An Embarrassing Question for Relativists
Henry Wilson DSc
O1 and S2 is connected to O2. O2 is moving at v relative to O1.
O1----------------------------------------------------S1
v<- O2---------------------------------------S2
According to SR,
light from S1 moves at c towards O1.
Light from S2 moves at c towards O2.
In other words, the CLOSING SPEED of light from S2 on O2 is c.
However the CLOSING SPEED of light from S1 on O2 is c-v.
So we have a situation in which two separate rays of light CLOSE ON O2 at
different speeds. How can that happen?
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
Inertial
news:2c9he5pgesj73fcg6...@4ax.com...
The only one feeling embarrassment should be you
Lets all have a look at how Henry is going to embarrass himself this time
and show once again he doesn't understand the physics he claims to ...
> Consider two light sources and two observers as shown below. S1 is
> connected to
> O1 and S2 is connected to O2. O2 is moving at v relative to O1.
Do you mean physically connected by some material object .. like a being on
a train? (SR loves trains)
> O1----------------------------------------------------S1
> v<- O2---------------------------------------S2
>
> According to SR,
>
> light from S1 moves at c towards O1.
Yes .. although the closing speed between light O1 is frame dependent. It
is only c in the frame of S1 and O1
> Light from S2 moves at c towards O2.
Yes .. although the closing speed between light O2 is frame dependent. It
is only c in the frame of S2 and O2
> In other words, the CLOSING SPEED of light from S2 on O2 is c.
In the frame of S2 and O2, but not in the frame of S1 and O1.
> However the CLOSING SPEED of light from S1 on O2 is c-v.
In the frame of S1 and O1, but not in the frame of S2 and O2.
The closing speed between light and an object (in the objects rest frame) is
always c
Similarly the separating speed between light and its source (in the source's
rest frame) is always c
> So we have a situation in which two separate rays of light CLOSE ON O2 at
> different speeds.
Only one per frame .. you are talking about two different observers
calculating the closing speed, as well as two different rays of light.
Of course, there are an infinite number of closing speeds between light and
some given object. One speed in each frame of reference
> How can that happen?
Because light always has a speed of c in every frame of reference .. but the
object O2 has different speeds in each frame of reference. As closing speed
is just a vector addition/subtraction, that means you'll get a different
closing speed in each frame.
If you were as educated as you pretend to be, you'd know all this and not
advertise your ignorance as you continue to do.
Bruce Richmond
> Consider two light sources and two observers as shown below. S1 is connected to
> O1 and S2 is connected to O2. O2 is moving at v relative to O1.
>
> O1----------------------------------------------------S1
> v<- O2---------------------------------------S2
>
> According to SR,
>
> light from S1 moves at c towards O1.
>
> Light from S2 moves at c towards O2.
> In other words, the CLOSING SPEED of light from S2 on O2 is c.
>
> However the CLOSING SPEED of light from S1 on O2 is c-v.
>
> So we have a situation in which two separate rays of light CLOSE ON O2 at
> different speeds. How can that happen?
You are trying to make measurements in both frames using the time
coordinates from just one system. Give each frame its own coordinate
system and the problem goes away.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
Hardly.
The two beams have different closing speeds as calculated by the same observer.
Henry Wilson DSc
>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:2c9he5pgesj73fcg6...@4ax.com...
>
>The only one feeling embarrassment should be you
>
>Lets all have a look at how Henry is going to embarrass himself this time
>and show once again he doesn't understand the physics he claims to ...
>
>> Consider two light sources and two observers as shown below. S1 is
>> connected to
>> O1 and S2 is connected to O2. O2 is moving at v relative to O1.
>
>Do you mean physically connected by some material object .. like a being on
>a train? (SR loves trains)
>
>> O1----------------------------------------------------S1
>> v<- O2---------------------------------------S2
>>
>> According to SR,
>>
>> light from S1 moves at c towards O1.
>
>Yes .. although the closing speed between light O1 is frame dependent. It
>is only c in the frame of S1 and O1
>
>> Light from S2 moves at c towards O2.
>
>Yes .. although the closing speed between light O2 is frame dependent. It
>is only c in the frame of S2 and O2
>
>> In other words, the CLOSING SPEED of light from S2 on O2 is c.
>
>In the frame of S2 and O2, but not in the frame of S1 and O1.
>
>> However the CLOSING SPEED of light from S1 on O2 is c-v.
>
>In the frame of S1 and O1, but not in the frame of S2 and O2.
Yes we know that .....what about in the frame of a third observer?
>
>The closing speed between light and an object (in the objects rest frame) is
>always c
>
>Similarly the separating speed between light and its source (in the source's
>rest frame) is always c
I just told you that.
>> So we have a situation in which two separate rays of light CLOSE ON O2 at
>> different speeds.
>
>Only one per frame .. you are talking about two different observers
>calculating the closing speed, as well as two different rays of light.
Hey moron, the third observer sees two light rays closing on S2 at different
speeds.
>Of course, there are an infinite number of closing speeds between light and
>some given object. One speed in each frame of reference
hey moron, I'll tell you something else.
There is an infinite number of relative speeds that light can possess.
>> How can that happen?
>
>Because light always has a speed of c in every frame of reference .. but the
>object O2 has different speeds in each frame of reference. As closing speed
>is just a vector addition/subtraction, that means you'll get a different
>closing speed in each frame.
Hey moron, what about the third observer?
How can he determine that two rays can have different approach speeds towards
the same object?
>If you were as educated as you pretend to be, you'd know all this and not
>advertise your ignorance as you continue to do.
If you weren't such a moron, you would understand the question and realise how
stupid your answers sound..
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
news:4sphe5568i08tb619...@4ax.com...
Wrong. you stated closing speed form two different observers .. S1 and S2
If you only consider one observer, you only get one closing speed for a
given ray of light (and rays of light with the same direction wrt the
object) and any given object.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
news:auphe5pqkddf46qh5...@4ax.com...
What third observer .. there was no third observer in your example. But if
you want to nominate one, feel free., It doesn't introduce and problem or
contradiction.
>>The closing speed between light and an object (in the objects rest frame)
>>is
>>always c
>>
>>Similarly the separating speed between light and its source (in the
>>source's
>>rest frame) is always c
>
> I just told you that.
Good.. Just making sure, as you have problems in understanding things
related to SR .. either that or you lie a lot. Maybe both.
>>> So we have a situation in which two separate rays of light CLOSE ON O2
>>> at
>>> different speeds.
>>
>>Only one per frame .. you are talking about two different observers
>>calculating the closing speed, as well as two different rays of light.
>
> Hey moron, the third observer
What third observer? Maybe you should describe this third observer and how
he is moving wrt O1 and O2 (the only observers you mentioned in your
problem)
> sees two light rays closing on S2 at different
> speeds.
Nope .. given your diagram no observer see that. Because the light from S1
and S2 are travelling in the same directions wrt O2. if the light was from
different directions, then you could different closing speeds. Oh.. and I
think you meant to say 'O2' there
>>Of course, there are an infinite number of closing speeds between light
>>and
>>some given object. One speed in each frame of reference
>
> hey moron, I'll tell you something else.
Should be amusing
> There is an infinite number of relative speeds that light can possess.
Nope. Not in SR (which is the context in which you posed the problem)
>>> How can that happen?
>>
>>Because light always has a speed of c in every frame of reference .. but
>>the
>>object O2 has different speeds in each frame of reference. As closing
>>speed
>>is just a vector addition/subtraction, that means you'll get a different
>>closing speed in each frame.
>
> Hey moron, what about the third observer?
What third observer? Nominate one.
> How can he determine that two rays can have different approach speeds
> towards
> the same object?
Why not .. the light has a speed of c, but not the same velocity (ie it can
have different directions). So if light is approaching an object from
opposite directions, and some third observer sees that object as having a
speed v (in that same direction as one of the rays of light) then the two
separating speeds will be c+v and c-v. With other directions of light wrt
the moving object, the observer will measure different closing speeds.
In your case, with the rays from S1 and S2 travelling in the same direction
wrt O2, every third observer will measure the same closing speed between O2
and both rays.
>>If you were as educated as you pretend to be, you'd know all this and not
>>advertise your ignorance as you continue to do.
>
> If you weren't such a moron,
I'm not
> you would understand the question
I do .. you don't understand your own question .. and now you see that your
original question was not what you thought, you'd changing it by introducing
some third observer .. but even that doesn't salvage your mistake.
> and realise how
> stupid your answers sound..
That you think the correct answers are stupid shows your own ignorance.
Thanks for continuing to advertise that ignorance of yours .. not that we
needed any further proof of it.
Henry Wilson DSc
>
>What third observer? Maybe you should describe this third observer and how
>he is moving wrt O1 and O2 (the only observers you mentioned in your
>problem)
ANY third observer, moron.
Hey moron, you have often said yourself that a third observer will determine a
closing speed of c-v for S1's light on O2.
>>>If you were as educated as you pretend to be, you'd know all this and not
>>>advertise your ignorance as you continue to do.
>>
>> If you weren't such a moron,
>
>I'm not
>
>> you would understand the question
>
>I do .. you don't understand your own question .. and now you see that your
>original question was not what you thought, you'd changing it by introducing
>some third observer .. but even that doesn't salvage your mistake.
You can introduce as many bloody observers as I like.
Each will determine different closing speeds for the two rays on O2.
>> and realise how
>> stupid your answers sound..
>
>That you think the correct answers are stupid shows your own ignorance.
>Thanks for continuing to advertise that ignorance of yours .. not that we
>needed any further proof of it.
Wake up moron. Your 'closing speed' of light is its REAL speed.
Henry Wilson DSc
Hey moron, can't youn read properly?
>
>If you only consider one observer, you only get one closing speed for a
>given ray of light (and rays of light with the same direction wrt the
>object) and any given object.
Who said.
YOU have often stated that closing speeds don't have to equal c.
Inertial
I described what any third observer would observe already. And have done so
again.
Yeup. Exactly. Every observer finds the same closing speed between O2 and
the light from S1 and S2. That speed will be c-v, where v is the speed of
O2 relative to the observer. So each observer will have a different value
for that closing speed.
>>>>If you were as educated as you pretend to be, you'd know all this and
>>>>not
>>>>advertise your ignorance as you continue to do.
>>>
>>> If you weren't such a moron,
>>
>>I'm not
>>
>>> you would understand the question
>>
>>I do .. you don't understand your own question .. and now you see that
>>your
>>original question was not what you thought, you'd changing it by
>>introducing
>>some third observer .. but even that doesn't salvage your mistake.
>
> You can introduce as many bloody observers as I like.
Fine .. and they will all find the closing speeds between the light from S1
and O2 and the light from S2 and O2 are the same
> Each will determine different closing speeds for the two rays on O2.
The closing speed of light from S1 and O2 will be the same as the closing
speed of light from S2 and O2 for all observers; of course, each different
observer will have a different value for what that closing speed is, because
O2 travels at different speeds for them.
>>> and realise how
>>> stupid your answers sound..
>>
>>That you think the correct answers are stupid shows your own ignorance.
>>Thanks for continuing to advertise that ignorance of yours .. not that we
>>needed any further proof of it.
>
> Wake up moron. Your 'closing speed' of light is its REAL speed.
No .. its not. The real speed of anything in a given frame is the ratio of
how far it travels in that frame to how long it takes to travel it. It has
nothing to do with any other object(s) that may be moving in that frame.
