Moving Mirror Proves Einstein Wrong
Henry Wilson DSc
The source emits pulses of light towards the mirror, which is moving at v
towards it, as measured in the source frame.
According to SR, both the incoming and reflected pulses move at c in the source
frame. They 'close on' the mirror at c+v and leave it at c-v.
Can any Einstein supporter show the world how, under these circumstances, the
incident and reflected speeds of the pulses can be equal when measured in the
mirror frame.
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Selling something that doesn't exist is a serious crime....unless it's called god.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
news:6tmkj593emf34b0jf...@4ax.com...
> This experiment involves a light source and a mirror.
>
> The source emits pulses of light towards the mirror, which is moving at v
> towards it, as measured in the source frame.
>
> According to SR, both the incoming and reflected pulses move at c in the
> source
> frame. They 'close on' the mirror at c+v and leave it at c-v.
>
> Can any Einstein supporter show the world how, under these circumstances,
> the
> incident and reflected speeds of the pulses can be equal when measured in
> the
> mirror frame.
>
Multiply (c+v) by (c-v) which almost squares the result,
so divide by c^2 and then take the root of that, then take
the inverse and you'll have a fudge factor that unifuckates
c+v and/or c-v to c.
c = (c+/-v) / sqrt( (c+v) *(c-v) / c^2)
c = (c+/-v) / sqrt( (c^2-v^2) / c^2)
c = (c+/-v) / sqrt( c^2/c^2 - v^2/c^2)
c = (c+/-v) / sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2)
An Einstein supporter like you should have no trouble
unifuckating as your hero Einstein did.
Wilson unifuckation "proves" Einstein right.
YBM
> This experiment involves a light source and a mirror.
>
> The source emits pulses of light towards the mirror, which is moving at v
> towards it, as measured in the source frame.
>
> According to SR, both the incoming and reflected pulses move at c in the source
> frame. They 'close on' the mirror at c+v and leave it at c-v.
>
> Can any Einstein supporter show the world how, under these circumstances, the
> incident and reflected speeds of the pulses can be equal when measured in the
> mirror frame.
2nd SR postulate.
Alternatively you could apply Lorentz Transformations to verify that
both speeds are c in the mirror frame. There is no much point to do
it since SR postulates are equivalent to LTs (and are coherent). Anyway
it could be a good exercise for *you* who happen to have never applied
LTs to a single case in your whole miserable life.
eric gisse
> This experiment involves a light source and a mirror.
One day you will learn the difference between an actual experiment, and a
thought experiment.
>
> The source emits pulses of light towards the mirror, which is moving at v
> towards it, as measured in the source frame.
>
> According to SR, both the incoming and reflected pulses move at c in the
> source frame. They 'close on' the mirror at c+v and leave it at c-v.
>
> Can any Einstein supporter show the world how, under these circumstances,
> the incident and reflected speeds of the pulses can be equal when measured
> in the mirror frame.
It is by assumption, Ralph.
Why are you still trying to get people to show you how to prove a postulate?
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
>> This experiment involves a light source and a mirror.
>
>One day you will learn the difference between an actual experiment, and a
>thought experiment.
>
>>
>> The source emits pulses of light towards the mirror, which is moving at v
>> towards it, as measured in the source frame.
>>
>> According to SR, both the incoming and reflected pulses move at c in the
>> source frame. They 'close on' the mirror at c+v and leave it at c-v.
>>
>> Can any Einstein supporter show the world how, under these circumstances,
>> the incident and reflected speeds of the pulses can be equal when measured
>> in the mirror frame.
>
>It is by assumption, Henry.
>
>Why are you still trying to get people to show you how to prove a postulate?
Aha! Now we know that the whole of Einstein's theory is based on 'proof by
assumption'.
This is very scientific, I must say.
.
Henry Wilson...
Save the Planet....support my ONE-AND-A-HALF CHILD policy.
www.scisite.info/solution.rtf
Henry Wilson DSc
Hahahahahhahaha! The moron utters bullshit again...
Hey smartarse, show me exactly how the application of LTs can make the speeds
equal in the mirror frame....
Paul B. Andersen
> This experiment involves a light source and a mirror.
>
> The source emits pulses of light towards the mirror, which is moving at v
> towards it, as measured in the source frame.
>
> According to SR, both the incoming and reflected pulses move at c in the source
> frame. They 'close on' the mirror at c+v and leave it at c-v.
>
> Can any Einstein supporter show the world how, under these circumstances, the
> incident and reflected speeds of the pulses can be equal when measured in the
> mirror frame.
Thanks for yet another demonstration of Rabbidgian logic. :-)
It goes like this:
Since I, Ralph Rabbidge with the fake degrees assert that the speed
of light transforms according to the Galilean transform, Einstein is
proven wrong. So there!!!
--
Paul
eric gisse
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:12:01 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>
>>> This experiment involves a light source and a mirror.
>>
>>One day you will learn the difference between an actual experiment, and a
>>thought experiment.
>>
>>>
>>> The source emits pulses of light towards the mirror, which is moving at
>>> v towards it, as measured in the source frame.
>>>
>>> According to SR, both the incoming and reflected pulses move at c in the
>>> source frame. They 'close on' the mirror at c+v and leave it at c-v.
>>>
>>> Can any Einstein supporter show the world how, under these
>>> circumstances, the incident and reflected speeds of the pulses can be
>>> equal when measured in the mirror frame.
>>
>>It is by assumption, Henry.
>>
>>Why are you still trying to get people to show you how to prove a
>>postulate?
>
> Aha! Now we know that the whole of Einstein's theory is based on 'proof by
> assumption'.
No, that's what actual experiments are for.
YBM
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:55:21 +0100, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Henry Wilson DSc a �crit :
>>> This experiment involves a light source and a mirror.
>>>
>>> The source emits pulses of light towards the mirror, which is moving at v
>>> towards it, as measured in the source frame.
>>>
>>> According to SR, both the incoming and reflected pulses move at c in the source
>>> frame. They 'close on' the mirror at c+v and leave it at c-v.
>>>
>>> Can any Einstein supporter show the world how, under these circumstances, the
>>> incident and reflected speeds of the pulses can be equal when measured in the
>>> mirror frame.
>> 2nd SR postulate.
>>
>> Alternatively you could apply Lorentz Transformations to verify that
>> both speeds are c in the mirror frame. There is no much point to do
>> it since SR postulates are equivalent to LTs (and are coherent). Anyway
>> it could be a good exercise for *you* who happen to have never applied
>> LTs to a single case in your whole miserable life.
>
> Hahahahahhahaha! The moron utters bullshit again...
>
> Hey smartarse, show me exactly how the application of LTs can make the speeds
> equal in the mirror frame....
This is actually very easy. I've shown here several times how to apply
LTs on various cases. It's about *you*, Ralph: you've *never* applied
LTs to any single case.
Go on, learn something before you'll die!
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
news:6tmkj593emf34b0jf...@4ax.com...
Not again .. haven't you learnt ANYTHING?
> The source emits pulses of light towards the mirror, which is moving at v
> towards it, as measured in the source frame.
>
> According to SR, both the incoming and reflected pulses move at c in the
> source
> frame.
Yeup
> They 'close on' the mirror at c+v and leave it at c-v.
In the source frame the light is moving at c (as in all inertial frames) and
the mirror at v, so yes, the closing speed between the light and mirror as
calculated by a source-frame observer is c+v incoming and after reflection
the separation speed as calculated by a source-frame observer is c-v.
> Can any Einstein supporter show the world how, under these circumstances,
> the
> incident and reflected speeds of the pulses can be equal when measured in
> the
> mirror frame.
In the mirror frame the light is moving at c (as in all inertial frames) and
the mirror is at rest, so yes, the closing speed between the light and
mirror as calculated by a mirror-frame observer is c incoming and after
reflection the separation speed as calculated by a mirror-frame observer is
c.
Closing and separation speed, just like times and distances, and velocities
and momentum etc, are all relative in SR. So different observers will
measure different speeds.
The clocks in the source frame used to measure closing/separating speeds of
c+v and c-v, but the clocks in the mirror frame are synchronized differently
(so in the source frame they would appear to read different times instead of
the same time), and so give different values for those speeds
So ... basically you are saying you've proved SR to be wrong because you
need someone to explain the second postulate to you. Only a proof that you
don't understand SR .. not that we needed another one.
Inertial
"YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
news:4b3a9350$0$30381$426a...@news.free.fr...
Perhaps Henry will present the math that shows that applying the Lorentz
transforms does NOT make the speeds equal in the mirror frame :) Of course,
Henry thinks* that all "applying LTs" means nothing other than reducing all
lengths by a factor and slowing all times by a factor !!
(* actually Henry doesn't think nearly often enough nor deeply enough ..
that's the problem .. his ego keeps getting in the way )
Tom Roberts
> This experiment involves a light source and a mirror.
This is not an "experiment", it is a gedanken. The difference is CRUCIAL. That
is, no actual equipment is used, and no measurements are actually made; instead,
the described physical situation is analyzed using theories of physical behavior.
> The source emits pulses of light towards the mirror, which is moving at v
> towards it, as measured in the source frame.
> According to SR, both the incoming and reflected pulses move at c in the source
> frame. They 'close on' the mirror at c+v and leave it at c-v.
Yes, where the closing speeds are measured in the source frame. It is ALWAYS
necessary to state from which perspective such statements are made (closing
speeds are not measurements, they are calculations).
By "frame" I assume you mean INERTIAL frame, with source and
mirror at rest in their respective frames. I also assume vacuum
in all light paths (except for source and mirror). I further
assume some method of measuring the light pulses that does not
negate these assumptions (in a gedanken I can do that, even
though it cannot be done in the real world).
> Can any Einstein supporter show the world how, under these circumstances, the
> incident and reflected speeds of the pulses can be equal when measured in the
> mirror frame.
To measure their speeds in the mirror frame requires an observer at rest in the
mirror frame, using clocks and rulers at rest in the mirror frame. These clocks
and rulers are identical to the clocks and rulers at rest in the source frame,
but are NOT congruent to them (that is: when one measures the distance between a
given pair of events [#] using source-frame rulers, one gets a different value
than if one measured the distance between the same events using mirror-frame
rulers; similarly when one measures the time between a given pair of events
using source-frame clocks, one gets a different value than if one measured the
interval between the same events using mirror-frame clocks).
