The Fundamental Flaw of SR
kenseto
SR assumes erroneously that it knows how a light pulse light
move from the source to the target.
For example: In the moving light clock gedanken it
assumes that a light pulse from the bottom mirror
will follow a slant path on its way to the top mirror.
Ken Seto
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:104edbi...@corp.supernews.com...
> The Fundamental Flaw of SR:
>
> SR assumes erroneously that it knows how a light pulse light
> move from the source to the target.
No. *Illustrations* of a light ray are used to explain a constant c for
different frames. You know the difference, but you act the fool.
> For example: In the moving light clock gedanken it
> assumes that a light pulse from the bottom mirror
> will follow a slant path on its way to the top mirror.
So kenseto *knows* how the light moves? The stationary frame infers the
light in the moving frame follows a slant path. The moving frame infers a
straight path. The path is therefore observer dependent, and has little to
do with the light, but more to do with how the frame's observers infer the
light moves.
You argue with an empty heart.
David A. Smith
EjP
> Dear kenseto:
>
> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:104edbi...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>The Fundamental Flaw of SR:
>>
>>SR assumes erroneously that it knows how a light pulse light
>>move from the source to the target.
>
>
> No. *Illustrations* of a light ray are used to explain a constant c for
> different frames. You know the difference,
No he doesn't.
> but you act the fool.
>
I used to think Ken was just acting, but as hard as it is to
believe, he really *is* that stupid.
-E
kenseto
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:YMG1c.12148$Zp.7635@fed1read07...
> Dear kenseto:
>
> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:104edbi...@corp.supernews.com...
> > The Fundamental Flaw of SR:
> >
> > SR assumes erroneously that it knows how a light pulse light
> > move from the source to the target.
>
> No. *Illustrations* of a light ray are used to explain a constant c for
> different frames. You know the difference, but you act the fool.
Hey runt of the learned SRians doesn't the "illustrations" impliy that
you know how a light pulse is moving from the source to the target?
>
> > For example: In the moving light clock gedanken it
> > assumes that a light pulse from the bottom mirror
> > will follow a slant path on its way to the top mirror.
>
> So kenseto *knows* how the light moves?
Yes. A light ray will follow a straight path as observed by all observers.
>The stationary frame infers the
> light in the moving frame follows a slant path.
That's the problem. This assertion is bogus. The stationary observer also
infers the light in the moving frame follows a straight path.
>The moving frame infers a
> straight path.
Right.
>The path is therefore observer dependent, and has little to
> do with the light, but more to do with how the frame's observers infer the
> light moves.
Hey runt... this is wrong. The path is not observer dependent.
>
> You argue with an empty heart.
You don't know shit about real physics.
Ken Seto
kenseto
"EjP" <nos...@hackers.are.bad> wrote in message
news:c27i9r$p3$1...@info4.fnal.gov...
> N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
> > Dear kenseto:
> >
> > "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> > news:104edbi...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >>The Fundamental Flaw of SR:
> >>
> >>SR assumes erroneously that it knows how a light pulse light
> >>move from the source to the target.
> >
> >
> > No. *Illustrations* of a light ray are used to explain a constant c for
> > different frames. You know the difference,
>
> No he doesn't.
>
> > but you act the fool.
> >
>
> I used to think Ken was just acting, but as hard as it is to
> believe, he really *is* that stupid.
EjP is a runt of the learned SRians.
Definition for a runt of the learned SRians:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the learned SRians around like a puppy and eats up their shits like
gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR.
Ken Seto
Dirk Van de moortel
Ken Seto's DRT includes SR:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=author%3Akenseto+%22drt+includes+sr%22
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Setulates.html
So Ken Seto's DRT has a Fundamentally Flawed Subset.
Good work.
Dirk Vdm
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:104emdj...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote in
> message news:YMG1c.12148$Zp.7635@fed1read07...
> > Dear kenseto:
> >
> > "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> > news:104edbi...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > The Fundamental Flaw of SR:
> > >
> > > SR assumes erroneously that it knows how a light pulse light
> > > move from the source to the target.
> >
> > No. *Illustrations* of a light ray are used to explain a constant c
for
> > different frames. You know the difference, but you act the fool.
>
> Hey runt of the learned SRians doesn't the "illustrations" impliy that
> you know how a light pulse is moving from the source to the target?
No kenseto. It implies that one "assumes" a path, given the least distance
possible. And the analysis to which you refer is *classical*, since it
talks about paths, rays, and the like.
> > > For example: In the moving light clock gedanken it
> > > assumes that a light pulse from the bottom mirror
> > > will follow a slant path on its way to the top mirror.
> >
> > So kenseto *knows* how the light moves?
>
> Yes. A light ray will follow a straight path as observed by all
observers.
And so you also infer the classical method. How nice.
> >The stationary frame infers the
> > light in the moving frame follows a slant path.
>
> That's the problem. This assertion is bogus. The stationary observer also
> infers the light in the moving frame follows a straight path.
It is straight, kenseto. The light ray does not curve at all. The light
ray is not accelerated along its path. "Slant" does not mean what you
think it means in English. It does not mean (entirely) "bent, as if by
wind".
> >The moving frame infers a
> > straight path.
>
> Right.
They both are straight. They are not just both perpendicular to the path
of the moving observer.
> >The path is therefore observer dependent, and has little to
> > do with the light, but more to do with how the frame's observers infer
the
> > light moves.
>
> Hey runt... this is wrong. The path is not observer dependent.
You are not even thinking, are you?
> > You argue with an empty heart.
>
> You don't know shit about real physics.
If you are defining "real", kenseto, then the world is in for serious
trouble.
David A. Smith
alen
>
> >The stationary frame infers the
> > light in the moving frame follows a slant path.
>
> That's the problem. This assertion is bogus. The stationary observer also
> infers the light in the moving frame follows a straight path.
>
> >The moving frame infers a
> > straight path.
>
> Right.
>
> Ken Seto
I think that a stationary observer can see
that the light travels along a diagonal path
in his frame and along a straight path in the
moving frame. That is, the stationary observer
can see that the light travels within the moving
frame and is also carried along with it, producing
a resultant diagonal path in his stationary frame
Alen
kenseto
> Dear kenseto:
>
> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:104emdj...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote in
> > message news:YMG1c.12148$Zp.7635@fed1read07...
