Henry Wilson
Matthew Blake
to be claiming SR isn't so hot. I don't have all of the thread as I've only
recently gained access to news servers. Could you briefly restate your
position on SR for me please.
Matt.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Matthew Blake" <matthe...@baesystems.com> wrote in message news:9r8kc5$aii$1...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com...
2890 hits to be found on:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_uauthors=henry%20wilson%20&num=20&as_scoring=d
By the time you click the link, probably a few more.
Enjoy.
Dirk Vdm
Henry Wilson
SR is plain bull! I claim that is all my messages. Flawed from start to finish,
top to bottom.
Which aspect did you have in mind, in particular ?
Probably my two main areas of complaint are, 1) that PHYSICAL changes cannot
possibly occur as a result of velocity change. That is easy to prove.
and 2) that the whole idea that a vertical light beam appears diagonal to a
moving observer is plain rubbish. There is no 'gamma' factor, except maybe for
charged particles.
This refutes the einsteinian principle that a sphere of light emitted from a
single sourse will appear as a sphere in ALL frames.
The second postulate is also groundless. Light speed has always appeared
constant because all experiments to measure it have been round trip.
TWLS is dead constant if light velocity is source dependent. It departs from
constancy by the minute factor (v/c)^2 if there is an aether.
Einstein's assumption that it IS constant, was an approximation which has led to
his approximate theory which just happens to come up with correct answers
occasionally.
Most experiments that are supposed to verify SR are flawed. The SR explanation
of the MMX is based on a complete misinterpretation of that experiment.
Henry Wilson
and so far nobody has been able to prove me wrong anywhere.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3bd896bd...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
Well, that's a question of interpretation: the whole world will
say that you have been proven wrong at least 2890 times,
You just haven't been *convinced* yet ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Dabiker
news:3bd893d...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
Let me just say that people like Henry, Androcles, Eleaticus, Rod Ryker do a
very good job educating people like me.
Most people don't even know about SR, GR and how it violate every known law
of nature. It is an overload of selfreferential system, that math idiot
savants can use to create their own little insane interpretations of
reality, it has more in common with magic and gauntlets then science, it
easy to see when one read a book of Stephen Hawkings.
From the very beginning i just did know, there was something fishy and wrong
with a theory that claimed for gravity waves to travell through the universe
shrinking objects and then expand them without that it ever would be
possible to notice.
Well actually they claimed there was one way, the infamous *invariant* speed
of light would change at such an event. But it still would be untouched in
it's perfect state of invariance.
As Ein Stein once stated "If zee laight speed chainge, iz becauze zee meiter
chainge"
People like Wilson have given me loads of arguments on how to handle "math
idiot savants" but when i think of it most of you people isn't even close to
be "math idiot savants" most of you are like trekkies or Fox Mulder, i wan't
to beleive.
Your just into it because you love that lil christmas tree that Einstein
brought into your world and have no wish to continue without your black
holes, gravitational waves, time dilation, worm holes etc.
Even aether people like Seto start to see where their theory is heading, and
makes adjustment to fit reality, but the stupid SR train just moves on
without notice the railway just isn't there anymore.
Dabiker
Jan Bielawski
> and so far nobody has been able to prove me wrong anywhere.
You just don't understand explanations of the mistakes you make.
Jan Bielawski
San Francisco, CA
Jan Bielawski
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:03:13 +0100, "Matthew Blake"
> <matthe...@baesystems.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi, I've noticed a lot of posts from you. One thread in particular you seem
> >to be claiming SR isn't so hot. I don't have all of the thread as I've only
> >recently gained access to news servers. Could you briefly restate your
> >position on SR for me please.
> >
> >Matt.
>
> SR is plain bull! I claim that is all my messages. Flawed from start to finish,
> top to bottom.
You don't know what SR is, what you talk about here is not SR but a
caricature created out of your misunderstandings. You are wasting your
time.
Dirk Van de moortel
You were on my list too ;-)
>
> Most people don't even know about SR, GR and how it violate every known
> law of nature. It is an overload of selfreferential system, that math idiot
> savants can use to create their own little insane interpretations of
> reality, it has more in common with magic and gauntlets then science, it
> easy to see when one read a book of Stephen Hawkings.
People without a thorough physics education shouldn't read books
by Hawking. IMO they are a pitiful attempt at popularising physics.
I find them crap. Everyone I know who has read one of his books,
got totally confused. No one takes the phrase "The following ideas
are highly speculative and by no means established..." seriously.
They all think that the ideas represent the truth.
>
> From the very beginning i just did know, there was something fishy and wrong
> with a theory that claimed for gravity waves to travell through the universe
> shrinking objects and then expand them without that it ever would be
> possible to notice.
>
> Well actually they claimed there was one way, the infamous *invariant* speed
> of light would change at such an event. But it still would be untouched in
> it's perfect state of invariance.
No doubt this sounds a tiny little bit like something you have a read
in some crap book.
>
> As Ein Stein once stated "If zee laight speed chainge, iz becauze zee meiter
> chainge"
>
> People like Wilson have given me loads of arguments on how to handle "math
> idiot savants" but when i think of it most of you people isn't even close to
> be "math idiot savants" most of you are like trekkies or Fox Mulder, i wan't
> to beleive.
You are free to believe what you want.
>
> Your just into it because you love that lil christmas tree that Einstein
> brought into your world and have no wish to continue without your black
> holes, gravitational waves, time dilation, worm holes etc.
Clearly you have read Hawking. Irreparable damage has been
inflicted upon you.
>
> Even aether people like Seto start to see where their theory is heading, and
> makes adjustment to fit reality, but the stupid SR train just moves on
> without notice the railway just isn't there anymore.
Don't forget that Seto:
1) completely embraces SR in his "theory"
2) his "theory" is based on error upon error (see recent threads).
You are, like so many others, beyond repair, another victim of a
book that was aimed at the wrong audience.
Dirk Vdm
Matthew Blake
know whether or not I'm out of my depth here.
Eric Prebys
Just those? What about Seto, Spaceman, Keith Stein, H.E.Retic, and the
rest of the contestants in the "Stupidest Poster" competition?
> Most people don't even know about SR, GR and how it violate every known law
> of nature. It is an overload of selfreferential system, that math idiot
Eh, which laws does it violate? Oh, I forgot, "every known one".
> savants can use to create their own little insane interpretations of
> reality, it has more in common with magic and gauntlets then science, it
> easy to see when one read a book of Stephen Hawkings.
>
> From the very beginning i just did know, there was something fishy and wrong
> with a theory that claimed for gravity waves to travell through the universe
Well it's hard to argue with a scientific observation like "fishy and
wrong".
> shrinking objects and then expand them without that it ever would be
> possible to notice.
>
> Well actually they claimed there was one way, the infamous *invariant* speed
> of light would change at such an event. But it still would be untouched in
> it's perfect state of invariance.
>
> As Ein Stein once stated "If zee laight speed chainge, iz becauze zee meiter
> chainge"
>
> People like Wilson have given me loads of arguments on how to handle "math
> idiot savants" but when i think of it most of you people isn't even close to
> be "math idiot savants" most of you are like trekkies or Fox Mulder, i wan't
> to beleive.
>
> Your just into it because you love that lil christmas tree that Einstein
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> brought into your world and have no wish to continue without your black
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
N.B. Einstein was Jewish. While it's not impossible that he gave
someone a Christmas Tree at some point in his life, I wouldn't imagine
he would choose that as a defining metaphor.
> holes, gravitational waves, time dilation, worm holes etc.
>
> Even aether people like Seto start to see where their theory is heading, and
Ah, Seto the genius iconoclast!
On another thread, I just spent about 6 posts trying to convince
Seto that (A-B)^2 is not equal to (A^2 - B^2). I haven't quite
succeeded
yet.
> makes adjustment to fit reality, but the stupid SR train just moves on
> without notice the railway just isn't there anymore.
>
And the "railway that isn't there" would be the century of experimental
verifications?
> Dabiker
Eric Prebys
Matthew Blake wrote:
>
> Thank you. Could you also tell me what level you have studied SR at so I
> know whether or not I'm out of my depth here.
I believe the answer to your first question would be "not at all".
As for the rest, any discussion with Mr. Wilson gets "deep"
pretty quickly.
For the record, Mr. Wilson has stated categorically that any experiment
that supports special relativity is wrong by definition, so any attempt
at reason on your part is doomed to fail.
Your time would be better spent arguing with someone more reasonable -
a creationist for example.
-Eric
Eric Prebys
I believe that just made 2891, but don't write it down as it's
likely to grow quickly.
-Eric
> Dirk Vdm
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Prebys, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Office: 630-840-8369, Email: pre...@fnal.gov
WWW: http://home.fnal.gov/~prebys
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Wilson
You do me an injustice, Eric. That's not quite what I have always claimed.
I have always conceded that SR is approximately correct on most occasions and
completely correct on some, even if only by pure chance.
Don't get me wrong though. I fully understand the reasons why a form of
relativity is necessary. However, since SR is based on false assumption right
from the start, I cannot see how it is the answer.
I don't hold any particular theory because, unlike many SRians, I don't have an
inherent need to convince myself I know everything. I accept that I and science
in general has hardly a clue about what is really going on.
Acceptance of SR is not going to get us anywhere, quickly.
SR is a brilliant but flawed attempt to describe the universe, in the way that
relatively moving observer might see it, using EM as there basic communication.
I believe a better approach might be to consider the whole thing in terms of
instantaneous information transfer and omniscient observers (which is often
inadvertantly done anyway).
Henry Wilson
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Dabiker" <jon...@bredband.net> wrote in message news:Lh2C7.14194$At....@news2.bredband.com...
>> "Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i meddelandet
>
>Don't forget that Seto:
> 1) completely embraces SR in his "theory"
> 2) his "theory" is based on error upon error (see recent threads).
Therefore, 3) SR is based upon error after error!!!!!!
>
>You are, like so many others, beyond repair, another victim of a
>book that was aimed at the wrong audience.
>
>Dirk Vdm
you said it, Dirk!
AndroclesInFlorida
"Matthew Blake" <matthe...@baesystems.com> wrote in message
news:9r8kc5$aii$1...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com...
There are two active anti-relativity groups Matt. One is the aetherialists,
who accept
a constant speed of light and wish to give it a physical cause because they
do not believe in
magic. However, Michelson-Morley disproved the aether a long time ago.
The other group (to which I belong) doesn't accept a constant speed of light
because common sense
dictates that if you move toward light coming your way, its speed, relative
to you, is increased.
The relativists will tell you this is true for anything else, except light
in a vacuum, (they wont deny it for light in air, either) and there is no
aether. They believe in magic but do nothing to investigate it, all they'll
do is continue to promote their religion.
Dabiker
"Eric Prebys" <pre...@fnal.gov> skrev i meddelandet
news:3BD98C4F...@fnal.gov...
Well go figure, i never said or claimed Ken to be right in his theory i said
that even Ken just realised that aether theory doesn't make more sense then
SR, and he desperatly tries to patch up *your flawed theory* with some hot
patches.
But as both i Wilson, Androcles, Eleaticus, Rod Ryker and possibly Keith
Stein knows that this attempt is doomed to fail since it builds on faulty
premises. The Einstein postulates.
If you find this amusing i for sure do not, it is a bit sad actually to see
a person so deep indoctrinated in your hogwash *invarian light* that he
desperately try to save the faulty theory *of yours* that never should had
seen the day of light in the first place.
But your quite right in that Ken never will be able to give a coherent
description of reality. That is since he blatlantly insist on keeping *your
faulty premises* as a part of it.
> > makes adjustment to fit reality, but the stupid SR train just moves on
> > without notice the railway just isn't there anymore.
>
> And the "railway that isn't there" would be the century of experimental
> verifications?
For SR? You must be kidding.......
> > Dabiker
>
Dabiker
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> skrev i
meddelandet news:be5C7.2263$aA1...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
There is no buisness like monkey buisness......
> People without a thorough physics *indoctrination* shouldn't read books
> by Hawking. IMO they are a pitiful attempt at popularising physics.
Well it's not my fault that Einsteins theories has messed poor Hawkings
brain all up is it?
So please don't blame me for things that Einstein done to Stephen.
> I find them crap. Everyone I know who has read one of his books,
> got totally confused.
I totally agree with you please have a talk with him, and please tell him
not to build theories around Einsteins dream castle.
>No one takes the phrase "The following ideas
> are highly speculative and by no means established..." seriously.
> They all think that the ideas represent the truth.
Yeah most trekkies and Mulder fans, seem to fancy the idea that Einsteins
dream castle actually represent a truthful picture of reality, and thus try
to create theories around it, please beg them not to, please make them stop.
> No doubt this sounds a tiny little bit like something you have a read
> in some crap book.
Yeah i'm sorry to that i ever read a book of Einstein or Hawking..
I just can't beleive that the whole scientific community swallov such a load
of hogwash.
> > As Ein Stein once stated "If zee laight speed chainge, iz becauze zee
meiter
> > chainge"
> Clearly you have read Hawking. Irreparable damage has been
> inflicted upon you.
Yeah the damage is done, both on me and Hawkings. Einstein had no right to
build his theory around faulty assumptions in the first place.
Poor Hawking is trapped within Einsteins dream castle, and can't find a way
out. Me myself have a hard time both sleeping and eating knowing that the
worlds smartest and leading scientist, are so indoctrinated that they are
willing to start a monkey kindergarten, in an last attempt to save a faulty
theory.
> You are, like so many others, beyond repair, another victim of a
> book that was aimed at the wrong audience.
I agree both Hawkings and Einsteins book should have a little sign of
warning, or just plain state that they are bedtime stories for monkeys.
> Dirk Vdm
Dabiker
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3bd9db99...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 04:01:11 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Dabiker" <jon...@bredband.net> wrote in message news:Lh2C7.14194$At....@news2.bredband.com...
> >> "Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i meddelandet
>
> >
> >Don't forget that Seto:
> > 1) completely embraces SR in his "theory"
> > 2) his "theory" is based on error upon error (see recent threads).
>
> Therefore, 3) SR is based upon error after error!!!!!!
Unless his embracement is flawed of course ;-)
Have you seen his most recent exploits? Look at the talk between Seto
and eric Prebys "A Test for Mutual Time Dilation" on this group.
Even you will find it quite halarious. Have a look at sci.math too ;-)
> >
> >You are, like so many others, beyond repair, another victim of a
> >book that was aimed at the wrong audience.
> >
> >Dirk Vdm
>
> you said it, Dirk!
Hey, yes, that's true. I said it. Good point ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Dabiker" <jon...@bredband.net> wrote in message news:e5tC7.16748$W2.1...@news1.bredband.com...
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> skrev i
> meddelandet news:be5C7.2263$aA1...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
>
> There is no buisness like monkey buisness......
>
> > by Hawking. IMO they are a pitiful attempt at popularising physics.
I said "education", you altered it to "*indoctrination*"
I was tempted to alter your quotes too, but I won't. It would probably
escalate.
> > I find them crap. Everyone I know who has read one of his books,
> > got totally confused.
>
> I totally agree with you please have a talk with him, and please tell him
> not to build theories around Einsteins dream castle.
No, I talk with people like you, and warn you not to read books that
weren't written for people like you. Confusion after having read such
books is nothing to be ashamed about, unless you have the proper
background, i.e. physics and mathematics.
>
> >No one takes the phrase "The following ideas
> > are highly speculative and by no means established..." seriously.
> > They all think that the ideas represent the truth.
>
> Yeah most trekkies and Mulder fans, seem to fancy the idea that Einsteins
> dream castle actually represent a truthful picture of reality, and thus try
> to create theories around it, please beg them not to, please make them stop.
Trekkies and specially Mulder fans are complete idiots. I guess
the majority of crackpots have been formed among them. They
don't fancy science at all. Trekkies fancy science fiction and
pointed ears. Mulder fans fancy quite the opposite of science.
But there seems to be a market for this kind of nonsense.
>
> > No doubt this sounds a tiny little bit like something you have a read
> > in some crap book.
>
> Yeah i'm sorry to that i ever read a book of Einstein or Hawking..
> I just can't beleive that the whole scientific community swallov such a load
> of hogwash.
They don't: they are physicists. The laymen Hawking readers that
*don't* panic, have understood the phrase "The following ideas
are highly speculative and by no means established...". It is not even
a difficult concept to grasp. Think about it for a while.
My brother-in-law (with a background in economy - no physics) has
read Einstein's biography and Hawking's popular books. We had
quite some talks about it. He has problems understanding too. But he
appreciates people who do understand. Like I don't really understand
his politico-economic philosophy like he does. It's all a question of
training and background, and specially humility.
> > > As Ein Stein once stated "If zee laight speed chainge, iz becauze
> > > zee meiter chainge"
>
> > Clearly you have read Hawking. Irreparable damage has been
> > inflicted upon you.
>
> Yeah the damage is done, both on me and Hawkings. Einstein had no right to
> build his theory around faulty assumptions in the first place.
Non-intuitive and difficult assumptions I'd say.
>
> Poor Hawking is trapped within Einsteins dream castle, and can't find a way
> out. Me myself have a hard time both sleeping and eating knowing that the
> worlds smartest and leading scientist, are so indoctrinated that they are
> willing to start a monkey kindergarten, in an last attempt to save a faulty
> theory.
That "faulty theory" is one of the most successful ones we ever had,
but apparently too difficult for most people. That's too bad.
You really have a hard time sleeping and eating?
Concentrating on another aspect of the world might help.
>
> > You are, like so many others, beyond repair, another victim of a
> > book that was aimed at the wrong audience.
>
> I agree both Hawkings and Einsteins book should have a little sign of
> warning, or just plain state that they are bedtime stories for monkeys.
Normal people have enough common sense to know what is
compatible with their abilities. They don't loose their sleep over it.
You better find another newsgroup. Good luck.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3bd9dc7b...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
It is brilliant but difficult. Not flawed. There are no inconsistencies
and we have all the experiments you can dream of. If you have the
brains to understand of course.
Try explaining (with standard Newtonian dynamics) how a top spins to
a *real* idiot. He'll laugh at you just like you laugh at the ones who try
to explain to you how relativity works.
> I believe a better approach might be to consider the whole thing in terms of
> instantaneous information transfer and omniscient observers (which is often
> inadvertantly done anyway).
It is your right to run hundreds of years behind. Don't expect much
support from the ones who live now, in 2001.
There are people who still genuinely believe that the earth is flat. You
laugh at *them*, we laugh at you. It might not be a nice thing to do...
but shit happens.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"AndroclesInFlorida" <marie...@home.com> wrote in message news:N0pC7.1517$CJ6.1...@news1.rdc1.fl.home.com...
Please also note carefully that Androcles does *not* believe in Santa.
For the record, I repeat: He Does Not Believe In Santa.