NOTE: in general one must use multiple clocks; in all cases
the clocks at rest in a given frame are synchronized in that
frame before being used for any measurements.
[#] an event is an idealized happening at a definite place
and time. Here are examples: light pulse #357 is emitted
by the source, light pulse #357 is reflected by the mirror.
The relationships among measurements by source-frame and mirror-frame clocks and
rulers are described by the Lorentz transform between the source and mirror
frames. A direct consequence of these relationships is that ALL light rays are
measured to propagate with speed c, in BOTH the source frame and the mirror
frame. This means the incident and reflected speeds of the pulses ARE equal when
measured in the mirror frame. It also means the incident and reflected speeds of
the pulses ARE equal when measured in the source frame. And it also means that
both of those measured speeds ARE equal to c.
Note: I am not really an "Einstein supporter". Rather, I
am a physicist. That is, I STUDY physics and use the theories
which best model the physical phenomena of the world. For this
sort of question by far the best model is Special Relativity
(no other theory comes close, except for theories
indistinguishable from SR).
Tom Roberts
Henry Wilson DSc
That's what you have to prove, shithead...
>
>So ... basically you are saying you've proved SR to be wrong because you
>need someone to explain the second postulate to you. Only a proof that you
>don't understand SR .. not that we needed another one.
Androcles
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:T_OdnURtg7V...@giganews.com...
Not in a gedanken. The difference is CRUCIAL. That
is, no actual observer is used, and no measurements are actually made;
instead,
the described physical situation is analyzed using theories of physical
behavior,
you ignorant self-contradictory lying bastard.
YBM
Listen Ralph, this is a direct consequence of the 2nd postulate of SR.
On another hand, postulates of SR implies LTs.
So either you're able to check by *yourself* that LTs are consistent
with your gedanken or is not, or you are not able to apply LTs at all
because of your math/physics deficiency.
All of us (but you, John Parker aka Androcles, mpc and others cranks)
have done this a million times, have this a dozen times on this very
newsgroup.
Come on Ralph, write down coordinates of relevent events here (they are
three of them) in emission frame, then apply LTs to get their
coordinates in mirror frame, then conclude by yourself.
Are you so a chicken?
Androcles
"YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
> All of us (but you, John Parker aka Androcles, mpc and others cranks)
> have done this a million times, have this a dozen times on this very
> newsgroup.
Eat shit, 10,000,000,000 flies can't be wrong.
It's Dr. John Parker aka Androcles to you, Your Basic Moron.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>> This experiment involves a light source and a mirror.
>
>This is not an "experiment", it is a gedanken. The difference is CRUCIAL. That
>is, no actual equipment is used, and no measurements are actually made; instead,
>the described physical situation is analyzed using theories of physical behavior.
The whole of Einstein's theory was based on gedankens. It was derived without
experiment or equipment.
>> The source emits pulses of light towards the mirror, which is moving at v
>> towards it, as measured in the source frame.
>> According to SR, both the incoming and reflected pulses move at c in the source
>> frame. They 'close on' the mirror at c+v and leave it at c-v.
>
>Yes, where the closing speeds are measured in the source frame. It is ALWAYS
>necessary to state from which perspective such statements are made (closing
>speeds are not measurements, they are calculations).
Yes we know that.
> By "frame" I assume you mean INERTIAL frame, with source and
> mirror at rest in their respective frames. I also assume vacuum
> in all light paths (except for source and mirror). I further
> assume some method of measuring the light pulses that does not
> negate these assumptions (in a gedanken I can do that, even
> though it cannot be done in the real world).
>
>
>> Can any Einstein supporter show the world how, under these circumstances, the
>> incident and reflected speeds of the pulses can be equal when measured in the
>> mirror frame.
>
>To measure their speeds in the mirror frame requires an observer at rest in the
>mirror frame, using clocks and rulers at rest in the mirror frame. These clocks
>and rulers are identical to the clocks and rulers at rest in the source frame,
>but are NOT congruent to them (that is: when one measures the distance between a
>given pair of events [#] using source-frame rulers, one gets a different value
>than if one measured the distance between the same events using mirror-frame
>rulers; similarly when one measures the time between a given pair of events
>using source-frame clocks, one gets a different value than if one measured the
>interval between the same events using mirror-frame clocks).
That is plainly not true.
Neither the clocks nor the rulers used by the Mirror Observer have to be
related in any way to those used by the GO.
The MO uses ONE rod of arbitrary length and TWO clocks, A and B that are
e-synched by him. That is, tAB = tBA using two light sources that are at rest
with the clocks.
The experiment has to show that the MO also finds tAB = tBA using the pulses,
THE SOURCE OF WHICH IS NOT AT REST WITH THE CLOCKS or Einstein is proved wrong.
> NOTE: in general one must use multiple clocks; in all cases
> the clocks at rest in a given frame are synchronized in that
> frame before being used for any measurements.
>
> [#] an event is an idealized happening at a definite place
> and time. Here are examples: light pulse #357 is emitted
> by the source, light pulse #357 is reflected by the mirror.
>
>The relationships among measurements by source-frame and mirror-frame clocks and
>rulers are described by the Lorentz transform between the source and mirror
>frames. A direct consequence of these relationships is that ALL light rays are
>measured to propagate with speed c, in BOTH the source frame and the mirror
>frame. This means the incident and reflected speeds of the pulses ARE equal when
>measured in the mirror frame. It also means the incident and reflected speeds of
>the pulses ARE equal when measured in the source frame. And it also means that
>both of those measured speeds ARE equal to c.
What do you hope to achieve by reiterating the second postulate over and over?
You have not made one concrete or meaningful statement. Where is the proof?
> Note: I am not really an "Einstein supporter". Rather, I
> am a physicist. That is, I STUDY physics and use the theories
> which best model the physical phenomena of the world. For this
> sort of question by far the best model is Special Relativity
> (no other theory comes close, except for theories
> indistinguishable from SR).
You're not a physicst. You might claim to be some kind of specialist
mathematician, nothing more.
Now, please show me the math that shows the incident and reflected pulses move
at the same speed wrt the moving mirror IN THE MIRROR FRAME....or accept and
admit that Einstein's theory is wrong.
>Tom Roberts
YBM
> "YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4b3aa251$0$7051$426a...@news.free.fr...
>
>> All of us (but you, John Parker aka Androcles, mpc and others cranks)
>> have done this a million times, have this a dozen times on this very
>> newsgroup.
>
> Eat shit, 10,000,000,000 flies can't be wrong.
You didn't apply LT once in your miserable life, dumby, did you?
> It's Dr. John Parker aka Androcles to you, Your Basic Moron.
Remember your "xor does not implie or" debacle, "doctor".
Your idiocy is ashaming Wendy's memory every day, you dirty piece of
shit.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:51:26 -0600, Tom Roberts
> <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>>> This experiment involves a light source and a mirror.
>>
>>This is not an "experiment", it is a gedanken. The difference is CRUCIAL.
>>That
>>is, no actual equipment is used, and no measurements are actually made;
>>instead,
>>the described physical situation is analyzed using theories of physical
>>behavior.
>
> The whole of Einstein's theory was based on gedankens. It was derived
> without
> experiment or equipment.
>
>>> The source emits pulses of light towards the mirror, which is moving at
>>> v
>>> towards it, as measured in the source frame.
>>> According to SR, both the incoming and reflected pulses move at c in the
>>> source
>>> frame. They 'close on' the mirror at c+v and leave it at c-v.
>>
>>Yes, where the closing speeds are measured in the source frame. It is
>>ALWAYS
>>necessary to state from which perspective such statements are made
>>(closing
>>speeds are not measurements, they are calculations).
>
> Yes we know that.
Bullshit. A closing speed is just a speed relative to a different car
and is not a calculation. Try a radar gun from the cop's car.
Neither one of you know jack shit.
YBM
Cop's car radar is neither measuring closing speed between the car and
cops as seen in road's frame, nor measuring car speed relative to the
road but is measuring the relative speed of the car relative to the
radar.
Then there is actually a calculation to obtain the relative speed of the
car relative to the road. You could use Newton's or Einstein's formula
as you wish, since it can be proven they'll give the same results given
that neither the car or the cops are moving near light speed relative
to the road.
Is that too complicated for an (so called) "electrical engineer"?
Androcles
"YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
> Androcles a �crit :
>> "YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:4b3aa251$0$7051$426a...@news.free.fr...
>>
>>> All of us (but you, John Parker aka Androcles, mpc and others cranks)
>>> have done this a million times, have this a dozen times on this very
>>> newsgroup.
>>
>> Eat shit, 10,000,000,000 flies can't be wrong.
>
> You didn't apply LT once in your miserable life, dumby, did you?
Which ones, fuckwit? Lorentz's contraction or Einstein's expansion?
>
>> It's Dr. John Parker aka Androcles to you, Your Basic Moron.
>
> Remember your "xor does not implie or" debacle, "doctor".
>
Yes, your lover the local village idiot got it wrong, you fucking queer.
> Your idiocy is ashaming Wendy's memory every day, you dirty piece of
> shit.
You couldn't apply LT once in your miserable life, dumbfuck, could you?
Androcles
"YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
Well done, you got it right. A closing speed is just a speed relative
to a different car and is not a calculation.
Now go and tell that to your lover, Dork Van de merde.
glird
> "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote
> >>It is ALWAYS necessary to state from which perspective such statements are made {!!}
(closing speeds are not measurements, they are calculations).>
>
> > Yes we know that.
>
> Bullshit. A closing speed is just a speed relative to a different car and is not a calculation. Try a radar gun from the cop's car.
Neither one of you know jack shit. >
The latter was written by the head ass who STILL doesn't understand
the equation he repeatedly asks about even though (as he admitted) it
was totally and correctly explained to him MANY months ago.