Do you really want to keep going with this an advertise your ignorance
further? It is very funny.
Inertial
Yes .. just fine thanks.
>>If you only consider one observer, you only get one closing speed for a
>>given ray of light (and rays of light with the same direction wrt the
>>object) and any given object.
>
> Who said.
SR
> YOU have often stated that closing speeds don't have to equal c.
I didn't say they did
Come on .. you're appearing more stupid with each post .. keep 'em coming.
xxein
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
xxein: Yeah but... Why should a moving observer have the same
timerate as another? We've already proven that false. And the
coordinates change accordingly. What it boils down to is the need for
a velocity addition formula. But that is a mathematic without a shred
of the physic for how it occurs.
Nobody seems to be able to find the physical cause for this except
me. I learned to deal with the physic a long time ago. No pansy-ass
theories that depend on a subjective observation belong to
understanding the physic itself. They can fortify a math/physics but
destroy the real essence of the physic.
Everyone would like me to prove that, wouldn't they? Well, I could
except for the prior belief in almost everything that has been
accepted as a physics. I would have to present a new "Principia". I
don't have the skill or patience to do that unless someone of logic
and writing ability would pick my brain to see the real physical
correspondence.
Until then, I remain very confident in my knowledge of the physic.
There are hidden subtleties that were never accounted for in the
present physics (of any/all stripes). Despite any of my past posts
that were wrong, seemed to be wrong, misunderstood or were not
understood, there is a physical logic that I understand to underlie
it. I can goof up in posts sometimes depending upon beer consumption
and what I respond to. But the underlying physic is well understood
by me (until quantum effects). But, hey, what do they have to say
about gravity? Is there a physical cause to be conscriped in anything
besides an observer math?
I was not afraid to guess beyond the off-the-shelf physics. I
questioned every source and belief of how the physics works. I know
what physics looks like. But I had to know why it looks like that. I
had a 10 yr. period of extreme logic that I can never duplicate again
(don't even ask). I found the general substance (esp. gravity) and it
explains why we observe as we do to think we have made a physics that
substitues for the real understanding of the physic.
It was gravity that threw all my earlier logic into the trash. It had
to be accounted for in the same manner of physical logic. I
succeeded. Nobody will get to know this, of course, because we have a
MATH PHYSICS that seems adequate like in any balewire needed to make
something work again for new problems or discovery. It is really
quite adequate in the subjective sense.
Still not in the physical sense though. I hope your sense of logic
supercedes what you seem willing to believe for adequacy. I'm not
picking on you. I'm just making a statement. And with that, I wish
you well.
rotchm
> O1 and S2 is connected to O2. O2 is moving at v relative to O1.
>
> O1----------------------------------------------------S1
> v<- O2---------------------------------------S2
>
> According to SR,
>
> light from S1 moves at c towards O1.
As measured by who? ( relative to which frame)?
> Light from S2 moves at c towards O2.
Wrt which observer ( frame)?
> In other words, the CLOSING SPEED of light from S2 on O2 is c.
The closing speed of which two things and wrt which frame?
Oh, you mean the closing speed of the light from S2 and O2 wrt O2's
frame. Ok, in that case its ( c - 0) wrt O2 = c.
> However the CLOSING SPEED of light from S1 on O2 is c-v.
The closing speed of which two things and wrt which frame? You are
unclear here.
Anser that and you should find your answer/error.
Henry Wilson DSc
Hey moron, are you aware of how big a moron you are?
>>>>>If you were as educated as you pretend to be, you'd know all this and
>>>>>not
>>>>>advertise your ignorance as you continue to do.
>>>>
>>>> If you weren't such a moron,
>>>
>>>I'm not
>>>
>>>> you would understand the question
>>>
>>>I do .. you don't understand your own question .. and now you see that
>>>your
>>>original question was not what you thought, you'd changing it by
>>>introducing
>>>some third observer .. but even that doesn't salvage your mistake.
>>
>> You can introduce as many bloody observers as I like.
>
>Fine .. and they will all find the closing speeds between the light from S1
>and O2 and the light from S2 and O2 are the same
Hey moron, you just said they will all have a different value.
>> Each will determine different closing speeds for the two rays on O2.
>
>The closing speed of light from S1 and O2 will be the same as the closing
>speed of light from S2 and O2 for all observers; of course, each different
>observer will have a different value for what that closing speed is, because
>O2 travels at different speeds for them.
Hey moron, you have completely lost it, now.
>>>> and realise how
>>>> stupid your answers sound..
>>>
>>>That you think the correct answers are stupid shows your own ignorance.
>>>Thanks for continuing to advertise that ignorance of yours .. not that we
>>>needed any further proof of it.
>>
>> Wake up moron. Your 'closing speed' of light is its REAL speed.
>
>No .. its not. The real speed of anything in a given frame is the ratio of
>how far it travels in that frame to how long it takes to travel it. It has
>nothing to do with any other object(s) that may be moving in that frame.
>
>Do you really want to keep going with this an advertise your ignorance
>further? It is very funny.
Watching you make a total fool of yourself is indeed very funny.
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Oct 28, 4:38�pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>> Consider two light sources and two observers as shown below. S1 is connected to
>> O1 and S2 is connected to O2. O2 is moving at v relative to O1.
>>
>> O1----------------------------------------------------S1
>> � � � � � � � � v<- �O2---------------------------------------S2
>>
>> According to SR,
>>
>> light from S1 moves at c towards O1.
>
>
>As measured by who? ( relative to which frame)?
>
>
>> Light from S2 moves at c towards O2.
>
>
>Wrt which observer ( frame)?
>
>> In other words, the CLOSING SPEED of light from S2 on O2 is c.
>
>The closing speed of which two things and wrt which frame?
>Oh, you mean the closing speed of the light from S2 and O2 wrt O2's
>frame. Ok, in that case its ( c - 0) wrt O2 = c.
great, your brain cell finally fired...
>> However the �CLOSING SPEED of light from S1 on O2 is c-v.
>
>
>The closing speed of which two things and wrt which frame? You are
>unclear here.
>Anser that and you should find your answer/error.
Read the other messages and stop stalling for time.....
Henry Wilson DSc
I take that to mean you cannot fault my revelation and that you are now ready
to accept that SR is total nonsense....
rotchm
Dont be a coward by brushing off the question to other discussions.
Answer it.
Inertial
So that's your response to physics arguments. Typical.
>>>>>>If you were as educated as you pretend to be, you'd know all this and
>>>>>>not
>>>>>>advertise your ignorance as you continue to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you weren't such a moron,
>>>>
>>>>I'm not
>>>>
>>>>> you would understand the question
>>>>
>>>>I do .. you don't understand your own question .. and now you see that
>>>>your
>>>>original question was not what you thought, you'd changing it by
>>>>introducing
>>>>some third observer .. but even that doesn't salvage your mistake.
>>>
>>> You can introduce as many bloody observers as I like.
>>
>>Fine .. and they will all find the closing speeds between the light from
>>S1
>>and O2 and the light from S2 and O2 are the same
>
> Hey moron, you just said they will all have a different value.
No .. I did not, I said they would all find the two closing speeds are the
same. What same value it is depends on the observer. Please .. try to
read before making yourself look like a fool again.
>>> Each will determine different closing speeds for the two rays on O2.
>>
>>The closing speed of light from S1 and O2 will be the same as the closing
>>speed of light from S2 and O2 for all observers; of course, each different
>>observer will have a different value for what that closing speed is,
>>because
>>O2 travels at different speeds for them.
>
> Hey moron, you have completely lost it, now.
So .. you can't understand physics or logic .. no a surprise
>>>>> and realise how
>>>>> stupid your answers sound..
>>>>
>>>>That you think the correct answers are stupid shows your own ignorance.
>>>>Thanks for continuing to advertise that ignorance of yours .. not that
>>>>we
>>>>needed any further proof of it.
>>>
>>> Wake up moron. Your 'closing speed' of light is its REAL speed.
>>
>>No .. its not. The real speed of anything in a given frame is the ratio
>>of
>>how far it travels in that frame to how long it takes to travel it. It
>>has
>>nothing to do with any other object(s) that may be moving in that frame.
>>
>>Do you really want to keep going with this an advertise your ignorance
>>further? It is very funny.
>
> Watching you make a total fool of yourself is indeed very funny.
You'll be waiting a while for that to happen. Keep going .. you're becoming
more silly on each post
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
news:l24ie59iop5pfd5cv...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:31:34 -0700 (PDT), rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 28, 4:38 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>> Consider two light sources and two observers as shown below. S1 is
>>> connected to
>>> O1 and S2 is connected to O2. O2 is moving at v relative to O1.
>>>
>>> O1----------------------------------------------------S1
>>> v<- O2---------------------------------------S2
>>>
>>> According to SR,
>>>
>>> light from S1 moves at c towards O1.
>>
>>
>>As measured by who? ( relative to which frame)?
>>
>>
>>> Light from S2 moves at c towards O2.
>>
>>
>>Wrt which observer ( frame)?
>>
>>> In other words, the CLOSING SPEED of light from S2 on O2 is c.
>>
>>The closing speed of which two things and wrt which frame?
>>Oh, you mean the closing speed of the light from S2 and O2 wrt O2's
>>frame. Ok, in that case its ( c - 0) wrt O2 = c.
>
> great, your brain cell finally fired...
Not his fault that your original post was so poorly worded.
>>> However the CLOSING SPEED of light from S1 on O2 is c-v.
>>
>>
>>The closing speed of which two things and wrt which frame? You are
>>unclear here.
>>Anser that and you should find your answer/error.
>
> Read the other messages and stop stalling for time.....
Your problem has been answered .. you assertion of some inconsistency or
contradiction is refuted. Try again crackpot.
Henry Wilson DSc
>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:5o3ie5hn4lal22jlc...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:08:43 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>>>> Hey moron, you have often said yourself that a third observer will
Hey moron, these are your exact words, "So each observer will have a different
value for that closing speed."
Now you are saying the opposite. How big a moron are you?
>>>> Each will determine different closing speeds for the two rays on O2.
>>>
Henry Wilson DSc
wrt any third observer...
Inertial
Yes they will
> Now you are saying the opposite. How big a moron are you?
No. I am not saying the opposite. I have been clear and consistent
throughout. Apparently you have a great deal of difficulty in
comprehension.
To make it clear once again... Each observer will observer the closing
speed between O2 and the S1 light and the closing speed between O2 and the
S2 light are the same. What that observed same value is will differ between
observers, so though they may not agree on what the closing speeds are, they
will all agree that both speeds are the same.
waldofj
this should be reworded a bit.
from s1's point of view, light will be closing on 01 at c regardless
of the source. light coming from the right will be closing on 02 at c
- v and light coming from the left will be closing on 02 at c + v
from s2's point of view, light will be closing on 02 at c regardless
of the source. light coming from the right will be closing on 01 at c
+ v and light coming from the left will be closing on 01 at c - v
you ask how can this be but you're asking the wrong question. The real
question is how can the principle of the constancy of the speed of
light (PCSL) be right? because it is the PCSL that leads directly to
above result (i.e. if the PCSL is true then the above result is true).
Of course it is the LT that shows how it works and the main concept
that makes it work is the relativity of simultaneity.