> > > Dear kenseto:
> > >
> > > "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> > > news:104edbi...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > The Fundamental Flaw of SR:
> > > >
> > > > SR assumes erroneously that it knows how a light pulse light
> > > > move from the source to the target.
> > >
> > > No. *Illustrations* of a light ray are used to explain a constant c
> for
> > > different frames. You know the difference, but you act the fool.
> >
> > Hey runt of the learned SRians doesn't the "illustrations" impliy that
> > you know how a light pulse is moving from the source to the target?
>
> No kenseto. It implies that one "assumes" a path, given the least
distance
> possible.
In that case it would be the path perpendicular to the mirror and you
call this path as "straight path".
>And the analysis to which you refer is *classical*, since it
> talks about paths, rays, and the like.
SO??...you also talk about the slant path as seen by an outside observer.
>
> > > > For example: In the moving light clock gedanken it
> > > > assumes that a light pulse from the bottom mirror
> > > > will follow a slant path on its way to the top mirror.
> > >
> > > So kenseto *knows* how the light moves?
> >
> > Yes. A light ray will follow a straight path as observed by all
> observers.
>
> And so you also infer the classical method. How nice.
Straight path means perpendicular to the mirror or perpendicular
to the direction of moiton of the light clock.
>
> > >The stationary frame infers the
> > > light in the moving frame follows a slant path.
> >
> > That's the problem. This assertion is bogus. The stationary observer
also
> > infers the light in the moving frame follows a straight path.
>
> It is straight, kenseto. The light ray does not curve at all. The light
> ray is not accelerated along its path. "Slant" does not mean what you
> think it means in English. It does not mean (entirely) "bent, as if by
> wind".
You are stupid. A slant path does not mean a bent path. The outside
observer does not see a slant path as asserted by you.
My interpretation is that a light ray is composed of a train of photons
and all photons are moving perpendicular to the mirrorsas seen by
any observer. That means that no photon is following a slant path as
asserted by SR. With this interpretation, the first batch of photons will
miss the target and the amount missing the target is dependent on the
state of absolute motion of the light clock. SR interprets this as time
dilation.
>
> > >The moving frame infers a
> > > straight path.
> >
> > Right.
>
> They both are straight. They are not just both perpendicular to the path
> of the moving observer.
Hey stupid...both the stationary and the moving observers see the
path of each photon as being perpendicular to the path of moving
of the light clock. No body sees a slant path for any photon as
asserted by you.
>
> > >The path is therefore observer dependent, and has little to
> > > do with the light, but more to do with how the frame's observers infer
> the
> > > light moves.
> >
> > Hey runt... this is wrong. The path is not observer dependent.
>
> You are not even thinking, are you?
Idiot you are the one who is not thinking.
>
> > > You argue with an empty heart.
> >
> > You don't know shit about real physics.
>
> If you are defining "real", kenseto, then the world is in for serious
> trouble.
Idiot.
Ken Seto
kenseto
"alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
news:dfca704b.04030...@posting.google.com...
NO...a better interpretation is that a light ray is composed of a
train of photons and all photons are moving perpendicularly
wrt to the mirrors. This means that the stationary
observer will see the light rays (trains of photons) moving in the
perpendicular direction. This means that the first batch of photons
will miss the target mirror and the amount missed is dependent
on the state of absolute motion of the light clock. This also means
that the first photon that hits the target was not generated until
a later time and SR interprets this as time dilation.
Ken Seto
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:104h4sg...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote in
> message news:LwS1c.12601$Zp.1933@fed1read07...
...
> > > Hey runt of the learned SRians doesn't the "illustrations" impliy
that
> > > you know how a light pulse is moving from the source to the target?
> >
> > No kenseto. It implies that one "assumes" a path, given the least
> distance
> > possible.
>
> In that case it would be the path perpendicular to the mirror and you
> call this path as "straight path".
Both paths are straight. The path in the moving frame has the simplicity
of assuming motion parallel to a line drawn between source and receiver, or
source-mirror-receiver. In the stationary frame, the Assumed path is
straight from the source *then* to the receiver *now*. It is still a
straight path.
> >And the analysis to which you refer is *classical*, since it
> > talks about paths, rays, and the like.
>
> SO??...you also talk about the slant path as seen by an outside observer.
Just setting it up so you don't run and hide in "relativity isn't quantum"
again.
> > > Yes. A light ray will follow a straight path as observed by all
> > observers.
> >
> > And so you also infer the classical method. How nice.
>
> Straight path means perpendicular to the mirror or perpendicular
> to the direction of moiton of the light clock.
No, this is not correct in English. Straight does not mean it has to be
perpendicular to the mirror. It means the path does not curve.
> > > >The stationary frame infers the
> > > > light in the moving frame follows a slant path.
> > >
> > > That's the problem. This assertion is bogus. The stationary observer
> also
> > > infers the light in the moving frame follows a straight path.
> >
> > It is straight, kenseto. The light ray does not curve at all. The
light
> > ray is not accelerated along its path. "Slant" does not mean what you
> > think it means in English. It does not mean (entirely) "bent, as if by
> > wind".
>
> You are stupid. A slant path does not mean a bent path.
Very good. So you do understand.
> The outside
> observer does not see a slant path as asserted by you.
The measured time-of-flight of light is consistent with the light having
followed a slant path in the stationary frame. So you are arguing with
nothing, for no reason.
> My interpretation is that a light ray is composed of a train of photons
> and all photons are moving perpendicular to the mirrorsas seen by
> any observer.
Your interpretation is invalid. Your interpretation is based on a faulty
assumption. You cannot say what the "orientation" of a single photon is.
Your interpretation is also in disagreement with measurement.
> Idiot.
You really don't need to be so hard on yourself.