Dirk Vdm
JohnF
>
> I believe a better approach might be to consider the whole thing in terms of
> instantaneous information transfer and omniscient observers (which is often
> inadvertantly done anyway).
Well said, Henry. Such an approach would remove most, if not all, of
the absurdities which appear on this forum, e.g. time dilation, length
contraction. These "magic" explanations result from the use of the
speed of light to measure simultaneous events. Were we to use the
speed of sound to measure acoustic events we would run into the same
difficulties as we experience with light. However, we actually use
the speed of light to determine when and where acoustic events occur.
This is because the speed of light is effectively instantaneous with
respect to the speed of sound. Many say that the MMX failure
disproved the straightformard summation of light speed with source and
observer velocities. But, as you have shown by your theoretical
model, the true path of light rays were not considered correctly by
Michelson & Morley. As stated in a previous Post in one of your
threads several months ago I had developed a mathematical proof,
backing up your model and showing that the MMX was doomed to failure.
In addition a simple experiment, which I conducted and described in
detail two years ago on this forum, confirmed what the MMX strived to
accomplish, i.e that motion of the Earth through space could be
detected, and in a closed environment without visual reference to any
other external body. The results of that experiment were presented
and indicated that the Earth's measured velocity by this experiment
was releative to that of the Sun i.e. approximately 30km/s.
Regards,
John
Henry Wilson
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3bd9dc7b...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
>> >
>> > -Eric
>> You do me an injustice, Eric. That's not quite what I have always claimed.
>> I have always conceded that SR is approximately correct on most occasions and
>> completely correct on some, even if only by pure chance.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong though. I fully understand the reasons why a form of
>> relativity is necessary. However, since SR is based on false assumption right
>> from the start, I cannot see how it is the answer.
>> I don't hold any particular theory because, unlike many SRians, I don't have an
>> inherent need to convince myself I know everything. I accept that I and science
>> in general has hardly a clue about what is really going on.
>> Acceptance of SR is not going to get us anywhere, quickly.
>>
>> SR is a brilliant but flawed attempt to describe the universe, in the way that
>> relatively moving observer might see it, using EM as there basic communication.
>
>It is brilliant but difficult. Not flawed. There are no inconsistencies
>and we have all the experiments you can dream of. If you have the
>brains to understand of course.
>Try explaining (with standard Newtonian dynamics) how a top spins to
>a *real* idiot. He'll laugh at you just like you laugh at the ones who try
>to explain to you how relativity works.
I understand the basis of SR pretty well. That's why I know it is inherently
flawed. I have also found errors or alternative explanations for every socalled
supporting experiment.
How can you people still talk about 'Lorentz contractions', when it is trivial
to prove that they simply cannot physically happen?
I accept that many SR predictions will be correct, however, because the factor
gamma appeared in equations relating to moving charges before Einstein was even
born.
>
>
>> I believe a better approach might be to consider the whole thing in terms of
>> instantaneous information transfer and omniscient observers (which is often
>> inadvertantly done anyway).
>
>It is your right to run hundreds of years behind. Don't expect much
>support from the ones who live now, in 2001.
You mean the ones who have suffered from 100 years of academic inbreeding.
>There are people who still genuinely believe that the earth is flat.
Isn't it? The horizon looks pretty straight to me!
>Dirk Vdm
>
>
Henry Wilson
Sorry, John, I must have missed your message about that. Send me some more info
if you wish at henri...@bigpond.com.
I am just working on another simple experiment which should measure 'Earth
velocity' but of course it is hard to understand what that expression might mean
in the overall scheme of things.
Similarly the statement 'the velocity of light is constant in all frames' can
have several meanings. What actually IS 'velocity of light'?
'Velocity relative to the source' is my favoured definition, at present.
Henry Wilson
Dirk, would you please tell us how you would generally define the expression
'velocity of light'?
shuba
> MMX was doomed to failure.
What do you mean, "failure"? It was a nicely done experiment.
---Tim Shuba---
AndroclesInFlorida
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
child, have piece of candy) that I do not believe in Santa or Einstein's
relativity, even if he does.
Bilge
>
>SR is plain bull! I claim that is all my messages. Flawed from start
>to finish, top to bottom.
something like that?
>Which aspect did you have in mind, in particular ?
The size shovel needed to keep up with you.
>Probably my two main areas of complaint are, 1) that PHYSICAL
>changes cannot possibly occur as a result of velocity change.
>That is easy to prove.
And no one but you claims that actually happens, so first of all,
it's your own misunderstanding of relativity that you disagree with
and since you've been told this before, I'm assuming you didn't write
it down to keep you from repeating this idiotic claim.
>and 2) that the whole idea that a vertical light beam appears
>diagonal to a moving observer is plain rubbish. There is no
>'gamma' factor, except maybe for charged particles.
The whole idea that an observer can see a light beam at all is
ridiculous. The only thing an observer can see is the light that lands
in the detector (or eye), and that most certainly can't be going any
direction other than from the source of the light to the detector.
Explain to me how you see light going in some direction other than
towards you. Design an experiment that lets be _see_ a light beam.
>This refutes the einsteinian principle that a sphere of light
>emitted from a single sourse will appear as a sphere in ALL frames.
Henry, the first thing you need to do is straighten out just
exactly what you mean.
>The second postulate is also groundless. Light speed has always appeared
>constant because all experiments to measure it have been round trip.
Find a newsgroup that caters to the high rho crowd.
>TWLS
Time Wilson Left Science?
[...]
>Most experiments that are supposed to verify SR are flawed. The
>SR explanation of the MMX is based on a complete misinterpretation of
>that experiment.
All of henries conceptual ideas regarding experiements don't match the
way any equipement works as known to the inhabitants of this universe.
According to henry, it's impossible to measure any time it takes for a
particle to travel between two detectors if it violates anything he's
arguing about that would be shot down by such common experimental
techniques. We don't believe there is a principle that allows him to
construct devices that favor his opinion.
Charles Francis
<He...@the.edge> writes
>On Thu, 25 Oct 2001 19:46:34 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
><dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Matthew Blake" <matthe...@baesystems.com> wrote in message news:9r8kc5$aii
>$1...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com...
>>> Hi, I've noticed a lot of posts from you. One thread in particular you seem
>>> to be claiming SR isn't so hot. I don't have all of the thread as I've only
>>> recently gained access to news servers. Could you briefly restate your
>>> position on SR for me please.
>>>
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?as_uauthors=henry%20wilson%20&num=20&as_scoring
>=d
>>
>>By the time you click the link, probably a few more.
>>Enjoy.
>>
>>Dirk Vdm
>
>and so far nobody has been able to prove me wrong anywhere.
No one can prove anything to someone who is too stupid to understand
proof. You are a total moron. PLONK.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
Dabiker
news:slrn9tnnh...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Put up, or shut up stupid or are you in the fraud buiz just like Einstein?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3bdb381c...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 10:39:57 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3bd9dc7b...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
> >> >
> >> > -Eric
> >> You do me an injustice, Eric. That's not quite what I have always claimed.
> >> I have always conceded that SR is approximately correct on most occasions and
> >> completely correct on some, even if only by pure chance.
> >>
> >> Don't get me wrong though. I fully understand the reasons why a form of
> >> relativity is necessary. However, since SR is based on false assumption right
> >> from the start, I cannot see how it is the answer.
> >> I don't hold any particular theory because, unlike many SRians, I don't have an
> >> inherent need to convince myself I know everything. I accept that I and science
> >> in general has hardly a clue about what is really going on.
> >> Acceptance of SR is not going to get us anywhere, quickly.
> >>
> >> SR is a brilliant but flawed attempt to describe the universe, in the way that
> >> relatively moving observer might see it, using EM as there basic communication.
> >
> >It is brilliant but difficult. Not flawed. There are no inconsistencies
> >and we have all the experiments you can dream of. If you have the
> >brains to understand of course.
> >Try explaining (with standard Newtonian dynamics) how a top spins to
> >a *real* idiot. He'll laugh at you just like you laugh at the ones who try
> >to explain to you how relativity works.
>
> I understand the basis of SR pretty well. That's why I know it is inherently
> flawed.
No you haven't. You don't even understand Gelilean Relativity.
Watch this carefully (plain Galilean Relativity):
S is a frame that uses coordinates (x,y,t)
x = horizontal, y = vertical, t = time.
A light flash starts at (0,0,0) and goes up to (0,1,1/c).
It takes a time 1/c to reach the top.
Okay?
Now you move in the x-direction with speed v.
You use coordinates (x',y',t')
You use the classical Galilean Transformation
x' = x - vt
y' = y
t' = t
Okay?
(x,y,t) = (0,0,0) transforms to (x',y',t') = (0,0,0)
(x,y,t) = (0,1,1/c) transforms to (x',y',t') = (-v/c,1,1/c)
Check it out with the transformation equations.
So, you see the flash start in (x,t) = (0,0) at time 0 and it arrives
at (-v/c,1) at time 1/c.
Is that a straight line? No, it is a tilted line. A straight line would
be one where the flash arrives at (0,1), but we have (-v/c,1).
This has nothing to do with Special Relativity.
Do you understand this?
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Dabiker" <jon...@bredband.net> wrote in message news:yaRC7.17522$W2.1...@news1.bredband.com...
>
> "Bilge" <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> skrev i meddelandet
> news:slrn9tnnh...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> >
> >
> > Henry, the first thing you need to do is straighten out just
> > exactly what you mean.
>
> Put up, or shut up stupid or are you in the fraud buiz just like Einstein?
What a *very* intelligent remark.
What a remarkably bright contribution.
Excellent, thanks for sharing your profound insights.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3bdb3a62...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 10:42:56 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Please also note carefully that Androcles does *not* believe in Santa.
> >For the record, I repeat: He Does Not Believe In Santa.
> >
> >Dirk Vdm
> >
> Dirk, would you please tell us how you would generally define the expression
> 'velocity of light'?
:-) I don't see a direct or indirect relation of your question to my
statement, but here goes:
"Velocity of light" is the vector expression of the displacement
that light undergoes with respect to time.
Deeper?
A vector is a mathematical object that has a direction and a length.
In the case of a velocity, the length of the vector is defined as "the speed".
Dirk Vdm
Bilge
>
>Put up, or shut up stupid or are you in the fraud buiz just like Einstein?
For $50.00 (cashier's check or money order only), I'll answer
your question with all of the careful deliberation it deserves.
Stephen Speicher
A fair price for your effort, I would think.
However, have you considered the cost of translating your answer
into a language which Dabiker would be able to understand? I have
been told the translation process involves several monkeys, a
large bunch of bananas, and at least two pygmies with drums.
Unfortunately, the cost of this entourage will eat into your
profits (literally), so you may want to consider raising your
price.
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Welcome to California. Bring your own batteries.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------
JohnF
Yes I agree. And it was indeed an elegant experiment with a very
plausible theory. Unfortunately it failed because the expected fringe
shifts did not materialise and it became a classic among experimental
failures. But instead of examining the cause of failure in more
detail the theorists turned to bizarre explanations.
Regards,
John
Henry Wilson
wrote:
All right, please refute my trivial proof that physical changes cannot occur as
a result of velocity alone (unless space is absolute). Amongst other things,
this proves that the twins age at the same rate.
Please refute my revelation that a vertical laser beam appears vertical to ALL
moving observers. No light beam moves diagonally at c.
When you have done those, I will ask you to refute my revelations of the great
muon hoax, photon knowledge and the constancy of TWLS but not OWLS, amongst my
many other revelations.
>
>
>Regards
>
>--
>Charles Francis
Henry Wilson
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
Of course I understand this. It is the whole basis of the misunderstanding that
has produced the SR monster. Galilean relativity is also wrong.
The diagonal line you refer to is the path taken by an infinitesimally small
element of the light pulse. The next element follows another parallel diagonal
line. Such an element does not constitute light and there is absolutely no
reason whatsoever to assign the Maxwellian notion of velocity to it.
The beam, as a whole remains vertical to all moving observers and takes the same
time to traverse a particular vertical distance in all frames.
Since this logical fiasco belies the whole of SR, one can only assume that the
whole theory is up the spout!
>
>Dirk Vdm
>
>
>
Henry Wilson
>Henry Wilson said some stuff about
> >Probably my two main areas of complaint are, 1) that PHYSICAL
> >changes cannot possibly occur as a result of velocity change.
> >That is easy to prove.
>
> And no one but you claims that actually happens, so first of all,
>it's your own misunderstanding of relativity that you disagree with
>and since you've been told this before, I'm assuming you didn't write
>it down to keep you from repeating this idiotic claim.
So you now accept that the twins will age at the same rate no matter how they
travel. Is that right Bilgey?
>
> >and 2) that the whole idea that a vertical light beam appears
> >diagonal to a moving observer is plain rubbish. There is no
> >'gamma' factor, except maybe for charged particles.
>
> The whole idea that an observer can see a light beam at all is
>ridiculous. The only thing an observer can see is the light that lands
>in the detector (or eye), and that most certainly can't be going any
>direction other than from the source of the light to the detector.
>Explain to me how you see light going in some direction other than
>towards you. Design an experiment that lets be _see_ a light beam.
>
Ever heard of smoke? Most of the light passes through undispersed.
>
> >This refutes the einsteinian principle that a sphere of light
> >emitted from a single sourse will appear as a sphere in ALL frames.
>
> Henry, the first thing you need to do is straighten out just
>exactly what you mean.
Don't procrastinate Bilgey.
>
> >The second postulate is also groundless. Light speed has always appeared
> >constant because all experiments to measure it have been round trip.
>
> Find a newsgroup that caters to the high rho crowd.
>
> >TWLS
>
> Time Wilson Left Science?
TBGWATF!
>
>[...]
> >Most experiments that are supposed to verify SR are flawed. The
> >SR explanation of the MMX is based on a complete misinterpretation of
> >that experiment.
>
> All of henries conceptual ideas regarding experiements don't match the
>way any equipement works as known to the inhabitants of this universe.
>According to henry, it's impossible to measure any time it takes for a
>particle to travel between two detectors if it violates anything he's
>arguing about that would be shot down by such common experimental
>techniques. We don't believe there is a principle that allows him to
>construct devices that favor his opinion.
If you are refering to my revelation that the mean of a set of reciprocals is
NOT the same as the reciprocal of mean of the set, as assumed in the great muon
hoax and similar experiments, then of course I wont accept them.
Henry Wilson
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3bdb3a62...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 10:42:56 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> >Please also note carefully that Androcles does *not* believe in Santa.
>> >For the record, I repeat: He Does Not Believe In Santa.
>> >
>> >Dirk Vdm
>> >
>> Dirk, would you please tell us how you would generally define the expression
>> 'velocity of light'?
>
>:-) I don't see a direct or indirect relation of your question to my
>statement, but here goes:
>
>"Velocity of light" is the vector expression of the displacement
>that light undergoes with respect to time.
OK, and is this 'displacement' measured solely wrt the source of the light.
--and what is this 'time'?
>
>Deeper?
>A vector is a mathematical object that has a direction and a length.
>In the case of a velocity, the length of the vector is defined as "the speed".
Dirk, that is very funny.
You are describing a mathematical convention rather than a definition of light
speed.
>
>Dirk Vdm
>
>
>
Henry Wilson
wrote:
>On 28 Oct 2001, Bilge wrote:
>
>> Dabiker said some stuff about
>>
>> >
>> >Put up, or shut up stupid or are you in the fraud buiz just
>> >like Einstein?
>>
>> For $50.00 (cashier's check or money order only), I'll
>> answer your question with all of the careful deliberation
>> it deserves.
>>
>
>A fair price for your effort, I would think.
>
>However, have you considered the cost of translating your answer
>into a language which Dabiker would be able to understand? I have
>been told the translation process involves several monkeys, a
>large bunch of bananas, and at least two pygmies with drums.
>Unfortunately, the cost of this entourage will eat into your
>profits (literally), so you may want to consider raising your
>price.
>
>Stephen
>s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Leave Dakiber alone. He knows what he is talking about.
Stephen Speicher
Oh my, then please do accept my apologies. Henry, had I known
Dakiber had support from someone as esteemed as yourself, I never
would have ridiculed him. I am so glad to see you taking the time
from your busy schedule of re-doing relativity, just to defend
and support those whom you value. Us little guys always feel good
-- and at times like this, even awed -- when an important thinker
such as yourself intervenes to set the record straight, even on a
matter such as this, which is so small compared to your very
important endeavors.
So again, please, I hope all will accept my apologies, for had I
known that the monkey would be supported by the horse's ass, then
I would have gone to the zoo rather than ridicule two ignoramuses.
Dabiker
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> skrev i
meddelandet news:JuTC7.10575$PH1...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
Dirk, the first thing you need to do is straighten out just
exactly what you mean.
> Dirk Vdm
>
>
>
>
Dabiker
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> skrev i meddelandet
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.101102...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu...
> On 28 Oct 2001, Bilge wrote:
>
> > Dabiker said some stuff about
> >
> > >
> > >Put up, or shut up stupid or are you in the fraud buiz just
> > >like Einstein?
> >
> > For $50.00 (cashier's check or money order only), I'll
> > answer your question with all of the careful deliberation
> > it deserves.
> >
>
> A fair price for your effort, I would think.
>
> However, have you considered the cost of translating your answer
> into a language which Dabiker would be able to understand? I have
> been told the translation process involves several monkeys, a
> large bunch of bananas, and at least two pygmies with drums.
If just you and Dirk could attend during the translation process, there
certainly would not be any need to bring any monkeys, the bananas is a
harder nut to crack but i suggest you bring Stephen Hawking.
And when you talk about pygmies with drums, actually only one name comes to
my mind, but i haven't seen him around lately, try give Wayne a call to see
if he is still is trapped in that singularity he is exploring, otherwise i
beleive John Anderssen could be a key player.
> Unfortunately, the cost of this entourage will eat into your
> profits (literally), so you may want to consider raising your
> price.
Sorry. i do not pay for monkeybuisness, but i heard Caltech still do,
strange world we are living in isn't it?
Harold Ensle
Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:03:13 +0100, "Matthew Blake"
> <matthe...@baesystems.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi, I've noticed a lot of posts from you. One thread in particular you
seem
> >to be claiming SR isn't so hot. I don't have all of the thread as I've
only
> >recently gained access to news servers. Could you briefly restate your
> >position on SR for me please.
> >
>
> SR is plain bull! I claim that is all my messages. Flawed from start to
finish,
> top to bottom.
All too true!
> Which aspect did you have in mind, in particular ?
> Probably my two main areas of complaint are, 1) that PHYSICAL changes
cannot
> possibly occur as a result of velocity change. That is easy to prove.
If this is referring to the twin contradiction, then you are right on
target.
> and 2) that the whole idea that a vertical light beam appears diagonal to
a
> moving observer is plain rubbish.
What's this? Then what is aberration?