I don't know if the PCSL is correct but I will say this, it's easier
for me to swallow than the rather absurd and contradictory properties
the aether has to have for that concept to work.
Inertial
news:8306b184-e88c-4b59...@l33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 28, 4:38 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>> Consider two light sources and two observers as shown below. S1 is
>> connected to
>> O1 and S2 is connected to O2. O2 is moving at v relative to O1.
>>
>> O1----------------------------------------------------S1
>> v<- O2---------------------------------------S2
>>
>> According to SR,
>>
>> light from S1 moves at c towards O1.
>>
>> Light from S2 moves at c towards O2.
>> In other words, the CLOSING SPEED of light from S2 on O2 is c.
>>
>> However the CLOSING SPEED of light from S1 on O2 is c-v.
>>
>> So we have a situation in which two separate rays of light CLOSE ON O2 at
>> different speeds. How can that happen?
>>
>> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
>>
>> Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
>
> this should be reworded a bit.
> from s1's point of view, light will be closing on 01 at c regardless
> of the source.
Yeup .. as S1 and O1 are comoving. ie O1 is at rest relative to S1 and vice
versa. Lets call the frame of reference comoving with S1 and O1 'F1'
> light coming from the right will be closing on 02 at c - v
Yeup .. as O2 is moving left at v in frame F1, the closing speed in that
frame will be c-v
> and light coming from the left will be closing on 02 at c + v
Yeup .. as O2 is moving left at v in frame F1, the closing speed in that
frame will be c+v
> from s2's point of view, light will be closing on 02 at c regardless
> of the source.
Callign the frame commoivn with S2 and O2 'F2', then in F2 light closes in
on O2 at c
> light coming from the right will be closing on 01 at c
> + v and light coming from the left will be closing on 01 at c - v
Yeup .. all the same only opposite :)
> you ask how can this be but you're asking the wrong question. The real
> question is how can the principle of the constancy of the speed of
> light (PCSL) be right? because it is the PCSL that leads directly to
> above result (i.e. if the PCSL is true then the above result is true).
Yeup
> Of course it is the LT that shows how it works
Yeup .. though the LT isn't the reason, it does show how it works as far as
how thing in one frame will be observed from another
> and the main concept
> that makes it work is the relativity of simultaneity.
Yeup .. without that you can't get isotropy of the same light in two
different inertial frames
> I don't know if the PCSL is correct but I will say this, it's easier
> for me to swallow than the rather absurd and contradictory properties
> the aether has to have for that concept to work.
And, of course, experimental evidence supports what you call PCSL. And it
follows from space-time geometry being as described by minkowski, and not
just 3d space and independant time.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
news:hi7ie5p33q3ogkbrp...@4ax.com...
light curves/visual/V1493 Aql
According to Wilson and Einstein, this star which jumps 6 magnitudes
and then 4 magnitudes must explode twice because fast light cannot
pass slow light, it has to unifuckate. How big a moron are you?
SS Aur is another one that blows up 4 magnitudes and blows up and blows
up and blows up... Never mind if it fits my model and Sekerin's model
and Wilson-Einstein can't model it, light has to unifuckate. How big a
moron are you?
R CrB? 8 mags! How big a moron are you?
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
Gawd! he's gone off the rails again....
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Oct 28, 4:38�pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>> Consider two light sources and two observers as shown below. S1 is connected to
>> O1 and S2 is connected to O2. O2 is moving at v relative to O1.
>>
>> O1----------------------------------------------------S1
>> � � � � � � � � v<- �O2---------------------------------------S2
>>
>> According to SR,
>>
>> light from S1 moves at c towards O1.
>>
>> Light from S2 moves at c towards O2.
>> In other words, the CLOSING SPEED of light from S2 on O2 is c.
>>
>> However the �CLOSING SPEED of light from S1 on O2 is c-v.
>>
>> So we have a situation in which two separate rays of light CLOSE ON O2 at
>> different speeds. How can that happen?
>>
>> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
>>
>> � � � �Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
>
>this should be reworded a bit.
>from s1's point of view, light will be closing on 01 at c regardless
>of the source. light coming from the right will be closing on 02 at c
>- v and light coming from the left will be closing on 02 at c + v
>from s2's point of view, light will be closing on 02 at c regardless
>of the source. light coming from the right will be closing on 01 at c
>+ v and light coming from the left will be closing on 01 at c - v
>
>you ask how can this be but you're asking the wrong question.
Why don't you try to answer the one I asked instead of one you made up?
>The real
>question is how can the principle of the constancy of the speed of
>light (PCSL) be right? because it is the PCSL that leads directly to
>above result (i.e. if the PCSL is true then the above result is true).
>Of course it is the LT that shows how it works and the main concept
>that makes it work is the relativity of simultaneity.
>I don't know if the PCSL is correct but I will say this, it's easier
>for me to swallow than the rather absurd and contradictory properties
>the aether has to have for that concept to work.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
> light curves/CCD/V2362 Cyg
No, I will not. Fast light passes slow light over enormous distances
as predicted by emission theory and your unifuckation BaThwater
is total bullshit.
V 1493 Aql is the proof, you stooopid, idiotic old sheep shagger.
> Short period stars exhibit more unification.
There we go. First it was distance, now it's period.
You want light from a distant star to speed up or slow
down and come to exactly c with respect to little old
special Earth because Wilson lives at the fuckin' centre
of the universe.
You don't know if your arsehole was drilled, bored,
countersunk or punched, you're a fuckin' fruitcake.
> You admitted you were wrong about the 2v. (yes I saw it)
Yes, I did, but a worthless dumbfuck like you will never admit he's
wrong about anything, "Dr." of dishonesty.
You are an ARSEHOLE, Wilson. Nobody buys your bullshit.
"Between different photons, V= Vo.e^-Um.t, where Um is the mass unification
rate.
The intraphoton equation is V = Vo.e^-Ui.t."
news:jok0d59rrlskuu714...@4ax.com
"In future, when and only when you [Inertial] decide to say something
intelligent will
I reply." -- Wilson
news:qp5mc5phvv2s02rto...@4ax.com...
"It would be very unusual to try to measure a moving object. I don't
know of any instances where it is done. Any sane person would stop the
bloody thing then measure it." -- Wilson
news:20090921091548.0...@gmail.com
Stupid ozzie Arsehole's phuckwittery." - SoAp
http://tinyurl.com/m9fukv
"ROTATING FRAMES FEATURE IMAGINARY EFFECTS.
DON'T TRY TO USE THEM."-- Wilson
news:drh9e553jdb7u87m7...@4ax.com
"Don't try to analyse the four mirror interfrometer."-- Wilson.
news:g34n95htcbsmddo6i...@4ax.com
"A pure oscillator, such as a spinning wheel, has no natural wavelength in
any
frame. " - Wilson.
news:r09d459u0mreghgk5...@4ax.com
Wavelength doesn't change. Wave arrival frequency does.-- Wilson
news:ra6845dpd3qdspn9b...@4ax.com...
"When Einstein deviously rendered the aether redundant (although still a
reality)" -- Wilson the crank aetherialist.
news:pvetm3l83u901a5ul...@4ax.com.
"DON'T TRY TO USE ROTATING FRAMES." -- Wilson (who can't manage it).
news:aqqqm35ka2ef6qhei...@4ax.com
"A rotating frame is not a 'rotating frame'...
hahahahhahahahaha!" --Wilson
news:mu2nm3d6urgddt8jg...@4ax.com
"There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
"In BaTh there is NO DOPPLER SHIFT AT THE OBSERVER" -- Wilson
news:uemrk39d4o3dka3tu...@4ax.com
"There is NO WAVELENGTH SHIFT at the observer."
news:ctb7l3lhh3vmq9b0s...@4ax.com
"Light doesn't have a 'frequency'. It has a wavelength." --Wilson.
news:1193906355.4...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com
"SPINNING OBJECTS HAVE A FREQUENCY, NOT A BLOODY WAVELENGTH." -- Wilson
news:pllli3puamdqd70qn...@4ax.com
"Light doesn't have a particuar 'frequency' in the normal sense.
Frequency is the inferred rate at whichABSOLUTE wavecrests leave the
source" -- Wilson.
news:3ghfh3h30n795o2vs...@4ax.com
"THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IN GENERAL, THE 'WAVELENGTH' OF AN OSCILLATION IS
THE
SAME IN ALL FRAMES." -- Wilson
news:920ni31ul6rb833qr...@4ax.com
"Anyway, this now fits in perfectly with my 'intrinsic oscillation
frequency' idea.
Thankyou Jerry for helping me develop my theory...." -- Wilson,
October 26, 2007 1:03 PM
news:iml3i3dh0vmisp6ln...@4ax.com
"That's the kind of argument I'd expect from a desperate
person....completely out of ideas... ahahahaha!" -- Wilson.
"For one ray, ct = 2piR+vt , for the other ct = 2piR-vt. This gives t =
2piR/(c+v) and 2piR/(c-v)" -- Wilson.
news:q21vi3lmjhp5s9pkc...@4ax.com...
"That's for the nonrotating frame, dopey." -- Wilson.
news:cp7vi35bvqvta6o1v...@4ax.com.
"There is NOT the same number of wavelengths between the STARTPOINT and
the detector" -- Wilson
news:8no1j39qhu9tk2nqg...@4ax.com
"<plonk>" -- Wilson (faced with his own words)
news:gci9j3lf66t9d1j9i...@4ax.com
You don't use emission theory and don't know what it is, your
crackpot theory is BaTh; you've been whining that for 8 years, you
invented it when I was in hospital in Florida with a shattered ankle
and I've been in Britain 6 years while you've gotten gradually more
senile. In all that time you've only learned to write "Dr" in front of
your name which nobody believes.
You blew it with denying Doppler and your tick fairies, senile old fart.
Wanker Woolly Wilson's War Wuperior Wucked-Up Wobbly Worbits
with WCH's and probably a simple mathematical reason for it but
couldn't be bothered looking. Recorded for posterity in message
news:d7sur497k44f44kcu...@4ax.com
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
news:2ejie5167huvd3htv...@4ax.com...
Its been answered. The answer to your question "So we have a situation in
which two separate rays of light CLOSE ON O2 at different speeds. How can
that happen?" is "It doesn't" (in the situation you described)
If you have two rays of light approaching O2 from different directions, then
some observer who sees O2 as moving will measure different closing speeds
between the rays of light and O2.
So .. do you have any other questions to ask?
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
news:2ejie5167huvd3htv...@4ax.com...
Why don't you shut the fuck up?
eric gisse
> Consider two light sources and two observers as shown below. S1 is
> connected to O1 and S2 is connected to O2. O2 is moving at v relative to
> O1.
>
>
> O1----------------------------------------------------S1
> v<- O2---------------------------------------S2
>
> According to SR,
We can almost be completely assured that you will fuck up expressing what
"according to SR" means.
>
> light from S1 moves at c towards O1.
>
> Light from S2 moves at c towards O2.
Wow, two sentences about SR from you that aren't wrong. Progress?
> In other words, the CLOSING SPEED of light from S2 on O2 is c.
>
> However the CLOSING SPEED of light from S1 on O2 is c-v.
>
> So we have a situation in which two separate rays of light CLOSE ON O2 at
> different speeds. How can that happen?
Closing speed isn't physical?
Light isn't an inertial frame?
Light still travels at c regardless of the reference frame just like SR
says?