David A. Smith
alen
> >
> > I think that a stationary observer can see
> > that the light travels along a diagonal path
> > in his frame and along a straight path in the
> > moving frame. That is, the stationary observer
> > can see that the light travels within the moving
> > frame and is also carried along with it, producing
> > a resultant diagonal path in his stationary frame
>
> NO...a better interpretation is that a light ray is composed of a
> train of photons and all photons are moving perpendicularly
> wrt to the mirrors. This means that the stationary
> observer will see the light rays (trains of photons) moving in the
> perpendicular direction. This means that the first batch of photons
> will miss the target mirror and the amount missed is dependent
> on the state of absolute motion of the light clock. This also means
> that the first photon that hits the target was not generated until
> a later time and SR interprets this as time dilation.
>
> Ken Seto
If that is so, I don't understand how all
subsequent photons don't miss the mirror
as well, so that none of them ever hit it?
Alen
kenseto
The photons are moving at c and the target is moving at <<<<than c.
Therefore the subsequent photons are able to hit the target
before it is moving away.
Notice that if the target is moving at c no photons will hit the
target. SR interprets that time is standing still at the speed of light.
Ken Seto
kenseto
> Dear kenseto:
>
> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:104h4sg...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote in
> > message news:LwS1c.12601$Zp.1933@fed1read07...
> ...
> > > > Hey runt of the learned SRians doesn't the "illustrations" impliy
> that
> > > > you know how a light pulse is moving from the source to the target?
> > >
> > > No kenseto. It implies that one "assumes" a path, given the least
> > distance
> > > possible.
> >
> > In that case it would be the path perpendicular to the mirror and you
> > call this path as "straight path".
>
> Both paths are straight. The path in the moving frame has the simplicity
> of assuming motion parallel to a line drawn between source and receiver,
or
> source-mirror-receiver. In the stationary frame, the Assumed path is
> straight from the source *then* to the receiver *now*. It is still a
> straight path.
Hey idiot forget about straight path....it was you who mentioned it.
Do you agree that in SR the moving observer sees a vertical path
and the stationary observer sees a slant path?
>
> > >And the analysis to which you refer is *classical*, since it
> > > talks about paths, rays, and the like.
> >
> > SO??...you also talk about the slant path as seen by an outside
observer.
>
> Just setting it up so you don't run and hide in "relativity isn't quantum"
> again.
So relativity don't have to agree with QM? Also if there is a way to make
them agreeable with each other you would not accept? This is truly
a reaction of a runt of the learned SRians.:-)
>
> > > > Yes. A light ray will follow a straight path as observed by all
> > > observers.
> > >
> > > And so you also infer the classical method. How nice.
> >
> > Straight path means perpendicular to the mirror or perpendicular
> > to the direction of moiton of the light clock.
>
> No, this is not correct in English. Straight does not mean it has to be
> perpendicular to the mirror. It means the path does not curve.
Hey idiot I did not say any path is curved.
>
> > The outside
> > observer does not see a slant path as asserted by you.
>
> The measured time-of-flight of light is consistent with the light having
> followed a slant path in the stationary frame. So you are arguing with
> nothing, for no reason.
The time of flight of light is based on the vertical path of the first
photon.
The slant path has the same length as the vertical path of the first photon
and that's why it is consistent with observation. The problem with the
slant path concept is that the leading edge of the light ray (the first
photon)
is required to know which of the infinite slant paths to follow. If you
accept that you are more of an idiot than I thought.
>
> > My interpretation is that a light ray is composed of a train of photons
> > and all photons are moving perpendicular to the mirrorsas seen by
> > any observer.
>
> Your interpretation is invalid. Your interpretation is based on a faulty
> assumption. You cannot say what the "orientation" of a single photon is.
> Your interpretation is also in disagreement with measurement.
My interpretion is correct. Also it is in agreement with the
uncertainty pricciple of QM.
>
> > Idiot.
>
> You really don't need to be so hard on yourself.
ROTFLOL.....Idiot runt.
Ken Seto
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:104jlro...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote in
> message news:6z82c.12922$Zp.4958@fed1read07...
...
> > > In that case it would be the path perpendicular to the mirror and you
> > > call this path as "straight path".
> >
> > Both paths are straight. The path in the moving frame has the
simplicity
> > of assuming motion parallel to a line drawn between source and
receiver,
> or
> > source-mirror-receiver. In the stationary frame, the Assumed path is
> > straight from the source *then* to the receiver *now*. It is still a
> > straight path.
>
> Hey idiot forget about straight path....it was you who mentioned it.
> Do you agree that in SR the moving observer sees a vertical path
> and the stationary observer sees a slant path?
Yes, just as someone watching a tennis match inside a moving truck would
see the tennis ball follow a slant path.
> > > >And the analysis to which you refer is *classical*, since it
> > > > talks about paths, rays, and the like.
> > >
> > > SO??...you also talk about the slant path as seen by an outside
> observer.
> >
> > Just setting it up so you don't run and hide in "relativity isn't
quantum"
> > again.
>
> So relativity don't have to agree with QM?
They don't agree (yet), because their two solution sets don't coincide. As
has been pointed out to you before.
> Also if there is a way to make
> them agreeable with each other you would not accept?
It is not for *me* to accept, but for you to learn.
> This is truly
> a reaction of a runt of the learned SRians.:-)
Oh, so you are a "runt of the learned SRians", now? Your "this" referred
to your own post. You really should become more familiar with English
usage. You really should have said "that".
Your entire argument seems to be based on your own unfamiliarity with the
English language.
> > > > > Yes. A light ray will follow a straight path as observed by all
> > > > observers.
> > > >
> > > > And so you also infer the classical method. How nice.
> > >
> > > Straight path means perpendicular to the mirror or perpendicular
> > > to the direction of moiton of the light clock.
> >
> > No, this is not correct in English. Straight does not mean it has to
be
> > perpendicular to the mirror. It means the path does not curve.
>
> Hey idiot I did not say any path is curved.
You haven't said much so far, in fact. You duck and dodge, and call others
"runt" or "idiot".
> > > The outside
> > > observer does not see a slant path as asserted by you.
> >
> > The measured time-of-flight of light is consistent with the light
having
> > followed a slant path in the stationary frame. So you are arguing with
> > nothing, for no reason.
>
> The time of flight of light is based on the vertical path of the first
> photon.