> There is no 'gamma' factor, except maybe for
> charged particles.
You mean both mass and time?
> This refutes the einsteinian principle that a sphere of light emitted from
a
> single sourse will appear as a sphere in ALL frames.
> The second postulate is also groundless. Light speed has always appeared
> constant because all experiments to measure it have been round trip.
This is simply not true. One way light speed measurements have been made.
Hey, SR IS WRONG. You don't have to make things up.
> TWLS is dead constant if light velocity is source dependent.
Source dependence of light speed has been thoroughly ruled out
by a wide variety of experiments.
>It departs from
> constancy by the minute factor (v/c)^2 if there is an aether.
> Einstein's assumption that it IS constant, was an approximation which has
led to
> his approximate theory which just happens to come up with correct answers
> occasionally.
> Most experiments that are supposed to verify SR are flawed. The SR
explanation
> of the MMX is based on a complete misinterpretation of that experiment.
The experiment was pretty straight forward. I can't even imagine your
complaint.
H.Ellis Ensle
AndroclesInFlorida
"Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:9rima3$dr3$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
[snip]
> Source dependence of light speed has been thoroughly ruled out
> by a wide variety of experiments.
Harold Ensle
particles)
Alvager et al (coincident measurement of gammas from bremstraulung)
Moon & Spencer(observations of binary stars)
Brecher(x-ray sources from rotating stars)
Michelson (light reflected off of moving mirrors)
Sagnac(light reflected off of moving mirrors)
H.Ellis Ensle
shuba
> > > MMX was doomed to failure.
> >
> > What do you mean, "failure"? It was a nicely done experiment.
> Yes I agree. And it was indeed an elegant experiment with a very
> plausible theory. Unfortunately it failed because the expected fringe
> shifts did not materialise and it became a classic among experimental
> failures.
Is wasn't a failure at all. All the more since it demolished the
prevailing theory about a light-carrying medium. Physics is an
experimental science.
> But instead of examining the cause of failure in more
> detail the theorists turned to bizarre explanations.
True. But not for long, as it was quickly discovered that the
bizarre explanations were able to be replaced by the symmetries
and consistent non-Euclidean geometries that would turn out to
be indispensible to further study of the fundamental natural
world. Looking back with a century of hindsight, we can now
understand how the electromagnetic equations of Maxwell lead to
a null MMX. In the process of confirming those equations, we
found out something profound about domain of applicability of
Galilean relativity. Furthermore, application of the more
general 4-d relativity to the emerging ideas of QM led directly
to a quantum field theory which supplants the classical EM as
described by Maxwell's equations. Far from not examining the
cause of the MMX results, we have reformulated our theories so
as be in remarkable harmony with observations. That is what
progress in science is all about.
---Tim Shuba---
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3bdc8a96...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
This is interesting. Lorentz wrong and Galileo wrong.
Let's summarize:
Frame S'(x',y',t') moves along x-axis with velocity v to the right
wrt frame S(x,y,t).
g = gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
1) Light:
event_1: light departure ( 0, 0, 0 )
event_2: light arrival ( 0, 1, 1/c )
( x, y, t ) ===Lorentz==> ( g*(x-vt), y, g*(t-vx/c^2) )
( 0, 0, 0 ) ===Lorentz==> ( 0, 0, 0 )
( 0, 1, 1/c ) ===Lorentz==> ( g*(-v/c), 1, g*(1/c) )
Original X-y curve in S : x = 0 (straight along y-axis)
Lorentz x'-y' curve in S' : y' = - c/(g*v) * x' (tilted)
( x, y, t ) ===Galileo==> ( x-vt, y, t )
( 0, 0, 0 ) ===Galileo==> ( 0, 0, 0 )
( 0, 1, 1/c ) ===Galileo==> ( -v/c, 1, 1/c )
Galileo x'-y' curve in S' : y' = - c/v * x' (tilted)
( x, y, t ) ===Wilson===> ( ?, ?, ? )
( 0, 0, 0 ) ===Wilson===> ( ?, ?, ? )
( 0, 1, 1/c ) ===Wilson===> ( ?, ?, ? )
Wilson x'-y' curve in S' : ???? (straight along y-axis?)
2) A bullet with velocity b along the y-axis (in S)
event_1: bullet departure ( 0, 0, 0 )
event_2: bullet arrival ( 0, 1, 1/b )
( x, y, t ) ===Lorentz==> ( g*(x-vt), y, g*(t-vx/c^2) )
( 0, 0, 0 ) ===Lorentz==> ( 0, 0, 0 )
( 0, 1, 1/b ) ===Lorentz==> ( g*(-v/b), 1, g*(1/b) )
Original X-y curve in S : x = 0 (straight along y-axis)
Lorentz x'-y' curve in S' : y' = - b/(g*v) * x' (tilted)
( x, y, t ) ===Galileo==> ( x-vt, y, t )
( 0, 0, 0 ) ===Galileo==> ( 0, 0, 0 )
( 0, 1, 1/b ) ===Galileo==> ( -v/b, 1, 1/b )
Galileo x'-y' curve in S' : y' = - b/v * x' (tilted)
( x, y, t ) ===Wilson===> ( ?, ?, ? )
( 0, 0, 0 ) ===Wilson===> ( ?, ?, ? )
( 0, 1, 1/b ) ===Wilson===> ( ?, ?, ? )
Wilson x'-y' curve in S' : ???? (straight along y-axis?)
3) A spinning wheel with radius 1 centered on (0,0).
equation of motion of marker on wheel for S(x,y):
x = cos(t)
y = sin(t) i.e. circle
tansformation according to Galileo:
x' = x - vt
y' = y
t' = t
equation of motion for Galilean S'(x',y'):
x' = cos(t') - vt'
y' = sin(t') i.e. not a circle
equation of motion for Wilsonian S'(x',y'):
x' = ?
y' = ? i.e. ?
Can you please fill in the question marks?
I must say I am very curious.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3bdc8f90...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 13:07:53 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3bdb3a62...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
> >> On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 10:42:56 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> >> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > [snip]
> >> >
> >> >Please also note carefully that Androcles does *not* believe in Santa.
> >> >For the record, I repeat: He Does Not Believe In Santa.
> >> >
> >> >Dirk Vdm
> >> >
> >> Dirk, would you please tell us how you would generally define the expression
> >> 'velocity of light'?
> >
> >:-) I don't see a direct or indirect relation of your question to my
> >statement, but here goes:
> >
> >"Velocity of light" is the vector expression of the displacement
> >that light undergoes with respect to time.
>
> OK, and is this 'displacement' measured solely wrt the source of the light.
> --and what is this 'time'?
It depends, on what you mean by 'measured' and by 'source'.
And when you ask what time 'is', what do you exactly mean with that
word 'is'?
Also, what do you exactly mean by "defining" something?
What would suit you and make you happy?
I have taken the definition of "velocity of an object" and then I
replaced the word "object" with the word "light".
But since I'm not a practicing physicist, let's look at the FAQ:
http://hepweb.rl.ac.uk/ppUK/PhysFAQ/speed_of_light.html
| At the 1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures the following
| SI (Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted:
|
| The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum
| during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.
| This defines the speed of light in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s
I know you have a huge problem with that, but that discussion has taken
place 27 times already and I do not intend to go into it a 28th time.
Anyhow, there you have the official version of the definition of
"speed of light". Now add the direction information to get a vector,
and there you have the definition of "velocity of light".
> >
> >Deeper?
> >A vector is a mathematical object that has a direction and a length.
> >In the case of a velocity, the length of the vector is defined as "the speed".
>
> Dirk, that is very funny.
> You are describing a mathematical convention rather than a definition of light
> speed.
If you think that this is funny, it was not intended to be.
You were not asking about the "speed of light" but about "velocity
of light".
I was providing some background information about physics' primary
tool: mathematics. Whether you like it or not (and obviously you
do not), physics uses it as its primary language.
Try describing and explaining Newton's first law F = m*a without
math, and I mean without *any* notion of math at all. Don't forget to
define "acceleration" on the way. After that, take the other laws and
finally derive and explain Keppler's laws. Without math. Don't even
dare to use the word "ellipse" unless you have defined it, again, without
math.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Dabiker" <jon...@bredband.net> wrote in message news:5p3D7.17866$W2.1...@news1.bredband.com...
Again, thanks for this brilliant flash of sharpness.
You really make my day, each day.
People should stand in line and pay to suck your brain.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3bdc889a...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
Henry, both Lorentz and Galilean transformations make it diagonally.
Please give us the Wilsonian Transformation rule then.
See my reply on this thread (10 minutes ago).
I made it easy: you just have to fill the question marks.
If you have any problem understanding, just say so, I'll explain
whatever has to be explained.
When you have done so, we might be able to understand how your
reasoning works. We might even agree on something.
Dirk Vdm
Daryl McCullough
>The beam, as a whole remains vertical to all moving observers
That's absolutely true, but has nothing to do with
any calculations done in relativity.
If frame S' moves at speed v along the x-axis relative
to frame S, and in frame S' one has a light beam that
makes an angle theta' with the x-axis, then in frame S,
the light beam makes an angle theta with the x-axis,
where theta is given by:
cotangent(theta) = square-root(1-(v/c)^2) cotangent(theta')
In the particular case of a vertical rod, theta' = 90 degrees,
and we have
cotangent(theta) = 0
So theta = 90 degrees, also.
That is a prediction of SR. It in no way contradicts SR. In
particular, it doesn't contradict the derivation of the time
dilation factor. If the beam takes time T' to reach a vertical
distance of V in the S' frame, then it will take a time
T'/gamma to reach that same vertical distance in the S frame.
c is the speed of each element of the beam, and in frame S,
each element of the beam takes a diagonal path.
--
Daryl McCullough
CoGenTex, Inc.
Ithaca, NY
Dirk Van de moortel
"Daryl McCullough" <da...@cogentex.com> wrote in message news:9rkc1...@drn.newsguy.com...
> He...@the.edge says...
>
> >The beam, as a whole remains vertical to all moving observers
>
> That's absolutely true, but has nothing to do with
> any calculations done in relativity.
>
> If frame S' moves at speed v along the x-axis relative
> to frame S, and in frame S' one has a light beam that
> makes an angle theta' with the x-axis, then in frame S,
> the light beam makes an angle theta with the x-axis,
> where theta is given by:
>
> cotangent(theta) = square-root(1-(v/c)^2) cotangent(theta')
>
> In the particular case of a vertical rod, theta' = 90 degrees,
> and we have
>
> cotangent(theta) = 0
>
> So theta = 90 degrees, also.
>
But a light beam is not a rod.
The vertical (along y-axis let's say) rod has "endpoints":
(0,0,0) and (0,1,0) in S(x,y,t)
and
(0,0,0) and (0,1,0) in S'(x',y',t')
which is vertical.
Not so for a lightbeam which has "endpoints":
(0,0,0) and (0,1,1/c) in S(x,y,t)
and
(0,0,0) and (g*(-v/c),1,g*(1/c)) in S'(x',y',t')
which is not vertical.
Right?
Dirk Vdm
Daryl McCullough
>
>"Henry Wilson" wrote:
>> Galilean relativity is also wrong.
>> The diagonal line you refer to is
>> the path taken by an infinitesimally small
>> element of the light pulse. The next element
>> follows another parallel diagonal line. Such
>> an element does not constitute light and there
>> is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assign
>> the Maxwellian notion of velocity to it.
>>
>> The beam, as a whole remains vertical to all
>> moving observers and takes the same time to
>> traverse a particular vertical distance in
>> all frames.
>This is interesting. Lorentz wrong and Galileo wrong.
Henry has stumbled onto an interesting fact, and
for some reason thinks it contradicts relativity.
The fact is this: If a continuous beam of light
(or bullets, or anything) is vertical in one frame,
then it is also vertical in every other frame
moving horizontally relative to that frame.
My proof is this: Consider a narrow tube that is
at rest in frame S. In frame S, shoot a light beam
(or a sequence of bullets, or anything else) up the
tube. Obviously, in every other frame, the light
beam (or the bullets) will similarly be confined
to the inside of the tube.
Suppose that the tube makes an angle of 90 degrees
relative to the x-axis in frame S. That means that in
going from the bottom of the tube to the top of the tube,
delta-x = 0
delta-y = L (the length of the tube)
Now, transform to another frame S' moving at velocity
v along the x-axis relative to frame S. In this new frame,
we have:
delta-x' = delta-x/gamma = 0
delta-y' = delta-y = L
So the tube is vertical in the new frame, as well. So
in frame S', the light beam as a whole is oriented
vertically (since it is confined to the tube).
This doesn't contradict the claim that each element
of the beam travels diagonally in frame S'. It also
doesn't contradict the claim that it takes longer
in frame S' for the light beam to reach the top of
the tube than it does in frame S.
Henry noticed that there is a difference between the
orientation of a continuous light beam and the orientation
of the path of each photon making up the beam. The first
can be vertical, while the second is diagonal.
I have no idea why Henry thinks this insight violates
Special and Galilean relativity, though.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Daryl McCullough" <da...@cogentex.com> wrote in message news:9rkdg...@drn.newsguy.com...
Like I said in my other reply to you:
tube:
(0,0,0) and (0,1,0) in S'(x',y',t')
bullet:
(0,0,0) and (g*(-v/c),1,g*(1/c)) in S'(x',y',t')
so we have:
delta-x'_tube = gamma * delta-x_tube
since delta-t_tube = 0
delta-x'_bullet = gamma * ( delta-x_bullet - v * delta-t_bullet )
since delta-t_bullet # 0
These are delta's of different pairs of events, so there is no
contradiction if they differ.
> This doesn't contradict the claim that each element
> of the beam travels diagonally in frame S'. It also
> doesn't contradict the claim that it takes longer
> in frame S' for the light beam to reach the top of
> the tube than it does in frame S.
>
> Henry noticed that there is a difference between the
> orientation of a continuous light beam and the orientation
> of the path of each photon making up the beam. The first
> can be vertical, while the second is diagonal.
>
> I have no idea why Henry thinks this insight violates
> Special and Galilean relativity, though.
I'm very curious to learn about his transformation but somehow
I doubt whether he will attempt to find and/or provide the equations.
Cheers,
Dirk Vdm
Russell Blackadar
>
> "Daryl McCullough" <da...@cogentex.com> wrote in message news:9rkc1...@drn.newsguy.com...
> > He...@the.edge says...
> >
> > >The beam, as a whole remains vertical to all moving observers
> >
> > That's absolutely true, but has nothing to do with
> > any calculations done in relativity.
> >
> > If frame S' moves at speed v along the x-axis relative
> > to frame S, and in frame S' one has a light beam that
> > makes an angle theta' with the x-axis, then in frame S,
> > the light beam makes an angle theta with the x-axis,
> > where theta is given by:
> >
> > cotangent(theta) = square-root(1-(v/c)^2) cotangent(theta')
> >
> > In the particular case of a vertical rod, theta' = 90 degrees,
> > and we have
> >
> > cotangent(theta) = 0
> >
> > So theta = 90 degrees, also.
> >
>
> But a light beam is not a rod.
Daryl (who, in an act of generosity, is following Henry's usage) is
talking about a "beam" in a different sense than you are here. In
terms of photons, he's talking here about a collection of photons
and the pattern that they make in space. *Not* about the path of
any individual photon.
>
> The vertical (along y-axis let's say) rod has "endpoints":
> (0,0,0) and (0,1,0) in S(x,y,t)
> and
> (0,0,0) and (0,1,0) in S'(x',y',t')
> which is vertical.
>
> Not so for a lightbeam which has "endpoints":
> (0,0,0) and (0,1,1/c) in S(x,y,t)
No, Daryl is talking about an array of photons, the topmost of which
is at (0,1,0); it was emitted from the origin at time -1/c. This
array of photons is just like an array of bullets, etc...
> and
> (0,0,0) and (g*(-v/c),1,g*(1/c)) in S'(x',y',t')
> which is not vertical.
>
> Right?
Right, the path of each photon is not vertical. Henry does not seem
to understand that *that* is what matters in the theory that he
seeks to overturn. Instead, Henry has fixated on the irrelevant
(thought true) fact that Daryl describes above; what's worse, Henry
believes himself to be the *only* person to understand it. Daryl
and (before him) Paul B. Anderson amply prove that latter belief to
be untrue, but Henry lives in his own world.
Daryl McCullough
>
>
>"Daryl McCullough" wrote:
> Henry wrote:
>> >The beam, as a whole remains vertical to all moving observers
>> If frame S' moves at speed v along the x-axis relative
>> to frame S, and in frame S' one has a light beam that
>> makes an angle theta' with the x-axis, then in frame S,
>> the light beam makes an angle theta with the x-axis,
>> where theta is given by:
>>
>> cotangent(theta) = square-root(1-(v/c)^2) cotangent(theta')
>>
>> In the particular case of a vertical rod, theta' = 90 degrees,
>> and we have
>>
>> cotangent(theta) = 0
>>
>> So theta = 90 degrees, also.
>But a light beam is not a rod.
So? Imagine a hollow tube filled with light. If the tube is
vertical in both frames, then the region of space filled
with light will be vertical, as well.
>The vertical (along y-axis let's say) rod has "endpoints":
> (0,0,0) and (0,1,0) in S(x,y,t)
> and
> (0,0,0) and (0,1,0) in S'(x',y',t')
>which is vertical.
>
>Not so for a lightbeam which has "endpoints":
> (0,0,0) and (0,1,1/c) in S(x,y,t)
>and
> (0,0,0) and (g*(-v/c),1,g*(1/c)) in S'(x',y',t')
>which is not vertical.
>
>Right?
No, that's not right. To decide whether the beam is vertical,
you have to compare the x-location of the bottom of the beam
at time t with the x-location of the top of the beam at time t.
You're comparing the top and bottom at *different* times.
(That's appropriate if you are computing the *path* of a
light signal, as opposed to the *orientation* of the beam).
Let's simplify things by letting the "beam" consist of
two short pulses of light, separated by time tau' in
frame S'. In frame S', the path of the
first pulse is given by:
x1' = 0
y1' = ct'
The path of the second pulse is given by:
x2' = 0
y2' = c(t' - tau)
Since x1'(t') = x2'(t'), we know that the first pulse
is always above the second pulse, so the beam is vertical.
Now, transform into frame S. The path of the
first pulse is given by:
x1 = gamma(vt')
= vt
y1 = ct' = ct/gamma
The path of the second pulse is given by:
x2 = gamma(vt')
= vt
y2 = ct' - c tau
= ct/gamma - c tau
In frame S, it is *also* the case that x1 = x2, so the
orientation of the beam is vertical in frame S, as well.
In frame S, the laser beam coming from y=0 will rise
upwards at the rate c/gamma. At the same time, the beam
as a whole will be moving horizontally at the rate v.
