Wilsonian (true, lightless) Relativity....Wilson's Paradox.
Henri Wilson
read this message carefully so you wont make a fool of yourself.
The subject is 'points in space' and how they move.
Consider this:
Two thin wires are moving in opposite directions towards each other.
|->
|<-
When they are adjacent, their coincidence defines a UNIQUE point in space and
instant in time. Now let us introduce an observer or two.
P
|-> A->
|<- O
-------------------------
If P is the spatial point at which the wires pass, then is is possible for O to
determine the speed at which P is moving (wrt himself).
If second observer A is moving wrt O, then it follows that P's speed wrt A
cannot be the same as its speed wrt O.
If, however, O is moving at the same speed as the lower wire, then point P will
be stationary wrt O.
What happens if A moves at the same speed as the top wire?
We will replace the wires and observers with the ends of two identical rods.
|-------------------------|A
|-------------------------|O
The rods are separated and then accelerated equally towards each other, eg, by
releasing a spring.
/\/\/\/\/\/|-------------------------|<-v
|-------------------------|->v
When the LH rods ends are adjacent, a point in space is defined as before.
P
v<-|-------------------------|A
v->|-------------------------|O
In A's frame, O's rod is moving at 2v. When the two LH ends are adjacent, the
defined point P remains at rest in A's frame (because it coincides with the LH
end of A's rod.
By a similar argument, point P remains stationary in O's frame (because it
coincides with O's LH rod end).
So we have a paradox.
As shown above, if A and O are moving relatively, then point P cannot be moving
at the same speed relative to both.
However, the lower experiment shows that point P CAN indeed be at rest in both
frames, even though O and A are moving relatively.
How can this happen?
(Please don't introduce light, c, or objects to describe point P. It consists
only of 'space')
_____________________
At this stage, Wilsonian relativity hasn't progressed beyond this paradox. It
has yet to fully consider that the 'instant of time' defined by the coincidence
is also both different yet identical in both frames.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> I'm going to do something unusual here. I'm going to make you think. Please
> read this message carefully so you wont make a fool of yourself.
You always make people think, but it ends up being about the same
things over and over because you are stuck in a rut.
>
> The subject is 'points in space' and how they move.
>
> Consider this:
>
> Two thin wires are moving in opposite directions towards each other.
>
> |->
> |<-
>
> When they are adjacent, their coincidence defines a UNIQUE point in space and
> instant in time. Now let us introduce an observer or two.
>
> P
> |-> A->
> |<- O
> -------------------------
>
> If P is the spatial point at which the wires pass, then is is possible for O to
> determine the speed at which P is moving (wrt himself).
>
> If second observer A is moving wrt O, then it follows that P's speed wrt A
> cannot be the same as its speed wrt O.
Actually the speed can be the same, though the velocities will be
different.
>
> If, however, O is moving at the same speed as the lower wire, then point P will
> be stationary wrt O.
> What happens if A moves at the same speed as the top wire?
>
> We will replace the wires and observers with the ends of two identical rods.
>
> |-------------------------|A
> |-------------------------|O
>
> The rods are separated and then accelerated equally towards each other, eg, by
> releasing a spring.
>
> /\/\/\/\/\/|-------------------------|<-v
> |-------------------------|->v
>
> When the LH rods ends are adjacent, a point in space is defined as before.
>
> P
> v<-|-------------------------|A
> v->|-------------------------|O
>
> In A's frame, O's rod is moving at 2v. When the two LH ends are adjacent, the
> defined point P remains at rest in A's frame (because it coincides with the LH
> end of A's rod.
No. Both rods are moving with respect to P. Being adjacent only means
the left hand sides of both rods are in a line that is perpendicular to
the x axis. Being adjacent does not mean that P is at rest.
> By a similar argument, point P remains stationary in O's frame (because it
> coincides with O's LH rod end).
By a similar argument, No.
>
> So we have a paradox.
There is neither "we" nor a paradox.
>
> As shown above, if A and O are moving relatively, then point P cannot be moving
> at the same speed relative to both.
They can be. Speed is not a vector. In fact, they are moving at the
exact same speed with exactly opposite velocity vectors.
>
> However, the lower experiment shows that point P CAN indeed be at rest in both
> frames, even though O and A are moving relatively.
P can't be at rest with respect to either rod because both rods are
moving.
>
> How can this happen?
It can't. You are incorrect.
>
> (Please don't introduce light, c, or objects to describe point P. It consists
> only of 'space')
>
> _____________________
>
> At this stage, Wilsonian relativity hasn't progressed beyond this paradox. It
> has yet to fully consider that the 'instant of time' defined by the coincidence
> is also both different yet identical in both frames.
Wilsonian relativity will be nothing more than Newtonian mechanics. It
will have no deep thought involved nor will it be useful, all it will
do is serve the ego of the one who named it after himself.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:joteh19fob9t25quc...@4ax.com...
> I'm going to do something unusual here. I'm going to make you think.
>
> Please
> read this message carefully so you wont make a fool of yourself.
>
>
> The subject is 'points in space' and how they move.
Points in space don't move.
Objects move from one point to another.
Before you decide to set out on a mission to make us think, it
might be a good idea to perform some of the activity yourself.
Dirk Vdm
Henri Wilson
Geese, that is about what I would expect from you.
Give up physics Geese, you really haven't a clue. You cannot even understand a
simple experiment like this.
Henri Wilson
The two prize idiots have now contributed their usual inanities.
Serious discussion can now begin.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:dmhhh1hngj7rd5m3k...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 13:05:32 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:joteh19fob9t25quc...@4ax.com...
> >> I'm going to do something unusual here. I'm going to make you think.
> >>
> >> Please
> >> read this message carefully so you wont make a fool of yourself.
> >>
> >>
> >> The subject is 'points in space' and how they move.
> >
> >Points in space don't move.
> >Objects move from one point to another.
> >
> >Before you decide to set out on a mission to make us think, it
> >might be a good idea to perform some of the activity yourself.
> >
> >Dirk Vdm
> >
>
> The two prize idiots have now contributed their usual inanities.
>
> Serious discussion can now begin.
Calling Androcles and Thomas Smid!
Dirk Vdm
Eric Gisse
[snip]
Looks like nothing I said was addressed. Par for the course.
>
> Geese, that is about what I would expect from you.
My last name is Gisse.
> Give up physics Geese, you really haven't a clue. You cannot even understand a
> simple experiment like this.
Again, Gisse.
Give up reading, moron, you really haven't a clue. You cannot even
repeat what is written in front of you without fucking it up.
[snip]
Paul B. Andersen
> I'm going to do something unusual here. I'm going to make you think. Please
> read this message carefully so you wont make a fool of yourself.
>
>
> The subject is 'points in space' and how they move.
>
> Consider this:
>
> Two thin wires are moving in opposite directions towards each other.
>
> |->
> |<-
>
> When they are adjacent, their coincidence defines a UNIQUE point in space and
> instant in time. Now let us introduce an observer or two.
>
> P
> |-> A->
> |<- O
> -------------------------
>
> If P is the spatial point at which the wires pass, then is is possible for O to
> determine the speed at which P is moving (wrt himself).
Is it? How?
> If second observer A is moving wrt O, then it follows that P's speed wrt A
> cannot be the same as its speed wrt O.
>
> If, however, O is moving at the same speed as the lower wire, then point P will
> be stationary wrt O.
Why is that?
> What happens if A moves at the same speed as the top wire?
>
> We will replace the wires and observers with the ends of two identical rods.
>
> |-------------------------|A
> |-------------------------|O
>
> The rods are separated and then accelerated equally towards each other, eg, by
> releasing a spring.
>
> /\/\/\/\/\/|-------------------------|<-v
> |-------------------------|->v
>
> When the LH rods ends are adjacent, a point in space is defined as before.
And what is "a point in space"?
A mark in the ether?
>
> P
> v<-|-------------------------|A
> v->|-------------------------|O
>
> In A's frame, O's rod is moving at 2v. When the two LH ends are adjacent, the
> defined point P remains at rest in A's frame (because it coincides with the LH
> end of A's rod.
> By a similar argument, point P remains stationary in O's frame (because it
> coincides with O's LH rod end).
>
> So we have a paradox.
Indeed. :-)
>
> As shown above, if A and O are moving relatively, then point P cannot be moving
> at the same speed relative to both.
>
> However, the lower experiment shows that point P CAN indeed be at rest in both
> frames, even though O and A are moving relatively.
>
> How can this happen?
This made me think.
And what I thought was:
Henri's stupidity never cease to amaze.
Paul
Androcles
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote in message
news:dfhhri$619$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
| Henri Wilson wrote:
| > I'm going to do something unusual here. I'm going to make you think.
Please
| > read this message carefully so you wont make a fool of yourself.
| >
| >
| > The subject is 'points in space' and how they move.
| >
| > Consider this:
| >
| > Two thin wires are moving in opposite directions towards each other.
| >
| > |->
| > |<-
| >
| > When they are adjacent, their coincidence defines a UNIQUE point in
space and
| > instant in time. Now let us introduce an observer or two.
| >
| > P
| > |-> A->
| > |<- O
| > -------------------------
| >
| > If P is the spatial point at which the wires pass, then is is
possible for O to
| > determine the speed at which P is moving (wrt himself).
|
| Is it? How?
That's what he is asking YOU to determine, phuckwit.
Try it this way:
g(x) = x-vt = x'
f(x) = x/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
f(g(x)) = x'/sqrt(*1-v^2/c^2) = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
We've already used v with respect to the stationary frame.
What is v doing in f(x)?
How fast is x' moving with respect to itself?
Or this way:
Set c = 1, v = dx/dt, x = integral [dx/dt . dt]
hence v = x/t
f(g(x)) = (x-x/t*t)/sqrt(*1-x^2/t^2)
= (x-x)/sqrt(*1-x^2/t^2)
= 0.
How fast is x' moving with respect to itself?
The stationary K-frame maps (function g(x)) to the unnamed frame
"a system of values x', y, z, independent of time".
The unnamed frame "a system of values x', y, z, independent of time"
maps (function f(x)) to the moving named frame k, a system of values
(xi,eta,zeta,tau).
How fast is x' moving toward xi?
Is it? How?
Stupid fucking troll, you have no right to be in an educational
establishment.
Androcles
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> I'm going to do something unusual here. I'm going to make you think. Please
>> read this message carefully so you wont make a fool of yourself.
>>
>>
>> The subject is 'points in space' and how they move.
>>
>> Consider this:
>>
>> Two thin wires are moving in opposite directions towards each other.
>>
>> |->
>> |<-
>>
>> When they are adjacent, their coincidence defines a UNIQUE point in space and
>> instant in time. Now let us introduce an observer or two.