Perhaps his ongoing ignorance is fathered by his failure to
understand that it is ALWAYS necessary to state which frame of
reference made the measurements he keeps asking about.
glird
YBM
This is not what I wrote, liar.
YBM
> "YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4b3aa6a2$0$674$426a...@news.free.fr...
>> Androcles a �crit :
>>> "YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:4b3aa251$0$7051$426a...@news.free.fr...
>>>
>>>> All of us (but you, John Parker aka Androcles, mpc and others cranks)
>>>> have done this a million times, have this a dozen times on this very
>>>> newsgroup.
>>> Eat shit, 10,000,000,000 flies can't be wrong.
>> You didn't apply LT once in your miserable life, dumby, did you?
>
> Which ones, fuckwit? Lorentz's contraction or Einstein's expansion?
>>> It's Dr. John Parker aka Androcles to you, Your Basic Moron.
>> Remember your "xor does not implie or" debacle, "doctor".
>>
> Yes, your lover the local village idiot got it wrong, you fucking queer.
So you still believe that "p xor q" does not imply "p or q", dumby?
Every of your idiocies put a piece of shit on Wendy Parker's memory, and
you profer a dozen of them every day.
Androcles
"YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
> Androcles a �crit :
>> "YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:4b3aa6a2$0$674$426a...@news.free.fr...
>>> Androcles a �crit :
>>>> "YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:4b3aa251$0$7051$426a...@news.free.fr...
>>>>
>>>>> All of us (but you, John Parker aka Androcles, mpc and others cranks)
>>>>> have done this a million times, have this a dozen times on this very
>>>>> newsgroup.
>>>> Eat shit, 10,000,000,000 flies can't be wrong.
>>> You didn't apply LT once in your miserable life, dumby, did you?
>>
>> Which ones, fuckwit? Lorentz's contraction or Einstein's expansion?
Can't answer the question, Your Basic Moron?
You couldn't apply LT once in your miserable life, dumbfuck, could you?
Androcles
"YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
"is measuring the relative speed of the car relative to the radar."
with me. Now fuck off, you are disagreeing with yourself, you dumb
bastard.
YBM
> "YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4b3aaed4$0$668$426a...@news.free.fr...
>> Androcles a �crit :
>>> "YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:4b3aa6a2$0$674$426a...@news.free.fr...
>>>> Androcles a �crit :
>>>>> "YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4b3aa251$0$7051$426a...@news.free.fr...
>>>>>
>>>>>> All of us (but you, John Parker aka Androcles, mpc and others cranks)
>>>>>> have done this a million times, have this a dozen times on this very
>>>>>> newsgroup.
>>>>> Eat shit, 10,000,000,000 flies can't be wrong.
>>>> You didn't apply LT once in your miserable life, dumby, did you?
>>> Which ones, fuckwit? Lorentz's contraction or Einstein's expansion?
>
You don't even know what these terms means, dumby. BTW there is no
"Einstein's expansion".
> You couldn't apply LT once in your miserable life, dumbfuck, could you?
Look up google groups, you'll see.
One more piece of shit from you on Wendy's memory.
p xor q => p or q, dumby? Explain us what this is not true.
YBM
Always the same disgusting liar you are, John.
No one but *you* have never pretended that a radar measure anything
else but a speed relative to it.
For the record, could you define what you mean by "closing speed"?
It's about time for you to throw another piece of shit on Wendy
Parker's memory, isn't it?
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Its what SR predicts. Do you want me to prove that what SR predicts is what
SR predicts? If so, I'm not sure exactly what extra information you
require. If you want me to prove that reality behaves in the same way as SR
predicts, then the only way to prove it (or at least to not-refute it) is to
physically perform the experiment. Be my guest. Also if you want to show
that there is any self-contradiction in SR, be my guest.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:51:26 -0600, Tom Roberts
> <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>>> This experiment involves a light source and a mirror.
>>
>>This is not an "experiment", it is a gedanken. The difference is CRUCIAL.
>>That
>>is, no actual equipment is used, and no measurements are actually made;
>>instead,
>>the described physical situation is analyzed using theories of physical
>>behavior.
>
> The whole of Einstein's theory was based on gedankens.
No .. it used gedankens as examples.
It was based on mathematical and logical consequences of two postulates
> It was derived without
> experiment or equipment.
Until it was tested a multitude of times with experiment and equipment and
it was found the predictions of the theory were supported by and explained
the results
>>> The source emits pulses of light towards the mirror, which is moving at
>>> v
>>> towards it, as measured in the source frame.
>>> According to SR, both the incoming and reflected pulses move at c in the
>>> source
>>> frame. They 'close on' the mirror at c+v and leave it at c-v.
>>
>>Yes, where the closing speeds are measured in the source frame. It is
>>ALWAYS
>>necessary to state from which perspective such statements are made
>>(closing
>>speeds are not measurements, they are calculations).
>
> Yes we know that.
It is surprising that you do
They are related in that they use the same standards for calibration
> The MO uses ONE rod of arbitrary length and TWO clocks, A and B that are
> e-synched by him. That is, tAB = tBA using two light sources that are at
> rest
> with the clocks.
Fine .. Sr's postulates guantee that it will (we are doing an SR analysis of
the gedanken here)
> The experiment has to show that the MO also finds tAB = tBA using the
> pulses,
It is a gedanken you know. So when you analyze it in terms of a particular
theory (SR in this case), you must assume *everything* that that theory says
applies. And the theory says that the times must be the same, because the
light travels at c incoming and c reflected relative to the mirrors inertial
FoR.
> THE SOURCE OF WHICH IS NOT AT REST WITH THE CLOCKS or Einstein is proved
> wrong.
You can't "prove" something wrong with a gedanken, *unless* the gedanken
least to a self-contradiction or a result that is known to be inconsistent
with experimental evidence.
>> NOTE: in general one must use multiple clocks; in all cases
>> the clocks at rest in a given frame are synchronized in that
>> frame before being used for any measurements.
>>
>> [#] an event is an idealized happening at a definite place
>> and time. Here are examples: light pulse #357 is emitted
>> by the source, light pulse #357 is reflected by the mirror.
>>
>>The relationships among measurements by source-frame and mirror-frame
>>clocks and
>>rulers are described by the Lorentz transform between the source and
>>mirror
>>frames. A direct consequence of these relationships is that ALL light rays
>>are
>>measured to propagate with speed c, in BOTH the source frame and the
>>mirror
>>frame. This means the incident and reflected speeds of the pulses ARE
>>equal when
>>measured in the mirror frame. It also means the incident and reflected
>>speeds of
>>the pulses ARE equal when measured in the source frame. And it also means
>>that
>>both of those measured speeds ARE equal to c.
>
> What do you hope to achieve by reiterating the second postulate over and
> over?
The second postulate provides the anwser
> You have not made one concrete or meaningful statement. Where is the
> proof?
The second postulate of SR says the speeds of light in the mirror frame is
c. Thaat is all the proof one needs for a gedanken being analyzed in terms
of SR
>> Note: I am not really an "Einstein supporter". Rather, I
>> am a physicist. That is, I STUDY physics and use the theories
>> which best model the physical phenomena of the world. For this
>> sort of question by far the best model is Special Relativity
>> (no other theory comes close, except for theories
>> indistinguishable from SR).
>
> You're not a physicst. You might claim to be some kind of specialist
> mathematician, nothing more.
>
> Now, please show me the math that shows the incident and reflected pulses
> move
> at the same speed wrt the moving mirror IN THE MIRROR FRAME....
Thie mirror does not move in the mirror frame .. it is a stationary mirror
in the mirror frame. The laws of reflection say that the outgoing light
must reflect at the same speed as the incoming light .. and as the speed of
incoming light is c (by the 2nd postulate) the speed of outgoing light must
be c .. and that is consistent with the 2nd postulate
> or accept and
> admit that Einstein's theory is wrong.
It is not*. If it is, prove it to be wrong. Proving a theory to be wrong
is possible (proving it correct is not).
(* meaning that it has been experimentally tested many times and never been
refuted and is logically self-consistent)
Inertial
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote in message
news:aHx_m.2044$Oh1...@newsfe24.ams2...
Any measurement of speed requires a calculation. eg. you measure a
distance, and measure an elapsed time and calculate the speed by division.
But a closing speed is as much a measurement as any other speed. You can
measure it by measuring the change in distance between two objects and the
time elapsed between those measurement. Then calculate the speed by
division.
So Androcles is correct in criticizing Tom on that particular point.
Inertial
> ALWAYS necessary to state from which perspective such statements are made
> (closing speeds are not measurements, they are calculations).
Any measurement of speed requires a calculation. eg. you measure a
distance, and measure an elapsed time and calculate the speed by division.
Some devices may read a speed, but there is implicit calculation in their
calibrations to do so.
A closing speed is as much a measurement as any other speed. You can
determine it by measuring the change in distance between two objects and the
time elapsed between those measurement. Then calculate the speed by
division.
The area of conflation that is a problem is assuming that a closing speed
has the same meaning as speed. Speed is the a measure of how the position
of an object changes over time, relative to a frame of reference. Closing
speed is a measure of how the difference in positions between two objects,
relative to a frame of reference, changes over time. They are very
different concepts.
It is just that in our relatively slow macro world we experience every day,
where Gallilean transforms are usually so close to the correct LT transform
that we can't measure the difference, that speed and closing speed seem to
be so simply related. Our intuition tells us that the same applies in all
situations .. experiment (and nature) tells us otherwise.
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:51:26 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>>> This experiment involves a light source and a mirror.
>>
>>This is not an "experiment", it is a gedanken. The difference is CRUCIAL. That
>>is, no actual equipment is used, and no measurements are actually made; instead,
>>the described physical situation is analyzed using theories of physical behavior.
>
>The whole of Einstein's theory was based on gedankens. It was derived without
>experiment or equipment.
Actually, this experiment is not quite as clear as my original one.
Here is the original one again:
A light source emits pulses of light towards two clocks and a mirror that are
moving towards the source at v. The clocks are rigidly joined and the mirror is
connected to C2. In the source frame, they appear as follows:
S----------------------------------------------------v<--C1___d___ |M,C2
The clocks are E-synched in the mirror frame. That is, their readings and rates
are made the same by sending time signals from each clock towards the other and
adjusting one accordingly.