There is a difference between (A) the orientation of
the beam (that is, the orientation of the region of
space that is filled with light) and (B) the orientation
of the path of each photon. The first will be vertical
in both frames, while the second will be vertical in
one frame and diagonal in another.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Russell Blackadar" <rus...@REMOVEmdli.com> wrote in message news:3BDDC8B9...@REMOVEmdli.com...
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >
> > "Daryl McCullough" <da...@cogentex.com> wrote in message news:9rkc1...@drn.newsguy.com...
> > > He...@the.edge says...
> > >
> > > >The beam, as a whole remains vertical to all moving observers
> > >
> > > That's absolutely true, but has nothing to do with
> > > any calculations done in relativity.
> > >
> > > If frame S' moves at speed v along the x-axis relative
> > > to frame S, and in frame S' one has a light beam that
> > > makes an angle theta' with the x-axis, then in frame S,
> > > the light beam makes an angle theta with the x-axis,
> > > where theta is given by:
> > >
> > > cotangent(theta) = square-root(1-(v/c)^2) cotangent(theta')
> > >
> > > In the particular case of a vertical rod, theta' = 90 degrees,
> > > and we have
> > >
> > > cotangent(theta) = 0
> > >
> > > So theta = 90 degrees, also.
> > >
> >
> > But a light beam is not a rod.
>
> Daryl (who, in an act of generosity, is following Henry's usage) is
> talking about a "beam" in a different sense than you are here. In
> terms of photons, he's talking here about a collection of photons
> and the pattern that they make in space. *Not* about the path of
> any individual photon.
That has been cleared up now, thanks.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Daryl McCullough" <da...@cogentex.com> wrote in message news:9rki0...@drn.newsguy.com...
Indeed, that's what I was doing.
I know. No argument on that one.
I was strictly focussing on the path of 1 photon or bullet or
whatever. The beam or the tube are vertical because the
endpoints have no time difference. The path is tilted because
there is a difference.
It's still bizarre that Henry is prepared to reject Galilean
Relativity over this confusion ;-)
Dirk Vdm
AndroclesInFlorida
>
> AndroclesInFlorida <marie...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:Vp5D7.7698$CJ6.9...@news1.rdc1.fl.home.com...
> >
> > "Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:9rima3$dr3$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> > [snip]
> > > Source dependence of light speed has been thoroughly ruled out
> > > by a wide variety of experiments.
> > Name one.
> >
> Sadeh (speed of gammas in different directions from decaying relativistic
> particles)
> Alvager et al (coincident measurement of gammas from bremstraulung)
Invalid. You've been taken in by the SRists.
Alvager in particular is noteworthy for faking data. He claimed to measure
the
speed of light from a moving source in a vacuum, and that originated from
INSIDE a
stationary block of berylium.
> Moon & Spencer(observations of binary stars)
They have no idea what they are talking about, the eccentricity of the
ellipse is
NOT known. All that ever showed was if you assume something, you'll prove
what you assumed.
> Brecher(x-ray sources from rotating stars)
I don't know that one.
> Michelson (light reflected off of moving mirrors)
Experiment was in air. Air is similar to aether, with the exception that air
is real.
> Sagnac(light reflected off of moving mirrors)
Experiment was in air.
If you actually trust SRists, you should become one.
Henry Wilson
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3bdc8a96...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
The point you, lorentz and galileo missed is that the tilted path is not that of
the beam, but of an infinitesimal element of the beam.
>
>
>2) A bullet with velocity b along the y-axis (in S)
> event_1: bullet departure ( 0, 0, 0 )
> event_2: bullet arrival ( 0, 1, 1/b )
>
> ( x, y, t ) ===Lorentz==> ( g*(x-vt), y, g*(t-vx/c^2) )
> ( 0, 0, 0 ) ===Lorentz==> ( 0, 0, 0 )
> ( 0, 1, 1/b ) ===Lorentz==> ( g*(-v/b), 1, g*(1/b) )
> Original X-y curve in S : x = 0 (straight along y-axis)
> Lorentz x'-y' curve in S' : y' = - b/(g*v) * x' (tilted)
>
> ( x, y, t ) ===Galileo==> ( x-vt, y, t )
> ( 0, 0, 0 ) ===Galileo==> ( 0, 0, 0 )
> ( 0, 1, 1/b ) ===Galileo==> ( -v/b, 1, 1/b )
> Galileo x'-y' curve in S' : y' = - b/v * x' (tilted)
>
> ( x, y, t ) ===Wilson===> ( ?, ?, ? )
> ( 0, 0, 0 ) ===Wilson===> ( ?, ?, ? )
> ( 0, 1, 1/b ) ===Wilson===> ( ?, ?, ? )
> Wilson x'-y' curve in S' : ???? (straight along y-axis?)
Bullet's axis points vertical in all frames.
Each element of the bullet moves diagonally.
Bullet reaches a particular height in the same time, in all frames.
Bullets fired from a moving machine gun remain vertically aligned IN ALL FRAMES.
Just plot the bloody thing Dirk!
It really is very easy.
>
>3) A spinning wheel with radius 1 centered on (0,0).
> equation of motion of marker on wheel for S(x,y):
> x = cos(t)
> y = sin(t) i.e. circle
> tansformation according to Galileo:
> x' = x - vt
> y' = y
> t' = t
> equation of motion for Galilean S'(x',y'):
> x' = cos(t') - vt'
> y' = sin(t') i.e. not a circle
> equation of motion for Wilsonian S'(x',y'):
> x' = ?
> y' = ? i.e. ?
Just a rotating wheel moving sideways. We don't need to know the paths of
elements of the wheel.
>
>Can you please fill in the question marks?
>I must say I am very curious.
>
>Dirk Vdm
If you like I will send you a Vbasic program animating the effect if you cannot
plot it for yourself, Dirk. Plot the bullets from the machine gun. that is
easiest.
Do you have VB on your computer?
Henry Wilson
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3bdc889a...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 08:30:08 +0000, Charles Francis <cha...@clef.demon.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3bd896bd...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>, Henry Wilson
>> ><He...@the.edge> writes
>> >>On Thu, 25 Oct 2001 19:46:34 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>> >><dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>"Matthew Blake" <matthe...@baesystems.com> wrote in message news:9r8kc5$aii
>> >>$1...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com...
>> >>>> Hi, I've noticed a lot of posts from you. One thread in particular you seem
>> Please refute my revelation that a vertical laser beam appears vertical to ALL
>> moving observers. No light beam moves diagonally at c.
>
>Henry, both Lorentz and Galilean transformations make it diagonally.
They are both wrong. Nobody has had the courage to dispute the fact.
Dirk, it is very simple to plot the diagonal paths followed by each
infinitesimal element of a vertical light beam, as perceived in the moving
frame.
You will easily see that the elements remain vertically aligned in the moving
frame, even though each one moves diagonally.
If you cannot do that Dirk, you shouldn't be on a physics newsgroup.
You will then realise that whatever moves along its own particular infinitely
thin diagonal, certainly does not constitute a light beam. You will also be able
to calculate that the diagonal velocity of each dimensionless point is
sqrt(c^2+v^2) and not c.
Why the hell would it ever be c?
>Dirk Vdm
>
>
Henry Wilson
But since the SR explanation of the MMX null result relies on a glaringly
incorrect interpretation of the experiment iself, it follows SR must also be
incorrect.
> ---Tim Shuba---
Henry Wilson
>Dirk says...
>>
>>"Henry Wilson" wrote:
>
>>> Galilean relativity is also wrong.
>>> The diagonal line you refer to is
>>> the path taken by an infinitesimally small
>>> element of the light pulse. The next element
>>> follows another parallel diagonal line. Such
>>> an element does not constitute light and there
>>> is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assign
>>> the Maxwellian notion of velocity to it.
>>>
>>> The beam, as a whole remains vertical to all
>>> moving observers and takes the same time to
>>> traverse a particular vertical distance in
>>> all frames.
>
>>This is interesting. Lorentz wrong and Galileo wrong.
>
>Henry has stumbled onto an interesting fact, and
>for some reason thinks it contradicts relativity.
I didn't 'stumble', on it Daryl. I have known about it for decades.
I even finally convinced Paul Anderson some months ago - which probably accounts
for his sudden disappearance from this NG. I think he has been converted.
>
>The fact is this: If a continuous beam of light
>(or bullets, or anything) is vertical in one frame,
>then it is also vertical in every other frame
>moving horizontally relative to that frame.
>
>My proof is this: Consider a narrow tube that is
>at rest in frame S. In frame S, shoot a light beam
>(or a sequence of bullets, or anything else) up the
>tube. Obviously, in every other frame, the light
>beam (or the bullets) will similarly be confined
>to the inside of the tube.
You are right - but the SRians will wrongly argue that the tube leans over.
>
>Suppose that the tube makes an angle of 90 degrees
>relative to the x-axis in frame S. That means that in
>going from the bottom of the tube to the top of the tube,
>
> delta-x = 0
> delta-y = L (the length of the tube)
>
>Now, transform to another frame S' moving at velocity
>v along the x-axis relative to frame S. In this new frame,
>we have:
>
> delta-x' = delta-x/gamma = 0
> delta-y' = delta-y = L
>
>So the tube is vertical in the new frame, as well. So
>in frame S', the light beam as a whole is oriented
>vertically (since it is confined to the tube).
Plotting the positions of each 'wave crest', emitted from a moving vertical
light beam is a good way to see this, too.
>
>This doesn't contradict the claim that each element
>of the beam travels diagonally in frame S'. It also
>doesn't contradict the claim that it takes longer
>in frame S' for the light beam to reach the top of
>the tube than it does in frame S.
Yes it does, Daryl. Why do you think it doesn't?
Consider each frame is equipped with a symmetrical grid of synched clocks. Do
you not agree that the time the beam takes to reach a certain height will be the
same in all frames.
Forget about time dilation in moving clocks. That follows from the
misinterpretation of this and cannot be introduced as a diversion.
>
>Henry noticed that there is a difference between the
>orientation of a continuous light beam and the orientation
>of the path of each photon making up the beam. The first
>can be vertical, while the second is diagonal.
What moves along a particular infinitesimally thin diagonal is not a complete
photon.
A photon must have a size. It must have an 'axis of wave symmetry' along which
(and only along which) it moves at c, as per maxwell.
>
>I have no idea why Henry thinks this insight violates
>Special and Galilean relativity, though.
>
For the simple reason, Daryl, that whatever moves diagonally is certainly not a
continuous light beam. Photons don't follow eachother up the same diagonal. Not
even small elements of photons follow eachother up the same diagonal! All
element move along different diagonals.
Why would anyone except Galileo, Einstein and all the poor indoctrinated
physicists for 150 years think that the diagonal velocity of these infinitesimal
elements would be c?
It is clearly sqrt(c^2+v^2)!
Henry Wilson
>
>Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>>
>> SR is plain bull! I claim that is all my messages. Flawed from start to
>finish,
>> top to bottom.
>
>All too true!
>
>> Which aspect did you have in mind, in particular ?
>> Probably my two main areas of complaint are, 1) that PHYSICAL changes
>cannot
>> possibly occur as a result of velocity change. That is easy to prove.
>
>If this is referring to the twin contradiction, then you are right on
>target.
and length contraction. It is trivial to prove it cannot physically happen.
>
>> and 2) that the whole idea that a vertical light beam appears diagonal to
>a
>> moving observer is plain rubbish.
>
>What's this? Then what is aberration?
Ah! that is a different effect altogether. That's all to do with information
travel time. You have to allow for that.
>
>> There is no 'gamma' factor, except maybe for
>> charged particles.
>
>You mean both mass and time?
and length.
>
>> This refutes the einsteinian principle that a sphere of light emitted from
>a
>> single sourse will appear as a sphere in ALL frames.
>> The second postulate is also groundless. Light speed has always appeared
>> constant because all experiments to measure it have been round trip.
>
>This is simply not true. One way light speed measurements have been made.
>Hey, SR IS WRONG. You don't have to make things up.
No accurate OWLS measurements have never been achieved.
>
>> TWLS is dead constant if light velocity is source dependent.
>
>Source dependence of light speed has been thoroughly ruled out
>by a wide variety of experiments.
Maybe not.
>
>>It departs from
>> constancy by the minute factor (v/c)^2 if there is an aether.
>> Einstein's assumption that it IS constant, was an approximation which has
>led to
>> his approximate theory which just happens to come up with correct answers
>> occasionally.
>> Most experiments that are supposed to verify SR are flawed. The SR
>explanation
>> of the MMX is based on a complete misinterpretation of that experiment.
>
>The experiment was pretty straight forward. I can't even imagine your
>complaint.
The experiment itself WAS pretty straightforward but the theory behind it was
wrong. In the standard analysis you will see a light beam moving diagonally at
c. That simply doesn't happen.
The time taken for the crossbeam to return should be constant in all parallel
moving frames.
Length contraction should be gamma^2, if anything. However the null result was
to be expected anyway because of entirey different factors.
>
>H.Ellis Ensle
>
>
Henry Wilson
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3bdc8f90...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 13:07:53 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3bdb3a62...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
>> >> >
>> >> Dirk, would you please tell us how you would generally define the expression
>> >> 'velocity of light'?
>> >
>> >:-) I don't see a direct or indirect relation of your question to my
>> >statement, but here goes:
>> >
>> >"Velocity of light" is the vector expression of the displacement
>> >that light undergoes with respect to time.
>>
>> OK, and is this 'displacement' measured solely wrt the source of the light.
>> --and what is this 'time'?
>
>It depends, on what you mean by 'measured' and by 'source'.
>And when you ask what time 'is', what do you exactly mean with that
>word 'is'?
>Also, what do you exactly mean by "defining" something?
>What would suit you and make you happy?
Now you're being silly again Dirk.
I know you cannot answer the question. What does 'light velocity' imply?
>
>I have taken the definition of "velocity of an object" and then I
>replaced the word "object" with the word "light".
>But since I'm not a practicing physicist, let's look at the FAQ:
> http://hepweb.rl.ac.uk/ppUK/PhysFAQ/speed_of_light.html
Dirk, look up into the sky. Can you imagine ohotons whizzing past the earth in
all directions but not hiting anything.
Please tell me what 'their velocity' is and means - both numerically and
philosophically
>
> | At the 1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures the following
> | SI (Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted:
> |
> | The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum
> | during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.
> | This defines the speed of light in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s
That is Earth measured TWLS, when the observer and source are at rest wrt
eachother..
>
>I know you have a huge problem with that, but that discussion has taken
>place 27 times already and I do not intend to go into it a 28th time.
>Anyhow, there you have the official version of the definition of
>"speed of light". Now add the direction information to get a vector,
>and there you have the definition of "velocity of light".
I was going to use 'speed' delibetrately but chose 'velocity' It really doesn't
matter for this purpose.
>
>> >
>> >Deeper?
>> >A vector is a mathematical object that has a direction and a length.
>> >In the case of a velocity, the length of the vector is defined as "the speed".
>>
>> Dirk, that is very funny.
>> You are describing a mathematical convention rather than a definition of light
>> speed.
>
>If you think that this is funny, it was not intended to be.
>You were not asking about the "speed of light" but about "velocity
>of light".
>I was providing some background information about physics' primary
>tool: mathematics. Whether you like it or not (and obviously you
>do not), physics uses it as its primary language.
>Try describing and explaining Newton's first law F = m*a without
>math, and I mean without *any* notion of math at all. Don't forget to
>define "acceleration" on the way. After that, take the other laws and
>finally derive and explain Keppler's laws. Without math. Don't even
>dare to use the word "ellipse" unless you have defined it, again, without
>math.
>
>Dirk Vdm
I agree with you that many quantities can only be defined mathematically.
We cannot see 'energy' or 'magnetic force'. We can only physically sense the
known variables we call dimensions.
Bilge
Re: Henry Wilson to usenet:
>On 28 Oct 2001 04:39:25 -0500, ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net
>(Bilge) wrote:
>
>>Henry Wilson said some stuff about
>
>> >Probably my two main areas of complaint are, 1) that PHYSICAL
>> >changes cannot possibly occur as a result of velocity change.
>> >That is easy to prove.
>>
>>it's your own misunderstanding of relativity that you disagree with
>>and since you've been told this before, I'm assuming you didn't write
>>it down to keep you from repeating this idiotic claim.
>
>So you now accept that the twins will age at the same rate no
>matter how they travel. Is that right Bilgey?
From their own perspectives about themselves or what?
State the question so that it is clear which twin's perspective
and what the twin is observing.
[...]
>Ever heard of smoke? Most of the light passes through undispersed.
The smoke is or is not stationary with respect to the light source?
Use a complete description for once, henry, instead of relying on everyone
to give you something you can misconstrue. You also need to be more
explicit regarding what you mean by the light seen by the observer or
I'll take it to mean the light that arrives in the observer's eye
simultaneously from the reflections off of the particles of smoke.
>>
>> >This refutes the einsteinian principle that a sphere of light
>> >emitted from a single sourse will appear as a sphere in ALL frames.
>>
>> Henry, the first thing you need to do is straighten out just
>>exactly what you mean.
>
>Don't procrastinate Bilgey.
I can't do anything about you stating things unclearly.
>>
>> >The second postulate is also groundless. Light speed has always appeared
>> >constant because all experiments to measure it have been round trip.
>>
>> Find a newsgroup that caters to the high rho crowd.
>>
>> >TWLS
>>
>> Time Wilson Left Science?
>
>TBGWATF!
>>
>>[...]
>> >Most experiments that are supposed to verify SR are flawed. The
>> >SR explanation of the MMX is based on a complete misinterpretation of
>> >that experiment.
>>
>> All of henries conceptual ideas regarding experiements don't match the
>>way any equipement works as known to the inhabitants of this universe.
>>According to henry, it's impossible to measure any time it takes for a
>>particle to travel between two detectors if it violates anything he's
>>arguing about that would be shot down by such common experimental
>>techniques. We don't believe there is a principle that allows him to
>>construct devices that favor his opinion.
>
>If you are refering to my revelation that the mean of a set of
>reciprocals is NOT the same as the reciprocal of mean of the set,
>as assumed in the great muon hoax and similar experiments, then
>of course I wont accept them.
I'm referring to all of your so-called revalations. I know full well
you won't accept them. Since you also considered the simple transformation
between center-of-mass coordinates and the coordinates of one of only two
objects to violate conservation of energy in newtonian mechanics, I don't
consider your refusal to accept something as being grounds to question
it. See:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=wilson+bilge+energy+coordinates&hl
=en&rnum=4&selm=398f567c.8381494%40news.bigpond.com
for example. Given your inability to deal with a non-relativistic
transformation, why would you suppose relativity would somehow make
more sense for you to attack?
Bilge
Re: Henry Wilson to usenet:
>
>meddelandet news:JuTC7.10575$PH1...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
>>
>> "Dabiker" <jon...@bredband.net> wrote in message
>news:yaRC7.17522$W2.1...@news1.bredband.com...
