 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » An Embarrassing Question for Relativists... |
|
Page 16 of 23 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17 ... 21, 22, 23 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 20:54:56 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p>
wrote:
[quote]
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:fsfue5h9re89rkdp81u6iv1kivcgbe2a7o at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 07:17:16 -0800 (PST), rotchm <rotchm at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 1:14 am, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
Closing speed doesn't exist in anything but SR.
??
Strange... the notion of closing speed appears in highschool
kinematics, galilean relativity etc... You were never introduced to
closing speed before SR? No wonder why you fear the expression so
much. CLOSING SPEED ... Booh! Haha, that made you jump didnt it?
Closing speed is the difference in speed between two entities, as
measured by a chosen observer.
That's not 'closing speed' That's RELATIVE SPEED....the one and only.
That defintion is independent of, and thus applies to: SR, Gal. R,
Newton...
WhoaH... A new defintion for wilson... you are going to have
nightmares tonight!
Not at all. SR invented closing speed so that its 'personal aether'
concept
would have an escape route.
You cannot explain the physical significance of closing speed being c+v in
one
frame and c in another.
Closing speed, as invented and exploited by SR is a eceptive lie.
You cannot explain the fact that your 'v' includes cos(yaw).cos(pitch).
Unifuckation, as invented and exploited by Wilson BaThwater, is an exceptive
lie.
[/quote]
nobody reads your posts
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 21:19:19 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p>
wrote:
[quote]
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:0qiue59ho4k23mso4udsaepliq6g1o1tkg at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 07:55:49 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Oct 31, 2:43 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:13:46 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Oct 31, 2:26 am, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
And where is that the case?
You claim that the closing speed of S2 on O2 is not c is the type
of fairytale
one would expect to hear in a madhouse or a mosque....or, of
course, in the
home of an aetherist..
Nonsense. In the frame drawn, light is traveling from right to left
at
c. In the frame drawn, O2 is traveling from right to left at v.
By *definition* of closing speed (you perhaps should look it up), it
is c-v.
Closing speed is DEFINED as the numerical difference between the
speeds of two objects, as seen by an observer that is neither of
those
objects.
Funny! that sounds just like Netonian definition of speed.
That's how it's defined. Now, you will notice that this closing speed
does not correspond to a *measurable* quantity. The *measured*
relative speed between those two bodies is the measurement done by one
of the bodies. And in that case you find that the measured value does
not match the numerical difference found in the closing speed. This is
where the break with Newtonian physics happens.
OK let's get this straight.
We know that the true closing speed of S1's light on O1 is c.... because
the
two are MAR.
MAR? Mutually at rest? No, the there is no "true" closing speed that
has precedence over any other value obtained by its DEFINITION.
Please do not try to make closing speed anything other than what its
DEFINITION says it is.
There is a theory called SR that says that closing speed is c-v to an
observer,
O3, who is moving wrt S1.
Well, yes, by definition of closing speed.
I ask you, why would anyone have faith in a theory that knowingly
produces a
WRONG answer?
What experimental evidence is there that it is wrong?
The true closing speed is c.
SR can give it any value simply by moving an observer.
SR is nonsense.
The true closing speed is c.
Unifuckation can give it any value simply by moving an observer.
BaThwater is nonsense.
[/quote]
nobody reads your posts
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Androcles... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:ldjue5pkvice9ldhs0ll8fkmnj7vke41lt at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 20:54:56 -0000, "Androcles"
Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p
wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:fsfue5h9re89rkdp81u6iv1kivcgbe2a7o at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 07:17:16 -0800 (PST), rotchm <rotchm at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 2, 1:14 am, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
Closing speed doesn't exist in anything but SR.
??
Strange... the notion of closing speed appears in highschool
kinematics, galilean relativity etc... You were never introduced to
closing speed before SR? No wonder why you fear the expression so
much. CLOSING SPEED ... Booh! Haha, that made you jump didnt it?
Closing speed is the difference in speed between two entities, as
measured by a chosen observer.
That's not 'closing speed' That's RELATIVE SPEED....the one and only.