According to SR, all light moves at c in the source frame.
In the experiment, a light pulse is emitted by S towards mirror, M. The
two clocks register their readings as the pulse passes them.
C1 reads t0 when the pulse initially passes by. C2 reads t1 when the pulse
reaches the mirror. C1 reads t2 when the reflected pulse passes on the return
trip.
In the source frame, the pulse's travel time between C1 and C2 on the forward
trip is d/(c+v). The clocks NUMERICALLY read t0 and t1 as the light passes.
After reflection, its travel time between C2 and C1 is d/(c-v) and the clocks
record the numbers t1 and t2.
According to SR, the pulse should also move at c in the mirror frame both
before and after reflection.
In that frame, the source is moving towards the mirror at v and the pulse will
therefore take the same time to travel between the two clocks in both
directions (for both SR and BaTh). Therefore, numerically, t1-t0 should equal
t2-t1. (The value should be d/c according to SR, d/(c+v) for BaTh.)
The task for relativists is to show how the pulse travel times between the
clocks can be the same in the mirror frame yet different in the source frame .
Henry Wilson DSc
>Androcles a �crit :
>> "YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:4b3aaed4$0$668$426a...@news.free.fr...
>>> Androcles a �crit :
>>>> "YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:4b3aa6a2$0$674$426a...@news.free.fr...
>>>>> Androcles a �crit :
>>>>>> "YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:4b3aa251$0$7051$426a...@news.free.fr...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All of us (but you, John Parker aka Androcles, mpc and others cranks)
>>>>>>> have done this a million times, have this a dozen times on this very
>>>>>>> newsgroup.
>>>>>> Eat shit, 10,000,000,000 flies can't be wrong.
>>>>> You didn't apply LT once in your miserable life, dumby, did you?
>>>> Which ones, fuckwit? Lorentz's contraction or Einstein's expansion?
>>
>> Can't answer the question?
>
>You don't even know what these terms means, dumby. BTW there is no
>"Einstein's expansion".
Of course there is.
When a rod slows down, it expands....according to the fairytale.
>> You couldn't apply LT once in your miserable life, dumbfuck, could you?
>
>Look up google groups, you'll see.
>
>One more piece of shit from you on Wendy's memory.
cut that out you pathetic bastard...show some decency.
Henry Wilson DSc
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:te7lj59a8032msrgb...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:06:58 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>>>news:6tmkj593emf34b0jf...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>The clocks in the source frame used to measure closing/separating speeds
>>>of
>>>c+v and c-v, but the clocks in the mirror frame are synchronized
>>>differently
>>>(so in the source frame they would appear to read different times instead
>>>of
>>>the same time), and so give different values for those speeds
>>
>> That's what you have to prove, shithead...
>
>Its what SR predicts. Do you want me to prove that what SR predicts is what
>SR predicts? If so, I'm not sure exactly what extra information you
>require. If you want me to prove that reality behaves in the same way as SR
>predicts, then the only way to prove it (or at least to not-refute it) is to
>physically perform the experiment. Be my guest. Also if you want to show
>that there is any self-contradiction in SR, be my guest.
just read my latest post and give us the maths that demonstrate how two time
intervals which are the same in one frame can be different in another...for
that specific case..
YBM
>
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:51:26 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>>>> This experiment involves a light source and a mirror.
>>> This is not an "experiment", it is a gedanken. The difference is CRUCIAL. That
>>> is, no actual equipment is used, and no measurements are actually made; instead,
>>> the described physical situation is analyzed using theories of physical behavior.
>> The whole of Einstein's theory was based on gedankens. It was derived without
>> experiment or equipment.
>
> Actually, this experiment is not quite as clear as my original one.
> Here is the original one again:
Evading again, Ralph? Why don't you try to apply LTs to any of
your gedanken instead?
YBM
>
>> Androcles a �crit :
>>> "YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:4b3aaed4$0$668$426a...@news.free.fr...
>>>> Androcles a �crit :
>>>>> "YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4b3aa6a2$0$674$426a...@news.free.fr...
>>>>>> Androcles a �crit :
>>>>>>> "YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:4b3aa251$0$7051$426a...@news.free.fr...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All of us (but you, John Parker aka Androcles, mpc and others cranks)
>>>>>>>> have done this a million times, have this a dozen times on this very
>>>>>>>> newsgroup.
>>>>>>> Eat shit, 10,000,000,000 flies can't be wrong.
>>>>>> You didn't apply LT once in your miserable life, dumby, did you?
>>>>> Which ones, fuckwit? Lorentz's contraction or Einstein's expansion?
>>> Can't answer the question?
>> You don't even know what these terms means, dumby. BTW there is no
>> "Einstein's expansion".
>
> Of course there is.
> When a rod slows down, it expands....according to the fairytale.
Oh dear, read something about SR, once...
>>> You couldn't apply LT once in your miserable life, dumbfuck, could you?
>> Look up google groups, you'll see.
>>
>> One more piece of shit from you on Wendy's memory.
>
> cut that out you pathetic bastard...show some decency.
The only bastards here are you and John Parker.
What are Wendy's children going to find when they'll search out about
their grandfather on Google? Nothing but all the shit he wrote here for
years, and the way he ridiculed himself for the centuries to come.
Your grandchildren won't have such a experience, Ralph Rabbidge: you
had no offspring.
Henry Wilson DSc
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:nk7lj55no7trb04mt...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:51:26 -0600, Tom Roberts
>> <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>>>> This experiment involves a light source and a mirror.
>>>
>>>This is not an "experiment", it is a gedanken. The difference is CRUCIAL.
>>>That
>>>is, no actual equipment is used, and no measurements are actually made;
>>>instead,
>>>the described physical situation is analyzed using theories of physical
>>>behavior.
>>
>> The whole of Einstein's theory was based on gedankens.
>
>No .. it used gedankens as examples.
>
>It was based on mathematical and logical consequences of two postulates
I can't see any experiments there...
>> It was derived without
>> experiment or equipment.
>
>Until it was tested a multitude of times with experiment and equipment and
>it was found the predictions of the theory were supported by and explained
>the results
in your dreams, girlie....
read my latest description of the experiment.
how pathetic...
>> You're not a physicst. You might claim to be some kind of specialist
>> mathematician, nothing more.
>>
>> Now, please show me the math that shows the incident and reflected pulses
>> move
>> at the same speed wrt the moving mirror IN THE MIRROR FRAME....
>
>Thie mirror does not move in the mirror frame .. it is a stationary mirror
>in the mirror frame. The laws of reflection say that the outgoing light
>must reflect at the same speed as the incoming light .. and as the speed of
>incoming light is c (by the 2nd postulate) the speed of outgoing light must
>be c .. and that is consistent with the 2nd postulate
OK this is not the question. I have since clarified what it is.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Why do you need math to show that c = c ?? The light is incident at c and
reflects at c in the mirrors frame of reference .. that comes directly from
SR's 2nd postulate. Do you really need math to show that light travelling
at c from A to B takes the same time as light travelling at c the same
distance from B to A ??
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Where? What is your new revolutionary question that will prove SR is wrong?
Henry Wilson DSc
>Henry Wilson DSc a �crit :
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 03:07:17 +0100, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Androcles a �crit :
>>>> "YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:4b3aaed4$0$668$426a...@news.free.fr...
>>> You don't even know what these terms means, dumby. BTW there is no
>>> "Einstein's expansion".
>>
>> Of course there is.
>> When a rod slows down, it expands....according to the fairytale.
>
>Oh dear, read something about SR, once...
You would have to be the most ignorant moron here.
What happens to (1-v^2/c^2) when v decreases?
It is the fact that real morons like you support Einstein that virtually proves
his theory is crap.
>>>> You couldn't apply LT once in your miserable life, dumbfuck, could you?
>>> Look up google groups, you'll see.
>>>
>>> One more piece of shit from you on Wendy's memory.
>>
>> cut that out you pathetic bastard...show some decency.
>
>The only bastards here are you and John Parker.
>
>What are Wendy's children going to find when they'll search out about
>their grandfather on Google? Nothing but all the shit he wrote here for
>years, and the way he ridiculed himself for the centuries to come.
What he posts makes lot more sense than your nonsense.
Henry Wilson DSc
>
>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
>news:k5llj51jnm0p6gkk6...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:29:18 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>Its what SR predicts. Do you want me to prove that what SR predicts is
>>>what
>>>SR predicts? If so, I'm not sure exactly what extra information you
>>>require. If you want me to prove that reality behaves in the same way as
>>>SR
>>>predicts, then the only way to prove it (or at least to not-refute it) is
>>>to
>>>physically perform the experiment. Be my guest. Also if you want to show
>>>that there is any self-contradiction in SR, be my guest.
>>
>> just read my latest post and give us the maths that demonstrate how two
>> time
>> intervals which are the same in one frame can be different in
>> another...for
>> that specific case..
>
>Why do you need math to show that c = c ?? The light is incident at c and
>reflects at c in the mirrors frame of reference .. that comes directly from
>SR's 2nd postulate.
Now tie that in with the fact that t1-t0 =/= t2-t1
> Do you really need math to show that light travelling
>at c from A to B takes the same time as light travelling at c the same
>distance from B to A ??
you obviously still cannot understand the question.
Androcles
"YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
1) (FALSE xor FALSE) = TRUE
2) (FALSE or FALSE) = FALSE
3) (TRUE(from 1) => FALSE(from 2) ) = NOT TRUE
Happy now, moortel's rent boy?
Androcles
"YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
I never use the term without including "opening speed". You define it, rent
boy.
waldofj
>
> Easy as 1,2,3, 4.
>
> 1) (FALSE xor FALSE) = TRUE
> 2) (FALSE or FALSE) = FALSE
> 3) (TRUE(from 1) => FALSE(from 2) ) = NOT TRUE
> Happy now, moortel's rent boy?
just for the record:
1) (TRUE xor TRUE) = FALSE
2) (TRUE or TRUE) = TRUE
3) (FALSE(from 1) => TRUE(from 2) ) = NOT TRUE
Androcles
"waldofj" <wal...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:6a683279-f568-4167...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Yep. Your Bigot Moron (YBM) won't understand what he
doesn't want to understand, though, even if he could. Perhaps
you could persuade him to take a case of cocaine to China?