You again cannot separate the two theories, can you? You cannot accept
that relativity doesn't talk about photons, but light signals. You
foolishly insist on standing on your ignorance, and calling it wisdom.
Since you have no intention of learning, I am done with you.
<plonk>
David A. Smith
alen
> >
> > If that is so, I don't understand how all
> > subsequent photons don't miss the mirror
> > as well, so that none of them ever hit it?
>
> The photons are moving at c and the target is moving at <<<<than c.
> Therefore the subsequent photons are able to hit the target
> before it is moving away.
> Notice that if the target is moving at c no photons will hit the
> target. SR interprets that time is standing still at the speed of light.
>
> Ken Seto
Are you trying to say that the initial
acceleration of the clock causes the initial
photons to miss the target, but not the
subsequent photons, after the acceleration
has stopped?
I am trying to understand what distinction
you are making between the initial photons
and the subsequent photons!
Alen
kenseto
news:<104jkfb...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > >
> > > If that is so, I don't understand how all
> > > subsequent photons don't miss the mirror
> > > as well, so that none of them ever hit it?
> >
> > The photons are moving at c and the target is moving at <<<<than c.
> > Therefore the subsequent photons are able to hit the target
> > before it is moving away.
> > Notice that if the target is moving at c no photons will hit the
> > target. SR interprets that time is standing still at the speed of light.
> >
> > Ken Seto
>
> Are you trying to say that the initial
> acceleration of the clock causes the initial
> photons to miss the target, but not the
> subsequent photons, after the acceleration
> has stopped?
The initial acceleration of the light clock causes
the target (the top mirror) to increase its state of
absolute motion and thus causes the first batch
of photons to miss the target. The number of photons
missing the target is dependent on the increase
in the state of absolute motion.of the target.
After the acceleration has stopped, the target
will remain in a higher state of absolute motion
than before the acceleration and thus
only the subsequent photons will reach the target.
>
> I am trying to understand what distinction
> you are making between the initial photons
> and the subsequent photons!
Hope the above explanation is clear. I have an article
entitled "A New Concept for Light Propagation" in the
Journal Galilean Electrodynamics ( Volume 9, Number 5, Page 94)
describes this concept of Light propagation.
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
kenseto
> Dear kenseto:
>
> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:104jlro...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote in
> > message news:6z82c.12922$Zp.4958@fed1read07...
> ...
> > > > In that case it would be the path perpendicular to the mirror and
you
> > > > call this path as "straight path".
> > >
> > > Both paths are straight. The path in the moving frame has the
> simplicity
> > > of assuming motion parallel to a line drawn between source and
> receiver,
> > or
> > > source-mirror-receiver. In the stationary frame, the Assumed path is
> > > straight from the source *then* to the receiver *now*. It is still a
> > > straight path.
> >
> > Hey idiot forget about straight path....it was you who mentioned it.
> > Do you agree that in SR the moving observer sees a vertical path
> > and the stationary observer sees a slant path?
>
> Yes, just as someone watching a tennis match inside a moving truck would
> see the tennis ball follow a slant path.
Hey idiot ...this would mean that the speed of light is source dependent
and thus violate the second postulate..
The tenis ball has a velocity v horizontally before it is bounced upward
vertcally. A photon or a short pulse of light would not have this horizontal
velocity before it is emitted vertically.
>
> > > > >And the analysis to which you refer is *classical*, since it
> > > > > talks about paths, rays, and the like.
> > > >
> > > > SO??...you also talk about the slant path as seen by an outside
> > observer.
> > >
> > > Just setting it up so you don't run and hide in "relativity isn't
> quantum"
> > > again.
> >
> > So relativity don't have to agree with QM?
>
> They don't agree (yet), because their two solution sets don't coincide.
As
> has been pointed out to you before.
So they don't agree yet doesn't mean that one of the solutions is bogus?
Now do you understand why I call you a runt of the learned SRians?
>
> > Also if there is a way to make
> > them agreeable with each other you would not accept?
>
> It is not for *me* to accept, but for you to learn.
Why should I accept your bogus assertion?
>
> > This is truly
> > a reaction of a runt of the learned SRians.:-)
>
> Oh, so you are a "runt of the learned SRians", now?
ROTFLOL...you are stupid...I was discribing you.
>Your "this" referred
> to your own post. You really should become more familiar with English
> usage. You really should have said "that".
>
> Your entire argument seems to be based on your own unfamiliarity with the
> English language.
Your tennis ball analogy is certainly not mine description. So I guess
it is you who don't understand English.
>
>> be
> > > perpendicular to the mirror. It means the path does not curve.
> >
> > Hey idiot I did not say any path is curved.
>
> You haven't said much so far, in fact. You duck and dodge, and call
others
> "runt" or "idiot".
That's because you are an idiot and a runt of the learned SRians.
>
> >
> > The time of flight of light is based on the vertical path of the first
> > photon.
>
> You again cannot separate the two theories, can you? You cannot accept
> that relativity doesn't talk about photons, but light signals.
ROTFLOL..... how stupid can you get? It was Einstein who introduced the
concept of photon. You are so stupid I suggest that you go off to a corner
and commit suicide.
>You
> foolishly insist on standing on your ignorance, and calling it wisdom.
>
> Since you have no intention of learning, I am done with you.
Why should I learn your bogus knowledge?
Ken Seto
alen
> >
> > Are you trying to say that the initial
> > acceleration of the clock causes the initial
> > photons to miss the target, but not the
> > subsequent photons, after the acceleration
> > has stopped?
>
> The initial acceleration of the light clock causes
> the target (the top mirror) to increase its state of
> absolute motion and thus causes the first batch
> of photons to miss the target. The number of photons
> missing the target is dependent on the increase
> in the state of absolute motion.of the target.
>
> After the acceleration has stopped, the target
> will remain in a higher state of absolute motion
> than before the acceleration and thus
> only the subsequent photons will reach the target.
>
> >
> > I am trying to understand what distinction
> > you are making between the initial photons
> > and the subsequent photons!