>>
>> P
>> |-> A->
>> |<- O
>> -------------------------
>>
>> If P is the spatial point at which the wires pass, then is is possible for O to
>> determine the speed at which P is moving (wrt himself).
>
>Is it? How?
With a long calibrated rod and a row of E-synched clocks.
When the event occurs, P is marked on the rod, which is made stationary wrt P.
Do you think that can be done?
>
>> If second observer A is moving wrt O, then it follows that P's speed wrt A
>> cannot be the same as its speed wrt O.
>>
>> If, however, O is moving at the same speed as the lower wire, then point P will
>> be stationary wrt O.
>
>Why is that?
He will associate the point with the end of his rod.
>
>> What happens if A moves at the same speed as the top wire?
>>
>> We will replace the wires and observers with the ends of two identical rods.
>>
>> |-------------------------|A
>> |-------------------------|O
>>
>> The rods are separated and then accelerated equally towards each other, eg, by
>> releasing a spring.
>>
>> /\/\/\/\/\/|-------------------------|<-v
>> |-------------------------|->v
>>
>> When the LH rods ends are adjacent, a point in space is defined as before.
>
>And what is "a point in space"?
>A mark in the ether?
No.
that is what the question is about.
Can a 'point in space' be defined so that it can have 'movement'?
>
>>
>> P
>> v<-|-------------------------|A
>> v->|-------------------------|O
>>
>> In A's frame, O's rod is moving at 2v. When the two LH ends are adjacent, the
>> defined point P remains at rest in A's frame (because it coincides with the LH
>> end of A's rod.
>> By a similar argument, point P remains stationary in O's frame (because it
>> coincides with O's LH rod end).
>>
>> So we have a paradox.
>
>Indeed. :-)
Wilson's paradox.
>
>>
>> As shown above, if A and O are moving relatively, then point P cannot be moving
>> at the same speed relative to both.
>>
>> However, the lower experiment shows that point P CAN indeed be at rest in both
>> frames, even though O and A are moving relatively.
>>
>> How can this happen?
>
>This made me think.
>And what I thought was:
>Henri's stupidity never cease to amaze.
Please solve the paradox.
>
>
>Paul
Paul B. Andersen
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 15:40:00 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
>
>
>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>I'm going to do something unusual here. I'm going to make you think. Please
>>>read this message carefully so you wont make a fool of yourself.
>>>
>>>
>>>The subject is 'points in space' and how they move.
>>>
>>>Consider this:
>>>
>>>Two thin wires are moving in opposite directions towards each other.
>>>
>>> |->
>>> |<-
>>>
>>>When they are adjacent, their coincidence defines a UNIQUE point in space and
>>>instant in time. Now let us introduce an observer or two.
>>>
>>> P
>>> |-> A->
>>> |<- O
>>>-------------------------
>>>
>>>If P is the spatial point at which the wires pass, then is is possible for O to
>>>determine the speed at which P is moving (wrt himself).
>>
>>Is it? How?
>
>
> With a long calibrated rod and a row of E-synched clocks.
> When the event occurs, P is marked on the rod, which is made stationary wrt P.
>
We can illustrate "Wilson's paradox"
with a simpler scenario.
Henri and Paul are running, and clap their
hands as they pass each other.
The clap defines a UNIQUE point in space and
instant in time - that is it defines an event.
The spatial coordinates of the event is
"Henri's hand" in Henri's frame,
an "Paul's hand" in Paul's frame.
Wilson's paradox:
Paul's hand is stationary in Paul's frame,
but moving in Henri's frame.
Henri's hand is stationary in Henri's frame
but moving in Paul's frame.
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
> Stupid fucking troll, you have no right to be in an educational
> establishment.
>
> Androcles
The "fucking troll" we have here in Norway is this:
http://www.trollshop.net/trolls/huldra.htm
I can assure you that's not me.
I am more like this:
http://www.trollshop.net/trolls/tusselader/
Paul
Androcles
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> snipped in
news:dfml8o$drf$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
because the stupid masturbating tusselader
http://www.trollshop.net/trolls/tusselader/751192.jpg
had no answer to:
g(x) = x-vt = x'
f(x) = x/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
f(g(x)) = x'/sqrt(*1-v^2/c^2) = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
We've already used v with respect to the stationary frame.
What is v doing in f(x)?
How fast is x' moving with respect to itself?
Or this way:
Set c = 1, v = dx/dt, x = integral [dx/dt . dt]
hence v = x/t
f(g(x)) = (x-x/t*t)/sqrt(*1-x^2/t^2)
= (x-x)/sqrt(*1-x^2/t^2)
= 0.
How fast is x' moving with respect to itself?
The stationary K-frame maps (function g(x)) to the unnamed frame
"a system of values x', y, z, independent of time".
The unnamed frame "a system of values x', y, z, independent of time"
maps (function f(x)) to the moving named frame k, a system of values
(xi,eta,zeta,tau).
How fast is x' moving toward xi?
Is it? How?
I dunno about it being Wilson's paradox, though. He's got a wild
imagination
like you.
[quote]
"sal" <pragmat...@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.07.27....@nospam.org...
| On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 02:31:38 +0000, Androcles wrote:
Two functions are needed to transform between K and k.
g(x) = x-vt,
written as x' = x-vt,
and
f(x) = x/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
f(g(x)) = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
written as xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
[end quote]
It's amazing how Wilson can claim "Wilson's Paradox" a month later.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
Very good Paul. You have thunk.
now, what happens to the sound of the clap?
Does it take the same time to reach both of us?
YES! (If we are moving at +/- the same speed wrt the air).
Now try using light. We both 'flash' as we pass.
Sound has a medium. Light doesn't.
Paul B. Andersen
What has happened to you, Androcles?
Your stupidities used to be funny,
but now your babble is only boring.
Paul, the bored tusselad
Paul B. Andersen
I will hear it first because I have got bigger
ears than you.
http://www.trollshop.net/trolls/tusselader/751192.jpg
> YES! (If we are moving at +/- the same speed wrt the air).
>
> Now try using light. We both 'flash' as we pass.
>
> Sound has a medium. Light doesn't.
Quite.
Paul
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
So why is YOUR theory the same as that of sound?
Paul B. Andersen
Demonstrating your ignorance again, Henri? :-)
The speed of light is invariant.
The speed of sound isn't.
You don't know much, do you?
Paul
kenseto
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
Because light also has a medium????? That means that your assertion that
light doesn't have a medium is bogus????
Ken Seto.
bz
news:joteh19fob9t25quc...@4ax.com:
> I'm going to do something unusual here. I'm going to make you think.
> Please read this message carefully so you wont make a fool of yourself.
>
>
> The subject is 'points in space' and how they move.
>
> Consider this:
>
> Two thin wires are moving in opposite directions towards each other.
>
> |->
> |<-
>
> When they are adjacent, their coincidence defines a UNIQUE point in
> space and instant in time.
So far, so good. The point is defined at the instant that the wires pass
each other, WRT the two wires.
> Now let us introduce an observer or two.
>
> P
> |-> A->
> |<- O
> -------------------------
>
> If P is the spatial point at which the wires pass, then is is possible
> for O to determine the speed at which P is moving (wrt himself).
It is possible for him to determine his velocity wrt the point at that
instant if he can determine their location at the right time, but the point
is not defined before, nor after the wires pass.
The point only existed at one instant in time and the observers, not being
present at the same point at the time it existed would be faced with
knowing the exact time the point existed. This raises many problems and the
rest of your 'thought experiment' is thus worthless.
[snip]
Now, you may say that P continues to exist after the wires pass each other,
at the midpoint between them, as determined by their relative velocities.
I suppost that might be true, but you only defined it at the instant they
passed each other. You will need to encorporate the midpoint into your
definition and your theory of relatives[everyone has some].
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
>Henri Wilson wrote:
wrt what?
>The speed of sound isn't.
wrt what?
>You don't know much, do you?
You don't know much, do you?
>
>Paul
Paul B. Andersen
Paul
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
Ignorance is epitomized by 'speed' instead of 'speed relative to'.
Paul B. Andersen
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:13:06 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
>
>
>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:25:27 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>><paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>
>
>>>>>>>Now try using light. We both 'flash' as we pass.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sound has a medium. Light doesn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Quite.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>So why is YOUR theory the same as that of sound?
>>>>
>>>>Demonstrating your ignorance again, Henri? :-)
>>>>
>>>>The speed of light is invariant.
>>>
>>>
>>>wrt what?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The speed of sound isn't.
>>>
>>>
>>>wrt what?
>>
>>Demonstrating your ignorance again, Henri? :-)
>
>
> Ignorance is epitomized by 'speed' instead of 'speed relative to'.
You epitomized "ignorance" thus:
"What is the speed of light invariant relative to?"
"What is the speed of sound not invariant relative too?"
Well done.
Paul
Androcles
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote in message
news:dgbu1t$55v$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
I don't see where Henri said that.
Searched all groups Results 1 - 1 of 1 for "speed of light
invariant relative to" (0.12 seconds
You are maliciously and deliberately misquoting him, you fucking lying
tusselad.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
Paul, you have completely misinterpreted Einstein.
In fact HE obviously misinterpreted himself.
What he meant was that the universal constant 'c' is invariant in all frames.
'c' also happens to be the speed of light wrt its source. Maxwells equations
also imply this......providing the two constants are measured in the source
frame.
Paul B. Andersen
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:47:40 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
>
>
>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:13:06 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>><paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>
>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>Now try using light. We both 'flash' as we pass.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Sound has a medium. Light doesn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Quite.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So why is YOUR theory the same as that of sound?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Demonstrating your ignorance again, Henri? :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The speed of light is invariant.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>wrt what?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The speed of sound isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>wrt what?
>>>>
>>>>Demonstrating your ignorance again, Henri? :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>Ignorance is epitomized by 'speed' instead of 'speed relative to'.
>>
>>You epitomized "ignorance" thus:
>>"What is the speed of light invariant relative to?"
>>"What is the speed of sound not invariant relative too?"
>>
>>Well done.
>
>
> Paul, you have completely misinterpreted Einstein.
> In fact HE obviously misinterpreted himself.
Obviously. :-)
> What he meant was that the universal constant 'c' is invariant in all frames.
"invariant in all frames" as opposed to "invariant in some frames"? :-)
> 'c' also happens to be the speed of light wrt its source. Maxwells equations
> also imply this......providing the two constants are measured in the source
> frame.
Maxwell's equations imply that the speed of light in vacuum is c in
any frame of reference regardless of the speed of the source
in that frame.
You know this, so why did you add the plain wrong statement:
"providing the two constants are measured in the source frame."?
Paul
Paul
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:47:40 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You epitomized "ignorance" thus:
>>>"What is the speed of light invariant relative to?"
>>>"What is the speed of sound not invariant relative too?"
>>>
>>>Well done.
