einstein never really fully agreed
> >> with)
>
> >> And ballistic theories are long ago refuted. Henry is just a well-known liar
> >> and fraud who, for reasons no-one can fathom, tries to perpetuate the dead
> >> ballistictheory.
>
> >But the situation I described would not take place if ballistic
> >theory was correct. If light behaves for each observer as if the
> >still contradicts the Wikipedia illustration of the light bouncing up
> >an down at an angle relative to the observer who is viewing a moving
> >light source. The movement of the light source has nothing ( except
> >for the doppler effect?) to do with the direction of light as viewed
> >by the observer - why should it? What is the meaning of independent?
>
> A vertical light beam remains vertical in all frames. It takes the same time to
> get to the top no matter how many observers look at it.
>
> Einstein was an idiot...and so are all his followers.
>
Did it ever occur to you Henry, that statements like "Einstein was an
idiot" will not be well received by anyone you are trying to convince,
let alone the Scientific Community?
They want proof.
An idiot, dolt, or dullard is a mentally deficient person, or someone
who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way -
Wikipedia
May I suggest "delusion". I however do not subscribe publicly to this
idea.
Psychiatric definition
Although non-specific concepts of madness have been around for several
thousand years, the psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers was the
first to define the three main criteria for a belief to be considered
delusional in his 1917 book General Psychopathology. These criteria
are:
certainty (held with absolute conviction)
incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof
to the contrary)
impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently
untrue)
- Wikipedia
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 22:32:17 -0000, "Androcles"
> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_u>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:q6rqo51om8ecvkad4...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> A vertical light beam remains vertical in all frames.
>>>
>>Bwhahahahahahahahaha!
>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Bullseye.gif
>
> That's not a light beam
We know .. it an arrow. Have you not seen one before?
> and it isn't vertical in the source frame.
It is perpendicular to the bow, which illustrates the same idea.
>
>>Awilson remains dead from the neck up in all frames.
>
> To simulate a light beam you have to fire a stream of arrows all with
> their
> shafts aligned.
A single arrow is good enough .. it is aligned perpendicular to the bow in
all frames .. just as a beam of light is. A stream of arrows would do the
same, and wouldn't really make it any clearer.
The arrow also moves in the same direction it is pointing in the rest frame
of the bow, but moves diagonally in a relatively moving frame (obviously
excluding a frame moving in the same or opposite direction as the arrow).
That is also how light beams behaves wrt alignment and direction of travel.
(Although you had some time ago said that beams remains vertical and move
sideways, rather than diagonally, and argued that point against me for many
posts .. until you eventually gave up and later decided to agree with me ..
and then lied and said I'd been saying the opposite .. typical Henry
behaviour).
But on the few occasions when you are right (like you are now) you are
right.
Androcles should choose his battles more carefully .. there is plenty of
scope for pointing out when you really ARE wrong. I guess he's too stupid
to know the difference.
Inertial
I think you've summed up Henry's mental state nicely :)
> May I suggest "delusion". I however do not subscribe publicly to this
> idea.
>
> Psychiatric definition
>
> Although non-specific concepts of madness have been around for several
> thousand years, the psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers was the
> first to define the three main criteria for a belief to be considered
> delusional in his 1917 book General Psychopathology. These criteria
> are:
> certainty (held with absolute conviction)
> incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof
> to the contrary)
> impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently
> untrue)
I think you've also summed up Henry's position regarding physics nicely ..
its a delusion :)
train
> "train" <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:044668eb-f341-47ef...@e19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 4:21 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in
> >> messagenews:mdcoo5p2q5r6h1ud4...@4ax.com...
>
> >> > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 07:24:31 -0800 (PST), train
> >> > <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >>On Feb 26, 12:12 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> >>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:23:06 -0800 (PST), train
> >> >>> <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com>
> >> >>> wrote:
>
> >> >>> >Each and every observer sees the emission of light as if they had a
> >> >>> >with respect to the observer. Light travels as if it is attached to
PET is only a framework for thinking about how an observer sees a
moving light source, in a way that agrees with SRT. It has nothing to
do with reality. You can say it is a subset of SRT for the single
observer and a light source.
>
> > ten it
> > still contradicts the Wikipedia illustration of the light bouncing up
> > an down at an angle relative to the observer who is viewing a moving
> > light source.
>
> I'm not sure what figure you are referring to, nor to what contradiction you
> are referring.
OK here is the reference:
Simple inference of time dilation due to relative velocity in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
See the second diagram
>
> > The movement of the light source has nothing ( except
> > for the doppler effect?) to do with the direction of light as viewed
> > by the observer -
>
> Wrong
>
> > why should it?
>
> More to the point, how can it not?
>
> > What is the meaning of independent?
>
> In what sentence?
The velocity of light is independent of the source
The speed at which light propagates in vacuum is independent both of
the motion of the light source and of the inertial frame of reference
of the observer _wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
Train
train
> "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote in message
>
> news:Xlgjn.153174$X_6.1...@newsfe22.ams2...
>
>
>
> > "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> >news:q6rqo51om8ecvkad4...@4ax.com...
>
> >> A vertical light beam remains vertical in all frames.
>
> > Bwhahahahahahahahaha!
> >http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Bullseye.gif
Yes what is that Bullseye.gif? The arrows are photons?
T
Henry Wilson DSc
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:f0bro5hfciopqhp0m...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 22:32:17 -0000, "Androcles"
>> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_u>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>>news:q6rqo51om8ecvkad4...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> A vertical light beam remains vertical in all frames.
>>>>
>>>Bwhahahahahahahahaha!
>>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Bullseye.gif
>>
>> That's not a light beam
>
>We know .. it an arrow. Have you not seen one before?
Andro might not know the difference
>
>> and it isn't vertical in the source frame.
>
>It is perpendicular to the bow, which illustrates the same idea.
But his bow is angled wrt the bow's velocity vector.
>>>Awilson remains dead from the neck up in all frames.
>>
>> To simulate a light beam you have to fire a stream of arrows all with
>> their
>> shafts aligned.
>
>A single arrow is good enough .. it is aligned perpendicular to the bow in
>all frames .. just as a beam of light is. A stream of arrows would do the
>same, and wouldn't really make it any clearer.
It shows how each 'arrow' moves along a unique diagonal path. It shows that the
arrows DO NOT align themselves one behind the other along any single diagonal.
This crucial to understanding Einstein's stupidity, since an observer in the
moving frame can project a real light beam in that diagonal direction. In that
case a stream of 'arrows' DOES line up along that diagional and move at c in
that frame.
The arrow shafts are pointed in entirely different directions in the two cases.
I illusttrated this in my demo www.scisite.info/movingframe.exe
>The arrow also moves in the same direction it is pointing in the rest frame
>of the bow, but moves diagonally in a relatively moving frame (obviously
>excluding a frame moving in the same or opposite direction as the arrow).
>
>That is also how light beams behaves wrt alignment and direction of travel.
>
>(Although you had some time ago said that beams remains vertical and move
>sideways, rather than diagonally, and argued that point against me for many
>posts .. until you eventually gave up and later decided to agree with me ..
I didn't agree with YOU. You finally saw a glimmer of light and half agreed
with me. The shafts don't point diagonally and no line of arrows travels along
a single diagonal path...and definitely not at c. There is no resulting
diagonal light beam in the moving frame unless someone at rest in that frame
shines one diagonally. that one DOES move at c wrt that frame.
>and then lied and said I'd been saying the opposite .. typical Henry
>behaviour).
You are obviously so used to lying, yourself, you have forgotten how to
recognize truth.
>But on the few occasions when you are right (like you are now) you are
>right.
>
>Androcles should choose his battles more carefully .. there is plenty of
>scope for pointing out when you really ARE wrong. I guess he's too stupid
>to know the difference.
That's why he's known as Andro the Anti....he will argue with anyone just for
the sake of arguing. He obviousy enjoys making a complete fool of himself most
of the time.
Henry Wilson DSc
But we already know you are a chronic lying moron.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>On Mar 3, 12:58�am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 06:54:28 -0800 (PST), train <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >But the situation I described would not take place if �ballistic
>> >theory was correct. If light behaves for each observer as if the
>> >observer was stationary with respect to a universalether, then it
>> >still contradicts the Wikipedia illustration of the light bouncing up
>> >an down at an angle relative to the observer who is viewing a moving
>> >light source. The movement of the light source has nothing ( except
>> >for the doppler effect?) to do with the direction of light as viewed
>> >by the observer - why should it? What is the meaning of independent?
>>
>> A vertical light beam remains vertical in all frames. It takes the same time to
>> get to the top no matter how many observers look at it.
>>
>Bravo Henry!
>> Einstein was an idiot...and so are all his followers.
>>
>
>Did it ever occur to you Henry, that statements like "Einstein was an
>idiot" will not be well received by anyone you are trying to convince,
>let alone the Scientific Community?
>
>They want proof.
Here's the proof.
www.scisite.info/movingframe.exe
>An idiot, dolt, or dullard is a mentally deficient person, or someone
>who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way -
>Wikipedia
That is a very good description of you.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
You can move behind light in a space frame.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:41:00 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:f0bro5hfciopqhp0m...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 22:32:17 -0000, "Androcles"
>>> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_u>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>>>news:q6rqo51om8ecvkad4...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>> A vertical light beam remains vertical in all frames.
>>>>>
>>>>Bwhahahahahahahahaha!
>>>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Bullseye.gif
>>>
>>> That's not a light beam
>>
>>We know .. it an arrow. Have you not seen one before?
>
> Andro might not know the difference
He would if one hit him. Then again ... maybe not
>>
>>> and it isn't vertical in the source frame.
>>
>>It is perpendicular to the bow, which illustrates the same idea.
>
> But his bow is angled wrt the bow's velocity vector.
do yo umean the arrow's velocity vector. think that is just a result of
trying to show 3D perspective in the animation.
>>>>Awilson remains dead from the neck up in all frames.
>>>
>>> To simulate a light beam you have to fire a stream of arrows all with
>>> their
>>> shafts aligned.
>>
>>A single arrow is good enough .. it is aligned perpendicular to the bow in
>>all frames .. just as a beam of light is. A stream of arrows would do the
>>same, and wouldn't really make it any clearer.
>
> It shows how each 'arrow' moves along a unique diagonal path.
Just as each part of a single arrow does. It doesn't really help that much
having multiple arrows. One is enough.
> It shows that the
> arrows DO NOT align themselves one behind the other along any single
> diagonal.
Just as the parts of the arrow do not. It doesn't really help that much
having multiple arrows. One is enough.
> This crucial to understanding Einstein's stupidity,
There was none
> since an observer in the
> moving frame can project a real light beam in that diagonal direction.
What example or gedanken are you talking about here? Which frame is the
'moving frame' .. that of the light source or of the observer? You *seem*
to be saying both. You really need to be clearer.
> In that
> case a stream of 'arrows' DOES line up along that diagional and move at c
> in
> that frame.