Take your pick.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:m8jie5ttnc330qcr0...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:07:34 -0000, "Androcles"
>>>According to Wilson and Einstein, this star which jumps 6 magnitudes
>>>and then 4 magnitudes must explode twice because fast light cannot
>>>pass slow light, it has to unifuckate. How big a moron are you?
>>>
>>>SS Aur is another one that blows up 4 magnitudes and blows up and blows
>>>up and blows up... Never mind if it fits my model and Sekerin's model
>>>and Wilson-Einstein can't model it, light has to unifuckate. How big a
>>>moron are you?
>>>
>>>R CrB? 8 mags! How big a moron are you?
>>
>> Gawd! he's gone off the rails again....
>> Look at http://www.britastro.org/vss/
>> light curves/CCD/V2362 Cyg
>
>No, I will not. Fast light passes slow light over enormous distances
>as predicted by emission theory and your unifuckation BaThwater
>is total bullshit.
>V 1493 Aql is the proof, you stooopid, idiotic old sheep shagger.
....and V2362 Cyg has the same type of curve, you silly old drunk.
I was only trying to help.
>> Short period stars exhibit more unification.
>
>There we go. First it was distance, now it's period.
>You want light from a distant star to speed up or slow
>down and come to exactly c with respect to little old
>special Earth because Wilson lives at the fuckin' centre
>of the universe.
Where the fuck did you get that idea. I never said it went bloody c. It can be
ten c for all I care. You've been reading too much Einstein.
>You don't know if your arsehole was drilled, bored,
>countersunk or punched, you're a fuckin' fruitcake.
...and you're not?
>> You admitted you were wrong about the 2v. (yes I saw it)
>
>Yes, I did, but a worthless dumbfuck like you will never admit he's
>wrong about anything, "Dr." of dishonesty.
> You are an ARSEHOLE, Wilson. Nobody buys your bullshit.
You stupid bastard, I gace you anpother star like V Aql so you would have twice
the evidence. .....but you're too stubborn to even look at it...
Henry Wilson DSc
Hey moron, the two rays are coming from the same direction.
One is closing at c and the other at c-v....according to a third observer....as
you have so often pointed out.
>So .. do you have any other questions to ask?
Only with regard to your mental state
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
Do you need an ambulance?
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>
>> Consider two light sources and two observers as shown below. S1 is
>> connected to O1 and S2 is connected to O2. O2 is moving at v relative to
>> O1.
>>
>>
>> O1----------------------------------------------------S1
>> v<- O2---------------------------------------S2
>>
>> According to SR,
>
>We can almost be completely assured that you will fuck up expressing what
>"according to SR" means.
>
>>
>> light from S1 moves at c towards O1.
>>
>> Light from S2 moves at c towards O2.
>
>Wow, two sentences about SR from you that aren't wrong. Progress?
>
>> In other words, the CLOSING SPEED of light from S2 on O2 is c.
>>
>> However the CLOSING SPEED of light from S1 on O2 is c-v.
>>
>> So we have a situation in which two separate rays of light CLOSE ON O2 at
>> different speeds. How can that happen?
>
>Closing speed isn't physical?
>
>Light isn't an inertial frame?
>
>Light still travels at c regardless of the reference frame just like SR
>says?
Changed your tune now, eh?
How can two light rays traveling in the same direction have two different
closing speeds on the one object?
You know what I think...YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EXPLANATION. YOU ARE STUFFED WELL
AND TRULY.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
news:dqoie59kb8rnev17l...@4ax.com...
Yes, I know .. clearly you can't read what i wrote above: "How can
that happen?" is "It doesn't" (in the situation you described)"
I then went on to say that in a different situation, where the light comes
from different directions, then you will get different closing velocities
> One is closing at c and the other at c-v....according to a third
> observer....
Nope ,,, they aren't
> as
> you have so often pointed out.
No, I have not. You're a liar (as we all know)
>>So .. do you have any other questions to ask?
>
> Only with regard to your mental state
Far better than yours
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
news:70pie5tubh8dqts0s...@4ax.com...
They don't (in any given frame of reference).
Of course, if you're comparing results from different frames, you get
different closing speeds
waldofj
In the first place I didn't say anything you didn't say, I just added
some details you overlooked. The question you asked doesn't really
have a direct answer. The phenomenon you are questioning derives from
a deeper principle and it is that deeper principle that needs to be
questioned. I see now why you don't get any of that.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:22:40 -0000, "Androcles"
> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_p>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>news:m8jie5ttnc330qcr0...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:07:34 -0000, "Androcles"
>
>
>>>>According to Wilson and Einstein, this star which jumps 6 magnitudes
>>>>and then 4 magnitudes must explode twice because fast light cannot
>>>>pass slow light, it has to unifuckate. How big a moron are you?
>>>>
>>>>SS Aur is another one that blows up 4 magnitudes and blows up and blows
>>>>up and blows up... Never mind if it fits my model and Sekerin's model
>>>>and Wilson-Einstein can't model it, light has to unifuckate. How big a
>>>>moron are you?
>>>>
>>>>R CrB? 8 mags! How big a moron are you?
>>>
>>> Gawd! he's gone off the rails again....
>>> Look at http://www.britastro.org/vss/
>>> light curves/CCD/V2362 Cyg
>>
>>No, I will not. Fast light passes slow light over enormous distances
>>as predicted by emission theory and your unifuckation BaThwater
>>is total bullshit.
>>V 1493 Aql is the proof, you stooopid, idiotic old sheep shagger.
>
> ....and V2362 Cyg has the same type of curve, you silly old drunk.
> I was only trying to help.
It's the back end of a double spike and you are no help at all,
you dishonest bastard. I can admit when I'm wrong but you
are not man enough to do that, you are just a fuckin' used
car salesman and no scientist at all, "Dr." Lying Cowardly Wilson.
>
>>> Short period stars exhibit more unification.
>>
>>There we go. First it was distance, now it's period.
>>You want light from a distant star to speed up or slow
>>down and come to exactly c with respect to little old
>>special Earth because Wilson lives at the fuckin' centre
>>of the universe.
>
> Where the fuck did you get that idea. I never said it went bloody c. It
> can be
> ten c for all I care. You've been reading too much Einstein.
>
Oh, I see. It can be 10c as long as all the light travels together
unifuckated
like a flock of fuckin' ozzie sheep, no collie needed.
>>You don't know if your arsehole was drilled, bored,
>>countersunk or punched, you're a fuckin' fruitcake.
>
> ...and you're not?
I didn't invent any crank unifuckation theory, so no, I'm not.
"In BaTh there is NO DOPPLER SHIFT AT THE OBSERVER" -- Wilson
news:uemrk39d4o3dka3tu...@4ax.com
Does Wilson admit that's wrong?
No, the gutless lying drunken bastard claims he never said it.
>
>>> You admitted you were wrong about the 2v. (yes I saw it)
>>
>>Yes, I did, but a worthless dumbfuck like you will never admit he's
>>wrong about anything, "Dr." of dishonesty.
>> You are an ARSEHOLE, Wilson. Nobody buys your bullshit.
>
> You stupid bastard, I gace you anpother star like V Aql so you would have
> twice
> the evidence. .....but you're too stubborn to even look at it...
>
"In BaTh there is NO DOPPLER SHIFT AT THE OBSERVER" -- Wilson
news:uemrk39d4o3dka3tu...@4ax.com
Admit you are wrong, observers do see Doppler shift, and stop pretending
you have a doctorate, you lying bastard. You don't fool anyone.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
news:dqoie59kb8rnev17l...@4ax.com...
<snip>
"In BaTh there is NO DOPPLER SHIFT AT THE OBSERVER" -- Wilson
news:uemrk39d4o3dka3tu...@4ax.com
Why can nobody see any Doppler shift, "Dr." Wilson?
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
"In BaTh there is NO DOPPLER SHIFT AT THE OBSERVER" -- Wilson
news:uemrk39d4o3dka3tu...@4ax.com
Why can nobody see Doppler shift, "Dr." Wilson?
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
Why can nobody see Doppler shift, "Dr." Wilson?
Juan R.
> Consider two light sources and two observers as shown below. S1 is
> connected to O1 and S2 is connected to O2. O2 is moving at v relative to
> O1.
>
>
> O1----------------------------------------------------S1
> v<- O2---------------------------------------S2
>
> According to SR,
>
> light from S1 moves at c towards O1.
>
> Light from S2 moves at c towards O2.
> In other words, the CLOSING SPEED of light from S2 on O2 is c.
>
> However the CLOSING SPEED of light from S1 on O2 is c-v.
>
> So we have a situation in which two separate rays of light CLOSE ON O2
> at different speeds. How can that happen?
Happen in your mind... Study SR.
> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
>
> Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
eric gisse
[...]
>>> So we have a situation in which two separate rays of light CLOSE ON O2
>>> at different speeds. How can that happen?
>>
>>Closing speed isn't physical?
>>
>>Light isn't an inertial frame?
>>
>>Light still travels at c regardless of the reference frame just like SR
>>says?
>
> Changed your tune now, eh?
That's Doppler from it passing that fast over your head.
>
> How can two light rays traveling in the same direction have two different
> closing speeds on the one object?
They don't, by definition. Pay attention.
>
> You know what I think...
I'd never presume. Not just because I have a difficult time answering "what
would a narssicistic stupid person think?"
> YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EXPLANATION. YOU ARE STUFFED
> WELL AND TRULY.
Half way there. I do not have an explanation that you will ever accept or
understand because you made your decision about relativity years upon years
ago and there's not a thing I can do to change your mind short of dropping a
pallet of books on your head and hoping osmosis has an effect.
>
>
>
> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Why are you continually hiding under the shadow of Ralph Rabbidge?
Let's pretend you aren't him. Why does every piece of technology you own
seem to refer to him at some level? Are you that incompetent with computers?
Does "Ralph" program your asinine little VB programs for you too?
rotchm
>
> >> >> However the CLOSING SPEED of light from S1 on O2 is c-v.
>
> >> >The closing speed of which two things and wrt which frame? You are
> >> >unclear here.
> >> >Anser that and you should find your answer/error.
>
>
>
> >Answer it.
>
> wrt any third observer...
You still did not answer the question(s). You are missing the answer
to : Closing
speed of which two twings?
And, your answer to wrt whom: Any third observer?... Lets see. Take a
S2', an observer sitting side by side S2... the closing speed between
S2 and of light wrt S2'of light is... c, not c-v.
So, specify which two things you want to calculate the closing speed,
wrt which frame (observer). Then we can indicate the answer to you.
kenseto
> O1 and S2 is connected to O2. O2 is moving at v relative to O1.
>
> O1----------------------------------------------------S1
> v<- O2---------------------------------------S2
>
> According to SR,
>
> light from S1 moves at c towards O1.
>
> Light from S2 moves at c towards O2.
> In other words, the CLOSING SPEED of light from S2 on O2 is c.
>
>
> different speeds. How can that happen?
Henry the SRians argue that S1's light arrive at c as follows:
c=(measure arriving frequency)(measured arriving wavelength)
This arguement failed to realize that the light from S1 becomes a new
light source in O2's frame and the frequency detector and the
wavelength detector (the grating) in O2 will detect all light sources
in the O2 frame to have a velocity of c.....for example sources such
as sodium, mercury, H-Alpha in the O2 grating frame....etc all emit
light with a speed of c.