>
> Hope the above explanation is clear. I have an article
> entitled "A New Concept for Light Propagation" in the
> Journal Galilean Electrodynamics ( Volume 9, Number 5, Page 94)
> describes this concept of Light propagation.
>
> Ken Seto
OK, I understand your viewpoint. Thanks for your
explanation.
Alen
Titan Point
No, its Bilge.
HenriWilson
>N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
>> Dear kenseto:
>>
>> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
>> news:104edbi...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>>The Fundamental Flaw of SR:
>>>
>>>SR assumes erroneously that it knows how a light pulse light
>>>move from the source to the target.
>>
>>
>> No. *Illustrations* of a light ray are used to explain a constant c for
>> different frames. You know the difference,
>
>No he doesn't.
>
>> but you act the fool.
>>
>
>I used to think Ken was just acting, but as hard as it is to
>believe, he really *is* that stupid.
Ken is 100% right on this.
A vertical light beam remains vertical in all frames.
Why don't you plot the positions of a series of 'wave crests' then see how
stupid you are.
>
>-E
>
>>
>>>For example: In the moving light clock gedanken it
>>>assumes that a light pulse from the bottom mirror
>>>will follow a slant path on its way to the top mirror.
>>
>>
>> So kenseto *knows* how the light moves? The stationary frame infers the
>> light in the moving frame follows a slant path. The moving frame infers a
>> straight path. The path is therefore observer dependent, and has little to
>> do with the light, but more to do with how the frame's observers infer the
>> light moves.
>>
>> You argue with an empty heart.
>>
>> David A. Smith
>>
>>
Henri Wilson.
HenriWilson
No he doesn't.
Each infinitesimal element of the vertical light ray follows its own unique
diagonal path in the rest frame.
Only one such element moves along each path. A light beam consists of an
'infinite number of such infinitesimal elements', all of which follow each
other along the SAME path. One elements can hardly constitute a light beam.
So do yourself a favour.
see my demo: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe
It shows why Ken is right for once and why relativity is dead and buried.
Henri Wilson.
alen
> >I think that a stationary observer can see
> >that the light travels along a diagonal path
> >in his frame and along a straight path in the
> >moving frame. That is, the stationary observer
> >can see that the light travels within the moving
> >frame and is also carried along with it, producing
> >a resultant diagonal path in his stationary frame
> >
> >Alen
>
> No he doesn't.
>
> Each infinitesimal element of the vertical light ray follows its own unique
> diagonal path in the rest frame.
> Only one such element moves along each path. A light beam consists of an
> 'infinite number of such infinitesimal elements', all of which follow each
> other along the SAME path. One elements can hardly constitute a light beam.
>
> So do yourself a favour.
> see my demo: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe
>
> It shows why Ken is right for once and why relativity is dead and buried.
>
>
> Henri Wilson.
>
I think that your demo is correct if you don't
allow time dilation, although I don't see why the
green and purple wavelets don't keep pace
horizontally. If you use time dilation, you
can make the green photons move at velocity c
diagonally. However, since you don't believe in SR,
I suppose you won't accept time dilation as an
answer, so I can't argue the matter further.
However, I partially agree with your viewpoint in general.
I have posted an argument to prove that SR effects,
like foreshortening, cannot be spacelike in nature,
but lightlike only, and that is why I can accept the
validity of your moving rod method of synchronising
clocks.
http://home.westserv.net.au/~alen1/Physics/aSpacelikeExperiments.htm
Alen
Dirk Van de moortel
"alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message news:dfca704b.04031...@posting.google.com...
The funny thing is that idiots like you who don't understand
the first thing about relativity, try to teach it to the other idiots
who don't even understand the first thing about anything :-)
Dirk Vdm
HenriWilson
Time dilation is derived from the assumption that the diagonal velocities of
the elements is c.
Of COURSE THE DIAGONAL VELOCITY WILL BE C IF YOU APPLY THE FICTITIOUS TIME
DILATION THAT WAS DERIVED ON THE BASIS THAT THE VELOCITY IS C.
Geez, why can no SRian understand circular logic?
>
>However, I partially agree with your viewpoint in general.
>I have posted an argument to prove that SR effects,
>like foreshortening, cannot be spacelike in nature,
>but lightlike only, and that is why I can accept the
>validity of your moving rod method of synchronising
>clocks.
OF course SR must be wrong. The application of a force to a rod of clock will
both increase and decrease its velocity according to which observer one uses.
Length and time contractions can only occur if an absolute frame exists. There
is no evidence that it does.
>http://home.westserv.net.au/~alen1/Physics/aSpacelikeExperiments.htm
>
>Alen
Henri Wilson.
HenriWilson
D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote:
>Dear kenseto:
>
>"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
>news:104jlro...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote in
>> message news:6z82c.12922$Zp.4958@fed1read07...
>...
>> > > In that case it would be the path perpendicular to the mirror and you
>> > > call this path as "straight path".
>> >
>> > Both paths are straight. The path in the moving frame has the
>simplicity
>> > of assuming motion parallel to a line drawn between source and
>receiver,
>> or
>> > source-mirror-receiver. In the stationary frame, the Assumed path is
>> > straight from the source *then* to the receiver *now*. It is still a
>> > straight path.
>>
>> Hey idiot forget about straight path....it was you who mentioned it.
>> Do you agree that in SR the moving observer sees a vertical path
>> and the stationary observer sees a slant path?
....and what would be the ball's diagonal velocity Smithy?
Henri Wilson.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:0uf450h3r6k3nueo9...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 12:56:43 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1
> D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >Dear kenseto:
> >
> >"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> >news:104jlro...@corp.supernews.com...
...
> >> Hey idiot forget about straight path....it was you who mentioned it.
> >> Do you agree that in SR the moving observer sees a vertical path
> >> and the stationary observer sees a slant path?
>
> ....and what would be the ball's diagonal velocity Smithy?
You appear to be asking me, yet you've quoted kenseto. What "ball" would
that be? kenseto and I were discussing light.
If you meant "what would be the light's diagonal velocity", then the answer
would be "c" if it were in a vacuum.
David A. Smith
kenseto
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:xNr4c.25903$Zp.21498@fed1read07...