Are you talking about an observer at rest aiming a light beam diagonally at
some target (maybe a mirror) that is not directly opposite him? I'm not
sure what you are actually talking about as you've not set up the scenario
beforehand
> The arrow shafts are pointed in entirely different directions in the two
> cases.
> I illusttrated this in my demo www.scisite.info/movingframe.exe
I've seen it before. Though how you think that contradicts the use of light
clocks to illustrate time dilation etc is a mystery
>>The arrow also moves in the same direction it is pointing in the rest
>>frame
>>of the bow, but moves diagonally in a relatively moving frame (obviously
>>excluding a frame moving in the same or opposite direction as the arrow).
>>
>>That is also how light beams behaves wrt alignment and direction of
>>travel.
>>
>>(Although you had some time ago said that beams remains vertical and move
>>sideways, rather than diagonally, and argued that point against me for
>>many
>>posts .. until you eventually gave up and later decided to agree with me
>>..
>
> I didn't agree with YOU. You finally saw a glimmer of light and half
> agreed
> with me.
No .. unlike you my position never changed. I said the light was aligned
vertically and travelled diagonally. Again , you lie to cover up your
mistakes
> The shafts don't point diagonally and no line of arrows travels along
> a single diagonal path...
Each individual arrow does, however.
> and definitely not at c.
According to SR it does (if we are talking about light, and not arrows, of
course)
> There is no resulting
> diagonal light beam in the moving frame
Noone says there is. You are arguing against a position noone holds. There
is a diagonal PATH that a light pulse takes.
> unless someone at rest in that frame
> shines one diagonally. that one DOES move at c wrt that frame.
>
>>and then lied and said I'd been saying the opposite .. typical Henry
>>behaviour).
>
> You are obviously so used to lying, yourself, you have forgotten how to
> recognize truth.
You wuoldn't know .. you lie continually
>>But on the few occasions when you are right (like you are now) you are
>>right.
>>
>>Androcles should choose his battles more carefully .. there is plenty of
>>scope for pointing out when you really ARE wrong. I guess he's too stupid
>>to know the difference.
>
> That's why he's known as Andro the Anti....he will argue with anyone just
> for
> the sake of arguing. He obviousy enjoys making a complete fool of himself
> most
> of the time.
As do you. Though neither of you realize how foolish you look. I guess
that's the one advantage for you of being dishonest: never seeing how
foolish you are and never admitting you are wrong.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Which proves nothing against SR at all. You make fallacious claims about
what SR says, then show they are fallacious and then claim that means SR is
wrong .. sorry, but that is not proof, it is nonsense.
Inertial
Except there is no need for there to be any aether. Just that light travels
at c wrt the observer.
>> > ten it
>> > still contradicts the Wikipedia illustration of the light bouncing up
>> > an down at an angle relative to the observer who is viewing a moving
>> > light source.
>>
>> I'm not sure what figure you are referring to, nor to what contradiction
>> you
>> are referring.
>
> OK here is the reference:
>
> Simple inference of time dilation due to relative velocity in
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
>
> See the second diagram
So where is the contradiction?
There is an obvious one between what two different observers see if each of
them claims to have a personal aether in which light travels at c, but
without the Lorentz transforms applying
I'm not sure if it is that internal inconsistency in a PET that you are
referring to.
>> > The movement of the light source has nothing ( except
>> > for the doppler effect?) to do with the direction of light as viewed
>> > by the observer -
>>
>> Wrong
>>
>> > why should it?
>>
>> More to the point, how can it not?
>>
>> > What is the meaning of independent?
>>
>> In what sentence?
>
> The velocity of light is independent of the source
Not exactly .. the SPEED of light is independent of the source .. but not
the direction.
> The speed
note 'speed'
> at which light propagates in vacuum is independent both of
> the motion of the light source and of the inertial frame of reference
> of the observer _wikipedia
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
Yes .. the SPEED .. but not NOT the direction. It is a not uncommon mistake
for students to think that the light speed being independent means it cannot
get a component of its direction from the motion of the light source.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
There you go .. being delusional again. I've never lied on these forums and
clearly shown I am not a moron. But then, evidence has never had any
relevance to what you say, Henry. Thanks for demonstrating it once again.
Henry Wilson DSc
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:1idro55tfp7ak29cd...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:41:00 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> and it isn't vertical in the source frame.
>>>
>>>It is perpendicular to the bow, which illustrates the same idea.
>>
>> But his bow is angled wrt the bow's velocity vector.
>
>do yo umean the arrow's velocity vector. think that is just a result of
>trying to show 3D perspective in the animation.
Yes OK.
>>>
>>>A single arrow is good enough .. it is aligned perpendicular to the bow in
>>>all frames .. just as a beam of light is. A stream of arrows would do the
>>>same, and wouldn't really make it any clearer.
>>
>> It shows how each 'arrow' moves along a unique diagonal path.
>
>Just as each part of a single arrow does. It doesn't really help that much
>having multiple arrows. One is enough.
>
>> It shows that the
>> arrows DO NOT align themselves one behind the other along any single
>> diagonal.
>
>Just as the parts of the arrow do not. It doesn't really help that much
>having multiple arrows. One is enough.
Ah! I know that...but relativists like to use little round balls instead of
arrows to represent photons.
>> This crucial to understanding Einstein's stupidity,
>
>There was none
>
>> since an observer in the
>> moving frame can project a real light beam in that diagonal direction.
>
>What example or gedanken are you talking about here? Which frame is the
>'moving frame' .. that of the light source or of the observer? You *seem*
>to be saying both. You really need to be clearer.
I'm quite clear. In the moving frame, each arrow is plotted moving diagonally
with its shaft vertical. If the moving observer shines a laser in that diagonal
direction, he gets a 'line of arrows', one behind the other all with their
shafts diagonally aligned and moving at c along that diagonal.....a different
situation altogether.
>> In that
>> case a stream of 'arrows' DOES line up along that diagional and move at c
>> in
>> that frame.
>
>Are you talking about an observer at rest aiming a light beam diagonally at
>some target (maybe a mirror) that is not directly opposite him? I'm not
>sure what you are actually talking about as you've not set up the scenario
>beforehand./
To the moving observer, each element of an arrow appears to move along a single
diagonal. He shines a real laser beam along that diagonal.
>> The arrow shafts are pointed in entirely different directions in the two
>> cases.
>> I illusttrated this in my demo www.scisite.info/movingframe.exe
>
>I've seen it before. Though how you think that contradicts the use of light
>clocks to illustrate time dilation etc is a mystery
well you didn't understand it. Why should the 'arrows' move at c along their
apparent diagonal paths and not sqrt(c^2+v^2)
>>
>> I didn't agree with YOU. You finally saw a glimmer of light and half
>> agreed
>> with me.
>
>No .. unlike you my position never changed. I said the light was aligned
>vertically and travelled diagonally. Again , you lie to cover up your
>mistakes
>
>> The shafts don't point diagonally and no line of arrows travels along
>> a single diagonal path...
>
>Each individual arrow does, however.
So not light beam (continuous line of arrows) moves diagonally.
>> and definitely not at c.
>
>According to SR it does (if we are talking about light, and not arrows, of
>course)
It is NOT a ligth beam. That is my point. The diagonal laser beam is...but its
arrow shafts are diagonal, not vertical.
>> There is no resulting
>> diagonal light beam in the moving frame
>
>Noone says there is. You are arguing against a position noone holds. There
>is a diagonal PATH that a light pulse takes.
It osn't a light piulse. It is an infinitesimal element of a light pulse. There
is absolutely no reason why it should move at c.
>> for
>> the sake of arguing. He obviousy enjoys making a complete fool of himself
>> most
>> of the time.
>
>As do you. Though neither of you realize how foolish you look. I guess
>that's the one advantage for you of being dishonest: never seeing how
>foolish you are and never admitting you are wrong.
You're no better than little eric...that's how stupid YOU look.
You never say anything intelligent either..
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Usually they take them as little point-particles. But its not really
important in this case.
>>> This crucial to understanding Einstein's stupidity,
>>
>>There was none
>>
>>> since an observer in the
>>> moving frame can project a real light beam in that diagonal direction.
>>
>>What example or gedanken are you talking about here? Which frame is the
>>'moving frame' .. that of the light source or of the observer? You *seem*
>>to be saying both. You really need to be clearer.
>
> I'm quite clear.
Not really .. but lets see if you can be
> In the moving frame, each arrow
You were talking about a 'real light bream' .. now its an arrow again. So
far you're not doing to well in clarifying.
> is plotted moving diagonally
> with its shaft vertical.
Just as a beam of light would be.
So now we have an at-rest bow shooting out arrows vertically, and a
horizontally moving observer watching them each follow a diagonal path while
each (and the whole stream of arrows) remaining vertically aligned.
> If the moving observer shines a laser in that diagonal
> direction, he gets a 'line of arrows', one behind the other all with their
> shafts diagonally aligned and moving at c along that diagonal.....a
> different
> situation altogether.
Yes .. of course it is different, the observer's beam is aligned in the
direction of travel, whereas the arrows are not.
If the moving observer was also shooting arrows, they would have to be shot
out faster in his frame than the vertical arrows do in the rest frame if
they were to hit the target at the same time, as they have further to travel
in his frame (a diagonal path) than do the vertical arrows do in the rest
frame (a vertical path).
How any of what you say has any relevance to what Einstein says is as yet
still unclear. Do you have a point?
>>> In that
>>> case a stream of 'arrows' DOES line up along that diagional and move at
>>> c
>>> in
>>> that frame.
>>
>>Are you talking about an observer at rest aiming a light beam diagonally
>>at
>>some target (maybe a mirror) that is not directly opposite him? I'm not
>>sure what you are actually talking about as you've not set up the scenario
>>beforehand./
>
> To the moving observer, each element of an arrow appears to move along a
> single
> diagonal.
Yes .. it does. I spent a long time telling you this before.
> He shines a real laser beam along that diagonal.
Not sure why he doesn't shoot arrows, but if he wants to use a laser, fine.
>>> The arrow shafts are pointed in entirely different directions in the two
>>> cases.
>>> I illusttrated this in my demo www.scisite.info/movingframe.exe
>>
>>I've seen it before. Though how you think that contradicts the use of
>>light
>>clocks to illustrate time dilation etc is a mystery
>
> well you didn't understand it.
Of course I did
> Why should the 'arrows' move at c along their
> apparent diagonal paths and not sqrt(c^2+v^2)
Because, if we are talking SR, that's what the second postulate SAYS they
do.
>>> I didn't agree with YOU. You finally saw a glimmer of light and half
>>> agreed
>>> with me.
>>
>>No .. unlike you my position never changed. I said the light was aligned
>>vertically and travelled diagonally. Again , you lie to cover up your
>>mistakes
>>
>>> The shafts don't point diagonally and no line of arrows travels along
>>> a single diagonal path...
>>
>>Each individual arrow does, however.
>
> So not light beam (continuous line of arrows) moves diagonally.