Closing speed got nothing to do with thwe arriving speed of light.
However you do have a point as follows:
1. Suppose that S1 is a sodium source with a universal wavelength of
589 nm.
2. during the transit of sodium light from S1 to O2 there is nothing
that can change the wavelength of sodium light.....that means that the
wavelength will remain at 589 nm.
3. The detected arriving frequency is measured by the O2 detector.
4. Therefore the arrival speed of light from S1 is calculated as
follows:
c'=(measured frequency)(universal wavelength of sodium 589 nm)
Http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2008irt.dtg.pdf
Ken Seto
>
> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
PD
> Consider two light sources and two observers as shown below. S1 is connected to
> O1 and S2 is connected to O2. O2 is moving at v relative to O1.
>
> O1----------------------------------------------------S1
> v<- O2---------------------------------------S2
>
> According to SR,
>
> light from S1 moves at c towards O1.
>
> Light from S2 moves at c towards O2.
> In other words, the CLOSING SPEED of light from S2 on O2 is c.
Not in this frame. The CLOSING SPEED of light from S2 on O2 is c-v.
However, in the frame where S2 and O2 are at rest and S1 and O1 are
moving, then the closing speed of S2 on O2 is c.
>
> However the CLOSING SPEED of light from S1 on O2 is c-v.
>
> So we have a situation in which two separate rays of light CLOSE ON O2 at
> different speeds. How can that happen?
Well, it helps to know what the words mean. Otherwise you confuse
yourself.
I can see why this question was embarrassing for you, and why you
would ask physicists about it.
xxein
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:10:38 -0700 (PDT),xxein<xx...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Oct 28, 6:34 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 28, 4:38 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>
> >> > Consider two light sources and two observers as shown below. S1 is connected to
> >> > O1 and S2 is connected to O2. O2 is moving at v relative to O1.
>
> >> > O1----------------------------------------------------S1
> >> > v<- O2---------------------------------------S2
>
> >> > According to SR,
>
> >> > light from S1 moves at c towards O1.
>
> >> > Light from S2 moves at c towards O2.
> >> > In other words, the CLOSING SPEED of light from S2 on O2 is c.
>
>
> >> > So we have a situation in which two separate rays of light CLOSE ON O2 at
> >> > different speeds. How can that happen?
>
> >> coordinates from just one system. Give each frame its own coordinate
> >> system and the problem goes away.
>
> >> > Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
>
> >> > Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >xxein: Yeah but... Why should a moving observer have the same
> >timerate as another? We've already proven that false. And the
> >coordinates change accordingly. What it boils down to is the need for
> >a velocity addition formula. But that is a mathematic without a shred
> >of the physic for how it occurs.
>
> >Nobody seems to be able to find the physical cause for this except
> >me. I learned to deal with the physic a long time ago. No pansy-ass
> >theories that depend on a subjective observation belong to
> >understanding the physic itself. They can fortify a math/physics but
> >destroy the real essence of the physic.
>
> >Everyone would like me to prove that, wouldn't they? Well, I could
> >except for the prior belief in almost everything that has been
> >accepted as a physics. I would have to present a new "Principia". I
> >don't have the skill or patience to do that unless someone of logic
> >and writing ability would pick my brain to see the real physical
> >correspondence.
>
> >Until then, I remain very confident in my knowledge of the physic.
> >There are hidden subtleties that were never accounted for in the
> >present physics (of any/all stripes). Despite any of my past posts
> >that were wrong, seemed to be wrong, misunderstood or were not
> >understood, there is a physical logic that I understand to underlie
> >it. I can goof up in posts sometimes depending upon beer consumption
> >and what I respond to. But the underlying physic is well understood
> >by me (until quantum effects). But, hey, what do they have to say
> >about gravity? Is there a physical cause to be conscriped in anything
> >besides an observer math?
>
> >I was not afraid to guess beyond the off-the-shelf physics. I
> >questioned every source and belief of how the physics works. I know
> >what physics looks like. But I had to know why it looks like that. I
> >had a 10 yr. period of extreme logic that I can never duplicate again
> >(don't even ask). I found the general substance (esp. gravity) and it
> >explains why we observe as we do to think we have made a physics that
> >substitues for the real understanding of the physic.
>
> >It was gravity that threw all my earlier logic into the trash. It had
> >to be accounted for in the same manner of physical logic. I
> >succeeded. Nobody will get to know this, of course, because we have a
> >MATH PHYSICS that seems adequate like in any balewire needed to make
> >something work again for new problems or discovery. It is really
> >quite adequate in the subjective sense.
>
> >Still not in the physical sense though. I hope your sense of logic
> >supercedes what you seem willing to believe for adequacy. I'm not
> >picking on you. I'm just making a statement. And with that, I wish
> >you well.
>
> I take that to mean you cannot fault my revelation and that you are now ready
> to accept that SR is total nonsense....
>
> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
>
> Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
xxein: I cannot agree that SR is total nonsense. Not anywhere
close. If it tells you when and where an event will happen in your
moving frame, that is pretty much all you need be concerned with
within your frame. However, the term frame is an ill-defined
concept. Although frame-jumping has a strict SR physics attached to
it, the core physic tells a different story even without a gravity or
expansion. Unfortunately, gravity and expansion are core to the
physic also, but it is an exercise that can be done if one ignores the
micro-scale. Just like a fight in an Irish bar.
Also (clearly seen and sort of measured) gravity and expansion (having
micro-causes), have macro-effects. Mickey gets slugged and he falls
"down". The point here is that his frame is not inertial. There are
none except by degree.
Relativity turns out to be a natural consequence for observance that
is expressed as a math-physics instead of a more complete
understanding of the physic. You'd be suprised at how much math can
be eliminated --- just as Einstein wanted but obviously failed to do
because he couldn't envision it from the info available at the time.
It is not entirely his fault that he failed to recognize that future
anomolies are still part of a/the well-ordered physic. He got one
thing almost right though. Laws of the physic (not physics) are the
same everywhere. But he mostly considered what he could observe
instead of how the physic made them to be such observations that he
called physics.
If anyone wishes to say we have cracked a Rosetta stone 1 with
Einstein, I'll counter with Rosettas 2, 3 and 4. John Horgan and the
'end of science' can kiss my ass.
In this respect, SR is nonsensicle to the physic but not to the
inhabitants of Oz.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:1eoie5le68jv345g3...@4ax.com...
>>>>>SS Aur is another one that blows up 4 magnitudes and blows up and blows
>>>>>up and blows up... Never mind if it fits my model and Sekerin's model
>>>>>and Wilson-Einstein can't model it, light has to unifuckate. How big a
>>>>>moron are you?
>>>>>
>>>>>R CrB? 8 mags! How big a moron are you?
>>>>
>>>> Gawd! he's gone off the rails again....
>>>> Look at http://www.britastro.org/vss/
>>>> light curves/CCD/V2362 Cyg
>>>
>>>No, I will not. Fast light passes slow light over enormous distances
>>>as predicted by emission theory and your unifuckation BaThwater
>>>is total bullshit.
>>>V 1493 Aql is the proof, you stooopid, idiotic old sheep shagger.
>>
>> ....and V2362 Cyg has the same type of curve, you silly old drunk.
>> I was only trying to help.
>
>It's the back end of a double spike and you are no help at all,
>you dishonest bastard. I can admit when I'm wrong but you
>are not man enough to do that, you are just a fuckin' used
>car salesman and no scientist at all, "Dr." Lying Cowardly Wilson.
Here is a rough match for V2362 Cyg. My curve is the orange dots. I could make
it a lot closer if I spent more time but there are five parameters to change.
>>>> Short period stars exhibit more unification.
>>>
>>>There we go. First it was distance, now it's period.
>>>You want light from a distant star to speed up or slow
>>>down and come to exactly c with respect to little old
>>>special Earth because Wilson lives at the fuckin' centre
>>>of the universe.
>>
>> Where the fuck did you get that idea. I never said it went bloody c. It
>> can be
>> ten c for all I care. You've been reading too much Einstein.
>>
>Oh, I see. It can be 10c as long as all the light travels together
>unifuckated
>like a flock of fuckin' ozzie sheep, no collie needed.
It doesn't fully 'unificate'. The speed gap simply closes enough for the
distance anomaly to be explained.
I have never claimed that the speeds end up the same...let alone at c.
>>>You don't know if your arsehole was drilled, bored,
>>>countersunk or punched, you're a fuckin' fruitcake.
>>
>> ...and you're not?
>
>I didn't invent any crank unifuckation theory, so no, I'm not.
You never understood the principle behind my unification. It's only a minor
effect but enough to make quite a difference to the required star distance.
>
>"In BaTh there is NO DOPPLER SHIFT AT THE OBSERVER" -- Wilson
> news:uemrk39d4o3dka3tu...@4ax.com
>
>Does Wilson admit that's wrong?
>No, the gutless lying drunken bastard claims he never said it.
Naturally you think I am wrong because you have completely misinterpreted my
theory...but I'll still try to help you when you discover something worthwhile
like Mira and V Aql. I have now added V2362 Cyg to the stars than exhibit
double imagery.
>>>> You admitted you were wrong about the 2v. (yes I saw it)
>>>
>>>Yes, I did, but a worthless dumbfuck like you will never admit he's
>>>wrong about anything, "Dr." of dishonesty.
>>> You are an ARSEHOLE, Wilson. Nobody buys your bullshit.
>>
>> You stupid bastard, I gace you anpother star like V Aql so you would have
>> twice
>> the evidence. .....but you're too stubborn to even look at it...
>>
>"In BaTh there is NO DOPPLER SHIFT AT THE OBSERVER" -- Wilson
> news:uemrk39d4o3dka3tu...@4ax.com
>Admit you are wrong, observers do see Doppler shift, and stop pretending
>you have a doctorate, you lying bastard. You don't fool anyone.
In BaTh, there is no doppler shift at the bloody source.... you ranting raving
lunatic. If I made a typo then what I meant should have been obvious to anyone
who knows BaTh.
Henry Wilson DSc
Look at the diagram I drew in the original message. YOU are the third observer.
The light from S1 approaches O2 at c-v.
The light from S2 approaches O2 at c.
How by any stretch of the imagination can anyone claim that the two rays are
traveling at the same speed?
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:quoie5lsb5s8umqo2...@4ax.com...
>
>"In BaTh there is NO DOPPLER SHIFT AT THE OBSERVER" -- Wilson
> news:uemrk39d4o3dka3tu...@4ax.com
>
>Why can nobody see Doppler shift, "Dr." Wilson?
If you don't stop misquoting me I'll have you in court.
IN BATH, THERE IS NO DOPPLER SHIFT AT THE SOURCE.
Now, write that down 1000 times so you wont forget....you ranting raving insane
pommie bastard.
Henry Wilson DSc
I'll tell you what the principle is. Light is ballistic. The 'closing speed'
is the only speed. Einstein's theory is nonsese from start to finish.
Henry Wilson DSc
Is there no limit to your idiocy? Closing speed is something you have been on
about for years.
Look at the diagram I drew.
YOU are a third observer.
One ray approaches O2 at c the other at c-v.
It is obvious that the rays cannot be traveling at the same speed.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:70pie5tubh8dqts0s...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:32:35 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
In future will you desist from replying to my messages after 10am your time.