>>
>>
>> Paul, you have completely misinterpreted Einstein.
>> In fact HE obviously misinterpreted himself.
>
>Obviously. :-)
>
>> What he meant was that the universal constant 'c' is invariant in all frames.
>
>"invariant in all frames" as opposed to "invariant in some frames"? :-)
This is in direct agrement with LET.
>
>> 'c' also happens to be the speed of light wrt its source. Maxwells equations
>> also imply this......providing the two constants are measured in the source
>> frame.
>
>Maxwell's equations imply that the speed of light in vacuum is c in
>any frame of reference regardless of the speed of the source
>in that frame.
This is also in direct agrement with LET. It is based on the existence of a
light carrying medium.
Accordingly, the instruments used to measure the two constants would be
'physically contracted' so that they woudl always produce the same numerical
value for 'c'.
>
>You know this, so why did you add the plain wrong statement:
>"providing the two constants are measured in the source frame."?
According to aether theories (in which Maxwell believed),
application of the LTs causes measuring apparatus to contract. It will thus
always give the value 'c' for the speed of light produced by any source no
matter how the source observer is moving in the aether.
We now know there is no aether. We also have evidence that Maxwell's equations
correctly describe how light moves wrt its source.
BUT WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT MAXWLELL'S EQUATIONS APPLY TO LIGHT FROM
RELATIVELY MOVING SOURCES.
>
>Paul
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:58:16 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:47:40 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> >> <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
> >>
> >>
>
> >>>You epitomized "ignorance" thus:
> >>>"What is the speed of light invariant relative to?"
> >>>"What is the speed of sound not invariant relative too?"
> >>>
> >>>Well done.
> >>
> >>
> >> Paul, you have completely misinterpreted Einstein.
> >> In fact HE obviously misinterpreted himself.
> >
> >Obviously. :-)
> >
> >> What he meant was that the universal constant 'c' is invariant in all frames.
> >
> >"invariant in all frames" as opposed to "invariant in some frames"? :-)
>
> This is in direct agrement with LET.
You keep bringing up LET, why bother? You do not accept the validity of
SR...
>
> >
> >> 'c' also happens to be the speed of light wrt its source. Maxwells equations
> >> also imply this......providing the two constants are measured in the source
> >> frame.
> >
> >Maxwell's equations imply that the speed of light in vacuum is c in
> >any frame of reference regardless of the speed of the source
> >in that frame.
>
> This is also in direct agrement with LET. It is based on the existence of a
> light carrying medium.
Odd, the ether has never been observed.
Don't let facts get in your way, Henri. Please go on.
> Accordingly, the instruments used to measure the two constants would be
> 'physically contracted' so that they woudl always produce the same numerical
> value for 'c'.
There is no physical contraction.
I am already imagining the response to that, and it makes me laugh.
Don't dissapoint me.
>
> >
> >You know this, so why did you add the plain wrong statement:
> >"providing the two constants are measured in the source frame."?
>
> According to aether theories (in which Maxwell believed),
If belief was relevant in physics, the universe wouldn't be
relativistic beause it would be much more convinient that way.
> application of the LTs causes measuring apparatus to contract. It will thus
> always give the value 'c' for the speed of light produced by any source no
> matter how the source observer is moving in the aether.
Compare and contrast with your previous statement in this very post:
"This is also in direct agrement with LET. It is based on the existence
of a light carrying medium."
Which is it?
>
> We now know there is no aether. We also have evidence that Maxwell's equations
> correctly describe how light moves wrt its source.
You can't have it both ways....
>
> BUT WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT MAXWLELL'S EQUATIONS APPLY TO LIGHT FROM
> RELATIVELY MOVING SOURCES.
Much like we have no evidence for SR, right? Just because you do not
acknowledge evidence, does not mean it ceases to exist.
Remember my statement about enjoying abnormal psychology?
[snip]
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:58:16 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
>>
>> >> Paul, you have completely misinterpreted Einstein.
>> >> In fact HE obviously misinterpreted himself.
>> >
>> >Obviously. :-)
>> >
>> >> What he meant was that the universal constant 'c' is invariant in all frames.
>> >
>> >"invariant in all frames" as opposed to "invariant in some frames"? :-)
>>
>> This is in direct agrement with LET.
>
>You keep bringing up LET, why bother? You do not accept the validity of
>SR...
SR degenerates into LET when it tries to explain how simultaneously emitted
pulses from differently moving sources end up moving off together through
space.
It has no explanation of its own.
Einstein merely replaced the physical concept of an 'absolute aether' with a
maths postulate.
>> >Maxwell's equations imply that the speed of light in vacuum is c in
>> >any frame of reference regardless of the speed of the source
>> >in that frame.
>>
>> This is also in direct agrement with LET. It is based on the existence of a
>> light carrying medium.
>
>Odd, the ether has never been observed.
>
>Don't let facts get in your way, Henri. Please go on.
>
>> Accordingly, the instruments used to measure the two constants would be
>> 'physically contracted' so that they woudl always produce the same numerical
>> value for 'c'.
>
>There is no physical contraction.
>
>I am already imagining the response to that, and it makes me laugh.
>Don't dissapoint me.
Maxwell's equations were designed for an aether. Contractions can be real in
such. Ask Seto.
>> >You know this, so why did you add the plain wrong statement:
>> >"providing the two constants are measured in the source frame."?
>>
>> According to aether theories (in which Maxwell believed),
>
>If belief was relevant in physics, the universe wouldn't be
>relativistic beause it would be much more convinient that way.
It is certainly relativistic...but not of the Einstein version.
>
>> application of the LTs causes measuring apparatus to contract. It will thus
>> always give the value 'c' for the speed of light produced by any source no
>> matter how the source observer is moving in the aether.
>
>Compare and contrast with your previous statement in this very post:
>"This is also in direct agrement with LET. It is based on the existence
>of a light carrying medium."
>
>Which is it?
there is no contradiction in what I wrote.
In LET, the measuring apparatus cointracts so that OWLS will always be measured
as c. I'm saying the apparatus used to measure maxwell's two constants will
also contract so that Maxwell's 'c' will always have the same value for the
same reaons.
>
>
>>
>> We now know there is no aether. We also have evidence that Maxwell's equations
>> correctly describe how light moves wrt its source.
>
>You can't have it both ways....
>
>>
>> BUT WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT MAXWLELL'S EQUATIONS APPLY TO LIGHT FROM
>> RELATIVELY MOVING SOURCES.
>
>Much like we have no evidence for SR, right? Just because you do not
>acknowledge evidence, does not mean it ceases to exist.
The evidence supporting SR is on par with that supporting the fact that jesus
christ cured blind men with a wave of his hand.
>
>Remember my statement about enjoying abnormal psychology?
Hohohhohohahahah!
>
>[snip]
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 17 Sep 2005 00:03:47 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:58:16 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> >> <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
> >>
>
> >> >> Paul, you have completely misinterpreted Einstein.
> >> >> In fact HE obviously misinterpreted himself.
> >> >
> >> >Obviously. :-)
> >> >
> >> >> What he meant was that the universal constant 'c' is invariant in all frames.
> >> >
> >> >"invariant in all frames" as opposed to "invariant in some frames"? :-)
> >>
> >> This is in direct agrement with LET.
> >
> >You keep bringing up LET, why bother? You do not accept the validity of
> >SR...
>
> SR degenerates into LET when it tries to explain how simultaneously emitted
> pulses from differently moving sources end up moving off together through
> space.
SR and LET are the same, mathematically. Philosophy is irrelevant as
far as predictions are concerned.
> It has no explanation of its own.
No matter how you phrase it, this is what it comes down to. You can't
accept that SR predicts without explanation of the 'why'.
> Einstein merely replaced the physical concept of an 'absolute aether' with a
> maths postulate.
It works, BFD.
>
> >> >Maxwell's equations imply that the speed of light in vacuum is c in
> >> >any frame of reference regardless of the speed of the source
> >> >in that frame.
> >>
> >> This is also in direct agrement with LET. It is based on the existence of a
> >> light carrying medium.
> >
> >Odd, the ether has never been observed.
> >
> >Don't let facts get in your way, Henri. Please go on.
> >
> >> Accordingly, the instruments used to measure the two constants would be
> >> 'physically contracted' so that they woudl always produce the same numerical
> >> value for 'c'.
> >
> >There is no physical contraction.
> >
> >I am already imagining the response to that, and it makes me laugh.
> >Don't dissapoint me.
>
> Maxwell's equations were designed for an aether. Contractions can be real in
> such. Ask Seto.
I asked you to reproduce the derivation that shows that Maxwell's
equations are only valid in the source frame, and you replied that you
are too busy to do it.
I guess you are too busy to back up yet another unsupported assertion
with anything useful like a derivation or a literature citation?
...and why the hell would I ask Seto anything? If I wanted to start a
crank fight, I would do it in a different way than this.
>
> >> >You know this, so why did you add the plain wrong statement:
> >> >"providing the two constants are measured in the source frame."?
> >>
> >> According to aether theories (in which Maxwell believed),
> >
> >If belief was relevant in physics, the universe wouldn't be
> >relativistic beause it would be much more convinient that way.
>
> It is certainly relativistic...but not of the Einstein version.
Well, your brand of relativity is abjectly wrong.
I also asked you to reproduce your derivation that you say explains
away the incorrect prediction of Mercury's orbit. You are yet to do so.
When I asked long ago about you doing experiments, you said you just
create ideas.
It appears that you don't do much of anything, really. Since you won't
experiment, and won't back up your assertions, or listen to
critique....
You do, however, provide a fine way to keep my writing skills intact
along with some of my knowledge.
>
> >
> >> application of the LTs causes measuring apparatus to contract. It will thus
> >> always give the value 'c' for the speed of light produced by any source no
> >> matter how the source observer is moving in the aether.
> >
> >Compare and contrast with your previous statement in this very post:
> >"This is also in direct agrement with LET. It is based on the existence
> >of a light carrying medium."
> >
> >Which is it?
>
> there is no contradiction in what I wrote.
There is no medium, that is the contradiction.
> In LET, the measuring apparatus cointracts so that OWLS will always be measured
> as c. I'm saying the apparatus used to measure maxwell's two constants will
> also contract so that Maxwell's 'c' will always have the same value for the
> same reaons.
Again, how is LET relevant? The mathematics are the same, and thus the
predictions are. If you disagree with SR's predictions, you disagree
with LET's predictions.
I'm also continually amused by your unwillingness to trust anyone's
work but your own and those who agree with your viewpoints, no matter
how marginalized they are.
I can't reproduce the proof, but I accept that there is no general
formula for the roots of polynomials of order higher than five. The
same mindset extends fo physics, I can't do everything - neither can
you.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> We now know there is no aether. We also have evidence that Maxwell's equations
> >> correctly describe how light moves wrt its source.