Yes .. the stream of arrows is aligned vertically and has a diagonal path
(according to a moving observer)
Just as the beam of light is aligned vertically and has a diagonal path
(according to a moving observer)
>
>>> and definitely not at c.
>>
>>According to SR it does (if we are talking about light, and not arrows, of
>>course)
>
> It is NOT a ligth beam.
Then it won't travel at c. pretty simple
> That is my point. The diagonal laser beam is...but its
> arrow shafts are diagonal, not vertical.
A vertical beam is not the same as a diagonal beam. But then, that doesn't
have anything to do with light clocks etc, which are sending single photons
(the little balls you talked about before). How streams of them are aligned
doesn't matter.
>>> There is no resulting
>>> diagonal light beam in the moving frame
>>
>>Noone says there is. You are arguing against a position noone holds.
>>There
>>is a diagonal PATH that a light pulse takes.
>
> It osn't a light piulse.
It is in the light clock scenarios of SR
> It is an infinitesimal element of a light pulse. There
> is absolutely no reason why it should move at c.
It is light .. of course it moves at c
>>> for
>>> the sake of arguing. He obviousy enjoys making a complete fool of
>>> himself
>>> most
>>> of the time.
>>
>>As do you. Though neither of you realize how foolish you look. I guess
>>that's the one advantage for you of being dishonest: never seeing how
>>foolish you are and never admitting you are wrong.
>
> You're no better than little eric...that's how stupid YOU look.
> You never say anything intelligent either..
I almost always do say intelligent things (sometimes I joke instead) ..
you're just too stupid or dishonest to recognize them.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:41:00 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:f0bro5hfciopqhp0m...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 22:32:17 -0000, "Androcles"
>>> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_u>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>>>news:q6rqo51om8ecvkad4...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>> A vertical light beam remains vertical in all frames.
>>>>>
>>>>Bwhahahahahahahahaha!
>>>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Bullseye.gif
>>>
>>> That's not a light beam
>>
>>We know .. it an arrow. Have you not seen one before?
>
> Andro might not know the difference
>>
>>> and it isn't vertical in the source frame.
>>
>>It is perpendicular to the bow, which illustrates the same idea.
>
> But his bow is angled wrt the bow's velocity vector.
Yes, my bow is angled 90 degrees to its velocity vector as it is supposed
to be. So fucking what, anti?
>
>>>>Awilson remains dead from the neck up in all frames.
>>>
>>> To simulate a light beam you have to fire a stream of arrows all with
>>> their
>>> shafts aligned.
>>
>>A single arrow is good enough .. it is aligned perpendicular to the bow in
>>all frames .. just as a beam of light is. A stream of arrows would do the
>>same, and wouldn't really make it any clearer.
>
> It shows how each 'arrow' moves along a unique diagonal path. It shows
> that the
> arrows DO NOT align themselves one behind the other along any single
> diagonal.
Who required that it should be? Not I, not Einstein, not even Inert.
An arrow is NOT aligned with a dog's breakfast. What are you making a
big issue out of what something is not for, Awilson the anti?
> This crucial to understanding Einstein's stupidity,
Is it fuck! It's irrelevant, you dumb bastard, Einstein never claimed
arrows have to align themselves one behind the other along any single
diagonal. This crucial to understanding Awilson's dementia.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
That's not a point particle and it isn't a vertical beam. - Phuckwit
Duck/Henry AWilson.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 22:32:17 -0000, "Androcles"
> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_u>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:q6rqo51om8ecvkad4...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> A vertical light beam remains vertical in all frames.
>>>
>>Bwhahahahahahahahaha!
>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Bullseye.gif
>
> That's not a light beam and it isn't vertical in the source frame.
Once again Awilson does a Phuckwit Duck and tells us that a light
beam is not a dog's breakfast and bicycles do not have five wheels.
What else would you like to say something isn't?
How about Awilson isn't sane?
That's an arrow, shithead, and it is orthogonal to the x-axis.
>
>>Awilson remains dead from the neck up in all frames.
>
> To simulate a light beam you have to fire a stream of arrows all with
> their
> shafts aligned.
That's not a boomerang and it isn't perpendicular to your bowstring, crazy
ozzie the anti.
Inertial
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote in message
For a change I agree with you Androcles.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
So do I.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/photon.gif
So what, shithead?
Awilson the anti likes to use headless crocodiles.
To the moving observer, each arrow is nose-to-tail with its predecessor and
moves perpendicular to the target's movement. Awilson the demented senile
anti is too fuckin' stupid to understand the road moves while he stays still
in
his car. He shines a real laser beam at a right angle to the direction of
motion of the car and waits for the road sign to pass him.
>
>>> The arrow shafts are pointed in entirely different directions in the two
>>> cases.
>>> I illusttrated this in my demo www.scisite.info/movingframe.exe
>>
>>I've seen it before. Though how you think that contradicts the use of
>>light
>>clocks to illustrate time dilation etc is a mystery
>
> well you didn't understand it. Why should the 'arrows' move at c along
> their
> apparent diagonal paths and not sqrt(c^2+v^2)
Well you didn't understand it. They don't, they move at c along their
perpendicular paths and the road sign intercepts the beam.
>
>>>
>>> I didn't agree with YOU. You finally saw a glimmer of light and half
>>> agreed
>>> with me.
>>
>>No .. unlike you my position never changed. I said the light was aligned
>>vertically and travelled diagonally. Again , you lie to cover up your
>>mistakes
>>
>>> The shafts don't point diagonally and no line of arrows travels along
>>> a single diagonal path...
>>
>>Each individual arrow does, however.
>
> So not light beam (continuous line of arrows) moves diagonally.
Drunken old demented ozzie the anti, still doesn't understand Galilean
relativity.
>
>>> and definitely not at c.
>>
>>According to SR it does (if we are talking about light, and not arrows, of
>>course)
>
> It is NOT a ligth beam. That is my point. The diagonal laser beam is
There is no diagonal beam, drunken shithead.
Androcles
On Mar 3, 3:59 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote in message
>
> news:Xlgjn.153174$X_6.1...@newsfe22.ams2...
>
>
>
> > "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> >news:q6rqo51om8ecvkad4...@4ax.com...
>
> >> A vertical light beam remains vertical in all frames.
>
> > Bwhahahahahahahahaha!
> >http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Bullseye.gif
Yes what is that Bullseye.gif? The arrows are photons?
T
==========================================
Arrows are arrows, idiot.
If you are the target, you get hit. If you are the bowman, you hit the
target.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Aberration.gif
Henry Wilson DSc
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:oclro5psomccqgduq...@4ax.com...
>>>Just as the parts of the arrow do not. It doesn't really help that much
>>>having multiple arrows. One is enough.
>>
>> Ah! I know that...but relativists like to use little round balls instead
>> of
>> arrows to represent photons.
>
>Usually they take them as little point-particles. But its not really
>important in this case.
It is somewhat important. Arrows have shafts. I say photons have similar axes.
>>>What example or gedanken are you talking about here? Which frame is the
>>>'moving frame' .. that of the light source or of the observer? You *seem*
>>>to be saying both. You really need to be clearer.
>>
>> I'm quite clear.
>
>Not really .. but lets see if you can be
>
>> In the moving frame, each arrow
>
>You were talking about a 'real light bream' .. now its an arrow again. So
>far you're not doing to well in clarifying.
Arrows are symbolic photons.
>> is plotted moving diagonally
>> with its shaft vertical.
>
>Just as a beam of light would be.
Not 'just as'. A beam of light has many arrows.
>So now we have an at-rest bow shooting out arrows vertically, and a
>horizontally moving observer watching them each follow a diagonal path while
>each (and the whole stream of arrows) remaining vertically aligned.
Yes. You've got it. ....which is more than anyone else here has.
>> If the moving observer shines a laser in that diagonal
>> direction, he gets a 'line of arrows', one behind the other all with their
>> shafts diagonally aligned and moving at c along that diagonal.....a
>> different
>> situation altogether.
>
>Yes .. of course it is different, the observer's beam is aligned in the
>direction of travel, whereas the arrows are not.
So why should each 'arrow' move at c when its axis is NOT aligned with its
direction of travel (in the moving frame)?
There is no justification in claiming that it should.
>If the moving observer was also shooting arrows, they would have to be shot
>out faster in his frame than the vertical arrows do in the rest frame if
>they were to hit the target at the same time, as they have further to travel
>in his frame (a diagonal path) than do the vertical arrows do in the rest
>frame (a vertical path).
But they don't hit the target in the same time.
>How any of what you say has any relevance to what Einstein says is as yet
>still unclear. Do you have a point?
...do you mean to say you still haven't got it after all this time....
The vertical arrows move diagonally at sqrt(c^2 + v^2) in the moving frame, NOT
c. It takes the same time to reach the target. Einstein says it moves at c and
takes longer. THis is the principle behind his whole bloody theory.
This is where his fictitious 'time dilation' is supposed to originate.
>> To the moving observer, each element of an arrow appears to move along a
>> single
>> diagonal.
>
>Yes .. it does. I spent a long time telling you this before.
I spent a long time telling YOU that every atom in that arrow moves along a
DIFFERENT diagonal.
>> He shines a real laser beam along that diagonal.
>
>Not sure why he doesn't shoot arrows, but if he wants to use a laser, fine.
'Arrows' are photons.
>>>> The arrow shafts are pointed in entirely different directions in the two
>>>> cases.
>>>> I illusttrated this in my demo www.scisite.info/movingframe.exe
>>>
>>>I've seen it before. Though how you think that contradicts the use of
>>>light
>>>clocks to illustrate time dilation etc is a mystery
>>
>> well you didn't understand it.
>
>Of course I did
You still don't understand the connection with Einstein's fictitious time
dilation. You're not very bright.
>> Why should the 'arrows' move at c along their
>> apparent diagonal paths and not sqrt(c^2+v^2)
>
>Because, if we are talking SR, that's what the second postulate SAYS they
>do.
I FUCKING KNOW THAT.
I'm telling you why it must be bullshit.
The 'arrows' move diagonally and have vertical shafts. The photons move
diagonally but have DIFUCKINGAGONAL shafts.
I repeat. THERE IS NO SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE TWO.
>>>> The shafts don't point diagonally and no line of arrows travels along
>>>> a single diagonal path...
>>>
>>>Each individual arrow does, however.
>>
>> So not light beam (continuous line of arrows) moves diagonally.
>
>Yes .. the stream of arrows is aligned vertically and has a diagonal path
>(according to a moving observer)
THE STREAM DOES not HAVE A DIAGONAL PATH.
Each element of the stream has a different diagonal path.
>Just as the beam of light is aligned vertically and has a diagonal path
>(according to a moving observer)
The individual elements of the beam have an infinite number of diagonal paths.
>>>> and definitely not at c.
>>>
>>>According to SR it does (if we are talking about light, and not arrows, of
>>>course)
>>
>> It is NOT a ligth beam.
>
>Then it won't travel at c. pretty simple
Great. You finally agree.
>> That is my point. The diagonal laser beam is...but its
>> arrow shafts are diagonal, not vertical.