That defintion is independent of, and thus applies to: SR, Gal. R,
Newton...
WhoaH... A new defintion for wilson... you are going to have
nightmares tonight!
Not at all. SR invented closing speed so that its 'personal aether'
concept
would have an escape route.
You cannot explain the physical significance of closing speed being c+v
in
one
frame and c in another.
Closing speed, as invented and exploited by SR is a eceptive lie.
You cannot explain the fact that your 'v' includes cos(yaw).cos(pitch).
Unifuckation, as invented and exploited by Wilson BaThwater, is an
exceptive
lie.
nobody reads your posts
[/quote]
Does he? How nice. I haven't seen him for years, I plonked him.
Poor old nobody, he was as clueless as you.
Unifuckation, as invented and exploited by Wilson BaThwater, is a
deceptive lie.
You cannot explain the fact that your 'v' includes cos(yaw).cos(pitch). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Androcles... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:6jjue51k7rg0u83ei3krl14vmg1ijdctl2 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 21:19:19 -0000, "Androcles"
Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p
wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:0qiue59ho4k23mso4udsaepliq6g1o1tkg at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 07:55:49 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Oct 31, 2:43 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:13:46 -0700 (PDT), PD
thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Oct 31, 2:26 am, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
And where is that the case?
You claim that the closing speed of S2 on O2 is not c is the
type
of fairytale
one would expect to hear in a madhouse or a mosque....or, of
course, in the
home of an aetherist..
Nonsense. In the frame drawn, light is traveling from right to
left
at
c. In the frame drawn, O2 is traveling from right to left at v.
By *definition* of closing speed (you perhaps should look it up),
it
is c-v.
Closing speed is DEFINED as the numerical difference between the
speeds of two objects, as seen by an observer that is neither of
those
objects.
Funny! that sounds just like Netonian definition of speed.
That's how it's defined. Now, you will notice that this closing speed
does not correspond to a *measurable* quantity. The *measured*
relative speed between those two bodies is the measurement done by
one
of the bodies. And in that case you find that the measured value does
not match the numerical difference found in the closing speed. This
is
where the break with Newtonian physics happens.
OK let's get this straight.
We know that the true closing speed of S1's light on O1 is c....
because
the
two are MAR.
MAR? Mutually at rest? No, the there is no "true" closing speed that
has precedence over any other value obtained by its DEFINITION.
Please do not try to make closing speed anything other than what its
DEFINITION says it is.
There is a theory called SR that says that closing speed is c-v to an
observer,
O3, who is moving wrt S1.
Well, yes, by definition of closing speed.
I ask you, why would anyone have faith in a theory that knowingly
produces a
WRONG answer?
What experimental evidence is there that it is wrong?
The true closing speed is c.
SR can give it any value simply by moving an observer.
SR is nonsense.
The true closing speed is c.
Unifuckation can give it any value simply by moving an observer.
BaThwater is nonsense.
nobody reads your posts
[/quote]
Does he? How nice. I haven't seen him for years, I plonked him.
Poor old nobody, he was as clueless as you.
Unifuckation, as invented and exploited by Wilson BaThwater, is a
deceptive lie.
You cannot explain the fact that your 'v' includes cos(yaw).cos(pitch). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Androcles... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:fbjue5539t8bk8un3ea6bdlve1lo8jt6lr at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:47:53 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 2, 2:40 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 07:17:16 -0800 (PST), rotchm <rot... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 2, 1:14 am, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
Strange... the notion of closing speed appears in highschool
kinematics, galilean relativity etc... You were never introduced to
closing speed before SR? No wonder why you fear the expression so
much. CLOSING SPEED ... Booh! Haha, that made you jump didnt it?
Closing speed is the difference in speed between two entities, as
measured by a chosen observer.
That's not 'closing speed' That's RELATIVE SPEED....the one and only.
No, Henri. I see you've confused yourself all over again. No wonder
this is so hard for you.
That defintion is independent of, and thus applies to: SR, Gal. R,
Newton...
WhoaH... A new defintion for wilson... you are going to have
nightmares tonight!
Not at all. SR invented closing speed so that its 'personal aether'
concept
would have an escape route.