>> >
>> > "Bilge" <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> skrev i meddelandet
>> > news:slrn9tnnh...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> > >
>> > > [snip]
>> > >
>> > > exactly what you mean.
>> >
>Einstein?
>>
>> What a *very* intelligent remark.
>> What a remarkably bright contribution.
>> Excellent, thanks for sharing your profound insights.
>
>exactly what you mean.
Far be it for me to know for certain, but my guess is that he
means you might possibly be intellectually superior to the average
fern if you had gro-lux lighting.
Harold Ensle
>
> "Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:9riosh$26n$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > AndroclesInFlorida <marie...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:Vp5D7.7698$CJ6.9...@news1.rdc1.fl.home.com...
> > >
> > > "Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9rima3$dr3$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > [snip]
> > > > Source dependence of light speed has been thoroughly ruled out
> > > > by a wide variety of experiments.
> > > Name one.
> > >
> > Sadeh (speed of gammas in different directions from decaying
relativistic
> > particles)
> Invalid. You've been taken in by the SRists.
I have read the paper. Are you claiming that he is lying?
>
> > Alvager et al (coincident measurement of gammas from bremstraulung)
> Invalid. You've been taken in by the SRists.
> Alvager in particular is noteworthy for faking data. He claimed to measure
> the
> speed of light from a moving source in a vacuum, and that originated from
> INSIDE a
> stationary block of berylium.
Faking data is a serious charge. Do you have proof?
However, this argument has been made in regards to bremstraulung, so
you can ignore this experiment if you wish.
> > Moon & Spencer(observations of binary stars)
> They have no idea what they are talking about, the eccentricity of the
> ellipse is
> NOT known. All that ever showed was if you assume something, you'll prove
> what you assumed.
This has nothing to do with eccentricity. Source dependent light speed would
cause bizarre effects when observing binaries. The visual binaries not so
much
as spectroscopic binaries where the orbital period is shorter.
>
> > Brecher(x-ray sources from rotating stars)
> I don't know that one.
>
> > Michelson (light reflected off of moving mirrors)
> Experiment was in air. Air is similar to aether, with the exception that
air
> is real.
So what? The fact that source independence was shown even in air is
even a stronger argument for it.
> > Sagnac(light reflected off of moving mirrors)
> Experiment was in air.
Same as above.
> If you actually trust SRists, you should become one.
Trust has little to do with it.........and you are creating a false
dichotomy,
a fallacy in logic.
H.Ellis Ensle
Harold Ensle
Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 21:42:11 -0700, "Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>
> >
> >Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>
> >>
> >> SR is plain bull! I claim that is all my messages. Flawed from start to
> >finish,
> >> top to bottom.
> >
> >All too true!
> >
> >> Which aspect did you have in mind, in particular ?
> >> Probably my two main areas of complaint are, 1) that PHYSICAL changes
> >cannot
> >> possibly occur as a result of velocity change. That is easy to prove.
> >
> >If this is referring to the twin contradiction, then you are right on
> >target.
>
> and length contraction. It is trivial to prove it cannot physically
happen.
What about a physical contraction a la Fitzgerald?
> >> and 2) that the whole idea that a vertical light beam appears diagonal
to
> >a
> >> moving observer is plain rubbish.
> >
> >What's this? Then what is aberration?
>
> Ah! that is a different effect altogether. That's all to do with
information
> travel time. You have to allow for that.
??
> >> There is no 'gamma' factor, except maybe for
> >> charged particles.
> >
> >You mean both mass and time?
>
> and length.
> >
> >> This refutes the einsteinian principle that a sphere of light emitted
from
> >a
> >> single sourse will appear as a sphere in ALL frames.
> >> The second postulate is also groundless. Light speed has always
appeared
> >> constant because all experiments to measure it have been round trip.
> >
> >This is simply not true. One way light speed measurements have been made.
> >Hey, SR IS WRONG. You don't have to make things up.
>
> No accurate OWLS measurements have never been achieved.
Accurate enough to rule out a first order effect.
> >> TWLS is dead constant if light velocity is source dependent.
> >
> >Source dependence of light speed has been thoroughly ruled out
> >by a wide variety of experiments.
>
> Maybe not.
No....there have been too many done and verified (see my other response
in this thread).
> >>It departs from
> >> constancy by the minute factor (v/c)^2 if there is an aether.
> >> Einstein's assumption that it IS constant, was an approximation which
has
> >led to
> >> his approximate theory which just happens to come up with correct
answers
> >> occasionally.
> >> Most experiments that are supposed to verify SR are flawed. The SR
> >explanation
> >> of the MMX is based on a complete misinterpretation of that experiment.
> >
> >The experiment was pretty straight forward. I can't even imagine your
> >complaint.
>
> The experiment itself WAS pretty straightforward but the theory behind it
was
> wrong. In the standard analysis you will see a light beam moving
diagonally at
> c. That simply doesn't happen.
The light moves at c. Light only moves in the direction it is going. How
does it move diagonally?
> The time taken for the crossbeam to return should be constant in all
parallel
> moving frames.
> Length contraction should be gamma^2, if anything. However the null result
was
> to be expected anyway because of entirey different factors.
??
H.Ellis Ensle
AndroclesInFlorida
What happens to a diagonal beam that is seen vertically, as opposed to
a vertical beam that is seen diagonally?
ROFL!
Oh, that's right.... theta = 90, so v = 0... yep. I agree totally with
SR for all cases were v = 0.
That really is a GREAT prediction.
ROFLMAO!
AndroclesInFlorida
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 10:31:41 -0600, shuba <sh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >John wrote:
> >
> >> > > MMX was doomed to failure.
> >> >
> >> > What do you mean, "failure"? It was a nicely done experiment.
> >
> >> Yes I agree. And it was indeed an elegant experiment with a very
> >> plausible theory. Unfortunately it failed because the expected fringe
> >> shifts did not materialise and it became a classic among experimental
> >> failures.
> >
> >Is wasn't a failure at all.
> > All the more since it demolished the
> >prevailing theory about a light-carrying medium. Physics is an
> >experimental science.
No it didn't.
Air is a light carrying medium, the speed of light in air is known,
the experiment was carried out in air, the relativity FAQ agrees.
Therefore the experiment did NOT demolish the theory of a
light carrying medium. It DID demolish the aether, but it certainly
did NOT demolish a light carrying medium.
Perform it in a vacuum and that is totally consistent with light being
source dependent.
So what do we have? Three theories, light -carrying medium,
source dependency and SR.
All are consistent... That is a failure.
[snip]
AndroclesInFlorida
"Bilge" <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrn9tshk...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> Henry Wilson said some stuff about
> Re: Henry Wilson to usenet:
> >On 28 Oct 2001 04:39:25 -0500, ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net
> >(Bilge) wrote:
> >
> >>Henry Wilson said some stuff about
> >
> >> >Probably my two main areas of complaint are, 1) that PHYSICAL
> >> >changes cannot possibly occur as a result of velocity change.
> >> >That is easy to prove.
> >>
> >> And no one but you claims that actually happens, so first of all,
> >>it's your own misunderstanding of relativity that you disagree with
> >>and since you've been told this before, I'm assuming you didn't write
> >>it down to keep you from repeating this idiotic claim.
> >
> >So you now accept that the twins will age at the same rate no
> >matter how they travel. Is that right Bilgey?
>
> From their own perspectives about themselves or what?
> State the question so that it is clear which twin's perspective
> and what the twin is observing.
>
> [...]
> >Ever heard of smoke? Most of the light passes through undispersed.
smoke.
Someone is blowing smoke. :)
Daryl McCullough
>>So the tube is vertical in the new frame, as well. So
>>in frame S', the light beam as a whole is oriented
>>vertically (since it is confined to the tube).
>
>Plotting the positions of each 'wave crest', emitted from a moving vertical
>light beam is a good way to see this, too.
>>
>>This doesn't contradict the claim that each element
>>of the beam travels diagonally in frame S'. It also
>>doesn't contradict the claim that it takes longer
>>in frame S' for the light beam to reach the top of
>>the tube than it does in frame S.
>
>Yes it does, Daryl. Why do you think it doesn't?
Because the speed of light is the speed that any particular
little light pulse takes. It doesn't have anything to do with the
"beam" that that light happens to be part of. The path of any
particular element of light is diagonal. It leaves the point
x=0, y=0 at time t=0 and travels upwards a distance L to arrive
at the point x = vT, y = L at time T. The total distance travelled
D is given by D^2 = x^2 + y^2 = v^2 T^2 + L^2. Since light travels
at speed c, we also have D^2 = c^2 T^2. Solving for T, we get:
c^2 T^2 = v^2 T^2 + L^2
(1-(v/c)^2) T^2 = (L/c)^2
T = L/c * 1/square-root(1-(v/c)^2)
So the pulse of light is travelling at speed v in the x-direction,
and speed L/T = c square-root(1-(v/c)^2) in the y-direction.
>Consider each frame is equipped with a symmetrical grid of synched
>clocks. Do you not agree that the time the beam takes to reach a
>certain height will be the same in all frames.
No, I don't. The relationship between time in frame S'
and time in frame S is this:
t' = gamma(t - vx/c^2)
The light signal leaves at x=0, t=0. The light arrives at
x = vT, t=T (where T is given as above). Plugging that into
the formula for t' gives:
t' = gamma(T - v^2/c^2 T)
= gamma(1-(v/c)^2) T
= 1/square-root(1-(v/c)^2) * (1-(v/c)^2) * T
= square-root(1-(v/c)^2) * T
Since t' < t, it takes longer for the light to rise a vertical
distance of L in the S frame than it does in the S' frame.
>Forget about time dilation in moving clocks.
Why? It's correct.
>That follows from the misinterpretation of this and cannot be
>introduced as a diversion.
What misinterpretation are you talking about? Time dilation
has nothing to do with whether the *beam* is vertical or not.
It has to do with whether the *path* of each element of light
is vertical.
Time dilation for light clocks follows from the fact that
light travels at speed c in all frames.
>>Henry noticed that there is a difference between the
>>orientation of a continuous light beam and the orientation
>>of the path of each photon making up the beam. The first
>>can be vertical, while the second is diagonal.
>
>What moves along a particular infinitesimally thin
>diagonal is not a complete photon.
This doesn't have anything to do with *photons*. Instead
of photons, imagine that someone is sending short bursts
of light. He turns on his flashlight (pointed vertically)
for a brief time t_on, then turns it off for a much longer
time t_off. Then he turns it on for time t_on and turns it
off for time t_off. Etc.
The light "beam" in this case will consist of a number of
short pulses of light. The beam is vertical, since each
pulse is directly below the preceding pulse. That is true
in every frame moving horizontally relative to the flashlight.
However, the path of each *pulse* is not vertical. In a frame
in which the flashlight is moving at speed v, each pulse will
be moving at a velocity with components
v_x = v
v_y = c square-root(1-(v/c)^2)
>A photon must have a size. It must have an 'axis of wave
>symmetry' along which (and only along which) it moves at c,
>as per maxwell.
Yes, if the beam as a whole is moving horizontally at speed v,
then each photon in the beam is moving at velocity v_x = v,
v_y = c square-root(1-(v/c)^2). The speed of the photon
is square-root(v_x^2 + v_y^2) = square-root(v^2 + c^2(1-(v/c)^2)) = c.
>>I have no idea why Henry thinks this insight violates
>>Special and Galilean relativity, though.
>>
>For the simple reason, Daryl, that whatever moves diagonally
>is certainly not a continuous light beam.
The light beam is irrelevant. Each pulse of light moves diagonally,
at speed c.
>Photons don't follow each other up the same diagonal.
Each photon has exactly the same velocity in the x-direction, v.
Each photon has exactly the same velocity in the y-direction,
c square-root(1-(v/c)^2).
>Not even small elements of photons follow each other up the same
>diagonal! All element move along different diagonals.
So what? Each element travels at speed c along a diagonal
with the same x- and y- components.
>Why would anyone except Galileo, Einstein and all the poor
>indoctrinated physicists for 150 years think that the
>diagonal velocity of these infinitesimal elements would be c?
Because pulses of light travel at speed c, according to
both observation and Maxwell's equations. The speed of a
pulse of light is independent of the motion of the source.
>It is clearly sqrt(c^2+v^2)!
That's contradicted both by experiment, and by Maxwell's
equations. It is false in ether theory, and it is false
in Special Relativity. It seems only clear to you, and
there is good evidence that you don't know beans about it.
--
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3bdddf66...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:45:46 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3bdc889a...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
> >> On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 08:30:08 +0000, Charles Francis <cha...@clef.demon.co.uk>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <3bd896bd...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>, Henry Wilson
> >> ><He...@the.edge> writes
> >> >>On Thu, 25 Oct 2001 19:46:34 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> >> >><dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>"Matthew Blake" <matthe...@baesystems.com> wrote in message news:9r8kc5$aii
> >> >>$1...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com...
> >> >>>> Hi, I've noticed a lot of posts from you. One thread in particular you seem
> >> Please refute my revelation that a vertical laser beam appears vertical to ALL
> >> moving observers. No light beam moves diagonally at c.
> >
> >Henry, both Lorentz and Galilean transformations make it diagonally.
>
> They are both wrong. Nobody has had the courage to dispute the fact.
I understand your frustration.
Perhaps there is an acceptable explanation... Let's see if we find one?
> Dirk, it is very simple to plot the diagonal paths followed by each
> infinitesimal element of a vertical light beam, as perceived in the moving
> frame.
> You will easily see that the elements remain vertically aligned in the moving
> frame, even though each one moves diagonally.
> If you cannot do that Dirk, you shouldn't be on a physics newsgroup.
I'll come back to the plotting and the physics on your other reply...
> You will then realise that whatever moves along its own particular infinitely
> thin diagonal, certainly does not constitute a light beam. You will also be able
> to calculate that the diagonal velocity of each dimensionless point is
> sqrt(c^2+v^2) and not c.
> Why the hell would it ever be c?
Because that's what we think has been observed. If it hadn't been,
there would be no need to invent a counter-intuitive theory like SR
in the first place. I know, you don't agree on this, never mind.
Let's get back on this later on the other reply, otherwise it gets messy.
See you there?
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3bddf081...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:28:00 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3bdc8f90...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
> >> On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 13:07:53 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> >> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3bdb3a62...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
> >> >> >
> >> >> Dirk, would you please tell us how you would generally define the expression
> >> >> 'velocity of light'?
> >> >
> >> >:-) I don't see a direct or indirect relation of your question to my
> >> >statement, but here goes:
> >> >
> >> >"Velocity of light" is the vector expression of the displacement
> >> >that light undergoes with respect to time.
> >>
> >> OK, and is this 'displacement' measured solely wrt the source of the light.
> >> --and what is this 'time'?
> >
> >It depends, on what you mean by 'measured' and by 'source'.
> >And when you ask what time 'is', what do you exactly mean with that
> >word 'is'?
> >Also, what do you exactly mean by "defining" something?
> >What would suit you and make you happy?
>
> Now you're being silly again Dirk.
> I know you cannot answer the question. What does 'light velocity' imply?
Of course I was silly, like you were.
> >
> >I have taken the definition of "velocity of an object" and then I
> >replaced the word "object" with the word "light".
> >But since I'm not a practicing physicist, let's look at the FAQ:
> > http://hepweb.rl.ac.uk/ppUK/PhysFAQ/speed_of_light.html
>
> Dirk, look up into the sky. Can you imagine ohotons whizzing past the earth in
> all directions but not hiting anything.
> Please tell me what 'their velocity' is and means - both numerically and
> philosophically
That's what you said when I read your first post. We have been
through all this. I can't add much to it.
> >
> > | At the 1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures the following
> > | SI (Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted:
> > |
> > | The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum
> > | during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.
> > | This defines the speed of light in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s
>
> That is Earth measured TWLS, when the observer and source are at rest wrt
> eachother..
Been through this too. Nothing to add anymore.
> >
> >I know you have a huge problem with that, but that discussion has taken
> >place 27 times already and I do not intend to go into it a 28th time.
> >Anyhow, there you have the official version of the definition of
> >"speed of light". Now add the direction information to get a vector,
> >and there you have the definition of "velocity of light".
>
> I was going to use 'speed' delibetrately but chose 'velocity' It really doesn't
> matter for this purpose.
Indeed it doesn't.
I gave the definition then. The elaboration about vectors wasn't
really needed.
> >
> >> >
> >> >Deeper?
> >> >A vector is a mathematical object that has a direction and a length.
> >> >In the case of a velocity, the length of the vector is defined as "the speed".
> >>
> >> Dirk, that is very funny.
> >> You are describing a mathematical convention rather than a definition of light
> >> speed.
> >
> >If you think that this is funny, it was not intended to be.
> >You were not asking about the "speed of light" but about "velocity
> >of light".
> >I was providing some background information about physics' primary
> >tool: mathematics. Whether you like it or not (and obviously you
> >do not), physics uses it as its primary language.
> >Try describing and explaining Newton's first law F = m*a without
> >math, and I mean without *any* notion of math at all. Don't forget to
> >define "acceleration" on the way. After that, take the other laws and
> >finally derive and explain Keppler's laws. Without math. Don't even
> >dare to use the word "ellipse" unless you have defined it, again, without
> >math.
> >
> >Dirk Vdm
>
> I agree with you that many quantities can only be defined mathematically.
> We cannot see 'energy' or 'magnetic force'. We can only physically sense the
> known variables we call dimensions.
Right.
See you on the transformations post.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3bdde1b4...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
The misunderstanding and confusion (on my part) of beam and path
have been clarified by now.
But whatever we might have missed, can you fill in the question marks?
I mean, I *do* suppose you agree on the departure event (0,0,0) and
on the arrival event (0,1,1/c) of the flash, or the bullet which has
(0,0,1/b) for its arrival event. Remember, the 3rd coordinate is just
the time of the event.
So if you claim that both the Lorentz transformation
( x, y, t ) ===Lorentz==> ( g*(x-vt), y, g*(t-vx/c^2) )
and the Galilean transformation
( x, y, t ) ===Galileo==> ( x-vt, y, t )
are wrong, then surely you must be able to correct them and
provide your tranformation
( x, y, t ) ===Wilson===> ( ?, ?, t )
I have already filled in the time since I guess they will not change
in your transformation.
This should be plain elementary analytic geometry a la Descartes,
you know, (x,y)-diagrams. In this case you must provide x' and y'
as functions of x an y. (You can safely take the same times t and t'
like Galileo did).