>
>A vertical beam is not the same as a diagonal beam. But then, that doesn't
>have anything to do with light clocks etc, which are sending single photons
>(the little balls you talked about before). How streams of them are aligned
>doesn't matter.
OF COURSE IT MATTERS. You're just too moronic to see why.
>>>> There is no resulting
>>>> diagonal light beam in the moving frame
>>>
>>>Noone says there is. You are arguing against a position noone holds.
>>>There
>>>is a diagonal PATH that a light pulse takes.
>>
>> It osn't a light piulse.
>
>It is in the light clock scenarios of SR
Whatever it is it will take the same time to go there and back no matter who
watches it.
>> It is an infinitesimal element of a light pulse. There
>> is absolutely no reason why it should move at c.
>
>It is light .. of course it moves at c
It moves at sqrt(c^2+v^2)
>>
>> You're no better than little eric...that's how stupid YOU look.
>> You never say anything intelligent either..
>
>I almost always do say intelligent things (sometimes I joke instead) ..
>you're just too stupid or dishonest to recognize them.
I'm not wasting any more time trying to explain sucgh a simple process to a
complete idiot.
Henry Wilson DSc
>
>"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote in message
>news:6cmjn.215928$kR2.1...@newsfe05.ams2...
>>
>> "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>> news:1idro55tfp7ak29cd...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:41:00 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>>> It shows how each 'arrow' moves along a unique diagonal path. It shows
>>> that the
>>> arrows DO NOT align themselves one behind the other along any single
>>> diagonal.
>>
>> Who required that it should be? Not I, not Einstein, not even Inert.
>> An arrow is NOT aligned with a dog's breakfast. What are you making a
>> big issue out of what something is not for, Awilson the anti?
>>
>>> This crucial to understanding Einstein's stupidity,
>>
>> Is it fuck! It's irrelevant, you dumb bastard, Einstein never claimed
>> arrows have to align themselves one behind the other along any single
>> diagonal. This crucial to understanding Awilson's dementia.
>
>For a change I agree with you Androcles.
Why shouldn't you? You're just as bloody stupid.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:oclro5psomccqgduq...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 12:47:06 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
>>>> In that
>>>> case a stream of 'arrows' DOES line up along that diagional and move at
>>>> c
>>>> in
>>>> that frame.
>>>
>>>Are you talking about an observer at rest aiming a light beam diagonally
>>>at
>>>some target (maybe a mirror) that is not directly opposite him? I'm not
>>>sure what you are actually talking about as you've not set up the scenario
>>>beforehand./
>>
>> To the moving observer, each element of an arrow appears to move along a
>> single
>> diagonal. He shines a real laser beam along that diagonal.
>
>To the moving observer, each arrow is nose-to-tail with its predecessor and
>moves perpendicular to the target's movement.
The moving observer is sitting on the target.
He sees a vertical steam of arrows moving towards him. Only one will hit him
...with its shaft diagonal to him. So it might bounce off.
>Awilson the demented senile
>anti is too fuckin' stupid to understand the road moves while he stays still
>in
>his car. He shines a real laser beam at a right angle to the direction of
>motion of the car and waits for the road sign to pass him.
THe laser light takes the same time to cross the bloody road no matter how fast
the car or the road move.
>>
>>>> The arrow shafts are pointed in entirely different directions in the two
>>>> cases.
>>>> I illusttrated this in my demo www.scisite.info/movingframe.exe
>>>
>>>I've seen it before. Though how you think that contradicts the use of
>>>light
>>>clocks to illustrate time dilation etc is a mystery
>>
>> well you didn't understand it. Why should the 'arrows' move at c along
>> their
>> apparent diagonal paths and not sqrt(c^2+v^2)
>
>Well you didn't understand it. They don't, they move at c along their
>perpendicular paths and the road sign intercepts the beam.
That's what I've been saying all along.
>>>> I didn't agree with YOU. You finally saw a glimmer of light and half
>>>> agreed
>>>> with me.
>>>
>>>No .. unlike you my position never changed. I said the light was aligned
>>>vertically and travelled diagonally. Again , you lie to cover up your
>>>mistakes
>>>
>>>> The shafts don't point diagonally and no line of arrows travels along
>>>> a single diagonal path...
>>>
>>>Each individual arrow does, however.
>>
>> So not light beam (continuous line of arrows) moves diagonally.
>
>Drunken old demented ozzie the anti, still doesn't understand Galilean
>relativity.
EACH FUCKING ARROW MOVES ALONG A DIFFERENT FUCKING DIAGONAL. GEEZ! yOU'RE AS
BAD AS INERTIAL.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:1idro55tfp7ak29cd...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Andro might not know the difference
>>>
>>>> and it isn't vertical in the source frame.
>>>
>>>It is perpendicular to the bow, which illustrates the same idea.
>>
>> But his bow is angled wrt the bow's velocity vector.
>
>Yes, my bow is angled 90 degrees to its velocity vector as it is supposed
>to be. So fucking what, anti?
nothing...forget it...your animation is shithouse...
>> It shows how each 'arrow' moves along a unique diagonal path. It shows
>> that the
>> arrows DO NOT align themselves one behind the other along any single
>> diagonal.
>
>Who required that it should be? Not I, not Einstein, not even Inert.
>An arrow is NOT aligned with a dog's breakfast. What are you making a
>big issue out of what something is not for, Awilson the anti?
It is crucial to Einstein's idiotic theory. That's why.
>> This crucial to understanding Einstein's stupidity,
>
>Is it fuck! It's irrelevant, you dumb bastard, Einstein never claimed
>arrows have to align themselves one behind the other along any single
>diagonal. This crucial to understanding Awilson's dementia.
I've tried to explain to inetial to no avail....and she's a lot brighter thyan
you. So I'm not going to repeat myself. READ WHAT I SAID TO HER.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 14:58:52 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:oclro5psomccqgduq...@4ax.com...
>
>>>>Just as the parts of the arrow do not. It doesn't really help that much
>>>>having multiple arrows. One is enough.
>>>
>>> Ah! I know that...but relativists like to use little round balls instead
>>> of
>>> arrows to represent photons.
>>
>>Usually they take them as little point-particles. But its not really
>>important in this case.
>
> It is somewhat important. Arrows have shafts. I say photons have similar
> axes.
Again .. it doesn't matter
>>>>What example or gedanken are you talking about here? Which frame is the
>>>>'moving frame' .. that of the light source or of the observer? You
>>>>*seem*
>>>>to be saying both. You really need to be clearer.
>>>
>>> I'm quite clear.
>>
>>Not really .. but lets see if you can be
>>
>>> In the moving frame, each arrow
>>
>>You were talking about a 'real light bream' .. now its an arrow again. So
>>far you're not doing to well in clarifying.
>
> Arrows are symbolic photons.
Try to be consistent when explaining.
>>> is plotted moving diagonally
>>> with its shaft vertical.
>>
>>Just as a beam of light would be.
>
> Not 'just as'.
Yes .. a beam would by vertical just as teh shaft of an arrow is vertical.
> A beam of light has many arrows.
No .. it doesn't have ANY arrows. It has photons.
>>So now we have an at-rest bow shooting out arrows vertically, and a
>>horizontally moving observer watching them each follow a diagonal path
>>while
>>each (and the whole stream of arrows) remaining vertically aligned.
>
> Yes. You've got it. ....which is more than anyone else here has.
I've 'got it' from the beginning. Its pretty damned basic.
>>> If the moving observer shines a laser in that diagonal
>>> direction, he gets a 'line of arrows', one behind the other all with
>>> their
>>> shafts diagonally aligned and moving at c along that diagonal.....a
>>> different
>>> situation altogether.
>>
>>Yes .. of course it is different, the observer's beam is aligned in the
>>direction of travel, whereas the arrows are not.
>
> So why should each 'arrow' move at c when its axis is NOT aligned with its
> direction of travel (in the moving frame)?
The speed that light travels has nothing to do with some 'axis'.
> There is no justification in claiming that it should.
In case you hadn't noticed .. the gedanken with a light clock is to examine
what would happen *IF* SR's 2nd postulate were true.
You can look at the same scenario and examine what would happen *IF* SR's
second postulate were false.
The only way to find out which is correct is to do some experiments.
Experiments say light behaves as SR says it would.
>>If the moving observer was also shooting arrows, they would have to be
>>shot
>>out faster in his frame than the vertical arrows do in the rest frame if
>>they were to hit the target at the same time, as they have further to
>>travel
>>in his frame (a diagonal path) than do the vertical arrows do in the rest
>>frame (a vertical path).
>
> But they don't hit the target in the same time.
It depends on how fast the arrows are .. as I just explained. If you assume
that the arrows travel at the same speed wrt their bows, then they won't ..
unless they are travelling at 'c' and Lorentz transforms apply.
>>How any of what you say has any relevance to what Einstein says is as yet
>>still unclear. Do you have a point?
>
> ...do you mean to say you still haven't got it after all this time....
Indulge me and explain.
> The vertical arrows move diagonally at sqrt(c^2 + v^2) in the moving
> frame, NOT
> c.
If SR postulates do not apply .. yes they would be faster in the moving
frame. As I said above, you can analyses the scenario with either SR
postulates (applying to arrows travelling at c) or not.
> It takes the same time to reach the target.
If you analyse it assuming SR postulates are not correct.
> Einstein says it moves at c and
> takes longer.
If you analyse it assuming SR postulates *are* correct. And whether or not
it is a longer time depends on whose clock you are using
> THis is the principle behind his whole bloody theory.
> This is where his fictitious 'time dilation' is supposed to originate.
And so it does, as it is required for things to not be self-contradictory.
If you assume SR postulates and insist that there is NO time dilation, then
you get problems. Of course, we know experimentally that time dilation DOES
happen.
>>> To the moving observer, each element of an arrow appears to move along a
>>> single
>>> diagonal.
>>
>>Yes .. it does. I spent a long time telling you this before.
>
> I spent a long time telling YOU that every atom in that arrow moves along
> a
> DIFFERENT diagonal.
I don't know why you would bother, seeing I never said anything else ,, and
spent ages trying to tell YOU that
>>> He shines a real laser beam along that diagonal.
>>
>>Not sure why he doesn't shoot arrows, but if he wants to use a laser,
>>fine.
>
> 'Arrows' are photons.
Interesting. Those Indians were really advanced then.
>>>>> The arrow shafts are pointed in entirely different directions in the
>>>>> two
>>>>> cases.
>>>>> I illusttrated this in my demo www.scisite.info/movingframe.exe
>>>>
>>>>I've seen it before. Though how you think that contradicts the use of
>>>>light
>>>>clocks to illustrate time dilation etc is a mystery
>>>
>>> well you didn't understand it.
>>
>>Of course I did
>
> You still don't understand the connection with Einstein's fictitious time
> dilation. You're not very bright.
Far brighter than you could imagine
>>> Why should the 'arrows' move at c along their
>>> apparent diagonal paths and not sqrt(c^2+v^2)
>>
>>Because, if we are talking SR, that's what the second postulate SAYS they
>>do.