> Dear HenriWilson:
>
> "HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> news:0uf450h3r6k3nueo9...@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 12:56:43 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
> dlzc1
> > D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Dear kenseto:
> > >
> > >"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> > >news:104jlro...@corp.supernews.com...
> ...
> > >> Hey idiot forget about straight path....it was you who mentioned it.
> > >> Do you agree that in SR the moving observer sees a vertical path
> > >> and the stationary observer sees a slant path?
> >
> > ....and what would be the ball's diagonal velocity Smithy?
>
> You appear to be asking me, yet you've quoted kenseto. What "ball" would
> that be? kenseto and I were discussing light.
But you use the tennis ball to explain why the light follows a slant
(diagonal) path.
BTW your tennis ball explanation implies that the speed of light is
source dependent.
Ken Seto
alen
>
> Time dilation is derived from the assumption that the diagonal velocities of
> the elements is c.
>
> Of COURSE THE DIAGONAL VELOCITY WILL BE C IF YOU APPLY THE FICTITIOUS TIME
> DILATION THAT WAS DERIVED ON THE BASIS THAT THE VELOCITY IS C.
>
> Geez, why can no SRian understand circular logic?
>
>
> Henri Wilson.
Its all right, Henri, I am not trying to offer
a circular argument. If the postulate is that
the velocity must be c, then time dilation follows.
If the postulate were that time dilation exists,
then the velocity c would follow.
The velocity c is the original postulate, and
so time dilation follows. However, if you
regard either possible postulate as fiction,
then neither postulate (and its consequence) is true,
which is your position.
The question, therefore, is: is the
velocity_c_and_time_dilation picture a human
fabrication only, or a fabrication established in
Nature?
We clearly hold opposite opinions about this!
Alen
HenriWilson
D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote:
>Dear HenriWilson:
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>news:0uf450h3r6k3nueo9...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 12:56:43 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
>dlzc1
>> D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Dear kenseto:
>> >
>> >"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
>> >news:104jlro...@corp.supernews.com...
>...
>> >> Hey idiot forget about straight path....it was you who mentioned it.
>> >> Do you agree that in SR the moving observer sees a vertical path
>> >> and the stationary observer sees a slant path?
>>
>> ....and what would be the ball's diagonal velocity Smithy?
>
>You appear to be asking me, yet you've quoted kenseto. What "ball" would
>that be? kenseto and I were discussing light.
You mentioned the tennis balls in the moving truck first.
>
>If you meant "what would be the light's diagonal velocity", then the answer
>would be "c" if it were in a vacuum.
Do you have proof?
The vertical beam does not lean over you know. It stays vertical.
HenriWilson
Why would you want to hold a firm opinion about a postulate that has never been
proven and has no logic behind it?
>
>Alen
Henri Wilson.
Oriel36
> He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message news:<dbf450pu5r40dsvpq...@4ax.com>...
>
> >
> > Time dilation is derived from the assumption that the diagonal velocities of
> > the elements is c.
> >
> > Of COURSE THE DIAGONAL VELOCITY WILL BE C IF YOU APPLY THE FICTITIOUS TIME
> > DILATION THAT WAS DERIVED ON THE BASIS THAT THE VELOCITY IS C.
> >
> > Geez, why can no SRian understand circular logic?
> >
> >
> > Henri Wilson.
>
> Its all right, Henri, I am not trying to offer
> a circular argument. If the postulate is that
> the velocity must be c, then time dilation follows.
> If the postulate were that time dilation exists,
> then the velocity c would follow.
>
Do you comprehend why the original determination of finite light
distance that you call 'c' relied on observed anomalous motion and a
time delay.The motion of Io should have been steady but instead it
accelerated and slowed down after observation was corrected by
factoring out the natural variations in the Earth's motions via the
Equation of Time.
http://dibinst.mit.edu/BURNDY/OnlinePubs/Roemer/chapter3(part2).html
The Equation of Light like the Equation of Time is a geometric
adjustment made to astronomical observations,if finite light distance
effects what you observe at small scales within the solar system such
as the motion of Io consider what the effects are on the cosmological
scale of distant galaxies,their observed positions and motions and
their actual position and motions to each other and to our point of
view.
> The velocity c is the original postulate, and
> so time dilation follows. However, if you
> regard either possible postulate as fiction,
> then neither postulate (and its consequence) is true,
> which is your position.
>
> The question, therefore, is: is the
> velocity_c_and_time_dilation picture a human
> fabrication only, or a fabrication established in
> Nature?
>
Neither,if you find Roemer's method to be valid it is possible to
model cosmological motion and structure by using finite light distance
as a geometric tool.Follow Albert into his 'time' dimension and that
geometric tool is lost to this ridiculous 'addition of velocities'
nonsense.
> We clearly hold opposite opinions about this!
>
> Alen
You don't have that luxury of holding an opinion based on the
relativistic "free creations of the mind".Donald duck and Mickey mouse
are free creations of the mind and you can hold opinions on them
however Albert elevated this cartoon feature using astronomy via
Newton and by getting aetherists to act as stool pidgeons.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:0qh550h717t22891r...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 16:33:41 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1
> D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >Dear HenriWilson:
> >
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> >news:0uf450h3r6k3nueo9...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 12:56:43 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
> >dlzc1
> >> D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Dear kenseto:
> >> >
> >> >"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:104jlro...@corp.supernews.com...
> >...
> >> >> Hey idiot forget about straight path....it was you who mentioned
it.
> >> >> Do you agree that in SR the moving observer sees a vertical path
> >> >> and the stationary observer sees a slant path?
> >>
> >> ....and what would be the ball's diagonal velocity Smithy?
> >
> >You appear to be asking me, yet you've quoted kenseto. What "ball"
would
> >that be? kenseto and I were discussing light.
>
> You mentioned the tennis balls in the moving truck first.
And simile's are to be the way Nature is constrained to behave? Because
our simple models describe the behaviour if not the quantity, you would
tell Her how to run things?
> >If you meant "what would be the light's diagonal velocity", then the
answer
> >would be "c" if it were in a vacuum.
>
> Do you have proof?
I have a TWLS measurement. I have Maxwell's laws that require it.