Inertial
news:g4ike55s19rhu9o43...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:34:18 -0700 (PDT), rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> >> >> However the CLOSING SPEED of light from S1 on O2 is c-v.
>>>
>>> >> >The closing speed of which two things and wrt which frame? You are
>>> >> >unclear here.
>>> >> >Anser that and you should find your answer/error.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >Dont be a coward by brushing off the question to other discussions.
>>> >Answer it.
>>>
>>> wrt any third observer...
>>
>>
>>You still did not answer the question(s). You are missing the answer
>>to : Closing
>>speed of which two twings?
>>
>>And, your answer to wrt whom: Any third observer?... Lets see. Take a
>>S2', an observer sitting side by side S2... the closing speed between
>>S2 and of light wrt S2'of light is... c, not c-v.
>>
>>So, specify which two things you want to calculate the closing speed,
>>wrt which frame (observer). Then we can indicate the answer to you.
>
>
> Look at the diagram I drew in the original message. YOU are the third
> observer.
OK
> The light from S1 approaches O2 at c-v.
As O2 is moving at v according to the third observer (stationary wrt the
page) .. and assuming you are talking about closing speed, then Yeup
> The light from S2 approaches O2 at c.
Nope. That's where you are wrong about what SR says.
> How by any stretch of the imagination can anyone claim that the two rays
> are
> traveling at the same speed?
You simply have gotten what SR says wrong and then claimed that that makes
SR wrong. It actually just makes you look like an idiot for starting the
thread without understanding what SR says first.
Henry Wilson DSc
Ken, obviously the answer is trivial if an aether exists but let's not
complicate the question with that kind of argument. The fact is, relativists
cannot explain how two rays that are approaching an object at different speeds
can have the SAME speed relative to that object.
Inertial
Perhaps if you understood what SR says, you might have some basis for making
claims of whether or not it is nonsense .. but you have shown that you
don't. You're just advertising your ignorance yet again.
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Oct 28, 3:38�pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>> Consider two light sources and two observers as shown below. S1 is connected to
>> O1 and S2 is connected to O2. O2 is moving at v relative to O1.
>>
>> O1----------------------------------------------------S1
>> � � � � � � � � v<- �O2---------------------------------------S2
>>
>> According to SR,
>>
>> light from S1 moves at c towards O1.
>>
>> Light from S2 moves at c towards O2.
>> In other words, the CLOSING SPEED of light from S2 on O2 is c.
>
>Not in this frame. The CLOSING SPEED of light from S2 on O2 is c-v.
>However, in the frame where S2 and O2 are at rest and S1 and O1 are
>moving, then the closing speed of S2 on O2 is c.
This is an interesting new slant. We now have a disagreement between the
members of the relativist fraternity.
My question has split them into two camps.
>> However the �CLOSING SPEED of light from S1 on O2 is c-v.
>>
>> So we have a situation in which two separate rays of light CLOSE ON O2 at
>> different speeds. How can that happen?
>
>Well, it helps to know what the words mean. Otherwise you confuse
>yourself.
I know what 'closing speed' means.
...and if two rays have different closing speeds on the same object as
determined by the same observer, then it is bloody obvious they don't have the
same speed at all.
Inertial
Yes .. there is a very small limit .. which is far lower that that
demonstrated by you
> Closing speed is something you have been on
> about for years.
If you say so
> Look at the diagram I drew.
Fine .. there is is.
O1----------------------------------------------------S1
v<- O2---------------------------------------S2
> YOU are a third observer.
Lucky me
> One ray approaches O2 at c the other at c-v.
No .. The closing speed of BOTH with O2, according to me as the third
observer, is c-v. Because both rays travel at c in my frame of reference
> It is obvious that the rays cannot be traveling at the same speed.
But they are .. they both travel at c according to me as third observer.
It is O2 that is moving at v away from both rays in my frame of reference,
and so the closing between both rays and O2 is c-v
If you're saying the tow rays travels at different speeds in any of the
frames of reference, and/or that any inertial observer will observer that
the closing speed is different for the two rays and O2, then you are no
longer talking about SR, and so it is no longer a question for relativists
at all.
Inertial
But they are NOT approaching at different speeds. So there is nothing to
explain. Except for why you posted this thread to start with when you must
have known that you were going to be wrong again. Isn't it getting a bit
depressing being wrong all the time .. or is that what your delusions are
there to protect you from?
Inertial
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:02:58 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedrap...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 28, 3:38 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>> Consider two light sources and two observers as shown below. S1 is
>>> connected to
>>> O1 and S2 is connected to O2. O2 is moving at v relative to O1.
>>>
>>> O1----------------------------------------------------S1
>>> v<- O2---------------------------------------S2
>>>
>>> According to SR,
>>>
>>> light from S1 moves at c towards O1.
>>>
>>> Light from S2 moves at c towards O2.
>>> In other words, the CLOSING SPEED of light from S2 on O2 is c.
>>
>>Not in this frame. The CLOSING SPEED of light from S2 on O2 is c-v.
>>However, in the frame where S2 and O2 are at rest and S1 and O1 are
>>moving, then the closing speed of S2 on O2 is c.
>
> This is an interesting new slant. We now have a disagreement between the
> members of the relativist fraternity.
Nope .. no disagreement at all. We all agree you are wrong.
> My question has split them into two camps.
Nope. We're all saying the same thing. But you don't understand physics
enough to see that.
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Oct 28, 11:50�pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:10:38 -0700 (PDT),xxein<xx...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >On Oct 28, 6:34�pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >> On Oct 28, 4:38�pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>
>> >I was not afraid to guess beyond the off-the-shelf physics. �I
>> >questioned every source and belief of how the physics works. �I know
>> >what physics looks like. �But I had to know why it looks like that. �I
>> >had a 10 yr. period of extreme logic that I can never duplicate again
>> >(don't even ask). �I found the general substance (esp. gravity) and it
>> >explains why we observe as we do to think we have made a physics that
>> >substitues for the real understanding of the physic.
>>
>> >It was gravity that threw all my earlier logic into the trash. �It had
>> >to be accounted for in the same manner of physical logic. �I
>xxein: I cannot agree that SR is total nonsense. Not anywhere
>close. If it tells you when and where an event will happen in your
>moving frame, that is pretty much all you need be concerned with
>within your frame.
I don't need SR to tell me that. All I ned is a line of presynched clocks.
>However, the term frame is an ill-defined
>concept. Although frame-jumping has a strict SR physics attached to
>it, the core physic tells a different story even without a gravity or
>expansion. Unfortunately, gravity and expansion are core to the
>physic also, but it is an exercise that can be done if one ignores the
>micro-scale. Just like a fight in an Irish bar.
>
>Also (clearly seen and sort of measured) gravity and expansion (having
>micro-causes), have macro-effects. Mickey gets slugged and he falls
>"down". The point here is that his frame is not inertial. There are
>none except by degree.
>
>Relativity turns out to be a natural consequence for observance that
>is expressed as a math-physics instead of a more complete
>understanding of the physic.
That is becasue there is no physics associated with it. It merely describes a
universe that only existed in Einstein's mind.
>You'd be suprised at how much math can
>be eliminated --- just as Einstein wanted but obviously failed to do
>because he couldn't envision it from the info available at the time.
>It is not entirely his fault that he failed to recognize that future
>anomolies are still part of a/the well-ordered physic. He got one
>thing almost right though. Laws of the physic (not physics) are the
>same everywhere. But he mostly considered what he could observe
>instead of how the physic made them to be such observations that he
>called physics.
>
>If anyone wishes to say we have cracked a Rosetta stone 1 with
>Einstein, I'll counter with Rosettas 2, 3 and 4. John Horgan and the
>'end of science' can kiss my ass.
>
>In this respect, SR is nonsensicle to the physic but not to the
>inhabitants of Oz.
It is rehashed aether theory.
The second postulate clearly requires an absolute spatial reference.
Henry Wilson DSc
What does SR say....that light from a source doesn't move at c in the source
frame?
It sounds as though you are trying to change the rules with every statement.
Henry Wilson DSc
Now you're getting into a deeper and deeper hole.
O1 and O2 are moving relatively. The closing seed of any particular ray must be
different for each. You have always argud this way in the past.
>
>> It is obvious that the rays cannot be traveling at the same speed.
>
>But they are .. they both travel at c according to me as third observer.
>
>It is O2 that is moving at v away from both rays in my frame of reference,
>and so the closing between both rays and O2 is c-v
You have now completely lost it.
>If you're saying the tow rays travels at different speeds in any of the
>frames of reference, and/or that any inertial observer will observer that
>the closing speed is different for the two rays and O2, then you are no
>longer talking about SR, and so it is no longer a question for relativists
>at all.
Look I'll explain once more.
According to YOUR past arguments and SR, the two rays 'close on' S2 at
different rates, namely c and c-v.
It should be obvious from this physical reality that the two rays cannot be
mutually at rest.
Henry Wilson DSc
Preaching SR doesn't make it true.
>So there is nothing to
>explain. Except for why you posted this thread to start with when you must
>have known that you were going to be wrong again. Isn't it getting a bit
>depressing being wrong all the time .. or is that what your delusions are
>there to protect you from?
You keep on repeating this, apparently as an exercise in 'self reassurance'.
But you haven't been able to identify where I'm 'wrong'.
Henry Wilson DSc
I'll let you fight it out with Diaper.
Inertial
I've told you
> that light from a source doesn't move at c in the source
> frame?
No.. it says it does.. In every frame. You've claimed SR doesn't say that,
and so are wrong
> It sounds as though you are trying to change the rules with every
> statement.
No . I've been totally consistent throughout. You've been the one changing
rules. Your lies have been discovered once again. You're really not very
good at this.
Inertial
Nope .. but you are
> O1 and O2 are moving relatively.
Yes they are
> The closing seed of any particular ray must be
> different for each.
Yes it is
> You have always argud this way in the past.
Yes I have
>>> It is obvious that the rays cannot be traveling at the same speed.
>>
>>But they are .. they both travel at c according to me as third observer.
>>
>>It is O2 that is moving at v away from both rays in my frame of reference,
>>and so the closing between both rays and O2 is c-v
>
> You have now completely lost it.
You never had it.
If an object is travelling at v, and light at c, the closing speed is c-v.
Simple.
Both rays are travelling at c. So both closing speeds are c-v
>>If you're saying the tow rays travels at different speeds in any of the
>>frames of reference, and/or that any inertial observer will observer that
>>the closing speed is different for the two rays and O2, then you are no
>>longer talking about SR, and so it is no longer a question for relativists
>>at all.
>
> Look I'll explain once more.
Oh good .. another change to watch you make a fool of yourself. Don't let
me down now.
> According to YOUR past arguments and SR, the two rays 'close on' S2 at
> different rates, namely c and c-v.
No. I have never said that at all. Ever. Seems like you need to resort to
lies.
> It should be obvious from this physical reality that the two rays cannot
> be
> mutually at rest.
It not a reality .. its a lie by you
Inertial
Lying about it doesn't make it false
>>So there is nothing to
>>explain. Except for why you posted this thread to start with when you
>>must
>>have known that you were going to be wrong again. Isn't it getting a bit
>>depressing being wrong all the time .. or is that what your delusions are
>>there to protect you from?
>
> You keep on repeating this, apparently as an exercise in 'self
> reassurance'.
> But you haven't been able to identify where I'm 'wrong'.