> >
> >You can't have it both ways....
> >
> >>
> >> BUT WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT MAXWLELL'S EQUATIONS APPLY TO LIGHT FROM
> >> RELATIVELY MOVING SOURCES.
> >
> >Much like we have no evidence for SR, right? Just because you do not
> >acknowledge evidence, does not mean it ceases to exist.
>
> The evidence supporting SR is on par with that supporting the fact that jesus
> christ cured blind men with a wave of his hand.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Of course, everyone is wrong but you, right Henri? No chance of you
just not understanding?
>
> >
> >Remember my statement about enjoying abnormal psychology?
>
> Hohohhohohahahah!
Remember Henri, you are the only one who sees the truth.
Paul B. Andersen
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:58:16 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
>
>
>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:47:40 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>><paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>
>
>>>>You epitomized "ignorance" thus:
>>>>"What is the speed of light invariant relative to?"
>>>>"What is the speed of sound not invariant relative too?"
>>>>
>>>>Well done.
>>>
>>>
>>>Paul, you have completely misinterpreted Einstein.
>>>In fact HE obviously misinterpreted himself.
>>
>>Obviously. :-)
>>
>>
>>>What he meant was that the universal constant 'c' is invariant in all frames.
>>
>>"invariant in all frames" as opposed to "invariant in some frames"? :-)
>
>
> This is in direct agrement with LET.
You didn't get the point, did you? :-)
"invariant in all frames" is a pleonasm.
"invariant" means frame independent - the same in all frames.
And what's more, a "universal constant" is obviously frame independent.
Which means that it is invariant.
Which means that it is the same in all frames.
So your statement:
"the universal constant 'c' is invariant in all frames."
is a double pleonasm.
You may say:
1. The speed of light in vacuum is invariant c.
2. The speed of light in vacuum is c in all frames.
3. The speed of light in vacuum is a universal constant c.
They all mean the same.
So to say that Einstein said one of them but really
meant one of the two other is nonsense.
>>>'c' also happens to be the speed of light wrt its source. Maxwells equations
>>>also imply this......providing the two constants are measured in the source
>>>frame.
>>
>>Maxwell's equations imply that the speed of light in vacuum is c in
>>any frame of reference regardless of the speed of the source
>>in that frame.
>
>
> This is also in direct agrement with LET.
Right.
And it is in agreement with SR.
But it is NOT in agreement with the ballistic theory.
> It is based on the existence of a
> light carrying medium.
> Accordingly, the instruments used to measure the two constants would be
> 'physically contracted' so that they woudl always produce the same numerical
> value for 'c'.
According to LET. So?
>
>>You know this, so why did you add the plain wrong statement:
>>"providing the two constants are measured in the source frame."?
>
>
> According to aether theories (in which Maxwell believed),
> application of the LTs causes measuring apparatus to contract. It will thus
> always give the value 'c' for the speed of light produced by any source no
> matter how the source observer is moving in the aether.
No.
Maxwell believed in no such ether.
You are describing Lorentz's ether.
> We now know there is no aether. We also have evidence that Maxwell's equations
> correctly describe how light moves wrt its source.
Actually, we do not know that Lorentz's ether does not exist.
It's like blue fairies - invisible and undetectable and
impossible to prove the non existence of.
The ether we know doesn't exist is the ether Maxwell, Michelson
and most other scientist believed in before 1887.
But yes, Maxwell's equations do just fine with no ether.
I see below that you have understood that Maxwell's equations
not are in agreement with the ballistic theory.
Why did you then pretend they were?
> BUT WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT MAXWLELL'S EQUATIONS APPLY TO LIGHT FROM
> RELATIVELY MOVING SOURCES.
But all this doen't make your questions:
"What is the speed of light invariant relative to?"
"What is the speed of sound not invariant relative too?"
and this staement of yours:
"In fact HE [Einstein] obviously misinterpreted himself."
any less hilarious.
And your point was to divert the attension from these
stupidities of yours, wasn't it? :-)
Paul
Henri Wilson
>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 17 Sep 2005 00:03:47 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>SR and LET are the same, mathematically. Philosophy is irrelevant as
>far as predictions are concerned.
>
>> It has no explanation of its own.
>
>No matter how you phrase it, this is what it comes down to. You can't
>accept that SR predicts without explanation of the 'why'.
>
>> Einstein merely replaced the physical concept of an 'absolute aether' with a
>> maths postulate.
>
>It works, BFD.
When did it ever work?
>
>>
>> >> >Maxwell's equations imply that the speed of light in vacuum is c in
>> >> >any frame of reference regardless of the speed of the source
>> >> >in that frame.
>> >>
>> >> This is also in direct agrement with LET. It is based on the existence of a
>> >> light carrying medium.
>> >
>> >Odd, the ether has never been observed.
>> >
>> >Don't let facts get in your way, Henri. Please go on.
>> >
>> >> Accordingly, the instruments used to measure the two constants would be
>> >> 'physically contracted' so that they woudl always produce the same numerical
>> >> value for 'c'.
>> >
>> >There is no physical contraction.
>> >
>> >I am already imagining the response to that, and it makes me laugh.
>> >Don't dissapoint me.
>>
>> Maxwell's equations were designed for an aether. Contractions can be real in
>> such. Ask Seto.
>
>I asked you to reproduce the derivation that shows that Maxwell's
>equations are only valid in the source frame, and you replied that you
>are too busy to do it.
use you head. You want to be a physicist. try behaving like one for a start.
>> >If belief was relevant in physics, the universe wouldn't be
>> >relativistic beause it would be much more convinient that way.
>>
>> It is certainly relativistic...but not of the Einstein version.
>
>Well, your brand of relativity is abjectly wrong.
>
>I also asked you to reproduce your derivation that you say explains
>away the incorrect prediction of Mercury's orbit. You are yet to do so.
>When I asked long ago about you doing experiments, you said you just
>create ideas.
In 1905 nobody had any conception of the many currently known factors that
could be affecting Mercury's precession..
>
>It appears that you don't do much of anything, really. Since you won't
>experiment, and won't back up your assertions, or listen to
>critique....
>
>You do, however, provide a fine way to keep my writing skills intact
>along with some of my knowledge.
I hope you keep on learning and improving Geese.
Maybe you will even wake up one day to the fact that SR is complete nonsense.
>> >
>> >Which is it?
>>
>> there is no contradiction in what I wrote.
>
>There is no medium, that is the contradiction.
>
>> In LET, the measuring apparatus cointracts so that OWLS will always be measured
>> as c. I'm saying the apparatus used to measure maxwell's two constants will
>> also contract so that Maxwell's 'c' will always have the same value for the
>> same reaons.
>
>Again, how is LET relevant? The mathematics are the same, and thus the
>predictions are. If you disagree with SR's predictions, you disagree
>with LET's predictions.
that's right. I disagree with both.
I say Maxwell's equations derive a universal constant 'c' which is also the
speed of light wrt its source.
It says nothing about the speed of incoming light from moving sources.
>I'm also continually amused by your unwillingness to trust anyone's
>work but your own and those who agree with your viewpoints, no matter
>how marginalized they are.
>
>I can't reproduce the proof, but I accept that there is no general
>formula for the roots of polynomials of order higher than five. The
>same mindset extends fo physics, I can't do everything - neither can
>you.
maths merely provides formal records of physical processes that have been
observed or mentally conceived.
>> >> We now know there is no aether. We also have evidence that Maxwell's equations
>> >> correctly describe how light moves wrt its source.
>> >
>> >You can't have it both ways....
>> >
>> >>
>> >> BUT WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT MAXWLELL'S EQUATIONS APPLY TO LIGHT FROM
>> >> RELATIVELY MOVING SOURCES.
>> >
>> >Much like we have no evidence for SR, right? Just because you do not
>> >acknowledge evidence, does not mean it ceases to exist.
>>
>> The evidence supporting SR is on par with that supporting the fact that jesus
>> christ cured blind men with a wave of his hand.
>
>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>
>Of course, everyone is wrong but you, right Henri? No chance of you
>just not understanding?
here we go again...."not understanding''' Hohohahaha!
>
>>
>> >
>> >Remember my statement about enjoying abnormal psychology?
>>
>> Hohohhohohahahah!
>
>Remember Henri, you are the only one who sees the truth.
and there are quite a few others.
..what is more...we can see the lies.
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:58:16 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>What he meant was that the universal constant 'c' is invariant in all frames.
>>>
>>>"invariant in all frames" as opposed to "invariant in some frames"? :-)
>>
>>
>> This is in direct agrement with LET.
>
>You didn't get the point, did you? :-)
>"invariant in all frames" is a pleonasm.
>"invariant" means frame independent - the same in all frames.
>
>And what's more, a "universal constant" is obviously frame independent.
>Which means that it is invariant.
>Which means that it is the same in all frames.
>So your statement:
>"the universal constant 'c' is invariant in all frames."
>is a double pleonasm.
>You may say:
>1. The speed of light in vacuum is invariant c.
>2. The speed of light in vacuum is c in all frames.
>3. The speed of light in vacuum is a universal constant c.
>They all mean the same.
>
>So to say that Einstein said one of them but really
>meant one of the two other is nonsense.
geez, you're getting REALLY desperate now Paul....
>>
>> This is also in direct agrement with LET.
>
>Right.
>And it is in agreement with SR.
>But it is NOT in agreement with the ballistic theory.
>
>> It is based on the existence of a
>> light carrying medium.
>> Accordingly, the instruments used to measure the two constants would be
>> 'physically contracted' so that they woudl always produce the same numerical
>> value for 'c'.
>
>According to LET. So?
SR is just LET with a postulate instead of a physical aether.
>>
>> According to aether theories (in which Maxwell believed),
>> application of the LTs causes measuring apparatus to contract. It will thus
>> always give the value 'c' for the speed of light produced by any source no
>> matter how the source observer is moving in the aether.
>
>No.
>Maxwell believed in no such ether.
I think you will find that he did.
>You are describing Lorentz's ether.
same thing really. :
Lorentz probably had a better idea of what he thought it was..
>
>> We now know there is no aether. We also have evidence that Maxwell's equations
>> correctly describe how light moves wrt its source.
>
>Actually, we do not know that Lorentz's ether does not exist.
>It's like blue fairies - invisible and undetectable and
>impossible to prove the non existence of.
If you wish to become an aetherist you will gain some credibility. At least LET
has a physical basis.
>
>The ether we know doesn't exist is the ether Maxwell, Michelson
>and most other scientist believed in before 1887.
How can we know if something that doesn't exist exists or doesn't exist if the
fact that it doesn't exist rules out the possibility of defining properties
that might be tested in attempts to establish if it exists or not?
>
>But yes, Maxwell's equations do just fine with no ether.
The establish 'c' for a particular observer.