Do you have anything except your pet ballistic theory, which only you pet?
> The vertical beam does not lean over you know. It stays vertical.
In the moving frame, true. In the staionary frame, it never left at
anything except a slant. Remember in a statistical theory like relativity,
light always travels on the radius of a spherical wavefront from the
emitter.
David A. Smith
HenriWilson
I just explained to hobba, Maxwell's equations give light a 'velocity'.
Nothing has a 'velocity'. It can only have a velocity wrt another object.
WRT what, does Maxwell's 'c' apply?
>
>Do you have anything except your pet ballistic theory, which only you pet?
>
>> The vertical beam does not lean over you know. It stays vertical.
>
>In the moving frame, true. In the stationary frame, it never left at
>anything except a slant. Remember in a statistical theory like relativity,
>light always travels on the radius of a spherical wavefront from the
>emitter.
No Smithy, you have it all wrong.
Moving a light beam sideways is the same as moving a light pole. It always
appears vertical.
What is more, the ants crawling up the pole take the same time to get to the
top no matter how diagonal their paths may appear in different frames.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:7lm65094nnr4tljn1...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 09:32:40 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1
> D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote:
...
> >> >If you meant "what would be the light's diagonal velocity", then the
> >answer
> >> >would be "c" if it were in a vacuum.
> >>
> >> Do you have proof?
> >
> >I have a TWLS measurement. I have Maxwell's laws that require it.
>
> I just explained to hobba, Maxwell's equations give light a 'velocity'.
>
> Nothing has a 'velocity'. It can only have a velocity wrt another object.
> WRT what, does Maxwell's 'c' apply?
The emitter, the mirror (if any), and the receiver. Regardless of what
frame they may be located in.
If you don't like it, take it up with Maxwell.
...
> >> The vertical beam does not lean over you know. It stays vertical.
> >
> >In the moving frame, true. In the stationary frame, it never left at
> >anything except a slant. Remember in a statistical theory like
relativity,
> >light always travels on the radius of a spherical wavefront from the
> >emitter.
>
> No Smithy, you have it all wrong.
>
> Moving a light beam sideways is the same as moving a light pole. It
always
> appears vertical.
You are absolutely right. In the moving frame the beam is "vertical". No
other frame observes it like this, however. So in every other instance you
are wrong. Let's see 1 part in infinity is... mostly wrong, I think.
> What is more, the ants crawling up the pole take the same time to get to
the
> top no matter how diagonal their paths may appear in different frames.
That isn't even right in Newtonian mechanics. You need to lay off the red
wine for a couple of hours. Or change brands.
David A. Smith
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:laqv40dunsabs5h4p...@4ax.com...
> On 5 Mar 2004 05:18:39 -0800, al...@westserv.net.au (alen) wrote:
> >I think that a stationary observer can see
> >that the light travels along a diagonal path
> >in his frame and along a straight path in the
> >moving frame. That is, the stationary observer
> >can see that the light travels within the moving
> >frame and is also carried along with it, producing
> >a resultant diagonal path in his stationary frame
> >
> >Alen
>
> No he doesn't.
>
> Each infinitesimal element of the vertical light ray follows its own unique
> diagonal path in the rest frame.
Behold:
> Only one such element moves along each path. A light beam consists of an
> 'infinite number of such infinitesimal elements', all of which follow each
> other along the SAME path.
How is your foot? :-)
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> skrev i melding news:dfca704b.04031...@posting.google.com...
> > see my demo: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe
> >
> > It shows why Ken is right for once and why relativity is dead and buried.
> >
> >
> > Henri Wilson.
> >
>
> I think that your demo is correct if you don't
> allow time dilation, although I don't see why the
> green and purple wavelets don't keep pace
> horizontally.
It is very simple.
Henry's "demo" is based on the assumption that the speed
of light is dependent on the speed of the source and that
Galilean relativity applies.
Since the lasers are moving with different velocity,
the speeds of the green and purple light are different.
Henry's demo correctly demonstrates how light would
behave if the speed of light were source dependent.
What's really amazing is that Henry Wilson thinks
that light MUST behave like that because
"what's clearly shown on a computer screen cannot
be wrong". :-)
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> skrev i melding news:dfca704b.0403...@posting.google.com...
> He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message news:<dbf450pu5r40dsvpq...@4ax.com>...
>
> >
> > Time dilation is derived from the assumption that the diagonal velocities of
> > the elements is c.
> >
> > Of COURSE THE DIAGONAL VELOCITY WILL BE C IF YOU APPLY THE FICTITIOUS TIME
> > DILATION THAT WAS DERIVED ON THE BASIS THAT THE VELOCITY IS C.
> >
> > Geez, why can no SRian understand circular logic?
So if we hadn't assumed that the "diagonal speed of light" is c
the MMX would have produced fringe shifts because then
the diagonal speed of light wouldn't have been c.
Right? :-)
Any experimental verification of an assumption is obviously circular.
Right? :-)
Paul
HenriWilson
Your words reveal the severity of your indoctrination Smithy. You are no longer
capable of free thought.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:ol9c50p042fvuqpul...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 21:28:42 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1
> D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote:
...
> >> What is more, the ants crawling up the pole take the same time to get
to
> >the
> >> top no matter how diagonal their paths may appear in different frames.
> >
> >That isn't even right in Newtonian mechanics. You need to lay off the
red
> >wine for a couple of hours. Or change brands.
>
> Your words reveal the severity of your indoctrination Smithy. You are no
longer
> capable of free thought.
Again you end with no substantive response.
Whatever.
David A. Smith
HenriWilson
wrote:
>
>"alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> skrev i melding news:dfca704b.0403...@posting.google.com...
>> He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message news:<dbf450pu5r40dsvpq...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> >
>> > Time dilation is derived from the assumption that the diagonal velocities of
>> > the elements is c.
>> >
>> > Of COURSE THE DIAGONAL VELOCITY WILL BE C IF YOU APPLY THE FICTITIOUS TIME
>> > DILATION THAT WAS DERIVED ON THE BASIS THAT THE VELOCITY IS C.
>> >
>> > Geez, why can no SRian understand circular logic?