I have. You state that the light is approaching O2 (closing speed) at tow
different speeds. That is not possible as both rays are travellign at c
relative to the observer., and so the closing speed is the same. So your
question about how can they be different is nonsense
Inertial
We already agree, and nothing to figure out. We both know you're a lying
idiot.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
news:ffike5l8o57aceu3o...@4ax.com...
> I'll tell you what the principle is. Light is ballistic. The 'closing
> speed'
> is the only speed. Einstein's theory is nonsese from start to finish.
"There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Admit you are wrong, observers do see Doppler shift, and stop pretending
you have a doctorate, you lying bastard. You don't fool anyone.
There is no distance anomaly, only a
"leave-out-inclination-Wilson-doesn't-need-it" anomaly.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:22:11 -0000, "Androcles"
> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_p>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>news:quoie5lsb5s8umqo2...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>>"In BaTh there is NO DOPPLER SHIFT AT THE OBSERVER" -- Wilson
>> news:uemrk39d4o3dka3tu...@4ax.com
>>
>>Why can nobody see Doppler shift, "Dr." Wilson?
>
> If you don't stop misquoting me I'll have you in court.
"In future, when and only when you decide to say something intelligent will
I reply." -- Wilson
news:qp5mc5phvv2s02rto...@4ax.com...
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
news:4iike5decn6oj21bv...@4ax.com...
> It is obvious that the rays cannot be traveling at the same speed.
"There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>I can see why this question was embarrassing for you, and why you
>>would ask physicists about it.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
> Ken, obviously the answer is trivial if an aether exists
"There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
> How by any stretch of the imagination can anyone claim that the two rays
> are
> traveling at the same speed?
"There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:18:02 -0000, "Androcles"
> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_p>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
>
>>>>>>SS Aur is another one that blows up 4 magnitudes and blows up and
>>>>>>blows
>>>>>>up and blows up... Never mind if it fits my model and Sekerin's model
>>>>>>and Wilson-Einstein can't model it, light has to unifuckate. How big a
>>>>>>moron are you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>R CrB? 8 mags! How big a moron are you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Gawd! he's gone off the rails again....
>>>>> Look at http://www.britastro.org/vss/
>>>>> light curves/CCD/V2362 Cyg
>>>>
>>>>No, I will not. Fast light passes slow light over enormous distances
>>>>as predicted by emission theory and your unifuckation BaThwater
>>>>is total bullshit.
>>>>V 1493 Aql is the proof, you stooopid, idiotic old sheep shagger.
>>>
>>> ....and V2362 Cyg has the same type of curve, you silly old drunk.
>>> I was only trying to help.
>>
>>It's the back end of a double spike and you are no help at all,
>>you dishonest bastard. I can admit when I'm wrong but you
>>are not man enough to do that, you are just a fuckin' used
>>car salesman and no scientist at all, "Dr." Lying Cowardly Wilson.
>
> Here is a rough match for V2362 Cyg. My curve is the orange dots. I could
> make
> it a lot closer if I spent more time but there are five parameters to
> change.
>>>>> Short period stars exhibit more unification.
>>>>
>>>>There we go. First it was distance, now it's period.
>>>>You want light from a distant star to speed up or slow
>>>>down and come to exactly c with respect to little old
>>>>special Earth because Wilson lives at the fuckin' centre
>>>>of the universe.
>>>
>>> Where the fuck did you get that idea. I never said it went bloody c. It
>>> can be
>>> ten c for all I care. You've been reading too much Einstein.
>>>
>>Oh, I see. It can be 10c as long as all the light travels together
>>unifuckated
>>like a flock of fuckin' ozzie sheep, no collie needed.
>
> It doesn't fully 'unificate'. The speed gap simply closes enough for the
> distance anomaly to be explained.
> I have never claimed that the speeds end up the same...let alone at c.
Yes you did, you lying coward, and there is no distance anomaly, only
a "leave-out-inclination-Wilson-doesn't-need-it" anomaly.
>>>>You don't know if your arsehole was drilled, bored,
>>>>countersunk or punched, you're a fuckin' fruitcake.
>>>
>>> ...and you're not?
>>
>>I didn't invent any crank unifuckation theory, so no, I'm not.
> You never understood the principle behind my unification. It's only a
> minor
> effect but enough to make quite a difference to the required star
> distance.
There is the "leave-out-inclination-Wilson-doesn't-need-it" anomaly.
>
>>
>>"In BaTh there is NO DOPPLER SHIFT AT THE OBSERVER" -- Wilson
>> news:uemrk39d4o3dka3tu...@4ax.com
>>
>>Does Wilson admit that's wrong?
>>No, the gutless lying drunken bastard claims he never said it.
>
> Naturally you think I am wrong because you have completely misinterpreted
> my
> theory...but I'll still try to help you when you discover something
> worthwhile
> like Mira and V Aql. I have now added V2362 Cyg to the stars than exhibit
> double imagery.
>
>
>>>>> You admitted you were wrong about the 2v. (yes I saw it)
>>>>
>>>>Yes, I did, but a worthless dumbfuck like you will never admit he's
>>>>wrong about anything, "Dr." of dishonesty.
>>>> You are an ARSEHOLE, Wilson. Nobody buys your bullshit.
>>>
>>> You stupid bastard, I gace you anpother star like V Aql so you would
>>> have
>>> twice
>>> the evidence. .....but you're too stubborn to even look at it...
>>>
>>"In BaTh there is NO DOPPLER SHIFT AT THE OBSERVER" -- Wilson
>> news:uemrk39d4o3dka3tu...@4ax.com
>>Admit you are wrong, observers do see Doppler shift, and stop pretending
>>you have a doctorate, you lying bastard. You don't fool anyone.
>
> In BaTh, there is no doppler shift at the bloody source.... you ranting
> raving
> lunatic. If I made a typo then what I meant should have been obvious to
> anyone
> who knows BaTh.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:10:26 -0700 (PDT), xxein <xx...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 28, 11:50 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:10:38 -0700 (PDT),xxein<xx...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> >On Oct 28, 6:34 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>> >> On Oct 28, 4:38 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>
>>>
>>> >I was not afraid to guess beyond the off-the-shelf physics. I
>>> >questioned every source and belief of how the physics works. I know
>>> >what physics looks like. But I had to know why it looks like that. I
>>> >had a 10 yr. period of extreme logic that I can never duplicate again
>>> >(don't even ask). I found the general substance (esp. gravity) and it
>>> >explains why we observe as we do to think we have made a physics that
>>> >substitues for the real understanding of the physic.
>>>
>>> >It was gravity that threw all my earlier logic into the trash. It had
>>> >to be accounted for in the same manner of physical logic. I
>
>>xxein: I cannot agree that SR is total nonsense. Not anywhere
>>close. If it tells you when and where an event will happen in your
>>moving frame, that is pretty much all you need be concerned with
>>within your frame.
>
> I don't need SR to tell me that. All I ned is a line of presynched clocks.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
> In future will you desist from replying to my messages after 10am your
> time.
"There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
"In future, when and only when you decide to say something intelligent will
I reply." -- Wilson
news:qp5mc5phvv2s02rto...@4ax.com...
"A rotating frame is not a 'rotating frame'...
hahahahhahahahaha!" --Wilson
news:mu2nm3d6urgddt8jg...@4ax.com
"ROTATING FRAMES FEATURE IMAGINARY EFFECTS.
DON'T TRY TO USE THEM."-- Wilson
news:drh9e553jdb7u87m7...@4ax.com
"DON'T TRY TO USE ROTATING FRAMES." -- Wilson
news:aqqqm35ka2ef6qhei...@4ax.com
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
news:4nqke5pbanr4mqj9e...@4ax.com...
> You keep on repeating this, apparently as an exercise in 'self
> reassurance'.
> But you haven't been able to identify where I'm 'wrong'.
Error identified:
There is no distance anomaly, only a
"leave-out-inclination-Wilson-doesn't-need-it" anomaly.
"There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
news:faqke5hva97n0bmgj...@4ax.com...
> You have now completely lost it.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
news:q3qke51rf4qefhb62...@4ax.com...
"There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
news:jsqke5936rh07g17u...@4ax.com...
>
> I'll let you fight it out with Diaper.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
Dial this number immediately. They can help you: 024847378596
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
Seek help immediately...
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
Gawd! I think he's really flipped this time...
Henry Wilson DSc
Let's start again shall we.
YOU and other relativists have always pointed out that if an observer is
approaching a light source at v, the light from that source will 'close on' or
'approach' the observer at c+v. You have stressed that this is allowed in SR.
Now:
S1's light is closing on O2 at c-v.
S2's light is closing on O1 at c+v
S1's light must close on O1 at c.
S2's light must close on O2 at c.
So according to any third observer,
the two rays close on O1 at c+v and c.
And the two rays close on O2 at c-v and c.
I want you to explain, in simple English, how two rays can have different
'closing speeds' on the one object if they are traveling at the same speed
relative to that object.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message
news:uh4le59v2en28ukde...@4ax.com...
Good idea.
1) Slow light passes fast light if the distance is great enough.
2) Orbits are inclined relative to the observer.
3) Wilson's unifuckation is bullshit, along with his "Dr." title.
4) Even an idiot like Inertial knows you are a lying idiot, we both do.
5) Keep digging. We'll just kick the dirt in on top of you.
PD
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:02:58 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 28, 3:38 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
> >> Consider two light sources and two observers as shown below. S1 is connected to
> >> O1 and S2 is connected to O2. O2 is moving at v relative to O1.
>
> >> O1----------------------------------------------------S1
> >> v<- O2---------------------------------------S2
>
> >> According to SR,
>
> >> light from S1 moves at c towards O1.
>
> >> Light from S2 moves at c towards O2.
> >> In other words, the CLOSING SPEED of light from S2 on O2 is c.
>
> >Not in this frame. The CLOSING SPEED of light from S2 on O2 is c-v.
> >However, in the frame where S2 and O2 are at rest and S1 and O1 are
> >moving, then the closing speed of S2 on O2 is c.
>
> This is an interesting new slant. We now have a disagreement between the
> members of the relativist fraternity.
Really? Who's the other?
>
> My question has split them into two camps.
>
> >> However the CLOSING SPEED of light from S1 on O2 is c-v.
>
> >> So we have a situation in which two separate rays of light CLOSE ON O2 at
> >> different speeds. How can that happen?
>
> >Well, it helps to know what the words mean. Otherwise you confuse
> >yourself.
>
> I know what 'closing speed' means.
If you did, you wouldn't have made such a simple goof.
>
> ...and if two rays have different closing speeds on the same object as
> determined by the same observer, then it is bloody obvious they don't have the
> same speed at all.
And where is that the case?
>
> >I can see why this question was embarrassing for you, and why you
> >would ask physicists about it.
>
PD
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:40:06 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
> >news:jsqke5936rh07g17u...@4ax.com...
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
> >>>news:81jke5dved8naupau...@4ax.com...
This isn't quite right.
Closing speed is the numerical difference between the speeds of two
objects, as seen by an observer that is neither of the two objects.
This does not describe the situation you just laid out. Please try
again.
>
> Now:
>
> S1's light is closing on O2 at c-v.
Yes, as seen in the frame drawn.
> S2's light is closing on O1 at c+v
No. In the frame drawn, it's closing on O1 at c.
>
> S1's light must close on O1 at c.