Just a recipe for expressing the coordinates in the moving frame S'
With this recipe we can calculate how the two specific events are
seen in that frame:
Departure of light flash and bullet
( 0, 0, 0 ) ===Wilson===> ( ?, ?, 0 )
Arrival of light flah
( 0, 1, 1/c ) ===Wilson===> ( ?, ?, 1/c )
Arrival of bullet
( 0, 1, 1/b ) ===Wilson===> ( ?, ?, 1/b )
Again, I have already filled in the times since I guess they will not
change in your transformation.
> >
> >
> >2) A bullet with velocity b along the y-axis (in S)
> > event_1: bullet departure ( 0, 0, 0 )
> > event_2: bullet arrival ( 0, 1, 1/b )
> >
> > ( x, y, t ) ===Lorentz==> ( g*(x-vt), y, g*(t-vx/c^2) )
> > ( 0, 0, 0 ) ===Lorentz==> ( 0, 0, 0 )
> > ( 0, 1, 1/b ) ===Lorentz==> ( g*(-v/b), 1, g*(1/b) )
> > Original X-y curve in S : x = 0 (straight along y-axis)
> > Lorentz x'-y' curve in S' : y' = - b/(g*v) * x' (tilted)
> >
> > ( x, y, t ) ===Galileo==> ( x-vt, y, t )
> > ( 0, 0, 0 ) ===Galileo==> ( 0, 0, 0 )
> > ( 0, 1, 1/b ) ===Galileo==> ( -v/b, 1, 1/b )
> > Galileo x'-y' curve in S' : y' = - b/v * x' (tilted)
> >
> > ( x, y, t ) ===Wilson===> ( ?, ?, ? )
> > ( 0, 0, 0 ) ===Wilson===> ( ?, ?, ? )
> > ( 0, 1, 1/b ) ===Wilson===> ( ?, ?, ? )
> > Wilson x'-y' curve in S' : ???? (straight along y-axis?)
>
> Bullet's axis points vertical in all frames.
> Each element of the bullet moves diagonally.
> Bullet reaches a particular height in the same time, in all frames.
> Bullets fired from a moving machine gun remain vertically aligned
> IN ALL FRAMES.
> Just plot the bloody thing Dirk!
> It really is very easy.
Providing the tranformation law is much simpler.
Besides, without the recipe you wouldn't know what to plot.
How do you make the calculations of the coordinates as seen by S'?
You really must provide the equations... or, I might counter, you
have no place on this newsgroup ;-)
> >
> >3) A spinning wheel with radius 1 centered on (0,0).
> > equation of motion of marker on wheel for S(x,y):
> > x = cos(t)
> > y = sin(t) i.e. circle
> > tansformation according to Galileo:
> > x' = x - vt
> > y' = y
> > t' = t
> > equation of motion for Galilean S'(x',y'):
> > x' = cos(t') - vt'
> > y' = sin(t') i.e. not a circle
> > equation of motion for Wilsonian S'(x',y'):
> > x' = ?
> > y' = ? i.e. ?
>
> Just a rotating wheel moving sideways. We don't need to know
> the paths of elements of the wheel.
I'm interested in the curve that is described by a single spot
on the wheel. It is a circle in S and (in the Galilean mindset) a
cycloid in S'.
What do you think it will look like with your transformation law?
Can you plot it?
Can your program plot it?
> >
> >Can you please fill in the question marks?
> >I must say I am very curious.
> >
> >Dirk Vdm
>
> If you like I will send you a Vbasic program animating the effect if you cannot
> plot it for yourself, Dirk. Plot the bullets from the machine gun. that is
> easiest.
> Do you have VB on your computer?
I have MS Visual Basic.
You can send me the program, I hope it doesn't have too many
goto and gosub statements?
If you send it, remove the sperm thing from my email address.
But before you do, try to fill those question marks. They will make
it easier to communicate for us, and to understand the program
for me.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"AndroclesInFlorida" <marie...@home.com> wrote in message news:7vrD7.11087$CJ6.1...@news1.rdc1.fl.home.com...
>
> "Daryl McCullough" <da...@cogentex.com> wrote in message
> news:9rkc1...@drn.newsguy.com...
> > He...@the.edge says...
> >
> > >The beam, as a whole remains vertical to all moving observers
> >
> > That's absolutely true, but has nothing to do with
> > any calculations done in relativity.
> >
> > If frame S' moves at speed v along the x-axis relative
> > to frame S, and in frame S' one has a light beam that
> > makes an angle theta' with the x-axis, then in frame S,
> > the light beam makes an angle theta with the x-axis,
> > where theta is given by:
> >
> > cotangent(theta) = square-root(1-(v/c)^2) cotangent(theta')
> >
> > In the particular case of a vertical rod, theta' = 90 degrees,
> > and we have
> >
> > cotangent(theta) = 0
> >
> > So theta = 90 degrees, also.
> >
> > That is a prediction of SR. It in no way contradicts SR. In
> > particular, it doesn't contradict the derivation of the time
> > dilation factor. If the beam takes time T' to reach a vertical
> > distance of V in the S' frame, then it will take a time
> > T'/gamma to reach that same vertical distance in the S frame.
> > c is the speed of each element of the beam, and in frame S,
> > each element of the beam takes a diagonal path.
[entered a blank line on behalf of Androcles]
> LOL!
> What happens to a diagonal beam that is seen vertically, as opposed to
> a vertical beam that is seen diagonally?
> ROFL!
> Oh, that's right.... theta = 90, so v = 0... yep. I agree totally with
> SR for all cases were v = 0.
> That really is a GREAT prediction.
> ROFLMAO!
Yes thanks, we have seen your bare "A" many times now.
No need to show it again.
Dirk Vdm
AndroclesInFlorida
>
> AndroclesInFlorida <marie...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:JjmD7.10711$CJ6.1...@news1.rdc1.fl.home.com...
> >
> > "Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:9riosh$26n$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> > >
> > > AndroclesInFlorida <marie...@home.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Vp5D7.7698$CJ6.9...@news1.rdc1.fl.home.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:9rima3$dr3$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > > [snip]
> > > > > Source dependence of light speed has been thoroughly ruled out
> > > > > by a wide variety of experiments.
> > > > Name one.
> > > >
> > > Sadeh (speed of gammas in different directions from decaying
> relativistic
> > > particles)
> > Invalid. You've been taken in by the SRists.
>
> I have read the paper. Are you claiming that he is lying?
> >
> > > Alvager et al (coincident measurement of gammas from bremstraulung)
> > Invalid. You've been taken in by the SRists.
> > Alvager in particular is noteworthy for faking data. He claimed to
measure
> > the
> > speed of light from a moving source in a vacuum, and that originated
from
> > INSIDE a
> > stationary block of berylium.
>
> Faking data is a serious charge. Do you have proof?
pion which
moves only a micron or so. The pion is produced when a beryllium target is
struck
by a proton beam. Unless the thickness of the metal is considerably less
that the
distance pion moves inside it, the light (gamma particle) originates inside
a stationary
block of beryllium, and not in a vacuum at all. So yes, Algavar is lying
when he
claims to have performed an experiment from a moving source in a vacuum.
This is actually one of the experiments the relativists uphold as proof in
their FAQs,
so they are as guilty (by association) of faking data as Algaver.
> However, this argument has been made in regards to bremstraulung, so
> you can ignore this experiment if you wish.
>
> > > Moon & Spencer(observations of binary stars)
> > They have no idea what they are talking about, the eccentricity of the
> > ellipse is
> > NOT known. All that ever showed was if you assume something, you'll
prove
> > what you assumed.
>
> This has nothing to do with eccentricity. Source dependent light speed
would
> cause bizarre effects when observing binaries. The visual binaries not so
> much as spectroscopic binaries where the orbital period is shorter.
You've been conned, and unfortunately you know very little about the
subject.
http://www.phys.uidaho.edu/~pbickers/Courses/310/Notes/book/node52.html
Binary stars
In 1913 de Sitter suggested that observations of binary stars could place
stringent limits on any dependence of c on source velocity. Binary stars
consist of a pair of stars orbiting a common central point. Observations
with telescopes reveal that the orbital motion conforms well to the same
pattern observed for planets in our solar system and can be accurately
described with the same theories. From the rate at which the stars appear to
be orbiting each other, and our knowledge of astronomical distance scales,
we can deduce that the orbital speeds of these stars can be quite high.
Suppose that the speed of light depended on source velocity. Then, since at
various stages in its orbit one of these stars has a varying velocity with
respect to an Earth based observer, the speed at which light is emitted
towards Earth should vary according as to where the star was in its orbit.
However, even if the variation in light speed was quite small, the enormous
distances to the nearest stars means that there would be a significant
difference in the time taken for light to reach Earth. Consequently, light
could be seen from a star in one position before light was received from the
same star in an earlier position! Thus all sorts of strange effects could be
observed, including ghost images and highly unusual orbital eccentricities.
(Androcles: I've actually made a model of a point of light in Keplerian
orbit. This guesswork the idiot is talking about only shows how little he
knows, and his argument was disposed of back in the 60's.
He goes on...)
No such effects are seen.
Androcles: see http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap981011.html
However, there is a problem with concluding from this that the speed of
light does not depend on source velocity. It turns out that the interstellar
regions are not a perfect vacuum but contain minute amounts of gas. When
light passes through any medium it gets continually absorbed and reemitted
by the atoms in that medium. Thus, any dependence of the light on the
velocity of the orginal source would be lost and replaced by whatever
dependence existed on the velocity of the new source, i.e. the atoms in the
medium.
The distance over which this happens is called the extinction length. For
air at normal atmospheric density this extinction length is only 0.1 mm for
visible light! For the interstellar gas in the galactic disk of our Milky
Way galaxy it is about 2 light-years. However, this is still less than the
distance to the nearest star.
Fortunately, the extinction length is larger for other regions of the
electromagnetic spectrum and for certain x-rays it is about 60,000
light-years. A handful of binary star systems are known, within this range,
which contain suitable x-ray sources that even pulse regularly.
Androcles: This idiocy is total nonsense. If the universe were actually the
way he describes it, we wouldn't see any stars at all, only a blue fog. We'd
certainly not be able to see distant galaxies, and nearby stars would at
best appear red.
Why? Because when we look at one nearby star, the sun, it appears red at
sunset, and oddly enough, when light is scattered by dust motes in the
atmosphere, the sky appears blue.
If you actually believe ANYTHING this idiot has written, then you must be as
gullible as any relativist.
> > > Brecher(x-ray sources from rotating stars)
> > I don't know that one.
> >
> > > Michelson (light reflected off of moving mirrors)
> > Experiment was in air. Air is similar to aether, with the exception that
> air
> > is real.
>
> So what? The fact that source independence was shown even in air is
> even a stronger argument for it.
Because we are discussing light in a vacuum, and a vacuum is not air, nor is
it aether.
It is NOTHING. We know that the velocity of light changes in a medium.
That's it.
All you have for any aether is supposition.
> > > Sagnac(light reflected off of moving mirrors)
> > Experiment was in air.
>
> Same as above.
>
> > If you actually trust SRists, you should become one.
>
> Trust has little to do with it.........and you are creating a false
> dichotomy,
> a fallacy in logic.
Not at all, you've been conned.
Look at
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~physics/sci.physics/faq/cherenkov.html
Updated 27-May-98
Original by Philip Gibbs 18-Feb-1997
Is there an equivalent of the sonic boom for light?
A sonic boom is a shock wave which propagates from an aircraft or other
object which is going faster than sound through the air (or other medium).
In subsonic flight air is deflected smoothly around the wings. In supersonic
flight this cannot happen because the effect of the aircraft wings pushing
the air ahead cannot travel faster than sound. The result is a sudden
pressure change or shock wave which propagates away from the aircraft in a
cone at the speed of sound.
It is thought that objects cannot travel faster than c, the speed of light
in vacuum (see Relativity FAQ article on FTL travel.). Furthermore there is
no ether to act as a medium being pushed aside like the air is pushed by an
aircraft. Therefore no light equivalent of the sonic boom can occur in
vacuum.
Compare that with Einstein's
"It follows from these results that to an observer approaching a source of
light with the velocity c, the source of light must appear of infinite
intensity".
Gibbs is right, but for the wrong reason.
The velocity of light in a vacuum is c with respect to the source, just like
a bullet from a gun, and there is absolutely NO evidence that proves it
otherwise.
Dirk Van de moortel
"AndroclesInFlorida" <marie...@home.com> wrote in message news:JRDD7.13902$CJ6.1...@news1.rdc1.fl.home.com...
> [snip]
> Gibbs is right, but for the wrong reason.
Androcles is wrong, but for the right reason.
Dirk Vdm
Henry Wilson
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Daryl McCullough" <da...@cogentex.com> wrote in message news:9rkdg...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> Dirk says...
>> >
>> >"Henry Wilson" wrote:
>>
>> >> Galilean relativity is also wrong.
>> >> The diagonal line you refer to is
>> >> the path taken by an infinitesimally small
>> >> element of the light pulse. The next element
>> >> follows another parallel diagonal line. Such
>> >> an element does not constitute light and there
>> >> is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assign
>> >> the Maxwellian notion of velocity to it.
>> >>
>> >> The beam, as a whole remains vertical to all
>> >> moving observers and takes the same time to
>> >> traverse a particular vertical distance in
>> >> all frames.
>>
>> >This is interesting. Lorentz wrong and Galileo wrong.
>>
>> Henry has stumbled onto an interesting fact, and
>> for some reason thinks it contradicts relativity.
>>
>> The fact is this: If a continuous beam of light
>> (or bullets, or anything) is vertical in one frame,
>> then it is also vertical in every other frame
>> moving horizontally relative to that frame.
>>
>> My proof is this: Consider a narrow tube that is
>> at rest in frame S. In frame S, shoot a light beam
>> (or a sequence of bullets, or anything else) up the
>> tube. Obviously, in every other frame, the light
>> beam (or the bullets) will similarly be confined
>> to the inside of the tube.
>>
>> Suppose that the tube makes an angle of 90 degrees
>> relative to the x-axis in frame S. That means that in
>> going from the bottom of the tube to the top of the tube,
>>
>> delta-x = 0
>> delta-y = L (the length of the tube)
>>
>> Now, transform to another frame S' moving at velocity
>> v along the x-axis relative to frame S. In this new frame,
>> we have:
>>
>> delta-x' = delta-x/gamma = 0
>> delta-y' = delta-y = L
>>
>> So the tube is vertical in the new frame, as well. So
>> in frame S', the light beam as a whole is oriented
>> vertically (since it is confined to the tube).
>>
>
>Like I said in my other reply to you:
>tube:
> (0,0,0) and (0,1,0) in S'(x',y',t')
>bullet:
> (0,0,0) and (g*(-v/c),1,g*(1/c)) in S'(x',y',t')
>so we have:
> delta-x'_tube = gamma * delta-x_tube
> since delta-t_tube = 0
> delta-x'_bullet = gamma * ( delta-x_bullet - v * delta-t_bullet )
> since delta-t_bullet # 0
>These are delta's of different pairs of events, so there is no
>contradiction if they differ.
>
>> This doesn't contradict the claim that each element
>> of the beam travels diagonally in frame S'. It also
>> doesn't contradict the claim that it takes longer
>> in frame S' for the light beam to reach the top of
>> the tube than it does in frame S.
>>
>> Henry noticed that there is a difference between the
>> orientation of a continuous light beam and the orientation
>> of the path of each photon making up the beam. The first
>> can be vertical, while the second is diagonal.
>>
>> I have no idea why Henry thinks this insight violates
>> Special and Galilean relativity, though.
>
>I'm very curious to learn about his transformation but somehow
>I doubt whether he will attempt to find and/or provide the equations.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Dirk Vdm
>
Dirk, where did your magic gamma come from?
Henry Wilson
wrote:
>Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>
>> "Daryl McCullough" <da...@cogentex.com> wrote in message news:9rkc1...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> But a light beam is not a rod.
>
>Daryl (who, in an act of generosity, is following Henry's usage) is
>talking about a "beam" in a different sense than you are here. In
>terms of photons, he's talking here about a collection of photons
>and the pattern that they make in space. *Not* about the path of
>any individual photon.
>
>>
>> The vertical (along y-axis let's say) rod has "endpoints":
>> (0,0,0) and (0,1,0) in S(x,y,t)
>> and
>> (0,0,0) and (0,1,0) in S'(x',y',t')
>> which is vertical.
>>
>> Not so for a lightbeam which has "endpoints":
>> (0,0,0) and (0,1,1/c) in S(x,y,t)
>
>No, Daryl is talking about an array of photons, the topmost of which
>is at (0,1,0); it was emitted from the origin at time -1/c. This
>array of photons is just like an array of bullets, etc...
>
>> and
>> (0,0,0) and (g*(-v/c),1,g*(1/c)) in S'(x',y',t')
>> which is not vertical.
>>
>> Right?
>
>Right, the path of each photon is not vertical. Henry does not seem
>to understand that *that* is what matters in the theory that he
>seeks to overturn. Instead, Henry has fixated on the irrelevant
>(thought true) fact that Daryl describes above; what's worse, Henry
>believes himself to be the *only* person to understand it. Daryl
>and (before him) Paul B. Anderson amply prove that latter belief to
>be untrue, but Henry lives in his own world.
Oh please Russell, Not so at all!
I am quite aware that each infinitesimal element of each photon moves along its
own infinitesimally thin diagonal path in the frame of a moving observer. No
other element follows it up the same diagonal. (that's not strictly true if the
photon has width).
Light moves at c along - and only along - its axis of wave symmetry.
My entire point is that no one in their right minds would conclude that such an
infinitesimal element of a photon constitutes a light beam moving diagonally at
c!
The bloody point obviously moves at sqrt(c^2+v^2), just like bullets and
raindrops.
Pual Anderson hasn't been heard of on this NG since I converted him.
I understand he is doing a PhD in antiSR!
Henry Wilson
>Henry Wilson said some stuff about
>
> From their own perspectives about themselves or what?
>State the question so that it is clear which twin's perspective
>and what the twin is observing.
when they reunite , they are the same age.
>
>[...]
> >Ever heard of smoke? Most of the light passes through undispersed.
>
> The smoke is or is not stationary with respect to the light source?
>Use a complete description for once, henry, instead of relying on everyone
>to give you something you can misconstrue. You also need to be more
>explicit regarding what you mean by the light seen by the observer or
>I'll take it to mean the light that arrives in the observer's eye
>simultaneously from the reflections off of the particles of smoke.
OK I'll be serious.
Wilson's observers all have arrays of synched clocks which can detect light
reaching them.
C C C C C C A A A A A A A A
C C C C C C A A A A A A A A
C C C C C C A A A A A A A A
C C C C C C A A A A A A A A
If observer C's grid moves past A's grid, a spherical light pulse emitted by A
will certainly not appear spherical, when measured by C's clocks.
Any objections, Bilgey?
> >> >TWLS
> >>
> >> Time Wilson Left Science?
> >
> >TBGWATF!
> >>
> >>[...]