>
> I FUCKING KNOW THAT.
Then act as though you did
> I'm telling you why it must be bullshit.
It is only bullshit if you insist that it is false. ie. if you insist that
Lorentz transforms do not apply, then SR postulates DO NOT WORK.
> The 'arrows' move diagonally and have vertical shafts. The photons move
> diagonally but have DIFUCKINGAGONAL shafts.
There are no shafts in the photons
> I repeat. THERE IS NO SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE TWO.
Which two what?
>>>>> The shafts don't point diagonally and no line of arrows travels along
>>>>> a single diagonal path...
>>>>
>>>>Each individual arrow does, however.
>>>
>>> So not light beam (continuous line of arrows) moves diagonally.
>>
>>Yes .. the stream of arrows is aligned vertically and has a diagonal path
>>(according to a moving observer)
>
> THE STREAM DOES not HAVE A DIAGONAL PATH.
Of course it does
> Each element of the stream has a different diagonal path.
And the stream as a whole has a diagonal path parallel to the diagonal paths
of each component.
Are you saying you cannot determine the path taken by a car . .even if you
know the path each part of the car follows? Are only infinitely small
things able to have a path?
If the stream doesn't follow a diagonal path .. what path DOES it follow?
>>Just as the beam of light is aligned vertically and has a diagonal path
>>(according to a moving observer)
>
> The individual elements of the beam have an infinite number of diagonal
> paths.
Indeed they do .. all parallel .. and all parallel to the path of the beam.
if the source keep emitting, the beam also gets longer(from the 'bottom') as
it moves in a diagonal path.
>>>>> and definitely not at c.
>>>>
>>>>According to SR it does (if we are talking about light, and not arrows,
>>>>of
>>>>course)
>>>
>>> It is NOT a ligth beam.
>>
>>Then it won't travel at c. pretty simple
>
> Great. You finally agree.
Of course .. arrows do not travel at c. Light does
>>> That is my point. The diagonal laser beam is...but its
>>> arrow shafts are diagonal, not vertical.
>>
>>A vertical beam is not the same as a diagonal beam. But then, that
>>doesn't
>>have anything to do with light clocks etc, which are sending single
>>photons
>>(the little balls you talked about before). How streams of them are
>>aligned
>>doesn't matter.
>
> OF COURSE IT MATTERS.
Not that you've been able to demonstrate. Stream alignment is not used
anywherein SR.
> You're just too moronic to see why.
You're too moronic to see why not.
>>>>> There is no resulting
>>>>> diagonal light beam in the moving frame
>>>>
>>>>Noone says there is. You are arguing against a position noone holds.
>>>>There
>>>>is a diagonal PATH that a light pulse takes.
>>>
>>> It osn't a light piulse.
>>
>>It is in the light clock scenarios of SR
>
> Whatever it is it will take the same time to go there and back no matter
> who
> watches it.
So that means that if it travels at c, that time must not pass at the same
rate in both frames. You do realize the gendanken is analyzed on the
assumption the SR's postulates are true, to show what implications such
assumptions have.
>>> It is an infinitesimal element of a light pulse. There
>>> is absolutely no reason why it should move at c.
>>
>>It is light .. of course it moves at c
>
> It moves at sqrt(c^2+v^2)
Then it isn't light, according to SR.
>>> You're no better than little eric...that's how stupid YOU look.
>>> You never say anything intelligent either..
>>
>>I almost always do say intelligent things (sometimes I joke instead) ..
>>you're just too stupid or dishonest to recognize them.
>
> I'm not wasting any more time trying to explain sucgh a simple process to
> a
> complete idiot.
You going to stop talking to yourself eh? Probably wise.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Nowhere NEAR as stupid as him. He, like you, occasionally flukes getting
something right. Its always a surprise though.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
........not worth an answer.....
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
That's not a headless crocodile and it isn't an ant crawling up a straw.
Awilson can't climb this ladder without leaning over.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WilsonLadder.JPG
--
Androcles
.......provider of expensive physics lessons Awilson (my pet chimp) can't
afford.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Then he's the stationary observer, dumbfuck.
An Awilson *plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, because you responded to George
Hammond the complete fruit cake, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
Update: the last clearance was 25/12/09. Some individuals have been
restored to the list.
I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and fuck off.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 04:52:51 -0000, "Androcles"
> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_u>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:1idro55tfp7ak29cd...@4ax.com...
>
>>>
>>> Andro might not know the difference
>>>>
>>>>> and it isn't vertical in the source frame.
>>>>
>>>>It is perpendicular to the bow, which illustrates the same idea.
>>>
>>> But his bow is angled wrt the bow's velocity vector.
>>
>>Yes, my bow is angled 90 degrees to its velocity vector as it is supposed
>>to be. So fucking what, anti?
>
> nothing...forget it...your animation is shithouse...
Miserable bastard, you know you are beaten by simplicity
and don't have the cajones to admit it. Fuck you, Awilson, you
are shit.
>
>
>>> It shows how each 'arrow' moves along a unique diagonal path. It shows
>>> that the
>>> arrows DO NOT align themselves one behind the other along any single
>>> diagonal.
>>
>>Who required that it should be? Not I, not Einstein, not even Inert.
>>An arrow is NOT aligned with a dog's breakfast. What are you making a
>>big issue out of what something is not for, Awilson the anti?
>
> It is crucial to Einstein's idiotic theory. That's why.
Even a dumb bastard like Inert is laughing at your stupidity, and so am I.
An arrow is NOT aligned with a dog's breakfast, and Awilson is NOT sane.
>
>>> This crucial to understanding Einstein's stupidity,
>>
>>Is it fuck! It's irrelevant, you dumb bastard, Einstein never claimed
>>arrows have to align themselves one behind the other along any single
>>diagonal. This crucial to understanding Awilson's dementia.
>
> I've tried to explain to inetial to no avail....and she's a lot brighter
> thyan
> you. So I'm not going to repeat myself. READ WHAT I SAID TO HER.
All you ever say is what things are NOT, you are dumber than Phuckwit
Duck. An arrow is NOT aligned with a dog's breakfast, Awilson.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Henry Wilson DSc
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:dntro5djpmdb38c2q...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 14:58:52 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
>>>So now we have an at-rest bow shooting out arrows vertically, and a
>>>horizontally moving observer watching them each follow a diagonal path
>>>while
>>>each (and the whole stream of arrows) remaining vertically aligned.
>>
>> Yes. You've got it. ....which is more than anyone else here has.
>
>I've 'got it' from the beginning. Its pretty damned basic.
you only have half of it....the easy half...
>>>> If the moving observer shines a laser in that diagonal
>>>> direction, he gets a 'line of arrows', one behind the other all with
>>>> their
>>>> shafts diagonally aligned and moving at c along that diagonal.....a
>>>> different
>>>> situation altogether.
>>>
>>>Yes .. of course it is different, the observer's beam is aligned in the
>>>direction of travel, whereas the arrows are not.
>>
>> So why should each 'arrow' move at c when its axis is NOT aligned with its
>> direction of travel (in the moving frame)?
>
>The speed that light travels has nothing to do with some 'axis'.
Light travels at c wrt its source...as far as we know.
>> There is no justification in claiming that it should.
>
>In case you hadn't noticed .. the gedanken with a light clock is to examine
>what would happen *IF* SR's 2nd postulate were true.
it isn't.
>You can look at the same scenario and examine what would happen *IF* SR's
>second postulate were false.
>
>The only way to find out which is correct is to do some experiments.
>Experiments say light behaves as SR says it would.
No experiment has ever proved SR correct beyond reasonably doubt.
>>>If the moving observer was also shooting arrows, they would have to be
>>>shot
>>>out faster in his frame than the vertical arrows do in the rest frame if
>>>they were to hit the target at the same time, as they have further to
>>>travel
>>>in his frame (a diagonal path) than do the vertical arrows do in the rest
>>>frame (a vertical path).
>>
>> But they don't hit the target in the same time.
>
>It depends on how fast the arrows are .. as I just explained. If you assume
>that the arrows travel at the same speed wrt their bows, then they won't ..
>unless they are travelling at 'c' and Lorentz transforms apply.
They don't exist...except in fairyland.
>>>How any of what you say has any relevance to what Einstein says is as yet
>>>still unclear. Do you have a point?
>>
>> ...do you mean to say you still haven't got it after all this time....
>
>Indulge me and explain.
Use your own brain....I'm busy.
>> The vertical arrows move diagonally at sqrt(c^2 + v^2) in the moving
>> frame, NOT
>> c.
>
>If SR postulates do not apply .. yes they would be faster in the moving
>frame. As I said above, you can analyses the scenario with either SR
>postulates (applying to arrows travelling at c) or not.
The postulates apply to light rays. What moves diagonally is not a light ray.
>> It takes the same time to reach the target.
>
>If you analyse it assuming SR postulates are not correct.
The postulates apply to light rays. What moves diagonally is not a light ray.
>> Einstein says it moves at c and
>> takes longer.
>
>If you analyse it assuming SR postulates *are* correct. And whether or not
>it is a longer time depends on whose clock you are using
Time dilation is bullshit too.
>> THis is the principle behind his whole bloody theory.
>> This is where his fictitious 'time dilation' is supposed to originate.
>
>And so it does, as it is required for things to not be self-contradictory.
Hahahahhahahahhaha! You mean one crappy mistake is required to compensate for
another..
>If you assume SR postulates and insist that there is NO time dilation, then
>you get problems. Of course, we know experimentally that time dilation DOES
>happen.
There are no expeirments that even hint that time dilation exists.
>>>> He shines a real laser beam along that diagonal.
>>>
>>>Not sure why he doesn't shoot arrows, but if he wants to use a laser,
>>>fine.
>>
>> 'Arrows' are photons.
>
>Interesting. Those Indians were really advanced then.
....funny girl...
>>>Of course I did
>>
>> You still don't understand the connection with Einstein's fictitious time
>> dilation. You're not very bright.
>
>Far brighter than you could imagine
Agreed, one would need incredible powers of imagination to consider you bright.
>>>> Why should the 'arrows' move at c along their
>>>> apparent diagonal paths and not sqrt(c^2+v^2)
>>>
>>>Because, if we are talking SR, that's what the second postulate SAYS they
>>>do.
>>
>> I FUCKING KNOW THAT.
>
>Then act as though you did
>
>> I'm telling you why it must be bullshit.
>
>It is only bullshit if you insist that it is false. ie. if you insist that
>Lorentz transforms do not apply, then SR postulates DO NOT WORK.
>
>> The 'arrows' move diagonally and have vertical shafts. The photons move
>> diagonally but have DIFUCKINGAGONAL shafts.
>
>There are no shafts in the photons
>
>> I repeat. THERE IS NO SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE TWO.
>
>Which two what?
situations. The arrow that moves at c in the direction of its shaft and the one
that doesn't.