In O1's frame yes. Not in any other frame.
> S2's light must close on O2 at c.
Not in the frame drawn. If it were drawn in the frame where O2 is at
rest, yes.
You see? You don't understand what closing velocity is at all. You've
made a number of mistakes in short order.
kenseto
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:09:10 -0700 (PDT), kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 28, 4:38 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
> >> Consider two light sources and two observers as shown below. S1 is connected to
> >> O1 and S2 is connected to O2. O2 is moving at v relative to O1.
>
> >> O1----------------------------------------------------S1
> >> v<- O2---------------------------------------S2
>
> >> According to SR,
>
> >> light from S1 moves at c towards O1.
>
> >> Light from S2 moves at c towards O2.
> >> In other words, the CLOSING SPEED of light from S2 on O2 is c.
>
>
> >> So we have a situation in which two separate rays of light CLOSE ON O2 at
> >> different speeds. How can that happen?
>
> >c=(measure arriving frequency)(measured arriving wavelength)
> >This arguement failed to realize that the light from S1 becomes a new
> >light source in O2's frame and the frequency detector and the
> >wavelength detector (the grating) in O2 will detect all light sources
> >in the O2 frame to have a velocity of c.....for example sources such
> >as sodium, mercury, H-Alpha in the O2 grating frame....etc all emit
> >light with a speed of c.
> >Closing speed got nothing to do with thwe arriving speed of light.
>
> >However you do have a point as follows:
> >1. Suppose that S1 is a sodium source with a universal wavelength of
> >589 nm.
> >2. during the transit of sodium light from S1 to O2 there is nothing
> >that can change the wavelength of sodium light.....that means that the
> >wavelength will remain at 589 nm.
> >3. The detected arriving frequency is measured by the O2 detector.
> >4. Therefore the arrival speed of light from S1 is calculated as
> >follows:
> >c'=(measured frequency)(universal wavelength of sodium 589 nm)
>
> >Http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2008irt.dtg.pdf
>
> >Ken Seto
>
> Ken, obviously the answer is trivial if an aether exists but let's not
> complicate the question with that kind of argument. The fact is, relativists
> cannot explain how two rays that are approaching an object at different speeds
Sr claims that every SR observer will measure the speed of light from
any source to be c. Relative velocity cannot be added or substracted
from this measured velocity directly as you did. This is the problem
with Einstein's train gedanken where he used closing velocities to
derive the bogus concept of RoS. he said that M' rush toward the light
front from the front (c+v) and receding away from the light front from
the rear
(c-v)....such assertion violates the experimentally confirmed results
that the speed of light is isotropic in all inertial frames.
Ken Seto
>
> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
>
> Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
rotchm
> Look at the diagram I drew in the original message. YOU are the third observer.
>
No it does not. Or, perhaps it does. I depends on what *you* mean.
Your sentence is ambiguous and has different interpretations. Make it
more clear: specify who is the observer ( specify relative to which
frame).
> The light from S2 approaches O2 at c.
This sentence is a little more clear since it has basically has only
one possible interpretation.
> How by any stretch of the imagination can anyone claim that the two rays are
> traveling at the same speed?
They are:
Wrt O1, *the* ray(s) are approaching O1 with speed c, no?
Wrt O2, *the* ray(s) are approaching O2 with speed c, no?
Now...
Wrt O1, the *closing speed* between (the ray and O2) is c-v.
Understand the difference?
We are not talking about the *speed* of a ray. We are talking about
*closing speed*, a totally different concept ( which has nothing to do
with SR by the way).
We are not talking about the speed of *a ray*. We are talking about a
difference of speeds of *two* objects.
Inertial
Oh good .. we get to laugh at you again
> YOU and other relativists have always pointed out that if an observer is
> approaching a light source at v, the light from that source will 'close
> on' or
> 'approach' the observer at c+v. You have stressed that this is allowed in
> SR.
It depends on the frame of reference, but in the frame of the source, then
yes
> Now:
O1----------------------------------------------------S1
v<- O2---------------------------------------S2
I assume we're going to be talking in my frame .. the frame of the diagram
which is also the frame of S1 and O1. And that be "closing on" you mean
closing speed. And I assume you're talking about what SR says, as it is a
question for relativists .. So let us continue ...
> S1's light is closing on O2 at c-v.
Yes, as the light is travelling at c and O2 travelling at v
> S2's light is closing on O1 at c+v
No. the closing speed is c, as O1 is at rest in my frame
> S1's light must close on O1 at c.
Yes
> S2's light must close on O2 at c.
No, the closing speed is c-v, as the light is travelling at c and O2
travelling at v
> So according to any third observer,
> the two rays close on O1 at c+v and c.
No observer says that, except one for which v = 0
> And the two rays close on O2 at c-v and c.
No observer says that, except one for which v = 0
> I want you to explain, in simple English, how two rays can have different
> 'closing speeds' on the one object if they are traveling at the same speed
> relative to that object.
They don't.
BAHAHAHA .. it was fun to laugh at your idiocy again. Do you enjoy making
such a fool of yourself
Sebastian Garth
> Let's start again shall we.
>
> YOU and other relativists have always pointed out that if an observer is
> approaching a light source at v, the light from that source will 'close on' or
> 'approach' the observer at c+v. You have stressed that this is allowed in SR.
No, the light source will approach the observer at precisely c.
>
> Now:
>
> S1's light is closing on O2 at c-v.
> S2's light is closing on O1 at c+v
>
> S1's light must close on O1 at c.
> S2's light must close on O2 at c.
>
> So according to any third observer,
> the two rays close on O1 at c+v and c.
> And the two rays close on O2 at c-v and c.
>
> I want you to explain, in simple English, how two rays can have different
> 'closing speeds' on the one object if they are traveling at the same speed
> relative to that object.
Let's say that observer O1 is travelling with the velocity V1, at 99%
c, and O2 with V2 in the opposite direction, also at 99%c. Standing
between them is observer O3, who we will arbitrarily describe as 'at
rest' with respect with the others. O1 and O2 both transmit beams of
light in the direction of their motion (L1a and L2a) and in the
opposite direction (L1b and L2b). The fact that the sum of L1a and L2a
equals 200% c (with respect to O3) does not violate relativity simply
because nothing (eg: information, energy, etc) is being transmitted in
excess of c. Moreover, that the sum of V1 and V2 is 198% c neither
implies that any *single* observer, relative to any other *single*
observer, is travelling in excess of c. So the error is really due to
introduction of a third frame of reference, and the fact that the
concept of 'closing speed' is being confused with 'relative speed'.
Furthermore, the question of whether L1b will ever arrive at O2 (and
thus L2b at O1) must of course be to the affirmative. Consider it just
from the perspective of O3: since L1b is travelling at 100% c and O2
at 99% c, it is clear that the former will eventually overtake the
latter. Finally, even as O2 has reached a coasting speed of 99% c
relative to O3, within the reference frame of O2 itself the vehicle is
completely at rest. In fact, it could be accelerated once again to 99%
c. And yet again. This doesn't mean that O2 is now travelling at 297%
c relative to O3. Indeed, as observed from O3, O2 has simply increased
it's speed by a mere fraction of the remaining 1%. No matter how many
times the process is repeated, the relative speed will always be less
than c. Even as O3 sails millions, billions, trillions of years into
the future, a signal could still be transmitted, reflected, and
received from any of the reference frames in question.
Henry Wilson DSc
That doesn't alter the fact that if a particular observer sees two rays closing
on a particular observer at different speeds those rays cannot possibly be
traveling at the same speed.
Henry Wilson DSc
That is plainly an aether concept.
>Relative velocity cannot be added or substracted
>from this measured velocity directly as you did. This is the problem
>with Einstein's train gedanken where he used closing velocities to
>derive the bogus concept of RoS. he said that M' rush toward the light
>front from the front (c+v) and receding away from the light front from
>the rear at (c-v)....such assertion violates the experimentally confirmed results
>that the speed of light is isotropic in all inertial frames.
What experimetal results? There are none.
Henry Wilson DSc
You on the other hand have demonstarted that you are an aetherist in disguise.
There is no other explanation for claiming that light from S1 to O1 travels at
the same speeds as that from S2 to O2. You are relying on an absolute property
of the space between them to determine that speed.
Henry Wilson DSc
<sebasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 29, 11:23 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>> Let's start again shall we.
>>
>> YOU and other relativists have always pointed out that if an observer is
>> approaching a light source at v, the light from that source will 'close on' or
>> 'approach' the observer at c+v. You have stressed that this is allowed in SR.
>
>No, the light source will approach the observer at precisely c.
Di you mean 'the light from the source will approach the observer at precisely
c'?
If so you are disagreeing with both Diaper and inertial and the rest of the
relativist fraternity..
>
>>
>> Now:
>>
>> S1's light is closing on O2 at c-v.
>> S2's light is closing on O1 at c+v
>>
>> S1's light must close on O1 at c.
>> S2's light must close on O2 at c.
>>
>> So according to any third observer,
>> the two rays close on O1 at c+v and c.
>> And the two rays close on O2 at c-v and c.
>>
>> I want you to explain, in simple English, how two rays can have different
>> 'closing speeds' on the one object if they are traveling at the same speed
>> relative to that object.
>
>Let's say that observer O1 is travelling with the velocity V1, at 99%
>c, and O2 with V2 in the opposite direction, also at 99%c. Standing
>between them is observer O3, who we will arbitrarily describe as 'at
>rest' with respect with the others. O1 and O2 both transmit beams of
>light in the direction of their motion (L1a and L2a) and in the
>opposite direction (L1b and L2b). The fact that the sum of L1a and L2a
>equals 200% c (with respect to O3) does not violate relativity simply
>because nothing (eg: information, energy, etc) is being transmitted in
>excess of c.
...by light....So what?
>Moreover, that the sum of V1 and V2 is 198% c neither
>implies that any *single* observer, relative to any other *single*
>observer, is travelling in excess of c.
Only if the SR velocity addition equation is applied.
You are assuming it is correct in an attempt to prove it is correct. You are
simply restating Einstein's second postulate. It is not a proof.
>So the error is really due to
>introduction of a third frame of reference, and the fact that the
>concept of 'closing speed' is being confused with 'relative speed'.
>Furthermore, the question of whether L1b will ever arrive at O2 (and
>thus L2b at O1) must of course be to the affirmative. Consider it just
>from the perspective of O3: since L1b is travelling at 100% c and O2
>at 99% c, it is clear that the former will eventually overtake the
>latter. Finally, even as O2 has reached a coasting speed of 99% c
>relative to O3, within the reference frame of O2 itself the vehicle is
>completely at rest. In fact, it could be accelerated once again to 99%
>c. And yet again. This doesn't mean that O2 is now travelling at 297%
>c relative to O3. Indeed, as observed from O3, O2 has simply increased
>it's speed by a mere fraction of the remaining 1%. No matter how many
>times the process is repeated, the relative speed will always be less
>than c. Even as O3 sails millions, billions, trillions of years into
>the future, a signal could still be transmitted, reflected, and
>received from any of the reference frames in question.
Your experiment doesn't make any sense.
Henry Wilson DSc
You claim that the closing speed of S2 on O2 is not c is the type of fairytale
one would expect to hear in a madhouse or a mosque....or, of course, in the
home of an aetherist..
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
Did you look at
http://www.scisite.info/curve1.jpg