Why that same c is also light's speed of emission wrt that observer is somewhat
of a mystery.
>
>I see below that you have understood that Maxwell's equations
>not are in agreement with the ballistic theory.
>Why did you then pretend they were?
Don't be silly Paul.
>
>> BUT WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT MAXWLELL'S EQUATIONS APPLY TO LIGHT FROM
>> RELATIVELY MOVING SOURCES.
>
>
>But all this doen't make your questions:
>"What is the speed of light invariant relative to?"
>"What is the speed of sound not invariant relative too?"
>and this staement of yours:
>"In fact HE [Einstein] obviously misinterpreted himself."
>any less hilarious.
He did! many times.
He was just as confused as the rest of you SRians.
He didn't even realize that his clock synch definition provided a way of
established absolute simultaneity.
>And your point was to divert the attension from these
>stupidities of yours, wasn't it? :-)
keep trraving....
Eric Gisse
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 17 Sep 2005 19:13:40 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On 17 Sep 2005 00:03:47 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
>
> >
> >SR and LET are the same, mathematically. Philosophy is irrelevant as
> >far as predictions are concerned.
> >
> >> It has no explanation of its own.
> >
> >No matter how you phrase it, this is what it comes down to. You can't
> >accept that SR predicts without explanation of the 'why'.
> >
> >> Einstein merely replaced the physical concept of an 'absolute aether' with a
> >> maths postulate.
> >
> >It works, BFD.
>
> When did it ever work?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
I love hearing the sound of that page hitting your mental block.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >> >Maxwell's equations imply that the speed of light in vacuum is c in
> >> >> >any frame of reference regardless of the speed of the source
> >> >> >in that frame.
> >> >>
> >> >> This is also in direct agrement with LET. It is based on the existence of a
> >> >> light carrying medium.
> >> >
> >> >Odd, the ether has never been observed.
> >> >
> >> >Don't let facts get in your way, Henri. Please go on.
> >> >
> >> >> Accordingly, the instruments used to measure the two constants would be
> >> >> 'physically contracted' so that they woudl always produce the same numerical
> >> >> value for 'c'.
> >> >
> >> >There is no physical contraction.
> >> >
> >> >I am already imagining the response to that, and it makes me laugh.
> >> >Don't dissapoint me.
> >>
> >> Maxwell's equations were designed for an aether. Contractions can be real in
> >> such. Ask Seto.
> >
> >I asked you to reproduce the derivation that shows that Maxwell's
> >equations are only valid in the source frame, and you replied that you
> >are too busy to do it.
>
> use you head. You want to be a physicist. try behaving like one for a start.
So you can't do it, as I thought.
This IS acting like a physicist, someone has a competing theory that
they have said multiple times that their theory can predict something.
I ask him to show me the derivation that leads to the prediction.
If he refuses, I mock him. Guess which step im at now.
>
>
> >> >If belief was relevant in physics, the universe wouldn't be
> >> >relativistic beause it would be much more convinient that way.
> >>
> >> It is certainly relativistic...but not of the Einstein version.
> >
> >Well, your brand of relativity is abjectly wrong.
> >
> >I also asked you to reproduce your derivation that you say explains
> >away the incorrect prediction of Mercury's orbit. You are yet to do so.
> >When I asked long ago about you doing experiments, you said you just
> >create ideas.
>
> In 1905 nobody had any conception of the many currently known factors that
> could be affecting Mercury's precession..
Obviously. GR wasn't around in 1905.
>
> >
> >It appears that you don't do much of anything, really. Since you won't
> >experiment, and won't back up your assertions, or listen to
> >critique....
> >
> >You do, however, provide a fine way to keep my writing skills intact
> >along with some of my knowledge.
>
> I hope you keep on learning and improving Geese.
Gisse. Try learning my name.
> Maybe you will even wake up one day to the fact that SR is complete nonsense.
Your theory is more nonsense. Every time I ask you to prove your
assertions, you whine that you don't have the time, or that I'm not a
'real' physicist by asking you a hard question.
>
>
> >> >
> >> >Which is it?
> >>
> >> there is no contradiction in what I wrote.
> >
> >There is no medium, that is the contradiction.
> >
> >> In LET, the measuring apparatus cointracts so that OWLS will always be measured
> >> as c. I'm saying the apparatus used to measure maxwell's two constants will
> >> also contract so that Maxwell's 'c' will always have the same value for the
> >> same reaons.
> >
> >Again, how is LET relevant? The mathematics are the same, and thus the
> >predictions are. If you disagree with SR's predictions, you disagree
> >with LET's predictions.
>
> that's right. I disagree with both.
Then stop bringing it up.
> I say Maxwell's equations derive a universal constant 'c' which is also the
> speed of light wrt its source.
Prove the derivation says anything about c being anything other than c
if you derive it in a frame other than the source frame.
> It says nothing about the speed of incoming light from moving sources.
Prove it.
Why should I take your word for it?
>
> >I'm also continually amused by your unwillingness to trust anyone's
> >work but your own and those who agree with your viewpoints, no matter
> >how marginalized they are.
> >
> >I can't reproduce the proof, but I accept that there is no general
> >formula for the roots of polynomials of order higher than five. The
> >same mindset extends fo physics, I can't do everything - neither can
> >you.
>
> maths merely provides formal records of physical processes that have been
> observed or mentally conceived.
Not even close. Try again.
>
> >> >> We now know there is no aether. We also have evidence that Maxwell's equations
> >> >> correctly describe how light moves wrt its source.
> >> >
> >> >You can't have it both ways....
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> BUT WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT MAXWLELL'S EQUATIONS APPLY TO LIGHT FROM
> >> >> RELATIVELY MOVING SOURCES.
> >> >
> >> >Much like we have no evidence for SR, right? Just because you do not
> >> >acknowledge evidence, does not mean it ceases to exist.
> >>
> >> The evidence supporting SR is on par with that supporting the fact that jesus
> >> christ cured blind men with a wave of his hand.
> >
> >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
> >
> >Of course, everyone is wrong but you, right Henri? No chance of you
> >just not understanding?
>
> here we go again...."not understanding''' Hohohahaha!
Such arrogance.
The Ghost In The Machine
<jow...@gmail.com>
wrote
on 18 Sep 2005 18:21:18 -0700
<1127092878....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
>
> Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 17 Sep 2005 19:13:40 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Henri Wilson wrote:
>> >> On 17 Sep 2005 00:03:47 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>>
>> >
>> >SR and LET are the same, mathematically. Philosophy is irrelevant as
>> >far as predictions are concerned.
>> >
>> >> It has no explanation of its own.
>> >
>> >No matter how you phrase it, this is what it comes down to. You can't
>> >accept that SR predicts without explanation of the 'why'.
>> >
>> >> Einstein merely replaced the physical concept of an
>> >> 'absolute aether' with a maths postulate.
>> >
>> >It works, BFD.
>>
>> When did it ever work?
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>
> I love hearing the sound of that page hitting your mental block.
It's a pity it doesn't make more noise on occasion. :-)
It's a bit like hitting a balloon with a hammer. If the balloon
is securely anchored (pinned) one might pop the balloon. Otherwise
it bounds away and then floats back for another try.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >> >Maxwell's equations imply that the speed of light in vacuum is c in
>> >> >> >any frame of reference regardless of the speed of the source
>> >> >> >in that frame.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This is also in direct agrement with LET. It is based on the existence of a
>> >> >> light carrying medium.
>> >> >
>> >> >Odd, the ether has never been observed.
>> >> >
>> >> >Don't let facts get in your way, Henri. Please go on.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Accordingly, the instruments used to measure the two constants would be
>> >> >> 'physically contracted' so that they woudl always produce the same numerical
>> >> >> value for 'c'.
>> >> >
>> >> >There is no physical contraction.
>> >> >
>> >> >I am already imagining the response to that, and it makes me laugh.
>> >> >Don't dissapoint me.
>> >>
>> >> Maxwell's equations were designed for an aether. Contractions can be real in
>> >> such. Ask Seto.
>> >
>> >I asked you to reproduce the derivation that shows that Maxwell's
>> >equations are only valid in the source frame, and you replied that you
>> >are too busy to do it.
>>
>> use you head. You want to be a physicist. try behaving like one for a start.
>
> So you can't do it, as I thought.
>
> This IS acting like a physicist, someone has a competing theory that
> they have said multiple times that their theory can predict something.
> I ask him to show me the derivation that leads to the prediction.
>
> If he refuses, I mock him. Guess which step im at now.
I for one was not aware there was a 12-step program for
dealing with trolls. :-) Maybe there should be? :-)
Why indeed?
Considering:
[1] supernovae, even from many thousands of light years away, last at
most a few months before fading but should last a century or
more, were c'=c+v true.
[2] various observations, most typically of Delta Cephei and other
such stars and eclipsing binaries such as Algol (Beta Persei),
also suggest that there's no credence to c' = c+v,
[3] the many accelerators built that depend on "superluminal particles"
(if one assumes Newtonian physics) travelling at just below
lightspeed,
[4] the muons in a storage ring that last too long, and the muons
in the Earth's atmosphere that last too long,
[5] at least one experiment where speed of light from a decaying
particle moving at high speed was measured directly lends even
less credence to c' = c+v, even despite the relative crudity
of the measurement -- but then how much precision does one
need to distinguish between c, and 1.2 c? Not all that much;
5% error would be more than sufficient.
[6] Gravity probe B's results, which should show a GR effect; it's
far from clear that Newtonian physics would produce any torque
on the gyros at all.
I'd say that one would have to look at his data very carefully, if
it's worth looking at at all.
>
>>
>> >I'm also continually amused by your unwillingness to trust anyone's
>> >work but your own and those who agree with your viewpoints, no matter
>> >how marginalized they are.
>> >
>> >I can't reproduce the proof, but I accept that there is no general
>> >formula for the roots of polynomials of order higher than five. The
>> >same mindset extends fo physics, I can't do everything - neither can
>> >you.
>>
>> maths merely provides formal records of physical processes that have been
>> observed or mentally conceived.
>
> Not even close. Try again.
>
>>
>> >> >> We now know there is no aether. We also have evidence that
>> >> >> Maxwell's equations correctly describe how light moves wrt
>> >> >> its source.
(side issue: Personally, I'm not sure I *care* whether there's an
aether or not, unless it is reflected in the predictions -- usually
expressed via math -- in the theory.)
[rest snipped]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Androcles
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message news:gu0203-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
| It's a bit like hitting a balloon with a hammer. If the balloon
| is securely anchored (pinned) one might pop the balloon. Otherwise
| it bounds away and then floats back for another try.
You are so right, that's a very good analogy.
It's amazing how you phuckwits can present Baez's shopping list, written
by Roberts, and call it a balloon that cannot be popped.