> >> >Most experiments that are supposed to verify SR are flawed. The
> >> >SR explanation of the MMX is based on a complete misinterpretation of
> >> >that experiment.
> >>
> >> All of henries conceptual ideas regarding experiements don't match the
> >>way any equipement works as known to the inhabitants of this universe.
> >>According to henry, it's impossible to measure any time it takes for a
> >>particle to travel between two detectors if it violates anything he's
> >>arguing about that would be shot down by such common experimental
> >>techniques. We don't believe there is a principle that allows him to
> >>construct devices that favor his opinion.
> >
> >If you are refering to my revelation that the mean of a set of
> >reciprocals is NOT the same as the reciprocal of mean of the set,
> >as assumed in the great muon hoax and similar experiments, then
> >of course I wont accept them.
>
> I'm referring to all of your so-called revalations. I know full well
>you won't accept them. Since you also considered the simple transformation
>between center-of-mass coordinates and the coordinates of one of only two
>objects to violate conservation of energy in newtonian mechanics, I don't
>consider your refusal to accept something as being grounds to question
>it. See:
>
If you are refering to my spaceship question, I made no such claim. I was merely
looking for an explanation - which I got.
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=wilson+bilge+energy+coordinates&hl
> =en&rnum=4&selm=398f567c.8381494%40news.bigpond.com
>
>
> for example. Given your inability to deal with a non-relativistic
>transformation, why would you suppose relativity would somehow make
>more sense for you to attack?
>
SR is easy to attack. It is wrong from the first paragraph.
Henry Wilson
>
>Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>news:3bddee5f...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 21:42:11 -0700, "Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>>
>> >>
>> >> SR is plain bull! I claim that is all my messages. Flawed from start to
>> >finish,
>> >> top to bottom.
>> >
>> >All too true!
>> >
>> >> Which aspect did you have in mind, in particular ?
>> >> Probably my two main areas of complaint are, 1) that PHYSICAL changes
>> >cannot
>> >> possibly occur as a result of velocity change. That is easy to prove.
>> >
>> >If this is referring to the twin contradiction, then you are right on
>> >target.
>>
>> and length contraction. It is trivial to prove it cannot physically
>happen.
>
>What about a physical contraction a la Fitzgerald?
There can be none. I proved it recently.
""""
Simple proof that physical properties cannot change with velocity:
A____________B_________C...(v+x)->
A and B are at rest wrt eachother. C is moving away at (v+x).
C observes A and B as moving away at (v+x).
B accelerates to velocity v.
A____________B ->v_______C...(v+x)->
A sees B increase velocity to v.
C sees B decrease velocity to x.
According to SR, B's length decreases wrt A but increases wrt C.
Obviously it cannot do both at once. Therefore the change cannot be a REAL
PHYSICAL one. It is observational only.
The same proof applies to clock rhythms and masses.
""""""""
>
>> >> and 2) that the whole idea that a vertical light beam appears diagonal
>to
>> >a
>> >> moving observer is plain rubbish.
>> >
>> >What's this? Then what is aberration?
>>
>> Ah! that is a different effect altogether. That's all to do with
>information
>> travel time. You have to allow for that.
>
>??
>
>> >> There is no 'gamma' factor, except maybe for
>> >> charged particles.
>> >
>> >You mean both mass and time?
>>
>> and length.
>> >
>> >> This refutes the einsteinian principle that a sphere of light emitted
>from
>> >a
>> >> single sourse will appear as a sphere in ALL frames.
>> >> The second postulate is also groundless. Light speed has always
>appeared
>> >> constant because all experiments to measure it have been round trip.
>> >
>> >This is simply not true. One way light speed measurements have been made.
>> >Hey, SR IS WRONG. You don't have to make things up.
>>
>> No accurate OWLS measurements have never been achieved.
>
>Accurate enough to rule out a first order effect.
I think you will find that they are all indirect TWLS measurements.
>
>> >> TWLS is dead constant if light velocity is source dependent.
>> >
>> >Source dependence of light speed has been thoroughly ruled out
>> >by a wide variety of experiments.
>>
>> Maybe not.
>
>No....there have been too many done and verified (see my other response
>in this thread).
I have looked into this myself. Even have animation programs showing how light
would behave if source dependency werer true. I am open minded on this. There
are many other possibilities.
there is a huge amount of evidence in favour of source dependency, at least over
short distances..
>>
>> The experiment itself WAS pretty straightforward but the theory behind it
>was
>> wrong. In the standard analysis you will see a light beam moving
>diagonally at
>> c. That simply doesn't happen.
>
>The light moves at c. Light only moves in the direction it is going. How
>does it move diagonally?
That's what I have been saying for years! It doesn't!
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3bde5d7f...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
> [snip]
>
> Dirk, where did your magic gamma come from?
Huh?
*My* magic gamma, or *the* magic gamma?
Why do you ask?
Surely you know where SR's gamma comes from.
Look in the FAQ... why ask me?
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3bde5f94...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...> > [snip]
> > for example. Given your inability to deal with a non-relativistic
> >transformation, why would you suppose relativity would somehow make
> >more sense for you to attack?
> >
> SR is easy to attack. It is wrong from the first paragraph.
Bilge has a point.
You claim that the Galilean transformation is wrong.
So we are still waiting for yours.
Dirk Vdm
Daryl McCullough
>I am quite aware that each infinitesimal element of each photon moves
>along its own infinitesimally thin diagonal path in the frame of a
>moving observer.
At speed c.
>Light moves at c along - and only along - its axis of wave symmetry.
Symmetry has nothing to do with it. Each "infinitesimal element"
of light travels at speed c.
>My entire point is that no one in their right minds would conclude
>that such an infinitesimal element of a photon constitutes a light
>beam moving diagonally at c!
You are no judge of who is "in their right minds". According
to both observation and theory, each element moves at speed c.
>The bloody point obviously moves at sqrt(c^2+v^2), just like
>bullets and raindrops.
It's not true for bullets and raindrops, either. If in one
frame, you have a stationary gun firing bullets vertically
at velocity v_b, then in a frame moving horizontally at
speed v, each bullet will have velocity
v_x' = v
v_y' = v_b/gamma
This is exactly the same formula as for light, except that
you have to replace v_b by c.
Henry Wilson
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
Well I do partly agree. This is my interpretation of what happened.
Nobody has actually measured OWLS. However, all TWLS experiments produced almost
the same value for c. The MMX was wrongly interpreted to mean that light speed
is isotropic.
Einy then concocted the notion that a spherical light pulse in one frame would
also appear spherical in any other frame moving relative to the source. It does
- it appears as an expanding sphere moving sideways.
Where Einy went wrong was in assuming that, if the two observers were together
when the pulse was emitted, both would get the impression that the sphere was
expanding symmetrically around themselves, as centre.
As i said to Bilge;
Wilson's observers all have arrays of synched clocks which can detect light
reaching them.
C C C C C C A A A A A A A A
C C C C C C A A A A A A A A
C C C C C C A A A A A A A A
C C C C C C A A A A A A A A
If observer C's grid moves past A's grid, a spherical light pulse emitted by A
will certainly not appear spherical, when measured by C's clocks.
""""
Actually this could be misinterpreted. What I meant was that the light pulse
Does appear to be spherical but is moving sideway as a whole. It is not centred
on one particular point in the moving frame.
Henry Wilson
No daryl. that cannot be correct.
consider this:
""""
Wilson's observers all have arrays of synched clocks which can detect light
reaching them.
C C C C C C A A A A A A A A
C C C C C C A A A A A A A A
---->v
C C C C C C A A A A A A A A
C C C C C C A A A A A A A A
Assume observer C's grid is moving past A's. A emits a vertical beam of light
from the bottom row.
Do you not agree that the beam will take the same time to reach the top row IN
BOTH FRAMES?
>
>>Forget about time dilation in moving clocks.
>
>Why? It's correct.
>
>>That follows from the misinterpretation of this and cannot be
>>introduced as a diversion.
>
>What misinterpretation are you talking about? Time dilation
>has nothing to do with whether the *beam* is vertical or not.
>It has to do with whether the *path* of each element of light
>is vertical.
Time dilation has everything to do with the time taken for the beam to reach a
certain height in both frames.
In other words, there is no need for time dilation at all.
>
>Time dilation for light clocks follows from the fact that
>light travels at speed c in all frames.
When was that proved?
>
>>>Henry noticed that there is a difference between the
>>>orientation of a continuous light beam and the orientation
>>>of the path of each photon making up the beam. The first
>>>can be vertical, while the second is diagonal.
>>
>>What moves along a particular infinitesimally thin
>>diagonal is not a complete photon.
>
>This doesn't have anything to do with *photons*. Instead
>of photons, imagine that someone is sending short bursts
>of light. He turns on his flashlight (pointed vertically)
>for a brief time t_on, then turns it off for a much longer
>time t_off. Then he turns it on for time t_on and turns it
>off for time t_off. Etc.
>
>The light "beam" in this case will consist of a number of
>short pulses of light. The beam is vertical, since each
>pulse is directly below the preceding pulse. That is true
>in every frame moving horizontally relative to the flashlight.
>However, the path of each *pulse* is not vertical. In a frame
>in which the flashlight is moving at speed v, each pulse will
>be moving at a velocity with components
>
> v_x = v
> v_y = c square-root(1-(v/c)^2)
How is it that this doesn't apply to bullets? All we can say is that they move
at a particular velocity in the direction of their axes. The diagonal speed is
purely an optical/geometric effect and has no limit.
The same applies to the light pulses. Say you emit a series of narrow laser
pulses one metre long. They move at c in and only in the direction of that
length. they reach a particular height in the same time IN ALL FRAMES.
By what peculiar stretch of the imagination would one want to conclude that they
move at c in any other direction?
>
>>A photon must have a size. It must have an 'axis of wave
>>symmetry' along which (and only along which) it moves at c,
>>as per maxwell.
>
>Yes, if the beam as a whole is moving horizontally at speed v,
>then each photon in the beam is moving at velocity v_x = v,
>v_y = c square-root(1-(v/c)^2). The speed of the photon
>is square-root(v_x^2 + v_y^2) = square-root(v^2 + c^2(1-(v/c)^2)) = c.
But that is completely illogical. There is no basis for this conclusion
whatsoever.
It does not explain how the time taken to attain a particular vertical height is
constant for all frames.
>
>>>I have no idea why Henry thinks this insight violates
>>>Special and Galilean relativity, though.
>>>
>>For the simple reason, Daryl, that whatever moves diagonally
>>is certainly not a continuous light beam.
>
>The light beam is irrelevant. Each pulse of light moves diagonally,
>at speed c.
Not so. Each pulse traverses a particular vertical height, IN ALL FRAMES, in
time h/c.
>
>>Photons don't follow each other up the same diagonal.
>
>Each photon has exactly the same velocity in the x-direction, v.
>Each photon has exactly the same velocity in the y-direction,
>c square-root(1-(v/c)^2).
They are not photons, they are dimensionless points representing the paths of
infinitesimal elements of photons. They move diagonally at sqrt(c^2+v^2).
Why is this so hard to get across?
>
>>Not even small elements of photons follow each other up the same
>>diagonal! All element move along different diagonals.
>
>So what? Each element travels at speed c along a diagonal
>with the same x- and y- components.
Wherever did you get that idea?
These elements are nothing. They don't have properties. They are not light. They
are just loci. Plots on a graph! Why the hell should they move at c, for christs
sake?
>
>>Why would anyone except Galileo, Einstein and all the poor
>>indoctrinated physicists for 150 years think that the
>>diagonal velocity of these infinitesimal elements would be c?
>
>Because pulses of light travel at speed c, according to
>both observation and Maxwell's equations. The speed of a
>pulse of light is independent of the motion of the source.
According to Maxwell, they travel at c in the direction of their axes of wave
symmetry. What 'c' is relative to, is a moot point.
>
>>It is clearly sqrt(c^2+v^2)!
>
>That's contradicted both by experiment, and by Maxwell's
>equations. It is false in ether theory, and it is false
>in Special Relativity. It seems only clear to you, and
>there is good evidence that you don't know beans about it.
Tell me about any experiment which has falsified this Daryl?
Henry Wilson
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3bdde1b4...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:25:37 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3bdc8a96...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
>> >>
No of course I don't agree.
Those relationships only hold in the directions of the bullet or photon wave
axes. That comes directly from Maxwell.
>
>So if you claim that both the Lorentz transformation
> ( x, y, t ) ===Lorentz==> ( g*(x-vt), y, g*(t-vx/c^2) )
>and the Galilean transformation
> ( x, y, t ) ===Galileo==> ( x-vt, y, t )
>are wrong, then surely you must be able to correct them and
>provide your tranformation
> ( x, y, t ) ===Wilson===> ( ?, ?, t )
>I have already filled in the time since I guess they will not change
>in your transformation.
>
>This should be plain elementary analytic geometry a la Descartes,
>you know, (x,y)-diagrams. In this case you must provide x' and y'
>as functions of x an y. (You can safely take the same times t and t'
>like Galileo did).
>Just a recipe for expressing the coordinates in the moving frame S'
>With this recipe we can calculate how the two specific events are
>seen in that frame:
>Departure of light flash and bullet
> ( 0, 0, 0 ) ===Wilson===> ( ?, ?, 0 )
>Arrival of light flah
> ( 0, 1, 1/c ) ===Wilson===> ( ?, ?, 1/c )
>Arrival of bullet
> ( 0, 1, 1/b ) ===Wilson===> ( ?, ?, 1/b )
>Again, I have already filled in the times since I guess they will not
>change in your transformation.
LET ME EXPLAIN AGAIN.
Observers A and B have grids of synched clocks. A is moving past B.
A A A A B | B B B
->v
A A A A B | B B B
A A A A B | B B B
If B emits a vertical light pulse from its bottom row, the pulse will take the
same time to get to the top row in both frames, h/c.
That is the only intelligent data we have available.
On that basis, the apparent diagonal velocity of an infinitesimal element is
sqrt(c^2+v^2). However, this velocity has no particular physical usefulness.
the only important equation is provided above. t=h/c in all frames.
>
>> >
>> >3) A spinning wheel with radius 1 centered on (0,0).
>> > equation of motion of marker on wheel for S(x,y):
>> > x = cos(t)
>> > y = sin(t) i.e. circle
>> > tansformation according to Galileo:
>> > x' = x - vt
>> > y' = y
>> > t' = t
>> > equation of motion for Galilean S'(x',y'):
>> > x' = cos(t') - vt'
>> > y' = sin(t') i.e. not a circle
>> > equation of motion for Wilsonian S'(x',y'):
>> > x' = ?
>> > y' = ? i.e. ?
>>
>> Just a rotating wheel moving sideways. We don't need to know
>> the paths of elements of the wheel.
>
>I'm interested in the curve that is described by a single spot
>on the wheel. It is a circle in S and (in the Galilean mindset) a
>cycloid in S'.
>What do you think it will look like with your transformation law?
>Can you plot it?
>Can your program plot it?
Each infinitesimal element of the wheel will follow an individual cycloid, or
similar. So what. that has no physical significance. It is purely an
observational effect.
The moving observer's grid of clocks simply sees a rotating wheel moving
sideways.
>
>> >
>> >Can you please fill in the question marks?
>> >I must say I am very curious.
>> >
>> >Dirk Vdm
>>
>> If you like I will send you a Vbasic program animating the effect if you cannot
>> plot it for yourself, Dirk. Plot the bullets from the machine gun. that is
>> easiest.
>> Do you have VB on your computer?
>
>I have MS Visual Basic.
>You can send me the program, I hope it doesn't have too many
>goto and gosub statements?
I've made them into .exe programs. Definitely no viruses and easy to run. Just
open them up.
I will send them soon.
>Dirk Vdm
>
>
Harold Ensle
No. Moon & Spencer did exact calculations (that is why I referenced
them over the original DeSitter suggestion).
What are you talking about?? I never mentioned the extinction theorem, nor
did Moon&Spencer. Why are you even bringing it up? Besides, the
extinction theorem would help your case, not mine, yet you are arguing
against it.
[....]
H.Ellis Ensle
AndroclesInFlorida
you really don't know very much at all...
Daryl McCullough
>>Since t' < t, it takes longer for the light to rise a vertical
>>distance of L in the S frame than it does in the S' frame.
>
>No daryl. that cannot be correct.
>consider this:
>""""
>Wilson's observers all have arrays of synched clocks which can detect light
>reaching them.
>
>C C C C C C A A A A A A A A
>
>C C C C C C A A A A A A A A
>---->v
>C C C C C C A A A A A A A A
>
>C C C C C C A A A A A A A A
>
>Assume observer C's grid is moving past A's. A emits a vertical beam of light
>from the bottom row.
>
>Do you not agree that the beam will take the same time to reach the top
>row IN BOTH FRAMES?
The time shown on C's clocks when the beam reaches the top will not
be equal to the time shown on A's clocks.
>Time dilation has everything to do with the time taken for the
>beam to reach a certain height in both frames.
Which is a shorter time for the frame in which the light
elements are travelling vertically, and is a longer time
for the frame in which the light elements are travelling
diagonally.
>In other words, there is no need for time dilation at all.
It happens. It's an observed fact.
>>Time dilation for light clocks follows from the fact that
>>light travels at speed c in all frames.
>
>When was that proved?
You can never prove a physical theory. But every prediction
made by the theory of relativity has been tested and found
to be correct. In contrast, your idea that light travels
at speed square-root(v^2 + c^2) for a source moving at
speed v has been demonstrated not to be correct.
>>This doesn't have anything to do with *photons*. Instead
>>of photons, imagine that someone is sending short bursts
>>of light. He turns on his flashlight (pointed vertically)
>>for a brief time t_on, then turns it off for a much longer
>>time t_off. Then he turns it on for time t_on and turns it
>>off for time t_off. Etc.
>>
>>The light "beam" in this case will consist of a number of
>>short pulses of light. The beam is vertical, since each
>>pulse is directly below the preceding pulse. That is true
>>in every frame moving horizontally relative to the flashlight.
>>However, the path of each *pulse* is not vertical. In a frame
>>in which the flashlight is moving at speed v, each pulse will
>>be moving at a velocity with components
>>
>> v_x = v
>> v_y = c square-root(1-(v/c)^2)
>
>How is it that this doesn't apply to bullets?
It does! The general formula is this: If in one
frame, an object is travelling vertically at
speed v1, then in a frame moving horizontally
at speed v relative to the first, the object
will be travelling with velocity
v_x = v
v_y = v1 square-root(1-(v/c)^2)
>Say you emit a series of narrow laser pulses one metre long.
>They move at c in and only in the direction of that
>length.
That's not true.
>They reach a particular height in the same time IN ALL FRAMES.
That's not true.
>By what peculiar stretch of the imagination would one want to
>conclude that they move at c in any other direction?