>>>
>>>Yes .. the stream of arrows is aligned vertically and has a diagonal path
>>>(according to a moving observer)
>>
>> THE STREAM DOES not HAVE A DIAGONAL PATH.
>
>Of course it does
Do you know what 'A' means.
It means ONE path.
The stream has an infinite number of diagonal paths.
>> Each element of the stream has a different diagonal path.
>
>And the stream as a whole has a diagonal path parallel to the diagonal paths
>of each component.
so what.
>Are you saying you cannot determine the path taken by a car . .even if you
>know the path each part of the car follows? Are only infinitely small
>things able to have a path?
irrelevant.
>If the stream doesn't follow a diagonal path .. what path DOES it follow?
I have told you a thousand times.
You don't seem to have any idea. A path is a line. It has zero width.
Every infintesimal element of the beam follows a different diagonal line.
NO COMPLETE, CONTINUOUS LIGHT BEAM MOVES ALONG A SINGLE DIAGONAL.
I will not tell you again.
You are deliberately acting dumb and wasting my time.
<plonk>
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:dgvro51ei5jd1o9h0...@4ax.com...
>>>> To the moving observer, each element of an arrow appears to move along a
>>>> single
>>>> diagonal. He shines a real laser beam along that diagonal.
>>>
>>>To the moving observer, each arrow is nose-to-tail with its predecessor
>>>and
>>>moves perpendicular to the target's movement.
>>
>> The moving observer is sitting on the target.
>
>Then he's the stationary observer, dumbfuck.
>
>An Awilson *plonk*
>
>Do not reply to this generic message,
I fucking will. Your demo has both target and bow at rest.
>it was automatically generated;
by your chimp, no doubt...
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:l30so5du33cpjsigh...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 04:52:51 -0000, "Androcles"
>>>>>It is perpendicular to the bow, which illustrates the same idea.
.....silly old pommie engineer....as useless as a corkscrew in a mosque...
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:d40so55gpfr1l4vqh...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 04:35:03 -0000, "Androcles"
>> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_u>
>>>>
>>>> Here's the proof.
>>>> www.scisite.info/movingframe.exe
>>>>
>>>
>>>That's not a point particle and it isn't a vertical beam. - Phuckwit
>>>Duck/Henry AWilson.
>>
>> ........not worth an answer.....
>
>That's not a headless crocodile and it isn't an ant crawling up a straw.
>Awilson can't climb this ladder without leaning over.
> http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WilsonLadder.JPG
Is that where you keep all your grog?
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 17:25:18 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:dntro5djpmdb38c2q...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 14:58:52 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>>> wrote:
>
>>>>So now we have an at-rest bow shooting out arrows vertically, and a
>>>>horizontally moving observer watching them each follow a diagonal path
>>>>while
>>>>each (and the whole stream of arrows) remaining vertically aligned.
>>>
>>> Yes. You've got it. ....which is more than anyone else here has.
>>
>>I've 'got it' from the beginning. Its pretty damned basic.
>
> you only have half of it....the easy half...
You don't even have that.
>>>>> If the moving observer shines a laser in that diagonal
>>>>> direction, he gets a 'line of arrows', one behind the other all with
>>>>> their
>>>>> shafts diagonally aligned and moving at c along that diagonal.....a
>>>>> different
>>>>> situation altogether.
>>>>
>>>>Yes .. of course it is different, the observer's beam is aligned in the
>>>>direction of travel, whereas the arrows are not.
>>>
>>> So why should each 'arrow' move at c when its axis is NOT aligned with
>>> its
>>> direction of travel (in the moving frame)?
>>
>>The speed that light travels has nothing to do with some 'axis'.
>
> Light travels at c wrt its source...as far as we know.
And that has nothing to do with some 'axis'
>>> There is no justification in claiming that it should.
>>
>>In case you hadn't noticed .. the gedanken with a light clock is to
>>examine
>>what would happen *IF* SR's 2nd postulate were true.
>
> it isn't.
Yes .. it is
>>You can look at the same scenario and examine what would happen *IF* SR's
>>second postulate were false.
>>
>>The only way to find out which is correct is to do some experiments.
>>Experiments say light behaves as SR says it would.
>
> No experiment has ever proved SR correct beyond reasonably doubt.
Wrong. You are such a liar.
>>>>If the moving observer was also shooting arrows, they would have to be
>>>>shot
>>>>out faster in his frame than the vertical arrows do in the rest frame if
>>>>they were to hit the target at the same time, as they have further to
>>>>travel
>>>>in his frame (a diagonal path) than do the vertical arrows do in the
>>>>rest
>>>>frame (a vertical path).
>>>
>>> But they don't hit the target in the same time.
>>
>>It depends on how fast the arrows are .. as I just explained. If you
>>assume
>>that the arrows travel at the same speed wrt their bows, then they won't
>>..
>>unless they are travelling at 'c' and Lorentz transforms apply.
>
> They don't exist...except in fairyland.
Wrong. You are such a liar.
>>>>How any of what you say has any relevance to what Einstein says is as
>>>>yet
>>>>still unclear. Do you have a point?
>>>
>>> ...do you mean to say you still haven't got it after all this time....
>>
>>Indulge me and explain.
>
> Use your own brain....I'm busy.
So .. you can't. That's not surprising
>>> The vertical arrows move diagonally at sqrt(c^2 + v^2) in the moving
>>> frame, NOT
>>> c.
>>
>>If SR postulates do not apply .. yes they would be faster in the moving
>>frame. As I said above, you can analyses the scenario with either SR
>>postulates (applying to arrows travelling at c) or not.
>
> The postulates apply to light rays.
To light .. yes
> What moves diagonally is not a light ray.
Of course it moves diagonally.
>>> It takes the same time to reach the target.
>>
>>If you analyse it assuming SR postulates are not correct.
>
> The postulates apply to light rays. What moves diagonally is not a light
> ray.
Right. And Wrong again
>>> Einstein says it moves at c and
>>> takes longer.
>>
>>If you analyse it assuming SR postulates *are* correct. And whether or
>>not
>>it is a longer time depends on whose clock you are using
>
> Time dilation is bullshit too.
You're just in total denial of reality .. it must be so pleasant for you in
fairyland
>>> THis is the principle behind his whole bloody theory.
>>> This is where his fictitious 'time dilation' is supposed to originate.
>>
>>And so it does, as it is required for things to not be self-contradictory.
>
> Hahahahhahahahhaha! You mean one crappy mistake is required to compensate
> for
> another..
No
>>If you assume SR postulates and insist that there is NO time dilation,
>>then
>>you get problems. Of course, we know experimentally that time dilation
>>DOES
>>happen.
>
> There are no expeirments that even hint that time dilation exists.
Wrong. You are lying again.
>>>>> He shines a real laser beam along that diagonal.
>>>>
>>>>Not sure why he doesn't shoot arrows, but if he wants to use a laser,
>>>>fine.
>>>
>>> 'Arrows' are photons.
>>
>>Interesting. Those Indians were really advanced then.
>
> ....funny girl...
I know.
>>>>Of course I did
>>>
>>> You still don't understand the connection with Einstein's fictitious
>>> time
>>> dilation. You're not very bright.
>>
>>Far brighter than you could imagine
>
> Agreed, one would need incredible powers of imagination to consider you
> bright.
No .. just to read what I post. And to be honest. You fail on the latter
requirement
>>>>> Why should the 'arrows' move at c along their
>>>>> apparent diagonal paths and not sqrt(c^2+v^2)
>>>>
>>>>Because, if we are talking SR, that's what the second postulate SAYS
>>>>they
>>>>do.
>>>
>>> I FUCKING KNOW THAT.
>>
>>Then act as though you did
>>
>>> I'm telling you why it must be bullshit.
>>
>>It is only bullshit if you insist that it is false. ie. if you insist
>>that
>>Lorentz transforms do not apply, then SR postulates DO NOT WORK.
>>
>>> The 'arrows' move diagonally and have vertical shafts. The photons move
>>> diagonally but have DIFUCKINGAGONAL shafts.
>>
>>There are no shafts in the photons
>>
>>> I repeat. THERE IS NO SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE TWO.
>>
>>Which two what?
>
> situations. The arrow that moves at c in the direction of its shaft and
> the one
> that doesn't.
They are both moving arrows.
>>>>
>>>>Yes .. the stream of arrows is aligned vertically and has a diagonal
>>>>path
>>>>(according to a moving observer)
>>>
>>> THE STREAM DOES not HAVE A DIAGONAL PATH.
>>
>>Of course it does
>
> Do you know what 'A' means.
>
> It means ONE path.
That's right
> The stream has an infinite number of diagonal paths.
So you claim no actual object (like an arrow) can have a path .. only
infinitesimally small ones.
You seemed to be able to talk about the path the arrows were taking before
though. Hmm. Sounds like you're just bullshitting and have been caught out
>>> Each element of the stream has a different diagonal path.
>>
>>And the stream as a whole has a diagonal path parallel to the diagonal
>>paths
>>of each component.
>
> so what.
So it has a diagonal path, you moron
>>Are you saying you cannot determine the path taken by a car . .even if you
>>know the path each part of the car follows? Are only infinitely small
>>things able to have a path?
>
> irrelevant.
No .. it is totally relevant .. because it shows you are WRONG .. yet again.
The beam CAN and DOES have a diagonal path.
>>If the stream doesn't follow a diagonal path .. what path DOES it follow?
>
> I have told you a thousand times.
> You don't seem to have any idea. A path is a line. It has zero width.
So you are saying only things with a zero width can have a path
> Every infintesimal element of the beam follows a different diagonal line.
> NO COMPLETE, CONTINUOUS LIGHT BEAM MOVES ALONG A SINGLE DIAGONAL.
Of course it does. But it is not oriented along that path. Just like the
arrow follows a diagonal path without being aligned along that path.
> I will not tell you again.
Running away because you know you are caught out
> You are deliberately acting dumb and wasting my time.
You don't have to act. dumb comes naturally to you.
You've been caught out in your lies yet again. Run away little Henry.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Yes, but you'll never find it, the hatch is at the right end, not the
middle.
That's far too difficult for a physicist to work out.
"That's the kind of argument I'd expect from a desperate
person....completely out of ideas... ahahahaha!" -- Wilson.
"It would be very unusual to try to steal from a moving object. I don't
know of any instances where it is done. Any sane person would stop the
bloody thing then steal from it." -- Wilson
news:20090921091548.0...@gmail.com
"MOVING RAILCARS FEATURE IMAGINARY EFFECTS.
DON'T TRY TO STEAL FROM THEM."-- Wilson
news:drh9e553jdb7u87m7...@4ax.com
"Don't try to analyse the four-sided moving railcar."-- Wilson.
news:g34n95htcbsmddo6i...@4ax.com
"DON'T TRY TO STEAL FROM MOVING BOX CARS." -- Wilson.
news:aqqqm35ka2ef6qhei...@4ax.com
"A moving boxcar is not a 'moving boxcar' ...
hahahahhahahahaha!" --Wilson
news:mu2nm3d6urgddt8jg...@4ax.com
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 07:13:54 -0000, "Androcles"
> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_u>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:dgvro51ei5jd1o9h0...@4ax.com...