Roberts is so fucking crazy he claims to have *observed* an accretion
disc around a black hole.
Roberts:
Standard and well-known derivations of the Lorentz transform are
based on the following assumptions/postulates/techniques:
1. The Principle of Relativity (Einstein's version)
Androcles:
Which one do we use?
Is it
a)
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured
in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
or
b) "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered
by
composition with a velocity less than that of light.
For this case we obtain V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
Roberts:
Is it [... irrelevant verbiage]
This is what Roberts was faced with and was compelled to snip in
defense of his religion, burying his head in the sand.
Now, I've used the words "a)" and "or b)" to make a legible sentence,
and the rest of the irrelevant verbiage is all Einstein's.
We can safely conclude that Roberts considers Einstein's words
to be irrelevant verbiage.
You two go on sniggering like little schoolgirls when they've
first heard of sex.
| I for one was not aware there was a 12-step program for
| dealing with trolls. :-) Maybe there should be? :-)
You buy one, http://www.trollshop.net/trolls/tusselader/
and then you hit it with a hammer until it pops.
Otherwise it bounds away and then floats back for another try.
You two go on sniggering like little tusselader when they've first heard
of reality.
|
| Considering:
|
| [1] supernovae, even from many thousands of light years away, last at
| most a few months before fading but should last a century or
| more, were c'=c+v true.
And blow up twice in under 90 years.
http://www.kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp/vsnet/Novae/imnor.html
Pop goes your argument.
| [2] various observations, most typically of Delta Cephei and other
| such stars and eclipsing binaries such as Algol (Beta Persei),
| also suggest that there's no credence to c' = c+v,
And sticks in water really are bent, we can see they are.
Pop goes your argument.
BTW, there are no such stars as Delta Cephei or Beta Persei,
it's delta Cephei or beta Persei. Lower case only.
| [3] the many accelerators built that depend on "superluminal
particles"
| (if one assumes Newtonian physics) travelling at just below
| lightspeed,
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/ohmygodpart.html
That doesn't sound like much until you recall that this is about 3×10^11
daltons (chemists measure molecular mass in daltons, where 1 dalton is
the mass of a hydrogen atom), just about the same as a single cell of
the intestinal bacterium E. coli (5×10^11 daltons). Thus this single
subatomic particle had a mass-energy equivalent to a bacterium.
So taking 3×10^8 metres per second as the speed of light, we find that
the particle was traveling 2.9999999999999999999999853×10^8 metres per
second, thus 1.467×10^-15 metres per second slower than light--one and a
half femtometres per second slower than light. If God's radar gun is
slightly out of calibration, this puppy's gonna be doin' hard time for
speeding. After traveling one light year, the particle would be only
0.15 femtoseconds--46 nanometres--behind a photon that left at the same
time.
Pop goes your argument.
| [4] the muons in a storage ring that last too long, and the muons
| in the Earth's atmosphere that last too long,
Q: How do you tell a moun from a 3×10^11 daltons proton?
A: Pop it's balloon, it will bounce back.
Pop goes your argument.
| [5] at least one experiment where speed of light from a decaying
| particle moving at high speed was measured directly lends even
| less credence to c' = c+v, even despite the relative crudity
| of the measurement -- but then how much precision does one
| need to distinguish between c, and 1.2 c? Not all that much;
| 5% error would be more than sufficient.
Name the experiment.
The relativist's lookup table:
gamma Desired velocity
1 0.000000000000000
10 0.994987437106620
100 0.999949998749938
1000 0.999999499999875
10000 0.999999995000000
100000 0.999999999950000
1000000 0.999999999999500
10000000 0.999999999999995
5,000,000% error is not enough.
Pop goes your argument.
| [6] Gravity probe B's results, which should show a GR effect; it's
| far from clear that Newtonian physics would produce any torque
| on the gyros at all.
|
| I'd say that one would have to look at his data very carefully, if
| it's worth looking at at all.
Non sequitur.
Pop goes your argument.
| [rest snipped]
Good idea. Now bounce back like the hot air balloon troll that you are,
my hammer is waiting for another try.
Androcles.
Paul B. Andersen
Because I pointed out the stupitity of your statement?
>>>This is also in direct agrement with LET.
>>
>>Right.
>>And it is in agreement with SR.
>>But it is NOT in agreement with the ballistic theory.
>>
>>
>>>It is based on the existence of a
>>>light carrying medium.
>>>Accordingly, the instruments used to measure the two constants would be
>>>'physically contracted' so that they woudl always produce the same numerical
>>>value for 'c'.
>>
>>According to LET. So?
>
>
> SR is just LET with a postulate instead of a physical aether.
>
>
>
>>>According to aether theories (in which Maxwell believed),
>>>application of the LTs causes measuring apparatus to contract. It will thus
>>>always give the value 'c' for the speed of light produced by any source no
>>>matter how the source observer is moving in the aether.
>>
>>No.
>>Maxwell believed in no such ether.
>
>
> I think you will find that he did.
>
>
>>You are describing Lorentz's ether.
>
>
> same thing really. :
> Lorentz probably had a better idea of what he thought it was..
A huge difference, really.
>>>We now know there is no aether. We also have evidence that Maxwell's equations
>>>correctly describe how light moves wrt its source.
>>
>>Actually, we do not know that Lorentz's ether does not exist.
>>It's like blue fairies - invisible and undetectable and
>>impossible to prove the non existence of.
>
>
> If you wish to become an aetherist you will gain some credibility. At least LET
> has a physical basis.
Quite. Like blue fairies.
>>The ether we know doesn't exist is the ether Maxwell, Michelson
>>and most other scientist believed in before 1887.
>
>
> How can we know if something that doesn't exist exists or doesn't exist if the
> fact that it doesn't exist rules out the possibility of defining properties
> that might be tested in attempts to establish if it exists or not?
Demostrating your stupitity again Henri? :-)
>
>>But yes, Maxwell's equations do just fine with no ether.
>
>
> The establish 'c' for a particular observer.
> Why that same c is also light's speed of emission wrt that observer is somewhat
> of a mystery.
Quite.
>
>>I see below that you have understood that Maxwell's equations
>>not are in agreement with the ballistic theory.
>>Why did you then pretend they were?
>
>
> Don't be silly Paul.
>
>
>>>BUT WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT MAXWLELL'S EQUATIONS APPLY TO LIGHT FROM
>>>RELATIVELY MOVING SOURCES.
In other words: Maxwell's equations may not apply.
Why did you say that if it wasn't because you have realized
that Maxwell's equations are incompatible with the ballistic theory?
>>
>>But all this doen't make your questions:
>>"What is the speed of light invariant relative to?"
>>"What is the speed of sound not invariant relative too?"
>>and this staement of yours:
>>"In fact HE [Einstein] obviously misinterpreted himself."
>>any less hilarious.
>
>
> He did! many times.
> He was just as confused as the rest of you SRians.
>
> He didn't even realize that his clock synch definition provided a way of
> established absolute simultaneity.
Demonstrating your stupidity again, Henri? :-)
>
>>And your point was to divert the attension from these
>>stupidities of yours, wasn't it? :-)
>
>
> keep trraving....
Keep diverting the attention from your stupidities
by uttering new stupidities.
Paul
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 15:57:58 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
>>>So your statement:
>>>"the universal constant 'c' is invariant in all frames."
>>>is a double pleonasm.
>>>You may say:
>>>1. The speed of light in vacuum is invariant c.
>>>2. The speed of light in vacuum is c in all frames.
>>>3. The speed of light in vacuum is a universal constant c.
>>>They all mean the same.
>>>
>>>So to say that Einstein said one of them but really
>>>meant one of the two other is nonsense.
>>
>>
>> geez, you're getting REALLY desperate now Paul....
>
>Because I pointed out the stupitity of your statement?
resorting to word manipulation to try to win an argument.
>>
>>
>>>>According to aether theories (in which Maxwell believed),
>>>>application of the LTs causes measuring apparatus to contract. It will thus
>>>>always give the value 'c' for the speed of light produced by any source no
>>>>matter how the source observer is moving in the aether.
>>>
>>>No.
>>>Maxwell believed in no such ether.
>>
>>
>> I think you will find that he did.
>>
>>
>>>You are describing Lorentz's ether.
>>
>>
>> same thing really. :
>> Lorentz probably had a better idea of what he thought it was..
>
>A huge difference, really.
>
>>>>We now know there is no aether. We also have evidence that Maxwell's equations
>>>>correctly describe how light moves wrt its source.
>>>
>>>Actually, we do not know that Lorentz's ether does not exist.
>>>It's like blue fairies - invisible and undetectable and
>>>impossible to prove the non existence of.
>>
>>
>> If you wish to become an aetherist you will gain some credibility. At least LET
>> has a physical basis.
>
>Quite. Like blue fairies.
well, you would know...
>
>>>The ether we know doesn't exist is the ether Maxwell, Michelson
>>>and most other scientist believed in before 1887.
>>
>>
>> How can we know if something that doesn't exist exists or doesn't exist if the
>> fact that it doesn't exist rules out the possibility of defining properties
>> that might be tested in attempts to establish if it exists or not?
>
>Demostrating your stupitity again Henri? :-)
Well, to put it another way, it is impossible to prove a non-existance.
>
>>
>>>But yes, Maxwell's equations do just fine with no ether.
>>
>>
>> The establish 'c' for a particular observer.
>> Why that same c is also light's speed of emission wrt that observer is somewhat
>> of a mystery.
>
>Quite.
It IS.
Why does a photon emerge after an electron transition in a particular direction
and traveling at precisely c relative to some aspect of the associated atom?
Does it travel at c wrt the centre of the atom or wrt some aspect of the
electron?
Electron energy levels are presumed from spectral data. If "E=hc/Lambda" is
wrong then so are the calculated levels.
>>
>>>I see below that you have understood that Maxwell's equations
>>>not are in agreement with the ballistic theory.
>>>Why did you then pretend they were?
>>
>>
>> Don't be silly Paul.
>>
>>
>>>>BUT WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT MAXWLELL'S EQUATIONS APPLY TO LIGHT FROM
>>>>RELATIVELY MOVING SOURCES.
>
>In other words: Maxwell's equations may not apply.
>
>Why did you say that if it wasn't because you have realized
>that Maxwell's equations are incompatible with the ballistic theory?
Maxwell's equations say the same as LET.
They imply that in any frame, measured light speed will have the value 'c'.
Both theories rely on the fact that the measuring process is affected by
'absolute movement'.
>> He did! many times.
>> He was just as confused as the rest of you SRians.
>>
>> He didn't even realize that his clock synch definition provided a way of
>> established absolute simultaneity.
>
>Demonstrating your stupidity again, Henri? :-)
and why is it stupid?
I firmly believe that Einstein might have believed it himself...but didn't let
on....