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
What are t0, t1 and t2? You need to define your terms .. I see no mention
of them in this post.
>> Do you really need math to show that light travelling
>>at c from A to B takes the same time as light travelling at c the same
>>distance from B to A ??
>
> you obviously still cannot understand the question.
You obviously can't ask one.
Inertial
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote in message
>
> "YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4b3ab5d5$0$24751$426a...@news.free.fr...
>>> "YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:4b3aaed4$0$668$426a...@news.free.fr...
>>>>> "YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4b3aa6a2$0$674$426a...@news.free.fr...
>>>>>>> "YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:4b3aa251$0$7051$426a...@news.free.fr...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All of us (but you, John Parker aka Androcles, mpc and others
>>>>>>>> cranks)
>>>>>>>> have done this a million times, have this a dozen times on this
>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>> newsgroup.
>>>>>>> Eat shit, 10,000,000,000 flies can't be wrong.
>>>>>> You didn't apply LT once in your miserable life, dumby, did you?
>>>>> Which ones, fuckwit? Lorentz's contraction or Einstein's expansion?
>>>
>>> Can't answer the question?
>>
>> You don't even know what these terms means, dumby. BTW there is no
>> "Einstein's expansion".
>>
>>> You couldn't apply LT once in your miserable life, dumbfuck, could you?
>>
>> Look up google groups, you'll see.
>>
>> One more piece of shit from you on Wendy's memory.
>>
>> p xor q => p or q, dumby? Explain us what this is not true.
>>
> Easy as 1,2,3, 4.
>
> 1) (FALSE xor FALSE) = TRUE
BAHAHAH .. you moron
(FALSE xor FALSE) = FALSE
xor only gives true if an only if exactly one of its operands is true
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or if you're not convinced
You're still an idiot after how many years now?
Inertial
"waldofj" <wal...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:6a683279-f568-4167...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
(FALSE => TRUE) = TRUE
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_implication
Gees .. you guys just don't know your logic.
waldofj
> The task for relativists is to show how the pulse travel times between the
> clocks can be the same in the mirror frame yet different in the source frame .
you come close to answering your question with this paragraph.
> In the source frame, the pulse's travel time between C1 and C2 on the forward
> trip is d/(c+v). The clocks NUMERICALLY read t0 and t1 as the light passes.
> After reflection, its travel time between C2 and C1 is d/(c-v) and the clocks
> record the numbers t1 and t2.
Although that should be d / gamma rather then just d.
what makes this work is according to Lorentz the clocks C1 and C2 are
NOT synchronized in the source frame. Specifically C1 will lag C2 by
an offset determined by both d and v.
So what happens is this:
As seen from the source frame light takes a time d / gamma / (c + v)
to go from C1 to C2. This time is less than d / c but because C2 is
more advanced than C1 it records a later (larger) value for t1 by just
the right amount such that d / (t1 - t0) = c.
As seen from the source frame light takes d / gamma / (c - v) to go
from C2 to C1. This time is greater than d / c but because C1 lags C2
it records an earlier (smaller) value for t2 by just the right amount
such that d / (t2 - t1) = c.
Don't bother looking for a physical explanation of this effect (clocks
synchronized in one frame are not synchronized in other frames). There
is no explanation, this is just what has to be if the principle of the
constancy of the speed of light is correct.
Remember this is not proof of anything, it's just a description of
what SR says about this scenario.
If you want proof, well:
http://www.cottonexpressions.com/ccp0-prodshow/YouWantProof.html
Androcles
I don't care about physical explanations, there is no mathematical
explanation. Anyone handwaving their precious gamma around
needs to derive it first.
gamma = sqrt[(c-v)(c+v)/c^2]
Chess boards have 63 squares and squares have 6 sides in relativity.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MC2.htm
Don't bother looking for a physical explanation of this effect, the board
area is (8-1) * (8+1) = 63.
Cocoon
> "YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:4b3ab656$0$24751$426a...@news.free.fr...
[snip unread]
> > For the record, could you define what you mean by "closing speed"?
>
> I never use the term without including "opening speed". You define it, rent
> boy.
this is not an excuse, start a new
thread and explain both
1. closing speed
2. opening speed
Good Bye
glird
>
>< This experiment involves a light source and a mirror. The source emits pulses of light towards the mirror, which is moving at v towards it, as measured in the source frame.
According to SR, both the incoming and reflected pulses move at c in
the source frame. They 'close on' the mirror at c+v and leave it at c-
v.
circumstances, the incident and reflected speeds of the pulses can be
equal when measured in the mirror frame. >
That is so easy that even Einstein showed how. If you really want
to know how he did it, don't limit your request to his jock straps.
glird
>< A light source emits pulses of light towards two clocks and a mirror that are moving towards the source at v. The clocks are rigidly joined and the mirror is connected to C2. In the source frame, they appear as follows:
S----------------------------------------------------
v<--C1___d___ |M,C2
The clocks are E-synched in the mirror frame. That is, their readings
and rates are made the same by sending time signals from each clock
towards the other and adjusting one accordingly. >
Very good, Henri!! Having gone that far, take the next step and you
will have answered your own problem.
> <According to SR, all light moves at c in the source frame.
In the experiment, a light pulse is emitted by S towards mirror, M.
The two clocks register their readings as the pulse passes them.
C1 reads t0 when the pulse initially passes by. C2 reads t1 when the
pulse reaches the mirror. C1 reads t2 when the reflected pulse passes
on the return trip.
In the source frame, the pulse's travel time between C1 and C2 on the
forward trip is d/(c+v). The clocks NUMERICALLY read t0 and t1 as the
light passes. After reflection, its travel time between C2 and C1 is
d/(c-v) and the clocks record the numbers t1 and t2.
According to SR, the pulse should also move at c in the mirror frame
both before and after reflection. In that frame, the source is moving
towards the mirror at v and the pulse will therefore take the same
time to travel between the two clocks in both directions (for both SR
and BaTh) {???}. Therefore, numerically, t1-t0 should equal t2-t1.
(The value should be d/c according to SR, d/(c+v) for BaTh.)
The task for relativists is to show how the pulse travel times
between the clocks can be the same in the mirror frame yet different
in the source frame. >
You already did that, so you must be a jock strip;;;''
(See above, for how "The clocks are E-synched in the mirror frame".)
glird
YBM
>>> p xor q => p or q, dumby? Explain us what this is not true.
>> Easy as 1,2,3, 4.
>>
>> 1) (FALSE xor FALSE) = TRUE
Ahem...
From http://mathworld.wolfram.com/XOR.html
The binary XOR operator has the following truth table.
A B A xor B
T T F
T F T
F T T
F F F
Look at the last line:
FALSE xor FALSE = FALSE
>> 2) (FALSE or FALSE) = FALSE
>> 3) (TRUE(from 1) => FALSE(from 2) ) = NOT TRUE
3) (FALSE(from 1) => FALSE(from 2) ) = TRUE
> just for the record:
> 1) (TRUE xor TRUE) = FALSE
> 2) (TRUE or TRUE) = TRUE
> 3) (FALSE(from 1) => TRUE(from 2) ) = NOT TRUE
Ahem...
From: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Implies.html
A=>B has the following truth table (Carnap 1958, p. 10; Mendelson 1997,
p. 13).
A B A=>B
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
Look at the third line:
3) FALSE (from 1) => TRUE (from 2) = TRUE
Androcles
"YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
> waldofj a �crit :
>>>> p xor q => p or q, dumby? Explain us what this is not true.
>>> Easy as 1,2,3, 4.
>>>
>>> 1) (FALSE xor FALSE) = TRUE
>
> Ahem...
Bad cough you have there.
Just one counterexample is all that is needed to blow your idiotic
theory out of the water, shithead, and waldofj has given you one.
Arguing won't work, nobody sane or sensible will listen to you,
dumbfuck. Go suck moortel's dick, you fuckin' queer.
YBM
> "YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4b3b7ddf$0$24767$426a...@news.free.fr...
>> waldofj a �crit :
>>>>> p xor q => p or q, dumby? Explain us what this is not true.
>>>> Easy as 1,2,3, 4.
>>>>
>>>> 1) (FALSE xor FALSE) = TRUE
>> Ahem...
>
> Bad cough you have there.
What is F xor F again, "Dr" Parker?
What is F => T again, "Dr" Parker?
> Just one counterexample is all that is needed to blow your idiotic
> theory out of the water, shithead, and waldofj has given you one.
He didn't, neither did you, look again at the truth tables for
xor and implies. Do you understand what a truth table means
Mr Parker, wannabe "electrical engineer, professionnaly"?
Looks like you spitted again a few times on Wendy Parker's memory
today, "Dr" John Parker.
Androcles
"YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
> From: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Implies.html
> A=>B has the following truth table (Carnap 1958, p. 10; Mendelson 1997, p.
> 13).
> A B A=>B
> T T T
> T F F
> F T T
> F F T
For the record, "implies" is "if A then B"
or
if A = TRUE then B = TRUE.
If it rains I'll take my umbrella.
IF "it rains" = TRUE THEN "I'll take my umbrella" = TRUE.
"It rains" (A) "I'll take my umbrella" (B) A=>B
T T T
T F F
F T undefined.
F F undefined.
Taking my umbrella when it doesn't rain is valid.
The contrapositive (NOT B => NOT A) is:
IF I do not take my umbrella THEN it will not rain.
I can neither cause rain nor not cause rain by carrying
an umbrella as Carnap and Mendelson seem to imagine.
YBM
> "YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4b3b7ddf$0$24767$426a...@news.free.fr...
>
>> From: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Implies.html
>> A=>B has the following truth table (Carnap 1958, p. 10; Mendelson 1997, p.
>> 13).
>> A B A=>B
>> T T T
>> T F F
>> F T T
>> F F T
>
>
> For the record, "implies" is "if A then B"
> or
> if A = TRUE then B = TRUE.