>
>>>>> To the moving observer, each element of an arrow appears to move along
>>>>> a
>>>>> single
>>>>> diagonal. He shines a real laser beam along that diagonal.
>>>>
>>>>To the moving observer, each arrow is nose-to-tail with its predecessor
>>>>and
>>>>moves perpendicular to the target's movement.
>>>
>>> The moving observer is sitting on the target.
>>
>>Then he's the stationary observer, dumbfuck.
>>
>>An Awilson *plonk*
>>
>>Do not reply to this generic message,
>
> I fucking will. Your demo has both target and bow at rest.
Correct. The observer is always at rest, he never leaves the orgin
of his own frame of reference. There are no moving observers,
dumbfuck, not even you. That's why I drew both a moving bow
and a moving target. The stationary observer is on the stationary
target. However, I have provided a boxcar with a Wilson Ladder,
named for you.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WilsonLadder.JPG
Now you can climb vertically if the car moves. You'll be famous
for that invention, Awilson.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WilsonLadder.JPG
Don't forget to lean to the left as you climb a Wilson Ladder on
a moving shithouse, we wouldn't want you climbing diagonally.
Henry Wilson DSc
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:sjbso51ls6vud8fk4...@4ax.com...
You are a waste of time and space. you have been plonked.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:8ncso51s6f9h41671...@4ax.com...
>>>>>To the moving observer, each arrow is nose-to-tail with its predecessor
>>>>>and
>>>>>moves perpendicular to the target's movement.
>>>>
>>>> The moving observer is sitting on the target.
>>>
>>>Then he's the stationary observer, dumbfuck.
>>>
>>>An Awilson *plonk*
>>>
>>>Do not reply to this generic message,
>>
>> I fucking will. Your demo has both target and bow at rest.
>
>Correct. The observer is always at rest, he never leaves the orgin
>of his own frame of reference. There are no moving observers,
>dumbfuck, not even you.
then why do you agree with PA that there are?
>That's why I drew both a moving bow
>and a moving target. The stationary observer is on the stationary
>target. However, I have provided a boxcar with a Wilson Ladder,
>named for you.
> http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WilsonLadder.JPG
>Now you can climb vertically if the car moves. You'll be famous
>for that invention, Awilson.
....and I will take longer to reach the top...that's what time dilation is all
about.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:9scso51vr06b3av2k...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 07:22:57 -0000, "Androcles"
>>>>>
>>>>>Is it fuck! It's irrelevant, you dumb bastard, Einstein never claimed
>>>>>arrows have to align themselves one behind the other along any single
>>>>>diagonal. This crucial to understanding Awilson's dementia.
>>>>
>>>> I've tried to explain to inetial to no avail....and she's a lot brighter
>>>> thyan
>>>> you. So I'm not going to repeat myself. READ WHAT I SAID TO HER.
>>>
>>>All you ever say is what things are NOT, you are dumber than Phuckwit
>>>Duck. An arrow is NOT aligned with a dog's breakfast, Awilson.
>>
>> .....silly old pommie engineer....as useless as a corkscrew in a mosque...
>
> http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WilsonLadder.JPG
>Don't forget to lean to the left as you climb a Wilson Ladder on
>a moving shithouse, we wouldn't want you climbing diagonally.
....silly old pom...
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
...put down that bottle .....
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 10:50:12 -0000, "Androcles"
> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_u>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:8ncso51s6f9h41671...@4ax.com...
>
>>>>>>To the moving observer, each arrow is nose-to-tail with its
>>>>>>predecessor
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>moves perpendicular to the target's movement.
>>>>>
>>>>> The moving observer is sitting on the target.
>>>>
>>>>Then he's the stationary observer, dumbfuck.
>>>>
>>>>An Awilson *plonk*
>>>>
>>>>Do not reply to this generic message,
>>>
>>> I fucking will. Your demo has both target and bow at rest.
>>
>>Correct. The observer is always at rest, he never leaves the orgin
>>of his own frame of reference. There are no moving observers,
>>dumbfuck, not even you.
>
> then why do you agree with PA that there are?
>
>>That's why I drew both a moving bow
>>and a moving target. The stationary observer is on the stationary
>>target. However, I have provided a boxcar with a Wilson Ladder,
>>named for you.
>> http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WilsonLadder.JPG
>>Now you can climb vertically if the car moves. You'll be famous
>>for that invention, Awilson.
>
> ....and I will take longer to reach the top...that's what time dilation is
> all
> about.
Yeah, anyone else can zoom up a ladder at one rung a second, but
you'd drag your feet and only manage 60 rungs a minute; and your
ladder isn't as steep, but at least you'll be climbing vertically -- in
the frame of the track.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
hahahahhahahahaha!" --Wilson
news:mu2nm3d6urgddt8jg...@4ax.com
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
You are the one that wants the arrows to be vertical and tip to tail
going up the ladder when the train is moving.
Einstein never claimed arrows have to align themselves one behind
the other along any single diagonal, although what the fuck he has to
do with it is a mystery. This is crucial to understanding Awilson's
dementia.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
Well you should tell Eistein that the time I take to climb to the top depends
on the number of rungs and not the slope.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
when the arrows are lined up one behind the other, we have a light beam that
moves at c in the direction of their shafts.
One arrow moving diagonally does not constitutet a light beam moving at c.
Inertial
As i said (and you snipped) .. running away like a coward when your lies and
idiocy are exposed. Typical.
train
> "train" <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ced87a4b-7696-4184...@k2g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 3:54 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:044668eb-f341-47ef...@e19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Mar 2, 4:21 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in
>
> >> >> > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 07:24:31 -0800 (PST), train
> >> >> > <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com>
> >> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >> >>On Feb 26, 12:12 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> >> >>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:23:06 -0800 (PST), train
> >> >> >>> <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com>
> >> >> >>> wrote:
>
> >> >> >>> >Each and every observer sees the emission of light as if they had
> >> >> >>> >a
> >> >> >>> >personalether. This personalether, like still air, is stationary
> >> >> >>> >with respect to the observer. Light travels as if it is attached
> >> >> >>> >to
> >> >> >>> >thisetherand speeds along at a constant velocity to the observer
> >> >> >>> >and
> >> >> >>> >theether.
>
> >> >> >>> >If a stone skips across a pond, the ripples that radiate from its
> >> >> >>> >point of impact spread evenly in all directions from the point of
> >> >> >>> >impact, the observer being stationary with respect to the pond.
> >> >> >>> >It
> >> >> >>> >does not matter which way the stone was moving, as the speed of
> >> >> >>> >radiation of the waves from the point of impact is independent of
> >> >> >>> >the
> >> >> >>> >velocity of the stone.
>
> >> >> >>> >Is this the way light behaves?
>
> >> >> >>> Only in Einstein's personal version of fairyland
>
> >> >> >>> Henry Wilson...
>
> >> >> >>> .......provider of free physics lessons
>
>
> >> >> > no. Light is ballistic. Einstein was a hoaxer...end of story.
>
> >> >> Einstein was one of those to put forward again the notion of light
> >> >> being
> >> >> made of particles (photons), btw. Physics later reconciled the
> >> >> difference
> >> >> in quantumtheory(an area of physics, Einstein never really fully
> >> >> agreed
> >> >> with)
>
> >> >> And ballistic theories are long ago refuted. Henry is just a
> >> >> well-known
> >> >> liar
> >> >> and fraud who, for reasons no-one can fathom, tries to perpetuate the
> >> >> dead
> >> >> ballistictheory.
>
> >> > But the situation I described would not take place if ballistic
> >> > theory was correct.
>
>
> >> > If light behaves for each observer as if the
> >> > observer was stationary with respect to a universalether,
>
> >> always
> >> c. Of course, that does not explain how different observers all have the
> >> same light travelling at c. You get nonsense from a personal universal
> >> aether in that case.
>
> > PET is only a framework for thinking about how an observer sees a
> > moving light source, in a way that agrees with SRT. It has nothing to
> > do with reality. You can say it is a subset of SRT for the single
> > observer and a light source.
>
> Except there is no need for there to be any aether. Just that light travels
> at c wrt the observer.
>
>
>
> >> > ten it
> >> > still contradicts the Wikipedia illustration of the light bouncing up
> >> > an down at an angle relative to the observer who is viewing a moving
> >> > light source.
>
> >> you
> >> are referring.
>
> > OK here is the reference:
>
> > Simple inference of time dilation due to relative velocity in
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
>
> > See the second diagram
>
> So where is the contradiction?
>
> There is an obvious one between what two different observers see if each of
> them claims to have a personal aether in which light travels at c, but
> without the Lorentz transforms applying
>
> I'm not sure if it is that internal inconsistency in a PET that you are
> referring to.
>
> >> > The movement of the light source has nothing ( except
> >> > for the doppler effect?) to do with the direction of light as viewed
> >> > by the observer -
>
>
> >> > why should it?
>
> >> More to the point, how can it not?
>
> >> > What is the meaning of independent?
>
>
> > The velocity of light is independent of the source
>
> Not exactly .. the SPEED of light is independent of the source .. but not
> the direction.
>
> > The speed
>
> note 'speed'
>
> > at which light propagates in vacuum is independent both of
> > the motion of the light source and of the inertial frame of reference
> > of the observer _wikipedia
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
>
> Yes .. the SPEED .. but not NOT the direction. It is a not uncommon mistake
> for students to think that the light speed being independent means it cannot
> get a component of its direction from the motion of the light source.
Ok so here is the light source
0
If it is moving
0 0 0 0 0 0 >
Is the light is emitted in this way as viewed by the stationary
observer
0--------------
0----------------------------
0------------------------------------------
or is it emitted this way?
0--------------
--0---------------------------
---0---------------------------------------
No velocities angles etc etc.
T
train
> "train" <gehan.ameresek...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> On Mar 3, 3:59 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
> > "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote in message
>
> >news:Xlgjn.153174$X_6.1...@newsfe22.ams2...
>
> > > "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>
> > >> A vertical light beam remains vertical in all frames.
>
> > >http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Bullseye.gif
>
> Yes what is that Bullseye.gif? The arrows are photons?
>
> T
> ==========================================
> Arrows are arrows, idiot.
> If you are the target, you get hit. If you are the bowman, you hit the
> target.
> http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Aberration.gif
Aberration make light look like it consists of ballastic photons
T
Inertial
"train" <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:355c36b3-8930-4ab0...@w27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
OK
> If it is moving
>
> 0 0 0 0 0 0 >
That's fine
> Is the light is emitted in this way as viewed by the stationary
> observer
I'm assuming that relative to O the light is emitted vertically downwards
> 0--------------
> 0----------------------------
> 0------------------------------------------
>
> or is it emitted this way?
>
> 0--------------
> --0---------------------------
> ---0---------------------------------------
OK .. here is a 'movie' of a light pulse being emitted from what O sees
(where | is the pulse)
O
|
O
|
O
|
Here is one from the relatively moving observer's point of view
O
|
O
|
O
|
Do you follow?