Because that is what both theory and experiment shows.
>>>A photon must have a size. It must have an 'axis of wave
>>>symmetry' along which (and only along which) it moves at c,
>>>as per maxwell.
>>
>>Yes, if the beam as a whole is moving horizontally at speed v,
>>then each photon in the beam is moving at velocity v_x = v,
>>v_y = c square-root(1-(v/c)^2). The speed of the photon
>>is square-root(v_x^2 + v_y^2) = square-root(v^2 + c^2(1-(v/c)^2)) = c.
>
>But that is completely illogical.
You're confusing logic with whatever confirms your intuitions.
Your intuitions are wrong. Relativity is contrary to your intuitions,
but it isn't illogical. Everything about it is derivable from
well-supported hypotheses.
>There is no basis for this conclusion whatsoever.
On the contrary, there is no basis for *your* statements.
The basis for relativity is experimental results plus the
need to reconcile the successful theories of Newtonian
mechanics and Maxwell's equations.
>It does not explain how the time taken to attain a particular
>vertical height is constant for all frames.
Yes, it does. The Lorentz transformations explain exactly
how light can have the same velocity c in all inertial reference
frames.
>>The light beam is irrelevant. Each pulse of light moves diagonally,
>>at speed c.
>
>Not so. Each pulse traverses a particular vertical height, IN ALL
>FRAMES, in time h/c.
No, it doesn't. That's contradicted by both experiment
and theory. It's wrong.
>>>Photons don't follow each other up the same diagonal.
>>
>>Each photon has exactly the same velocity in the x-direction, v.
>>Each photon has exactly the same velocity in the y-direction,
>>c square-root(1-(v/c)^2).
>
>They are not photons, they are dimensionless points representing the paths of
>infinitesimal elements of photons. They move diagonally at sqrt(c^2+v^2).
>
>Why is this so hard to get across?
It's not that what you're saying is hard to get across. It's that
what you're saying is FALSE.
>>So what? Each element travels at speed c along a diagonal
>>with the same x- and y- components.
>
>Wherever did you get that idea?
That's the prediction of Maxwell's equations. Where did you
get your false idea that the velocity of light depends on the motion
of the source?
>These elements are nothing. They don't have properties.
>They are not light. They are just loci. Plots on a graph!
>Why the hell should they move at c, for christs sake?
Why the hell should they move at square-root(c^2 + v^2)?
Okay, I think that we understand each other. If light
travels at speed c in all frames, then time dilation,
etc. follows (as derived by Einstein). If the speed
of light depends on the speed of the source, then
you're right, and Einstein's wrong. The only way to
decide is by experiment. Oh! I forgot. The experiment's
already been done. Einstein is right, and you're wrong.
Too bad.
>>Because pulses of light travel at speed c, according to
>>both observation and Maxwell's equations. The speed of a
>>pulse of light is independent of the motion of the source.
>
>According to Maxwell, they travel at c in the direction of
>their axes of wave symmetry.
Maxwell's equations don't say any such thing. Now you're
just spouting out and out falsehoods.
>>That's contradicted both by experiment, and by Maxwell's
>>equations. It is false in ether theory, and it is false
>>in Special Relativity. It seems only clear to you, and
>>there is good evidence that you don't know beans about it.
>
>Tell me about any experiment which has falsified this Daryl?
The speed of light has been measured numerous times, in different
experiments. It is independent of the speed of the source.
Also, Maxwell's equations predict that the speed of light is
independent of the speed of the source. So both theory and
experiment show that you are wrong.
You are spouting complete and utter falsehoods.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3bde642f...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3bdf39a3...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
You don't agree??? That really baffles me.
Nothing what-so-ever is coming from Maxwell here.
No one is talking about waves or wave axes. Just a bullet and a
simple flash of light.
This is very elementary geometry.
Maybe if I explain what they mean?
I'll try one more time:
We start looking at a few events as seen in some frame S
when are bullet and a light signal are sent in the +y-direction.
(0,0,0) means that something starts at the location with
coordinates x=0, y=0 at time 0
(0,1,1/b) means that the bullet arrives at the location with
coordinates x=0, y=1 at time 1/b (i.o.w. it has speed b)
(0,1,1/c) means that the light signal arrives at the location with
coordinates x=0, y=1 at time 1/c (i.o.w. it has speed c)
Now in the moving frame S'(x',y',t') these same 3 events have
other coordinates because S' is moving away from S and there
is a time difference between the 3 events.
If S' moves along the +x-axis with speed v w.r.t. S, and if the
origins of both "collide" when both clocks read 0, then
the new coordinates look like this (using classical physics):
{ x' = x-vt
{ y' = y
{ t' = t
These equations are called "the Galilean Transformation".
In convenient shorthand they can be written:
( x, y, t ) ===Galileo==> ( x-vt, y, t )
and thus for our 3 events we get:
( 0, 0, 0 ) ===Galileo==> ( 0, 0, 0 )
( 0, 1, 1/b ) ===Galileo==> ( -v/b, 1, 1/b )
( 0, 1, 1/c ) ===Galileo==> ( -v/c, 1, 1/c )
The "relationships" like the (x,y,t) ==> (x',y',t') hold for *all*
the events you can imagine, i.e. all locations (x,y) at all times t.
The 3 specific ones hold only for the bullet and the light signal
that go vertically along the +y-axis with speeds b and c.
This is what we call standard Galilean/Newtonian Relativity.
It doesn't ask for agreement on anyone's part: this is just
basic definitions and a simple example.
If you *really* insist upon not "agreeing" on this, you have to
provide your transformation equations.
Yes, this is exactly what the Galilean view predicts.
Look:
( 0, 0, 0 ) ===Galileo==> ( 0, 0, 0 )
( 0, 1, 1/c ) ===Galileo==> ( -v/c, 1, 1/c )
so for the frame S (the left side coordinates):
C_x = delta_x / delta_t = (0 - 0)/(1/c - 0) = 0
C_y = delta_y / delta_t = (1 - 0)/(1/c - 0) = c
and thus:
C = sqrt( C_x^2 + C_y^2 ) = sqrt(0+c^2) = c
For the frame S' (the right side coordinates):
C'_x = delta_x' / delta_t' = (-v/c - 0)/(1/c - 0) = -v
C'_y = delta_y' / delta_t' = (1 - 0)/(1/c - 0) = c
and thus:
C' = sqrt( v'_x^2 + v'_y^2 ) = sqrt(v^2+c^2)
Which is what you claim, right?
So you *use* the Galilean relativity system.
How can you not agree with it then?
Of course it is purely observational. What *else* would it be?
Physics is observing, experimenting and measuring, and then creating
so-called laws that describe the results of these activities.
When we say
"that ruler shrinks",
we actually mean
"if we would measure that rule, we would see that it is shorter".
When we say
"your clock runs slower",
we actually mean
"when we compare the times that you and I measure between
two events, then your time is longer than mine"
Now, if you are tempted to object with your twin-paradox (like
you have done on all previous occasions), just revisit:
http://groups.google.com/groups?sourceid=navclient&q=author%3Ahenry+author%3Awilson+%22increase+velocity%22
and look at the replies again. No need to start all over.
> The moving observer's grid of clocks simply sees a rotating wheel moving
> sideways.
> >
> >> >
> >> >Can you please fill in the question marks?
> >> >I must say I am very curious.
> >> >
> >> >Dirk Vdm
> >>
> >> If you like I will send you a Vbasic program animating the effect if you cannot
> >> plot it for yourself, Dirk. Plot the bullets from the machine gun. that is
> >> easiest.
> >> Do you have VB on your computer?
> >
> >I have MS Visual Basic.
> >You can send me the program, I hope it doesn't have too many
> >goto and gosub statements?
>
> I've made them into .exe programs. Definitely no viruses and easy to run. Just
> open them up.
> I will send them soon.
No executables. Complete source only. You may *add* the .exe so
I can run it on an isolated test system. ut I will not do that without the
source.
It could be interesting for both of us.
I won't have much trouble converting from Vbasic to Visual Basic.
I have done harder convertions professionaly before ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Russell Blackadar
>
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 13:23:05 -0800, Russell Blackadar <rus...@REMOVEmdli.com>
> wrote:
[snip exchange with Dirk van de moortel]
> >Right, the path of each photon is not vertical. Henry does not seem
> >to understand that *that* is what matters in the theory that he
> >seeks to overturn. Instead, Henry has fixated on the irrelevant
> >(thought true) fact that Daryl describes above; what's worse, Henry
> >believes himself to be the *only* person to understand it. Daryl
> >and (before him) Paul B. Anderson amply prove that latter belief to
> >be untrue, but Henry lives in his own world.
>
> Oh please Russell, Not so at all!
>
> I am quite aware that each infinitesimal element of each photon moves along its
> own infinitesimally thin diagonal path in the frame of a moving observer. No
Of course you are. Did I say otherwise? Read what I wrote again.
The problem, I repeat, is that you think you have discovered something
important when in fact (1) it is a trivial and well known effect, and
(2) it is completely irrelevant to the timing of light signals and to
interference effects in particular. I apologize for my bluntness, but
frankly you have wasted a lot of your time for nothing.
> other element follows it up the same diagonal. (that's not strictly true if the
> photon has width).
> Light moves at c along - and only along - its axis of wave symmetry.
>
> My entire point is that no one in their right minds would conclude that such an
> infinitesimal element of a photon constitutes a light beam moving diagonally at
> c!
The photon is emitted at point A at time 0 and is detected at point B
at time L_AB/c, and the line between these points is diagonal. What
*would* a person in his right mind conclude, Henry?
> The bloody point obviously moves at sqrt(c^2+v^2), just like bullets and
> raindrops.
*In theory*, *if* you assume Galilean relativity and the ballistic
theory of light. But not in experiment. So, people in their right
minds have concluded that that theory is falsified and have looked
elsewhere for a better theory.
We've been over this ground many times before. It has ceased to
amuse me. I don't read your posts any more, unless they are in
response to me. (And in the future, perhaps not even then.)
>
> Pual Anderson hasn't been heard of on this NG since I converted him.
> I understand he is doing a PhD in antiSR!
As I said, you live in your own world. This comment about Paul
is proof enough! I will leave you to your world, Henry.
Henry Wilson
Here I am telling you why gamma is wrong and you keep on using it in equations.
You are jumping the gun. Go right back to basics.
Henry Wilson
>He...@the.edge says...
>>
>>On 30 Oct 2001 06:56:29 -0800, da...@cogentex.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
>
>>>Since t' < t, it takes longer for the light to rise a vertical
>>>distance of L in the S frame than it does in the S' frame.
>>
>>No daryl. that cannot be correct.
>>consider this:
>>""""
>>Wilson's observers all have arrays of synched clocks which can detect light
>>reaching them.
>>
>>C C C C C C A A A A A A A A
>>
>>C C C C C C A A A A A A A A
>>---->v
>>C C C C C C A A A A A A A A
>>
>>C C C C C C A A A A A A A A
>>
>>Assume observer C's grid is moving past A's. A emits a vertical beam of light
>>from the bottom row.
>>
>>Do you not agree that the beam will take the same time to reach the top
>>row IN BOTH FRAMES?
>
>The time shown on C's clocks when the beam reaches the top will not
>be equal to the time shown on A's clocks.
Oh! And why not Daryl? They are all pre-synched remember.
>
>>Time dilation has everything to do with the time taken for the
>>beam to reach a certain height in both frames.
>
>Which is a shorter time for the frame in which the light
>elements are travelling vertically, and is a longer time
>for the frame in which the light elements are travelling
>diagonally.
The beam is exactly the same in both frames.
Vertical height is the same in both frames.
Therefore the beam takes the same time to reach the top, in both frames.
>
>>In other words, there is no need for time dilation at all.
>
>It happens. It's an observed fact.
Is it? Some anomalies regarding TIME seem to be observed - but are they related
to SR or is there an entirely different physical explanation?
>
>>>Time dilation for light clocks follows from the fact that
>>>light travels at speed c in all frames.
>>
>>When was that proved?
>
>You can never prove a physical theory. But every prediction
>made by the theory of relativity has been tested and found
>to be correct. In contrast, your idea that light travels
>at speed square-root(v^2 + c^2) for a source moving at
>speed v has been demonstrated not to be correct.
I didn't say light travels at that speed. I said light always travels at c in
the direction of its axis.
I stressed that the points traveling at sqrt(v^2 + c^2) DID NOT constitute
light. They are merely 'points on a graph'. They can travel at any speed.
>
>>>This doesn't have anything to do with *photons*. Instead
>>>of photons, imagine that someone is sending short bursts
>>>of light. He turns on his flashlight (pointed vertically)
>>>for a brief time t_on, then turns it off for a much longer
>>>time t_off. Then he turns it on for time t_on and turns it
>>>off for time t_off. Etc.
>>>
>>>The light "beam" in this case will consist of a number of
>>>short pulses of light. The beam is vertical, since each
>>>pulse is directly below the preceding pulse. That is true
>>>in every frame moving horizontally relative to the flashlight.
>>>However, the path of each *pulse* is not vertical. In a frame
>>>in which the flashlight is moving at speed v, each pulse will
>>>be moving at a velocity with components
>>>
>>> v_x = v
>>> v_y = c square-root(1-(v/c)^2)
>>
>>How is it that this doesn't apply to bullets?
>
>It does! The general formula is this: If in one
>frame, an object is travelling vertically at
>speed v1, then in a frame moving horizontally
>at speed v relative to the first, the object
>will be travelling with velocity
>
> v_x = v
> v_y = v1 square-root(1-(v/c)^2)
Daryl, please rethink that terrible mistake before you are extremely
embarassed!!
>
>>Say you emit a series of narrow laser pulses one metre long.
>>They move at c in and only in the direction of that
>>length.
>
>That's not true.
>
>>They reach a particular height in the same time IN ALL FRAMES.
>
>That's not true.
Of course it is true. Why do you people cling to the notion that Einstein was
infallible when his mistakes are so obvious?
He postulated certain principles and then constructed a very complicated theory
which described events according to those postulates. Because some predictions
of the theory turned out to be approximately correct, all the suckers came in
and bought the whole thing.
>
>>By what peculiar stretch of the imagination would one want to
>>conclude that they move at c in any other direction?
>
>Because that is what both theory and experiment shows.
After your glaring mistake above it isn't surprising you should say that.
>
>>>>A photon must have a size. It must have an 'axis of wave
>>>>symmetry' along which (and only along which) it moves at c,
>>>>as per maxwell.
>>>
>>>Yes, if the beam as a whole is moving horizontally at speed v,
>>>then each photon in the beam is moving at velocity v_x = v,
>>>v_y = c square-root(1-(v/c)^2). The speed of the photon
>>>is square-root(v_x^2 + v_y^2) = square-root(v^2 + c^2(1-(v/c)^2)) = c.
>>
>>But that is completely illogical.
>
>You're confusing logic with whatever confirms your intuitions.
>Your intuitions are wrong. Relativity is contrary to your intuitions,
>but it isn't illogical. Everything about it is derivable from
>well-supported hypotheses.
The theory follows logically from illogical postulates. Where does that put it?
>
>>There is no basis for this conclusion whatsoever.
>
>On the contrary, there is no basis for *your* statements.
>The basis for relativity is experimental results plus the
>need to reconcile the successful theories of Newtonian
>mechanics and Maxwell's equations.
You have just made an elementary mistake in velocity addition, above, Daryl.
You should clear that up before you get into deeper trouble.
>
>>It does not explain how the time taken to attain a particular
>>vertical height is constant for all frames.
>
>Yes, it does. The Lorentz transformations explain exactly
>how light can have the same velocity c in all inertial reference
>frames.
It keeps the ratio of units L/t constant. But then you could multiply both L and
t by ANY function of velocity or anything else and keep c constant.
>
>>>The light beam is irrelevant. Each pulse of light moves diagonally,
>>>at speed c.
>>
>>Not so. Each pulse traverses a particular vertical height, IN ALL
>>FRAMES, in time h/c.
>
>No, it doesn't. That's contradicted by both experiment
>and theory. It's wrong.
Sorry Daryl, you have made a huge mistake above.
>
>>>>Photons don't follow each other up the same diagonal.
>>>
>>>Each photon has exactly the same velocity in the x-direction, v.
>>>Each photon has exactly the same velocity in the y-direction,
>>>c square-root(1-(v/c)^2).
>>
>>They are not photons, they are dimensionless points representing the paths of
>>infinitesimal elements of photons. They move diagonally at sqrt(c^2+v^2).
>>
>>Why is this so hard to get across?
>
>It's not that what you're saying is hard to get across. It's that
>what you're saying is FALSE.
It is not false. You have made a huge mistake in your velocity addition above.
>
>>>So what? Each element travels at speed c along a diagonal
>>>with the same x- and y- components.
>>
>>Wherever did you get that idea?
>
>That's the prediction of Maxwell's equations. Where did you
>get your false idea that the velocity of light depends on the motion
>of the source?
Don't bring that into it, yet.
Maxwell's theory only says that the velocity is c in the direction of the axis
of the waves. I assume you know what I mean by the 'axis'.
>
>>These elements are nothing. They don't have properties.
>>They are not light. They are just loci. Plots on a graph!
>>Why the hell should they move at c, for christs sake?
>
>Why the hell should they move at square-root(c^2 + v^2)?
>
>Okay, I think that we understand each other. If light
>travels at speed c in all frames, then time dilation,
>etc. follows (as derived by Einstein). If the speed
>of light depends on the speed of the source, then
>you're right, and Einstein's wrong. The only way to
>decide is by experiment. Oh! I forgot. The experiment's
>already been done. Einstein is right, and you're wrong.
No you are getting confused now. forget source dependency, that is another
issue.
>
>Too bad.
>
>>>Because pulses of light travel at speed c, according to
>>>both observation and Maxwell's equations. The speed of a
>>>pulse of light is independent of the motion of the source.
>>
>>According to Maxwell, they travel at c in the direction of
>>their axes of wave symmetry.
>
>Maxwell's equations don't say any such thing. Now you're
>just spouting out and out falsehoods.
I'm spouting something that nobody has been game enough to say before.
>
>>>That's contradicted both by experiment, and by Maxwell's
>>>equations. It is false in ether theory, and it is false
>>>in Special Relativity. It seems only clear to you, and
>>>there is good evidence that you don't know beans about it.
>>
>>Tell me about any experiment which has falsified this Daryl?
>
>The speed of light has been measured numerous times, in different
>experiments. It is independent of the speed of the source.
>Also, Maxwell's equations predict that the speed of light is
>independent of the speed of the source. So both theory and
>experiment show that you are wrong.
All accurate light speed measurements have been made using round trip methods,
where the source and observer are at rest wrt eachother.
>
>You are spouting complete and utter falsehoods.
I would never do that Daryl. Now please attend to your very basic blunder above.