This is meaningless, il looks like the BASIC if/then
statement which is here 1) irrelevant and 2) not
even correct since "=" would have different meaning behing
"IF" (equality) and "THEN" (variable set).
> If it rains I'll take my umbrella.
> IF "it rains" = TRUE THEN "I'll take my umbrella" = TRUE.
>
> "It rains" (A) "I'll take my umbrella" (B) A=>B
> T T T
> T F F
> F T undefined.
> F F undefined.
So you pretend that Wolfram MathWorld (and Carnap et all) is wrong about
basic boolean logic ?
> Taking my umbrella when it doesn't rain is valid.
> The contrapositive (NOT B => NOT A) is:
> IF I do not take my umbrella THEN it will not rain.
> I can neither cause rain nor not cause rain by carrying
> an umbrella as Carnap and Mendelson seem to imagine.
Unable to admit being wrong even when proven so, Parker? Wendy would
have been very sad to see his father to be such a asshole.
Anyway, she probably knew that.
Androcles
"YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
Oh dear, you've spelt "professionally" with two ns. Not
too good at getting your facts right, are you, local village idiot?
Androcles
"YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
There speaks the successful local village idiot, "professionnaly".
YBM
Wendy Parker's father, evading as the asshole he've always been.
YBM
Wendy Parker's father, evading as the asshole he've always been.
Androcles
"YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
Androcles
"YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
Not too good at getting your facts right, are you, local village idiot
"professionnaly"?
YBM
What is F xor F again, "Dr" Parker?
What is F => T again, "Dr" Parker?
Wendy Parker's father, evading as the asshole he've always been.
YBM
What is F xor F again, "Dr" Parker?
What is F => T again, "Dr" Parker?
Wendy Parker's father, evading as the asshole he've always been.
Henry Wilson DSc
You are all missing the point.
We have a situation whereby the travel times for a light pulse to go from
points A to B and from B to A are UNEQUAL in the ground frame yet EQUAL in the
mirror frame.
This directly violates Einstein's first postulate, which says that the laws of
physics are the same in ALL FRAMES.
P1 insists that two entities which are the same in one frame must be the same
in ALL frames whether or not they have different magnitudes in the different
frames.
So P2 leads to a violation of P1....and since P2 is a consequence of P1 we can
only conclude that the whole theory of Einstein is a bloody big joke..
Henry Wilson...
Save the Planet....support my ONE-AND-A-HALF CHILD policy.
www.scisite.info/solution.rtf
Henry Wilson DSc
>
>> The task for relativists is to show how the pulse travel times between the
>> clocks can be the same in the mirror frame yet different in the source frame .
>
>you come close to answering your question with this paragraph.
>
>> In the source frame, the pulse's travel time between C1 and C2 on the forward
>> trip is d/(c+v). The clocks NUMERICALLY read t0 and t1 as the light passes.
>> After reflection, its travel time between C2 and C1 is d/(c-v) and the clocks
>> record the numbers t1 and t2.
>Although that should be d / gamma rather then just d.
Yes , I stated that option somewhere else.
>what makes this work is according to Lorentz the clocks C1 and C2 are
>NOT synchronized in the source frame. Specifically C1 will lag C2 by
>an offset determined by both d and v.
This is of no consequence. t1, t0 and t2 are just number on the clocks.
Clocks synched in the source frame show that the forward and reflected travel
times are unequal in the source frame.
>So what happens is this:
>As seen from the source frame light takes a time d / gamma / (c + v)
>to go from C1 to C2. This time is less than d / c but because C2 is
>more advanced than C1 it records a later (larger) value for t1 by just
>the right amount such that d / (t1 - t0) = c.
>As seen from the source frame light takes d / gamma / (c - v) to go
>from C2 to C1. This time is greater than d / c but because C1 lags C2
>it records an earlier (smaller) value for t2 by just the right amount
>such that d / (t2 - t1) = c.
>Don't bother looking for a physical explanation of this effect (clocks
>synchronized in one frame are not synchronized in other frames). There
>is no explanation, this is just what has to be if the principle of the
>constancy of the speed of light is correct.
>Remember this is not proof of anything, it's just a description of
>what SR says about this scenario.
>If you want proof, well:
>http://www.cottonexpressions.com/ccp0-prodshow/YouWantProof.html
Not important.
This is:
Henry Wilson DSc
It is easy. In the mirror frame, the source is moving... the proof is trivial
from there...
However you are missiing the point, it is the fact that the times are UNEQUAL
in the source frame that matters.
waldofj
> "waldofj" <wald...@verizon.net> wrote in message
actually gamma is the reciprocal of that function and deriving it is
easy. What's the big deal?
waldofj
> We have a situation whereby the travel times for a light pulse to go from
> points A to B and from B to A are UNEQUAL in the ground frame yet EQUAL in the
> mirror frame.
correct. And like I said this a consequence of the principle of the
constancy of the speed of light. In other words, this is what must be
for the speed of light to be the same constant value in both frames.
> This directly violates Einstein's first postulate, which says that the laws of
> physics are the same in ALL FRAMES.
No. travel time is not a physical law. Not only is there no physical
law that says travel time has to be the same in all frames there is a
specific physical law (the principle of the constancy of the speed of
light) that says they must be different in different frames.
> P1 insists that two entities which are the same in one frame must be the same
> in ALL frames whether or not they have different magnitudes in the different
> frames.
no it doesn't. Again, "entities" are not physical laws. And how can
two entities be the same and have different magnitudes? What do you
mean by entity?
Androcles
========================================
Go on then, show and tell. Just remember that the speed of light is
c in all frames of reference and so you can't use c+v or c-v without
being self-contradictory.
All triangles are isosceles.
http://www.jimloy.com/geometry/every.htm
1892 is just the right time period for a boy like Einstein without a
Playstation or TV to get interested in mathematical curiosities in
magazines.
So he said all rectangles are squares, I'll prove it. And the dumbos
bought it, the greatest huckster of all time is still going strong even
after he's been dead 54 years.
PD
> This experiment involves a light source and a mirror.
>
> The source emits pulses of light towards the mirror, which is moving at v
> towards it, as measured in the source frame.
>
> According to SR, both the incoming and reflected pulses move at c in the source
> frame. They 'close on' the mirror at c+v and leave it at c-v.
>
> Can any Einstein supporter show the world how, under these circumstances, the
> incident and reflected speeds of the pulses can be equal when measured in the
> mirror frame.
>
Yes. In the frame of the source, the speed of light is c as it
approaches the mirror.
If you want to know what the speed of this same signal is in the
mirror frame, you do the appropriate velocity transform:
(c+v)/(1+cv/c^2) = c(1+v/c)/(1+v/c) = c.
In the frame of the source, the speed of light is c as it departs form
the mirror.
If you want to know what the speed of this same signal is in the
mirror frame, you do the appropriate velocity transform:
(c-v)/(1-cv/c^2) = c(1-v/c)/(1-v/c) = c.
Now, I don't know why you expected that if the closing speed is c+v in
one frame, then the closing speed should be c+v in any other frame.
PD
> This experiment involves a light source and a mirror.
>
> The source emits pulses of light towards the mirror, which is moving at v
> towards it, as measured in the source frame.
>
> According to SR, both the incoming and reflected pulses move at c in the source
> frame. They 'close on' the mirror at c+v and leave it at c-v.
>
> Can any Einstein supporter show the world how, under these circumstances, the
> incident and reflected speeds of the pulses can be equal when measured in the
> mirror frame.
>
>
> Selling something that doesn't exist is a serious crime....unless it's called god.
I don't know why you think that your failure to understand how nature
works, as described by relativity, amounts to a proof that the
description is wrong.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
news:0venj5d0taf7ij9m7...@4ax.com...
Yeup
> This directly violates Einstein's first postulate, which says that the
> laws of
> physics are the same in ALL FRAMES.
Nope
> P1 insists that two entities which are the same in one frame must be the
> same
> in ALL frames whether or not they have different magnitudes in the
> different
> frames.
Nope
> So P2 leads to a violation of P1....and since P2 is a consequence of P1 we
> can
> only conclude that the whole theory of Einstein is a bloody big joke..
Nope
You bombed out again Henry.
Inertial
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote in message
news:K%L_m.4731$Ma2....@newsfe04.ams2...
>
> "YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4b3b7ddf$0$24767$426a...@news.free.fr...
>
>> From: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Implies.html
>> A=>B has the following truth table (Carnap 1958, p. 10; Mendelson 1997,
>> p. 13).
>> A B A=>B
>> T T T
>> T F F
>> F T T
>> F F T
>
>
> For the record, "implies" is "if A then B"
> or
> if A = TRUE then B = TRUE.
A naive explanation .. but close
> If it rains I'll take my umbrella.
> IF "it rains" = TRUE THEN "I'll take my umbrella" = TRUE.
>
> "It rains" (A) "I'll take my umbrella" (B) A=>B
> T T T
> T F F
> F T undefined.
> F F undefined.
No .. those 'undefined' values should be 'T's. There is no 'undefined'
value in any boolean operators.
Anyone with knowledge of boolean logic would know that.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
BAHAHA .. you're a joke Henry
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
BAHAHA .. you really like posting your idiocy multiple times don't you.
isn't embarrassing yourself once enough for you?
Up there with Androcles who is busy in another thread advertising how he
doesn't understand boolean logic (yet again)
Henry Wilson DSc
>
>> We have a situation whereby the travel times for a light pulse to go from
>> points A to B and from B to A are UNEQUAL in the ground frame yet EQUAL in the
>> mirror frame.
>
>correct. And like I said this a consequence of the principle of the
>constancy of the speed of light. In other words, this is what must be
>for the speed of light to be the same constant value in both frames.
>
>> This directly violates Einstein's first postulate, which says that the laws of
>> physics are the same in ALL FRAMES.
>
>No. travel time is not a physical law. Not only is there no physical
>law that says travel time has to be the same in all frames there is a
>specific physical law (the principle of the constancy of the speed of
>light) that says they must be different in different frames.