Inertial
No .. it doesn't do anything like that .. it just means that its path is at
an angle. It doesn't need to be particles to be 'aberrated'.
train
> "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in messagenews:b9gto5p0d8ubhbij6...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 10:50:12 -0000, "Androcles"
Photons have no mass, and no length. So I don't think talking of arrow
shafts makes any sense
The Wilson ladder is interesting. Now for an observer on the the
tracks, what will be the speed of Wilson w that he measures? If the
train is moving right to left at speed v?
Speed of Wilson moving on the vertical ladder will be the diagonal
distance moved by Wilson ( use Pythaogras theorem ) divided by time:
(sqrt (wt^2 + vt^2))/t
Speed of Wilson moving on the angled ladder but looking as if he is
moving directly upwards (the angled ladder so placed that he will
appear to move vertically upwards with no sideways motion) will be the
height of the car divided by the time it takes to reach the top of the
car.
Now it all depends if the Speed of Wilson is constant, that he always
moves at that speed and only at that speed. (no offence Henry)
If this is so, then equal distances will have to be moved in equal
times, which means that the Wilson climbing the vertical ladder will
not reach the top of the train by the time the Wilson who is climbing
the angled ladder reaches the top as seen by the observer on the
track.
Am I right?
Train
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
No. I climb at one rung per second up either ladder. I reach the top in the
same time on both.
Einstein was a hoaxer.
>Train
Inertial
Yeup .. at least not any length we can pin down :)
> The Wilson ladder is interesting. Now for an observer on the the
> tracks, what will be the speed of Wilson w that he measures? If the
> train is moving right to left at speed v?
>
> Speed of Wilson moving on the vertical ladder will be the diagonal
> distance moved by Wilson ( use Pythaogras theorem ) divided by time:
> (sqrt (wt^2 + vt^2))/t
>
> Speed of Wilson moving on the angled ladder but looking as if he is
> moving directly upwards (the angled ladder so placed that he will
> appear to move vertically upwards with no sideways motion) will be the
> height of the car divided by the time it takes to reach the top of the
> car.
>
> Now it all depends if the Speed of Wilson is constant, that he always
> moves at that speed and only at that speed. (no offence Henry)
>
> If this is so, then equal distances will have to be moved in equal
> times, which means that the Wilson climbing the vertical ladder will
> not reach the top of the train by the time the Wilson who is climbing
> the angled ladder reaches the top as seen by the observer on the
> track.
>
> Am I right?
>
> Train
I think the idea there is that if the train and climber are moving at
appropriate speeds (o a fairly slow train or a very fast climber), an
observer beside the tracks would see the climber follow a vertical path (but
the climber would be leant over at an angle. So over time one would see
.--------.
| |
| |
| |
'-------\'
OO OO
.--------.
| |
| |
| \ |
'--------'
OO OO
.--------.
| |
| \ |
| |
'--------'
OO OO
.--------.
| \ |
| |
| |
'--------'
OO OO
\--------.
| |
| |
| |
'--------'
OO OO
Whereas a climber on the regular vertical ladder would always appear
upright, but follow a diagonal path according to that observer beside the
track.
.--------.
| |
| |
| |
'------|-'
OO OO
.--------.
| |
| |
| | |
'--------'
OO OO
.--------.
| |
| | |
| |
'--------'
OO OO
.--------.
| | |
| |
| |
'--------'
OO OO
.------|-.
| |
| |
| |
'--------'
OO OO
It all very basic and very simple. I don't see why it causes so much
confusion.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
As the distance between the midpoints of the rungs are farther apart on the
tilted ladder, one-rung-per-second is actually different speeds on the two
ladders. But it is the same rate of increase in height above the ground
(although you will have less height yourself due to leaning over to be
parallel with the ladder).
> Einstein was a hoaxer.
No .. you're just to stupid to understand what physics says. As soon as
anything is moving you get confused .. physics is REALLY not for you.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
That's why you invented Wilson's Ladder, so that an arrow could move
diagonally going straight up when the boxcar was moving. This is crucial
to understanding STOOPID Awilson's fuckin' dementia, you fuckin' idiot!
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
You tell him; arrows that don't go tip to toe was your invention.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WilsonArrows.JPG
You can have the patent on Wilson's ladder, too. You are not going
to sell that stupidity to anyone except Einstein, he was almost as
deranged as you.
Androcles
"train" <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9780a323-0b57-470f...@z1g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
============================================
Oh right, sure. Very interesting to a chimpanzee with Alzheimer's.
Just out of view is a tree with a chimp in it and Wilson wanted to
rescue it, thinking it's a damsel in distress. The trouble was every
time he took a step up the ladder Androcles pushed the railcar
and took Wilson further away from his true love. So instead of
running along the roof of the car or even just yelling at the chimp
to jump, Wilson invented his ladder in case he ever meets her again.
============================================
Now for an observer on the the
tracks, what will be the speed of Wilson w that he measures? If the
train is moving right to left at speed v?
Speed of Wilson moving on the vertical ladder will be the diagonal
distance moved by Wilson ( use Pythaogras theorem ) divided by time:
(sqrt (wt^2 + vt^2))/t
Speed of Wilson moving on the angled ladder but looking as if he is
moving directly upwards (the angled ladder so placed that he will
appear to move vertically upwards with no sideways motion) will be the
height of the car divided by the time it takes to reach the top of the
car.
Now it all depends if the Speed of Wilson is constant, that he always
moves at that speed and only at that speed. (no offence Henry)
If this is so, then equal distances will have to be moved in equal
times, which means that the Wilson climbing the vertical ladder will
not reach the top of the train by the time the Wilson who is climbing
the angled ladder reaches the top as seen by the observer on the
track.
Am I right?
Train
============================================
That's your idea of "interesting", is it?
Would you like me to draw a sand pit for you to play in?
http://www.fallingpixel.com/products/9120/mains/BucketSpade_v7.zip_thumbnail1.jpg
Androcles
T
==========================================
Are you old enough to read big boy's comics yet?
Tell me what the first sentence of this paper is, please, the print
is rather small for my tired old eyes.
http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
Inertial
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote in message
news:GBFjn.74268$h21....@newsfe07.ams2...
If you stop at the first sentence, you miss out on reading that that
ballistic explanation was flawed and did not account for experimental
evidence.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:1klto5p2bpmu976o3...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 20:44:24 -0000, "Androcles"
>>>> all
>>>> about.
>>>Yeah, anyone else can zoom up a ladder at one rung a second, but
>>>you'd drag your feet and only manage 60 rungs a minute; and your
>>>ladder isn't as steep, but at least you'll be climbing vertically -- in
>>>the frame of the track.
>>
>> Well you should tell Eistein that the time I take to climb to the top
>> depends
>> on the number of rungs and not the slope.
>
>You tell him; arrows that don't go tip to toe was your invention.
> http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WilsonArrows.JPG
>You can have the patent on Wilson's ladder, too. You are not going
>to sell that stupidity to anyone except Einstein, he was almost as
>deranged as you.
I see. A the Anti is now siding with Einstein again. He said it would take
longer to climb the diagonal ladder because it was longer and I would travel at
the same speed up both.
The ladders have the same number of rungs.
I will climb at 1 rung per second on both ladders. Therefore will take me the
same time to get to the top whichever one I use.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"train" <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9780a323-0b57-470f...@z1g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>On Mar 4, 1:44 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote:
>> "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in
>> Yeah, anyone else can zoom up a ladder at one rung a second, but
>> you'd drag your feet and only manage 60 rungs a minute; and your
>> ladder isn't as steep, but at least you'll be climbing vertically -- in
>> the frame of the track.
>
>Photons have no mass, and no length. So I don't think talking of arrow
>shafts makes any sense
>
>The Wilson ladder is interesting.
>============================================
>Oh right, sure. Very interesting to a chimpanzee with Alzheimer's.
>Just out of view is a tree with a chimp in it and Wilson wanted to
>rescue it, thinking it's a damsel in distress. The trouble was every
>time he took a step up the ladder Androcles pushed the railcar
>and took Wilson further away from his true love. So instead of
>running along the roof of the car or even just yelling at the chimp
>to jump, Wilson invented his ladder in case he ever meets her again.
..silly old pom...
>============================================
>Now for an observer on the the
>tracks, what will be the speed of Wilson w that he measures? If the
>train is moving right to left at speed v?
>
>Speed of Wilson moving on the vertical ladder will be the diagonal
>distance moved by Wilson ( use Pythaogras theorem ) divided by time:
>(sqrt (wt^2 + vt^2))/t
>
>
>Speed of Wilson moving on the angled ladder but looking as if he is
>moving directly upwards (the angled ladder so placed that he will
>appear to move vertically upwards with no sideways motion) will be the
>height of the car divided by the time it takes to reach the top of the
>car.
>
>Now it all depends if the Speed of Wilson is constant, that he always
>moves at that speed and only at that speed. (no offence Henry)
I always climb at the rate of one rung per second.
>If this is so, then equal distances will have to be moved in equal
>times, which means that the Wilson climbing the vertical ladder will
>not reach the top of the train by the time the Wilson who is climbing
>the angled ladder reaches the top as seen by the observer on the
>track.
>
>Am I right?
No.
>
>Train
>============================================
>That's your idea of "interesting", is it?
>Would you like me to draw a sand pit for you to play in?
> http://www.fallingpixel.com/products/9120/mains/BucketSpade_v7.zip_thumbnail1.jpg
You're not right either...
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
I climb at 1 rung per second no matter what the angle.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 02:45:45 -0000, "Androcles"
> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_u>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>news:1klto5p2bpmu976o3...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 20:44:24 -0000, "Androcles"
>
>>>>> all
>>>>> about.
>>>>Yeah, anyone else can zoom up a ladder at one rung a second, but
>>>>you'd drag your feet and only manage 60 rungs a minute; and your
>>>>ladder isn't as steep, but at least you'll be climbing vertically -- in
>>>>the frame of the track.
>>>
>>> Well you should tell Eistein that the time I take to climb to the top
>>> depends
>>> on the number of rungs and not the slope.
>>
>>You tell him; arrows that don't go tip to toe was your invention.
>> http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WilsonArrows.JPG
>>You can have the patent on Wilson's ladder, too. You are not going
>>to sell that stupidity to anyone except Einstein, he was almost as
>>deranged as you.
>
> I see.
No you don't, you blind bastard.
> A the Anti is now siding with Einstein again.
Are you? The enemy of my enemy isn't necessarily my friend. You want
to talk to Einstein, you go ahead.
> He said it would take
> longer to climb the diagonal ladder because it was longer and I would
> travel at
> the same speed up both.
>
> The ladders have the same number of rungs.
> I will climb at 1 rung per second on both ladders. Therefore will take me
> the
> same time to get to the top whichever one I use.
Don't forget to lean to the left so that your nose touches the heels of
your clone, Henry Awilson the Anti.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WilsonArrows.JPG