>
>So if we hadn't assumed that the "diagonal speed of light" is c
>the MMX would have produced fringe shifts because then
>the diagonal speed of light wouldn't have been c.
>Right? :-)
.....absolutely wrong.
The MMX produced a null result because light speed is source dependent -- end
of story.
>
>Any experimental verification of an assumption is obviously circular.
>Right? :-)
How can an experiment based on the presumed properties of something that the
experiment itself proved didn't exist, prove anything?
Geez, you are becoming funnier every day Paul.
>
>Paul
>
>
Henri Wilson.
HenriWilson
wrote:
>
One only needs a mind capable of logical thought to understand that a
diagonally moving element of the green beam cannot possibly move at the same
speed as the aligned elements of the purple laser beam, projected at the same
angle.
>
>Paul
>
Henri Wilson.
HenriWilson
wrote:
>
If you are refering to my gout, it is much better thankyou.
If you are refering to the fact that you think I have made a glaring
self-contradiction somewhere, you are a pathetic liar, as Androcles assures us
all.
>
>Paul
>
Henri Wilson.
Androcles
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
news:c355mt$873$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
>
> "alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> skrev i melding
news:dfca704b.0403...@posting.google.com...
> > He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message
news:<dbf450pu5r40dsvpq...@4ax.com>...
> >
> > >
> > > Time dilation is derived from the assumption that the diagonal
velocities of
> > > the elements is c.
> > >
> > > Of COURSE THE DIAGONAL VELOCITY WILL BE C IF YOU APPLY THE FICTITIOUS
TIME
> > > DILATION THAT WAS DERIVED ON THE BASIS THAT THE VELOCITY IS C.
> > >
> > > Geez, why can no SRian understand circular logic?
>
> So if we hadn't assumed that the "diagonal speed of light" is c
> the MMX would have produced fringe shifts because then
> the diagonal speed of light wouldn't have been c.
> Right? :-)
MMX is not performed diagonally, nTaul who thinks speed is the same as
velocity.
>
> Any experimental verification of an assumption is obviously circular.
> Right? :-)
>
> Paul
IF the assumption is that the velocity of light is source dependent and in
agreement with vector addition of velocities and the PoR, then no. If the
assumption is time dilation and length contraction then GR effects come into
play and thence we conclude that a MMX at the equator must show more fringe
shift, by a very small amount, than a precisely MMX situated at one of the
poles under otherwise identical conditions.
Androcles
Androcles
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
Have you heard his funniest?
quote:
What you have failed to understand is that it is the _speed_
that shall be entered into the equation, and the speed is 0.86c.
The direction of the velocity is taken care of in the equation
tau = (t+xv)/sqrt(...), this equation has a plus sign _because_
the tau-xi frame is moving in the negative x-direction.
unquote.
How confused can he be?
I gave him
| x v x/v tau=(t-xv)/sqrt(...)
| tau=(t+xv)/sqrt(...)
| 4.00 0.86 4.65 2.37 years out
|
| -4.00 -0.86 4.65 15.86
| -4.00 0.86 -4.65 -15.86
| 4.00 -0.86 -4.65 -15.86
| 4.00 0.86 4.65 15.86
and WITHOUT the 4th column, he comes up with
quote:
So the correct combination of numbers are:
x = -4, v = 0.86
which you claimed should give t = -4.65
It is the latter that is the point.
The correct t with those numbers is t = 4.65.
unquote.
The guy doesn't know velocity from speed.
I did this with a spreadsheet, and got the answer he wanted in the first
line.
When the twin went back home again, using HIS transform, the computer gave
an answer he didn't like in the fifth column, so he denies it.
It all stems from Einstein's
If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must
have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time.
|< -vt <|
0----------x'--------x
1----------x'-------x
2----------x'------x
3----------x'-----x
4----------x'----x
5----------x'---x
6----------x'--x
7----------x'-x
8----------x'x
x' = x - vt, the gap is narrowing.
The idiot cannot understand that
***IF*** we place x'=x+vt, it is BLATANTLY BLOODY OBVIOUS that a point at
rest in the system k must have a system of values x', y, z, so that we can
go FORWARD.
0---------xx'
1---------x----x'
2---------x--------x'
3---------x-------------x'
|> +vt >|
x' = x+vt, the gap is widening.
Androcles
Androcles
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:fBr5c.34028$Zp.26018@fed1read07...
ignore them and go on preaching with learning anything.
Androcles
HenriWilson
Don't be too hard on Paul. At least he tries... which is more than you can say
for most of the others.
Henri Wilson.
Androcles
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
[snip]
> Don't be too hard on Paul. At least he tries... which is more than you can
say
> for most of the others.
>
> Henri Wilson.
>
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
liar, cheat, fraud, imbecile, moron... If he was just gullible I'd
understand it, but he deliberately lies.
Androcles
Paul B. Andersen
news:mE16c.25488$ra4....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
If this postings had been meant as the parody
it appears to be, it would be funny.
Since it is meant seriously, it is hilarious.
I will leave the rolling and farting to the expert, though.
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:dgbh5091t9ai42ses...@4ax.com...
Androcles hard on me?
Quite the contrary.
Androcles is very kind to me.
Read his posting above again.
See?
That's why I am so fond of Androcles.
I don't have to point out that I am right and he is wrong
since his postings make that so blatantly obvious.
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"Androcles" wrote:
> If the
> assumption is time dilation and length contraction then GR effects come into
> play and thence we conclude that a MMX at the equator must show more fringe
> shift, by a very small amount, than a precisely MMX situated at one of the
> poles under otherwise identical conditions.
> Androcles
Another hilarious apparent-but-not-meant-as-such-parody.
Well done again, Androcles. :-)
BTW, think of all the fringe shifts an MMX in the space shuttle
would have produced!
Paul
Androcles
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
news:c3caru$108$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
Androcles
Androcles
I finished your sentence, for you, nTaul. You left it incomplete.
Androcles
> Paul
>
>
Bilge
The biggest flaw with special relativity is that it so simple, it
attracts kooks who are even simpler who proclaim themselves to
be experts without being able to do simple algebra.