>
>>
>>>And your point was to divert the attension from these
>>>stupidities of yours, wasn't it? :-)
>>
>>
>> keep trraving....
>
>Keep diverting the attention from your stupidities
>by uttering new stupidities.
According to the BaT, light speed is the same in both direction between objects
that are mutually at rest. E-Synching is therefore 'absolute synching'.
And as I have proved many times, either clock can be subsequently moved and
will remain in absolute synch.
Androcles
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
Andersen has lost his spelling checker and kept his stupiDity.
| Well, to put it another way, it is impossible to prove a
non-existance.
You seem to have lost your spelling checker too.
It has vanished out of existEnce. Be careful you don't lose your
mind as well.
|
| >
| >>
| >>>But yes, Maxwell's equations do just fine with no ether.
| >>
| >>
| >> The establish 'c' for a particular observer.
| >> Why that same c is also light's speed of emission wrt that observer
is somewhat
| >> of a mystery.
| >
| >Quite.
|
| It IS.
| Why does a photon emerge after an electron transition in a particular
direction
| and traveling at precisely c relative to some aspect of the associated
atom?
| Does it travel at c wrt the centre of the atom or wrt some aspect of
the
| electron?
|
| Electron energy levels are presumed from spectral data. If
"E=hc/Lambda" is
| wrong then so are the calculated levels.
A slight but important modification is required here, H.
E = h(c+v)/lambda.
The reason should be self evident, but if not just ask.
|
| >>
| >>>I see below that you have understood that Maxwell's equations
| >>>not are in agreement with the ballistic theory.
| >>>Why did you then pretend they were?
| >>
| >>
| >> Don't be silly Paul.
| >>
| >>
| >>>>BUT WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT MAXWLELL'S EQUATIONS APPLY TO LIGHT
FROM
| >>>>RELATIVELY MOVING SOURCES.
| >
| >In other words: Maxwell's equations may not apply.
| >
| >Why did you say that if it wasn't because you have realized
| >that Maxwell's equations are incompatible with the ballistic theory?
|
| Maxwell's equations say the same as LET.
|
| They imply that in any frame, measured light speed will have the value
'c'.
| Both theories rely on the fact that the measuring process is affected
by
| 'absolute movement'.
Err.. LET should require a different form of E = hc/lambda.
lambda = lamda * c/(c+v) with aether, the same form as Doppler with
air.
Think of the wavelength of a sonic boom. With LET, a lumic boom
is possible, and as far as I know, there is no speed restriction in LET.
Thus jets from quasars should be infinitely bright.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/chandra_pileup_001108.html
E = hf', where f' = fc/(c+v)
This corresponds with Einstein's "It follows from these results that to
an observer approaching a source of light with the velocity c, this
source of light must appear of infinite intensity." but he seems to have
forgotten "The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative
motion of the conductor and the magnet", so it follows from these
results (observable phenomenon) that to a source of light approaching
an observer with the velocity c, this source of light must appear of
infinite intensity.
This observation (or lack of it) disproves Einstein's theory and LET.
I would still like to see the bright green flying elephant perched on
the accretion
ring near the black hole that Roberts saw, but I guess I'm stuck with
boring old
quasars.
| >> He did! many times.
| >> He was just as confused as the rest of you SRians.
| >>
| >> He didn't even realize that his clock synch definition provided a
way of
| >> established absolute simultaneity.
| >
| >Demonstrating your stupidity again, Henri? :-)
|
| and why is it stupid?
| I firmly believe that Einstein might have believed it himself...but
didn't let
| on....
|
The grinning ape tusselad does like to divert attention away from the
issue.
Androcles.
Eric Gisse
Androcles wrote:
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
> message news:gu0203-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>
> | It's a bit like hitting a balloon with a hammer. If the balloon
> | is securely anchored (pinned) one might pop the balloon. Otherwise
> | it bounds away and then floats back for another try.
>
> You are so right, that's a very good analogy.
> It's amazing how you phuckwits can present Baez's shopping list, written
> by Roberts, and call it a balloon that cannot be popped.
Your words, not anyone elses. Your inability to read is of no concern
to us.
> Roberts is so fucking crazy he claims to have *observed* an accretion
> disc around a black hole.
Astronomy is a scary subject, full of surprises.
By the way Androcles, how goes that experiment that you thought would
disprove SR? I remember you and Henri being all a-twitter about it not
too long ago, what happened?
Not once have you done an experiment that would test SR, all you do is
sit on the internet and whine to people who mock you and simpletons who
agree blindly.
[snip whining]
Paul B. Andersen
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:32:39 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
>
>
>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 15:57:58 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>><paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
>
>
>>>>So your statement:
>>>>"the universal constant 'c' is invariant in all frames."
>>>>is a double pleonasm.
>>>>You may say:
>>>>1. The speed of light in vacuum is invariant c.
>>>>2. The speed of light in vacuum is c in all frames.
>>>>3. The speed of light in vacuum is a universal constant c.
>>>>They all mean the same.
>>>>
>>>>So to say that Einstein said one of them but really
>>>>meant one of the two other is nonsense.
>>>
>>>
>>>geez, you're getting REALLY desperate now Paul....
>>
>>Because I pointed out the stupitity of your statement?
>
>
> resorting to word manipulation to try to win an argument.
Which argument?
"In fact HE [Einstein] obviously misinterpreted himself.
What he meant was that the universal constant 'c' is invariant
in all frames."
isn't an argument.
It's a stupidity.
It's hardly a word game to point that out.
No, it is not.
If the "existence" has physical consequences which are proven
not to exist, then the "existence" is falsified.
I can prove the non-existence of a one ton stone resting on my shoulders.
The non-existence of Michelson's (and Maxwell's) ether is proven because
the physical consequences of that ether are proven not to exist.
Your statement:
"How can we know if something that doesn't exist exists or doesn't exist if the
fact that it doesn't exist rules out the possibility of defining properties
that might be tested in attempts to establish if it exists or not?"
is incredible stupid.
The fact that something doesn't exist does obviously not rule
out the possibility of defining properties that might be tested.
Michelson's ether have well defined properties with
well defined physical consequences.
The physical consequences of that ether are proven not to exist.
Michelson's ether is proven not to exist.
It is extremely stupid to claim that Michelson's ether theory
is not falsifiable when everybody knows it has been falsified
since 1887.
>>>>But yes, Maxwell's equations do just fine with no ether.
>>>
>>>
>>>The establish 'c' for a particular observer.
>>>Why that same c is also light's speed of emission wrt that observer is somewhat
>>>of a mystery.
>>
>>Quite.
>
>
> It IS.
> Why does a photon emerge after an electron transition in a particular direction
> and traveling at precisely c relative to some aspect of the associated atom?
> Does it travel at c wrt the centre of the atom or wrt some aspect of the
> electron?
The speed of the photon is invariant c.
That means that its speed is c relative to anything.
Nobody knows WHY.
Theories of physics doesn't answer "WHY".
> Electron energy levels are presumed from spectral data. If "E=hc/Lambda" is
> wrong then so are the calculated levels.
So?
>>>>I see below that you have understood that Maxwell's equations
>>>>not are in agreement with the ballistic theory.
>>>>Why did you then pretend they were?
>>>
>>>
>>>Don't be silly Paul.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>BUT WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT MAXWLELL'S EQUATIONS APPLY TO LIGHT FROM
>>>>>RELATIVELY MOVING SOURCES.
>>
>>In other words: Maxwell's equations may not apply.
>>
>>Why did you say that if it wasn't because you have realized
>>that Maxwell's equations are incompatible with the ballistic theory?
>
>
> Maxwell's equations say the same as LET.
And SR.
But not the ballistic theory.
> They imply that in any frame, measured light speed will have the value 'c'.
Right.
So you have realized that Maxwell's equation are incompatible
with the ballistic theory.
Therefore you will have to insist that Maxwell's equations does not apply
in the real world, and you say:
"BUT WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT MAXWLELL'S EQUATIONS APPLY TO LIGHT FROM
RELATIVELY MOVING SOURCES."
Why did you then call my statement:
"I see below that you have understood that Maxwell's equations
not are in agreement with the ballistic theory."
silly?
And you never answered this question:
Why did you pretend that Maxwell's equation are in
accordance with the ballistic theory, when you know
they are not?
> Both theories rely on the fact that the measuring process is affected by
> 'absolute movement'.
So it is a fact that the measuring process
is affected by 'absolute movement' ? :-)
You are babbling again, Henri.
>>>He did! many times.
>>>He was just as confused as the rest of you SRians.
>>>
>>>He didn't even realize that his clock synch definition provided a way of
>>>established absolute simultaneity.
>>
>>Demonstrating your stupidity again, Henri? :-)
>
>
> and why is it stupid?
> I firmly believe that Einstein might have believed it himself...but didn't let
> on....
Demonstrating your stupidity again, Henri? :-)
>
>>>>And your point was to divert the attension from these
>>>>stupidities of yours, wasn't it? :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>keep trraving....
>>
>>Keep diverting the attention from your stupidities
>>by uttering new stupidities.
>
>
> According to the BaT, light speed is the same in both direction between objects
> that are mutually at rest. E-Synching is therefore 'absolute synching'.
>
> And as I have proved many times, either clock can be subsequently moved and
> will remain in absolute synch.
Yea, right. :-)
You are babbling nonsense, Henri.
And all this to divert the attention from these
stupid questions of yours:
"What is the speed of light invariant relative to?"
"What is the speed of sound not invariant relative too?"
Paul
Henri Wilson
>
>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>news:78gui1p6toi1qfjda...@4ax.com...
>| On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:32:39 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>| <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
>|
>| >> The establish 'c' for a particular observer.
>| >> Why that same c is also light's speed of emission wrt that observer
>is somewhat
>| >> of a mystery.
>| >
>| >Quite.
>|
>| It IS.
>| Why does a photon emerge after an electron transition in a particular
>direction
>| and traveling at precisely c relative to some aspect of the associated
>atom?
>| Does it travel at c wrt the centre of the atom or wrt some aspect of
>the
>| electron?
>|
>| Electron energy levels are presumed from spectral data. If
>"E=hc/Lambda" is
>| wrong then so are the calculated levels.
>
>A slight but important modification is required here, H.
>E = h(c+v)/lambda.
>The reason should be self evident, but if not just ask.
I was assuming 'c' is the speed wrt the source.
Are you saying that v is the source speed wrt the atom centre or the observer?
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:32:39 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
>>
>> resorting to word manipulation to try to win an argument.
>
>Which argument?
>
>"In fact HE [Einstein] obviously misinterpreted himself.
> What he meant was that the universal constant 'c' is invariant
> in all frames."
>
>isn't an argument.
>It's a stupidity.
>It's hardly a word game to point that out.
I'm lost again...