So you ARE CLAIMING THAT P1 APPLIES ONLY TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT?
This is hilarious.
This makes P1 exactly the same as P2.
>
>> P1 insists that two entities which are the same in one frame must be the same
>> in ALL frames whether or not they have different magnitudes in the different
>> frames.
>
>no it doesn't. Again, "entities" are not physical laws. And how can
>two entities be the same and have different magnitudes? What do you
>mean by entity?
hahahahahahahaaa! You're trapped...
you want your cake and eat it.
According to P1, two things that are equal in one frame must be equal in
another.
What else could it imply?
How much longer can you believe this obvious Einsteinian crap?
Henry Wilson DSc
Well now you have to tell me how they can be UNEQUAL in the source
frame....because P1 says they must be the same.
Henry Wilson DSc
Well it is now clear that Einsein's P1 is exactly the same as his P2 because P1
apparently only applies to light speed.
How much longer can you believe this Einsteinian crap?
eric gisse
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:21:31 -0800 (PST), PD <thedrap...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 29, 2:14 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>> This experiment involves a light source and a mirror.
>>>
>>> The source emits pulses of light towards the mirror, which is moving at
>>> v towards it, as measured in the source frame.
>>>
>>> According to SR, both the incoming and reflected pulses move at c in the
>>> source frame. They 'close on' the mirror at c+v and leave it at c-v.
>>>
>>> Can any Einstein supporter show the world how, under these
>>> circumstances, the incident and reflected speeds of the pulses can be
>>> equal when measured in the mirror frame.
>>>
>>> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
>>>
>>> Selling something that doesn't exist is a serious crime....unless it's
>>> called god.
>>
>>I don't know why you think that your failure to understand how nature
>>works, as described by relativity, amounts to a proof that the
>>description is wrong.
>
> Well it is now clear that Einsein's P1 is exactly the same as his P2
> because P1 apparently only applies to light speed.
Really? The laws of physics only apply to light?
Are you SURE?
Henry Wilson DSc
Logic comes naturally to some of us...
xxein
> Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
> > This experiment involves a light source and a mirror.
>
>
> Note: I am not really an "Einstein supporter". Rather, I
> am a physicist. That is, I STUDY physics and use the theories
> which best model the physical phenomena of the world. For this
> sort of question by far the best model is Special Relativity
> (no other theory comes close, except for theories
> indistinguishable from SR).
>
> Tom Roberts
xxein: 'That is', that you refuse to recognise or distinguish other
theories. You'd bleed to death over your belief of 'your' physics. I
hate to explain to brick walls and the physic hates it also, but the
physic is just the physic and someone other than the 'pontificating
TR' can certainly understand it better than you.
Can you describe the physical mechanism (not a/some physics) of how
velocity addition works to our perception and measure of it? NO. The
only thing you have is a math formula designed to describe the math of
how it eerily conforms only to subjective observation. You have
discounted the objectiveness of the physic.
Einstein died with a healthy doubt of his own very successful
theories. I don't see you relinquishing yours.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:21:31 -0800 (PST), PD <thedrap...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 29, 2:14 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>>> This experiment involves a light source and a mirror.
>>>>
>>>> The source emits pulses of light towards the mirror, which is moving at
>>>> v towards it, as measured in the source frame.
>>>>
>>>> According to SR, both the incoming and reflected pulses move at c in the
>>>> source frame. They 'close on' the mirror at c+v and leave it at c-v.
>>>>
>>>> Can any Einstein supporter show the world how, under these
>>>> circumstances, the incident and reflected speeds of the pulses can be
>>>> equal when measured in the mirror frame.
>>>>
>>>> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
>>>>
>>>> Selling something that doesn't exist is a serious crime....unless it's
>>>> called god.
>>>
>>>I don't know why you think that your failure to understand how nature
>>>works, as described by relativity, amounts to a proof that the
>>>description is wrong.
>>
>> Well it is now clear that Einsein's P1 is exactly the same as his P2
>> because P1 apparently only applies to light speed.
>
>Really? The laws of physics only apply to light?
>
>Are you SURE?
That's what you people are trying to make out even if you aren't aware of the
fact.
Newton's law of relativity applies to everything that contains L/T. Einstein
concocted his version to apparently apply only to light speed.
That's why you claim that P1 doesn't mean that two events which occupy EQUAL
time intervals in one frame can occupy DIFFERENT time intervals in another.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
Nope
> even if you aren't aware of the
> fact.
Its one of your lies .. not a fact
> Newton's law of relativity applies to everything that contains L/T.
As it would in SR then.
> Einstein
> concocted his version to apparently apply only to light speed.
Nope. He did nothing to the PoR
> That's why you claim that P1 doesn't mean that two events which occupy
> EQUAL
> time intervals in one frame can occupy DIFFERENT time intervals in
> another.
That is not a law of physics. Physics does NOT say that things that are
equal in one frame must be equal in another .. even before Einstein
PD
> On Dec 29, 6:51 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
> > > This experiment involves a light source and a mirror.
>
> > Note: I am not really an "Einstein supporter". Rather, I
> > am a physicist. That is, I STUDY physics and use the theories
> > which best model the physical phenomena of the world. For this
> > sort of question by far the best model is Special Relativity
> > (no other theory comes close, except for theories
> > indistinguishable from SR).
>
> > Tom Roberts
>
> xxein: 'That is', that you refuse to recognise or distinguish other
> theories. You'd bleed to death over your belief of 'your' physics. I
> hate to explain to brick walls and the physic hates it also, but the
> physic is just the physic and someone other than the 'pontificating
> TR' can certainly understand it better than you.
>
> Can you describe the physical mechanism (not a/some physics) of how
> velocity addition works to our perception and measure of it? NO. The
> only thing you have is a math formula designed to describe the math of
> how it eerily conforms only to subjective observation.
Objective observation, where the objectivity is determined by the
common result obtained by independent investigators using
complementary methods.
The second you start saying that observation is suspect and that
objective truth can be determined without reference or verification
from observation, you have stopped doing science.
PD
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:20:35 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 29, 2:14 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> This experiment involves a light source and a mirror.
>
> >> The source emits pulses of light towards the mirror, which is moving at v
> >> towards it, as measured in the source frame.
>
> >> According to SR, both the incoming and reflected pulses move at c in the source
> >> frame. They 'close on' the mirror at c+v and leave it at c-v.
>
> >> Can any Einstein supporter show the world how, under these circumstances, the
> >> incident and reflected speeds of the pulses can be equal when measured in the
> >> mirror frame.
>
> >Yes. In the frame of the source, the speed of light is c as it
> >approaches the mirror.
> >If you want to know what the speed of this same signal is in the
> >mirror frame, you do the appropriate velocity transform:
> >(c+v)/(1+cv/c^2) = c(1+v/c)/(1+v/c) = c.
>
> >In the frame of the source, the speed of light is c as it departs form
> >the mirror.
> >If you want to know what the speed of this same signal is in the
> >mirror frame, you do the appropriate velocity transform:
> >(c-v)/(1-cv/c^2) = c(1-v/c)/(1-v/c) = c.
>
> >Now, I don't know why you expected that if the closing speed is c+v in
> >one frame, then the closing speed should be c+v in any other frame.
>
> Well now you have to tell me how they can be UNEQUAL in the source
> frame....because P1 says they must be the same.
No, it doesn't. The speed of light as measured in the source frame is
c, as I said above.
What you noted is that the *closing speed* between the mirror and the
light, as measured in the source frame, is c+v and c-v. P1 does NOT
say that the *closing* speed between light and another object must be
c in any frame.
Please learn what the postulate actually says.
PD
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:21:31 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 29, 2:14 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> This experiment involves a light source and a mirror.
>
> >> The source emits pulses of light towards the mirror, which is moving at v
> >> towards it, as measured in the source frame.
>
> >> According to SR, both the incoming and reflected pulses move at c in the source
> >> frame. They 'close on' the mirror at c+v and leave it at c-v.
>
> >> Can any Einstein supporter show the world how, under these circumstances, the
> >> incident and reflected speeds of the pulses can be equal when measured in the
> >> mirror frame.
>
> >> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
>
> >> Selling something that doesn't exist is a serious crime....unless it's called god.
>
> >I don't know why you think that your failure to understand how nature
> >works, as described by relativity, amounts to a proof that the
> >description is wrong.
>
> Well it is now clear that Einsein's P1 is exactly the same as his P2 because P1
> apparently only applies to light speed.
Light speed is not a law of physics. Perhaps it would be useful for
you to list some things you think are laws of physics. Hint: The laws
of electrodynamics are indeed laws of physics. Can you think of
others?
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Dec 30, 7:37�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:21:31 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 29, 2:14 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> >> This experiment involves a light source and a mirror.
>>
>> >> The source emits pulses of light towards the mirror, which is moving at v
>> >> towards it, as measured in the source frame.
>>
>> >> According to SR, both the incoming and reflected pulses move at c in the source
>> >> frame. They 'close on' the mirror at c+v and leave it at c-v.
>>
>> >> Can any Einstein supporter show the world how, under these circumstances, the
>> >> incident and reflected speeds of the pulses can be equal when measured in the
>> >> mirror frame.
>>
>> >> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
>>
>> >> Selling something that doesn't exist is a serious crime....unless it's called god.
>>
>> >I don't know why you think that your failure to understand how nature
>> >works, as described by relativity, amounts to a proof that the
>> >description is wrong.
>>
>> Well it is now clear that Einsein's P1 is exactly the same as his P2 because P1
>> apparently only applies to light speed.
>
>Light speed is not a law of physics. Perhaps it would be useful for
>you to list some things you think are laws of physics. Hint: The laws
>of electrodynamics are indeed laws of physics. Can you think of
>others?
>
You have no sensible answer to my arguments. Why don't you just give up and
admit Einstein was a hoaxer?
Henry Wilson DSc
We are discussing the time taken for a light pulse to go from points A to B,
which are rigidly connected. In the points' frame, the pulse takes the same to
go from B to A.
Are you trying to tell me that this condition changes just because a lot of
different observers start moving around all over the universe.
glird
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 29, 3:14 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>
source emits pulses of light towards the mirror, which is moving at v
towards it, as measured in the source frame.
According to SR, both the incoming and reflected pulses move at c in
the source frame. They 'close on' the mirror at c+v and leave it at c-
v.
Can any Einstein supporter show the world how, under these
circumstances, the incident and reflected speeds of the pulses can be
equal when measured in the mirror frame.
>
want to know how he did it, don't limit your request to his jock
straps.
>
proof is trivial from there...
UNEQUAL in the source frame that matters.
We have a situation whereby the travel times for a light pulse to go
from points A to B and from B to A are UNEQUAL in the ground frame yet
EQUAL in the mirror frame. >
You -- and androcles -- completely missed Einstein's point, which is
that DESPITE the fact that a pulse will go from A to B of the moving
system at c-v AS PLOTTED BY the source frame, etc, it will go at c AS
PLOTTED BY THE MOVING SYSTEM itself.
Henry: This directly violates Einstein's first postulate, which says
that the laws of physics are the same in ALL FRAMES. >
Since the light pulse DOES travel at c AS MEASURED *IN* EACH GIVEN
SYSTEM, that obeys his first postulate.
Henry: P1 insists that two entities which are the same in one frame
must be the same in ALL frames whether or not they have different
magnitudes in the different frames.
They are. The question is Why are they? The answer is: Because
Einstein's 3rd postulate is that clocks of all systems must MEASURE
the speed of light as identical in their own system REGARDLESS of
their speeds relative to "the stationary system".
Henry: So P2 leads to a violation of P1....and since P2 is a
consequence of P1 we can only conclude that the whole theory of
Einstein is a bloody big joke. >
What does "P1" and "P2" mean to you?
To me, P1 denoted Einstein's submitted paper, on June 30, 1905. P2
denotes his published paper, in late September, 1905. There is a
monumental difference between P1 and extensively revised P2.
The "joke" is that neither you nor any mathematician or physicist
ever discovered the five or seven or ten fatal errors in Einstein's
mathematics and/or his "logic".
glird
spudnik
without creating a shockwave (local speed of sound).
just say, Duh!
thus quoth:
Papers of Hannes Olof Gosta Alfven, Nobel Prize winning astrophysicist
who
contributed to significant advances in the fields of
magnetohydrodynamics,
plasma physics, geophysics, thermonuclear reaction, and cosmology. He
shared
the Nobel Prize for Physics with Louis Neel in 1970. ... He was also
an
advocate of nuclear armaments destruction, working actively with
other
scientists such as Harold Urey to prevent nuclear proliferation and
conflict. Among Alfven's teaching positions were posts at the Royal
Institute of Technology, Stockholm, and
the University of California, San Diego. The papers span the years
1945 to
1991 and are organized into ten series: ... The collection contains
significant correspondence with Alfven's fellow scientists,
including ...
Harold Urey, ... The collection focuses primarily on Alfven's time as
Professor of Applied Physics at the University of California, San
Diego, but
nearly every work from his immense bibliography is represented, many
in
draft forms. ...
Since 1967, he served as Professor of Applied Physics at the
University
of California, San Diego, spending six months of the year at UCSD and
six months at the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
For his research in magnetohydrodynamics and plasma physics, Alfven
shared
the 1970 Nobel Prize in Physics with Louis Eugene Felix Neel. ...
... ORIGIN OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM (1959) with C.G. Falthammar; ... THE
TALE OF
THE BIG COMPUTER (1968) under the pen name of Olof Johannesson; ATOM,
MAN
AND THE UNIVERSE (1969); ... and STRUCTURE AND EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY OF
THE
SOLAR SYSTEM (1975) with Gustaf Arrhenius.
... Hannes Alfven pioneered the development of MHD, the study of the
motion
of an electrically conducting fluid interacting with magnetic fields,
and,
in particular, the subject of plasma physics, the branch of MHD in
which the
fluid under study is a highly ionized gas consisting of nearly equal
numbers
of positively and negatively charged particles. Alfven was chiefly
concerned
with plasmas in stars, in the geomagnetic field, and in
interplanetary and interstellar space, but his theories were basic to
the
study of laboratory plasmas encountered in the development of
controlled
thermonucelar fusion. More specifically, Alfven applied his analyses
to such
phenomena as geomagnetic storms, the aurora, the Van Allen radiation
belts,
sunspots, and the evolution of the solar system. His results have
been
seminal not only in designing thermonuclear reactors, but also in the
development of astrophysics, space science, and geophysics. ...
2 26 Antimatter, Quasi-Stellar Objects and the Evolution of Galaxies,
1969.
--Brit's hate Shakespeare, Why?
http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf
--Madame Rice is a Riceist, How?
spudnik
Alfven had postulated that only matter-antimatter annhialation
was the only possible source of energy to expand Universe --
I just read!
just say, Duh!
eric gisse
[...]
>>Really? The laws of physics only apply to light?
>>
>>Are you SURE?
>
> That's what you people are trying to make out even if you aren't aware of
> the fact.
No, Ralph, this is simply the latest way you have made yourself
misunderstand relativity. I suppose it is an improvement over 'tick
faeries'.
>
> Newton's law of relativity applies to everything that contains L/T.
I don't recall that distinction ever being made. Could you show where that's
the case?
> Einstein concocted his version to apparently apply only to light speed.
A cursory read of the theory indicates that's WRONG. Perhaps you would have
better luck with the group theory version of special relativity?
>
> That's why you claim that P1 doesn't mean that two events which occupy
> EQUAL time intervals in one frame can occupy DIFFERENT time intervals in
> another.
Uh, open up a goddamn textbook on the subject. The consequences of the
postulate are straightforward.
PD
Which point? Note the source and the mirror are moving relative to
each other.
So when you say "in the points' frame", to which frame are you
referring?
>
> Are you trying to tell me that this condition changes just because a lot of
> different observers start moving around all over the universe.
I'm asking you to learn what the postulate actually says, rather than
stuff you make up.
PD
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:07:56 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 30, 7:37 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:21:31 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Dec 29, 2:14 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> >> This experiment involves a light source and a mirror.
>
> >> >> The source emits pulses of light towards the mirror, which is moving at v
> >> >> towards it, as measured in the source frame.
>
> >> >> According to SR, both the incoming and reflected pulses move at c in the source
> >> >> frame. They 'close on' the mirror at c+v and leave it at c-v.
>
> >> >> Can any Einstein supporter show the world how, under these circumstances, the
> >> >> incident and reflected speeds of the pulses can be equal when measured in the
> >> >> mirror frame.
>
> >> >> Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
>
> >> >> Selling something that doesn't exist is a serious crime....unless it's called god.
>
> >> >I don't know why you think that your failure to understand how nature
> >> >works, as described by relativity, amounts to a proof that the
> >> >description is wrong.
>
> >> Well it is now clear that Einsein's P1 is exactly the same as his P2 because P1
> >> apparently only applies to light speed.
>
> >Light speed is not a law of physics. Perhaps it would be useful for
> >you to list some things you think are laws of physics. Hint: The laws
> >of electrodynamics are indeed laws of physics. Can you think of
> >others?
>
> You have no sensible answer to my arguments.
What part of "laws of physics" do you not understand? It's a pity that
something so simple does not make any sense to you.
> Why don't you just give up and
> admit Einstein was a hoaxer?
Why? Because you don't understand something?
Henry Wilson DSc
>On Dec 30, 3:53 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 29, 3:14 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>
>Henry: This experiment involves a light source and a mirror. The
>source emits pulses of light towards the mirror, which is moving at v
>towards it, as measured in the source frame.
> According to SR, both the incoming and reflected pulses move at c in
>the source frame. They 'close on' the mirror at c+v and leave it at c-
>v.
> Can any Einstein supporter show the world how, under these
>circumstances, the incident and reflected speeds of the pulses can be
>equal when measured in the mirror frame.
>>
>glird: That is so easy that even Einstein showed how. If you really
>want to know how he did it, don't limit your request to his jock
>straps.
Well, as I have pointed out already, the question is not that at all. That is
trivial by looking at it from the mirror frame. The real question is how can
the travel times be DIFFERENT in the source frame but the same in the mirror
frame?
>Henry: It is easy. In the mirror frame, the source is moving... the
>proof is trivial from there...
> However you are missing the point, it is the fact that the times are
>UNEQUAL in the source frame that matters.
> We have a situation whereby the travel times for a light pulse to go
>from points A to B and from B to A are UNEQUAL in the ground frame yet
>EQUAL in the mirror frame. >
>
> You -- and androcles -- completely missed Einstein's point, which is
>that DESPITE the fact that a pulse will go from A to B of the moving
>system at c-v AS PLOTTED BY the source frame, etc, it will go at c AS
>PLOTTED BY THE MOVING SYSTEM itself.
>
>Henry: This directly violates Einstein's first postulate, which says
>that the laws of physics are the same in ALL FRAMES. >
>
> Since the light pulse DOES travel at c AS MEASURED *IN* EACH GIVEN
>SYSTEM, that obeys his first postulate.
When was it measured?
>Henry: P1 insists that two entities which are the same in one frame
>must be the same in ALL frames whether or not they have different
>magnitudes in the different frames.
>
> They are. The question is Why are they? The answer is: Because
>Einstein's 3rd postulate is that clocks of all systems must MEASURE
>the speed of light as identical in their own system REGARDLESS of
>their speeds relative to "the stationary system".
I don't care what Einstein's postulates say.
YOU tell me how the same two EQUAL time intervals can be UNEQAL in other
frames.
That violates P1.
>Henry: So P2 leads to a violation of P1....and since P2 is a
>consequence of P1 we can only conclude that the whole theory of
>Einstein is a bloody big joke. >
>
> What does "P1" and "P2" mean to you?
> To me, P1 denoted Einstein's submitted paper, on June 30, 1905. P2
>denotes his published paper, in late September, 1905. There is a
>monumental difference between P1 and extensively revised P2.
>
> The "joke" is that neither you nor any mathematician or physicist
>ever discovered the five or seven or ten fatal errors in Einstein's
>mathematics and/or his "logic".
Correction, I have
>glird