>>>>
>>>>How can we know if something that doesn't exist exists or doesn't exist if the
>>>>fact that it doesn't exist rules out the possibility of defining properties
>>>>that might be tested in attempts to establish if it exists or not?
>>>
>>>Demostrating your stupitity again Henri? :-)
>>
>>
>> Well, to put it another way, it is impossible to prove a non-existance.
>
>No, it is not.
>If the "existence" has physical consequences which are proven
>not to exist, then the "existence" is falsified.
That's wrong logic.
Any attempts to prove a nonexistence must begin with a statement based on the
assumption that it MIGHT exist.
>
>I can prove the non-existence of a one ton stone resting on my shoulders.
It's invisible and unaffected by gravity.
What about the completely empty vessel on you shoulders? We certainly cannot
prove that doesn't exist. :) :) :)
>The non-existence of Michelson's (and Maxwell's) ether is proven because
>the physical consequences of that ether are proven not to exist.
The assumed physical properties were wrong then.
Prove they weren't!
If it doesn't exist, how can you prove if the assumed properties are right or
wrong. In fact they cannot possibly be right because it wouldn't have any
properties if it didn't exist.
>Your statement:
>"How can we know if something that doesn't exist exists or doesn't exist if the
> fact that it doesn't exist rules out the possibility of defining properties
> that might be tested in attempts to establish if it exists or not?"
>is incredible stupid.
>
>The fact that something doesn't exist does obviously not rule
>out the possibility of defining properties that might be tested.
You can never know if they were the right properties.
>Michelson's ether have well defined properties with
>well defined physical consequences.
>The physical consequences of that ether are proven not to exist.
>Michelson's ether is proven not to exist.
...except when needed to explain how light pulses from differently moving
sources travel at the same speed through space or why GPS clocks require a real
'velocity component correction'.
>
>It is extremely stupid to claim that Michelson's ether theory
>is not falsifiable when everybody knows it has been falsified
>since 1887.
I don't want an aether..but SR relies on one.
>
>>>>>But yes, Maxwell's equations do just fine with no ether.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The establish 'c' for a particular observer.
>>>>Why that same c is also light's speed of emission wrt that observer is somewhat
>>>>of a mystery.
>>>
>>>Quite.
>>
>>
>> It IS.
>> Why does a photon emerge after an electron transition in a particular direction
>> and traveling at precisely c relative to some aspect of the associated atom?
>> Does it travel at c wrt the centre of the atom or wrt some aspect of the
>> electron?
>
>The speed of the photon is invariant c.
>That means that its speed is c relative to anything.
Nonsense statement.
>Nobody knows WHY.
>Theories of physics doesn't answer "WHY".
The BaT does.
>
>> Electron energy levels are presumed from spectral data. If "E=hc/Lambda" is
>> wrong then so are the calculated levels.
>
>So?
So quite a lot follows.
>>>Why did you say that if it wasn't because you have realized
>>>that Maxwell's equations are incompatible with the ballistic theory?
>>
>>
>> Maxwell's equations say the same as LET.
>
>And SR.
>But not the ballistic theory.
The BaT says that Maxwell's equations apply to light emitted by whoever
measures the two constants.
>
>> They imply that in any frame, measured light speed will have the value 'c'.
>
>Right.
>So you have realized that Maxwell's equation are incompatible
>with the ballistic theory.
see above
>Therefore you will have to insist that Maxwell's equations does not apply
>in the real world, and you say:
>"BUT WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT MAXWLELL'S EQUATIONS APPLY TO LIGHT FROM
> RELATIVELY MOVING SOURCES."
we don't. Nobody has ever measured owls from a moving source.
>
>Why did you then call my statement:
>"I see below that you have understood that Maxwell's equations
> not are in agreement with the ballistic theory."
>silly?
see above
>
>And you never answered this question:
>Why did you pretend that Maxwell's equation are in
>accordance with the ballistic theory, when you know
>they are not?
they partly agree.... but conditions apply.
>> Both theories rely on the fact that the measuring process is affected by
>> 'absolute movement'.
>
>So it is a fact that the measuring process
>is affected by 'absolute movement' ? :-)
In aether theories it is.
>
>You are babbling again, Henri.
I don't think so.
>>
>>
>> According to the BaT, light speed is the same in both direction between objects
>> that are mutually at rest. E-Synching is therefore 'absolute synching'.
>>
>> And as I have proved many times, either clock can be subsequently moved and
>> will remain in absolute synch.
>
>Yea, right. :-)
>
>You are babbling nonsense, Henri.
>
>And all this to divert the attention from these
>stupid questions of yours:
>"What is the speed of light invariant relative to?"
>"What is the speed of sound not invariant relative too?"
sometimes I really feel sorry for you Paul.
Androcles
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
Sure, but the energy you measure is going to be wrt the observer.
You'd know it if I hurled a cricket ball at you while riding the back
of a 4x4 at 60 mph instead of bowling it to you.
The question is, if v = c does the energy double?
I expected you to argue, but I thought maybe you'd challenge
the equation I gave.
E = 1/2 mv^2, right?
| Are you saying that v is the source speed wrt the atom centre or the
observer?
You know I'd say all velocities are relative, H.
The atom is coming at you at c.
The photon leaves the atom at c, relative to the atom, coming at you at
2c.
What is the energy of the photon?
How would you measure it?
Light pressure on a sail, perhaps?
Androcles
Paul B. Andersen
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:26:18 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
>
>
>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:32:39 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>><paul.b....@deletethishia.no> wrote:
>>>
>
>
>>>resorting to word manipulation to try to win an argument.
>>
>>Which argument?
>>
>>"In fact HE [Einstein] obviously misinterpreted himself.
>> What he meant was that the universal constant 'c' is invariant
>> in all frames."
>>
>>isn't an argument.
>>It's a stupidity.
>>It's hardly a word game to point that out.
>
>
> I'm lost again...
I know.
>>>>>How can we know if something that doesn't exist exists or doesn't exist if the
>>>>>fact that it doesn't exist rules out the possibility of defining properties
>>>>>that might be tested in attempts to establish if it exists or not?
>>>>
>>>>Demostrating your stupitity again Henri? :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, to put it another way, it is impossible to prove a non-existance.
>>
>>No, it is not.
>>If the "existence" has physical consequences which are proven
>>not to exist, then the "existence" is falsified.
>
>
> That's wrong logic.
> Any attempts to prove a nonexistence must begin with a statement based on the
> assumption that it MIGHT exist.
>
>
>>I can prove the non-existence of a one ton stone resting on my shoulders.
>
>
> It's invisible and unaffected by gravity.
>
> What about the completely empty vessel on you shoulders? We certainly cannot
> prove that doesn't exist. :) :) :)
>
>
>>The non-existence of Michelson's (and Maxwell's) ether is proven because
>>the physical consequences of that ether are proven not to exist.
>
>
> The assumed physical properties were wrong then.
> Prove they weren't!
> If it doesn't exist, how can you prove if the assumed properties are right or
> wrong. In fact they cannot possibly be right because it wouldn't have any
> properties if it didn't exist.
Mindless babble like this all the way.
This is just too stupid.
Meaningless babble all the way.
Have a nice day.
Paul
Henri Wilson
>
>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>news:o451j115kum421nuq...@4ax.com...
>| On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:09:28 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>
>wrote:
>|
>| >|
I asked a somewhat relevant question some time ago.
You know all about threshholds wavelengths in the PE effect.
Let's say for a particular metal, electrons start to fIow when light wavelength
hits 0.5 um. I want to know if light that is emitted at say 0.55 um but is
doppler shifted up to 0.5 um will have the same effect.
Such an experiment should show if the energy needed to release the electrons is
carried intrinsically or kinetically by the photon. Do you get what I mean?
The Mossbauer effect is about the only test I know of for this.
>| Are you saying that v is the source speed wrt the atom centre or the
>observer?
>
>You know I'd say all velocities are relative, H.
>The atom is coming at you at c.
>The photon leaves the atom at c, relative to the atom, coming at you at
>2c.
>What is the energy of the photon?
>How would you measure it?
>Light pressure on a sail, perhaps?
If there were enough identical photons, maybe.
Androcles
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
I think the demo at
http://lectureonline.cl.msu.edu/~mmp/kap28/PhotoEffect/photo.htm
is a good one, but I'm not a bean counter, I donlt know ALL about
them, just the principle.
| Let's say for a particular metal, electrons start to fIow when light
wavelength
| hits 0.5 um.
Ok.... 500 nanometers... reasonable.
| I want to know if light that is emitted at say 0.55 um but is
| doppler shifted up to 0.5 um will have the same effect.
Try the demo at
http://lectureonline.cl.msu.edu/~mmp/kap28/PhotoEffect/photo.htm
Caesium, 99% intensity, 1.70 V, 500 nm
Increase wavelength to 580 nm.
Or did I misunderstand the question?
Maybe I did... emitted at 500 nm, then doppler shifted.
Ok, 500 nm is kinda blue/cyan. 580 nm is green.
Does the colour stay blue when doppler shifted?
If it does, you'll have a blue emission line in the green band.
If it changes colour...
| Such an experiment should show if the energy needed to release the
electrons is
| carried intrinsically or kinetically by the photon. Do you get what I
mean?
Yes, of course. It's a sensible question.
The energy I use to throw the cricket ball (and win the Ashes) from the
bed of a 4x4 is added to the energy from the speed of the 4x4, which is
why the bowler takes a walk back and then runs forward. I can't run
because of my arthritic ankle, you can run because of your gout, so we
ride in the back of a 4x4 to bowl the other out and save them from
having to run.
Now the speed of the 4x4 is u, the speed of my bowling arm is v,
and the energy of the ball relative to your wicket is 1/2m (u+v)^2,
sufficient
to dislodged the bails.
For the PE, the intensity of the light is equivalent to the mass of the
cricket ball.
We could use a 10-pin bowling ball instead, but that only rolls along
the ground
slowly and flattens the wicket, it doesn't knock the bails flying.
The wicket is the nucleus of the atom, the bails are the electrons.
| The Mossbauer effect is about the only test I know of for this.
Mossbauer is recoil, Newton's "for every action there is a reaction".
The 4x4 is slowed by my tossing the cricket ball at you. If I hurled
a skyscraper at you the 4x4 would go backwards.
|
|
| >| Are you saying that v is the source speed wrt the atom centre or
the
| >observer?
| >
| >You know I'd say all velocities are relative, H.
| >The atom is coming at you at c.
| >The photon leaves the atom at c, relative to the atom, coming at you
at
| >2c.
| >What is the energy of the photon?
| >How would you measure it?
| >Light pressure on a sail, perhaps?
|
| If there were enough identical photons, maybe.
Yes, but how would you measure the energy of one oxygen molecule and
four nitrogen molecules from a yacht sailing by you at 10 knots?
Androcles