Would you care to quote where SR refers to a "personal aether"
anyplace?
You cannot explain the physical significance of closing speed being c+v
in one
frame and c in another.
There are lots of quantities that are frame-dependent. Kinetic energy,
for example. What's the physical significance of KE being zero in one
frame and nonzero in another?
Closing speed, as invented and exploited by SR is a eceptive lie.
I see. So if you are confused by the term, then it is a deceptive lie?
It is. Closing speed is just true relative speed.
[/quote]
Unifuckation, as invented and exploited by Wilson BaThwater, is a
deceptive lie.
You cannot explain the fact that your 'v' includes cos(yaw).cos(pitch). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Androcles... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:jviue5d1v3fuuor3phtonrhpg0i9bai3t1 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:39:18 -0800 (PST), rotchm <rotchm at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not disputing that this is the SR view. SR effectively says that
every
observer possesses an 'absolute aether'
Dont play with the meaining of words... you will get confused and
confuse others. The term 'eather' has many different meainings.
The correct phrasing is... SR effectively says that every
observer possesses a frame...his rest frame.
Anything that moves wrt his frame experiences a Lorentz type
contraction.
Yes, that is one of the implications of SR.
However, in SR these contractions are not physical.
Wrong. They are physical just as much they are not physical. It
depends on the *defintion* of 'physical'. Good SR descriptions do not
use the word 'physical' in that context.
An increase in speed in one observer's frame will be a decrease in speed
in
another's. 'gamma' increases in one ,decreases in the other. In other
words,
nothing at all can possibly happen to either a rod or a clock due to a
speed
change.
They are purely observational.
Correct. If you measure quantities the way SR prescribes ( defines)
it, SR algebra will predict the value you will obtain.
The problem with that argument is that it requires the infamous tick
fairies.
What we observe is the only quantities we can observe !
......but can we observe the fairies gobbling up the missing ticks?
Unifuckation, as invented and exploited by Wilson BaThwater, is a[/quote]
deceptive lie.
You cannot explain the fact that your 'v' includes cos(yaw).cos(pitch). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 08:05:55 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 12:14 am, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:10:27 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:56lse5hig53t5v67pbb9960pblr78mc6r3 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 15:08:48 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
statements have no meaning.
Careful. There is only one relative speed involved.
There's one relative speed and a closing speed. They are different
things, as they are defined differently.
They are actually the same.
Nope. Not in any theory. Because the definitions are different.
Closing speed doesn't exist in anything but SR.
That's incorrect. But since you haven't read much in either physics or
relativity, it doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't know this.
One
involves a singe object and an observer, the other involves two objects and
an observer. Though they will always have the same value if Galilean
transforms apply. That is due to the nature of the transforms, not because
the definitions are the same (which clearly they cannot possibly be).
'Closing speed' and 'relative speed' are the same thing.
No, they're not, despite your lone insistence.
[/quote]
OK, by way of clarification, here's another experiment.
O1->v............................................................S1->w
O2-u....................................................S2->x
As usual, speeds are relative to the screen frame.
Now we know what SR says.
Its postulate says light from both S1 and S2 'close on' the observers at c+v
and c+u.
The general notion comes directly from P2 and is based on the Maxwellian theory
that light speed everywhere in an observer's frame is determined by his locally
measured values of e and mu. This I call Einstein's 'personal aether
theory'...... which is a good name for it. (Einstein uses the word 'frame'
instead of 'personal aether')
But as Ken rightly pointed out, the same result is obtained if only ONE
absolute aether exists. 'Closing speed' is still c-v in the frame of any
observer moving through the aether (or across the screen) at any speed. ..so
clearly Einstein stole his theory directly from Lorentz. It is no different.
There is of course no evidence that either theory is correct. It is certainly
possible that Maxwell's equations apply to some extent in the lab or even well
away from the Earth's surface. But there is absolutely no reason to believe
that the values of the constants as measured on Earth, apply in empty space or
on another galaxy. The impedance of free space might be 376 ohms here.... but
what is actualy being measured. I say it is merely a measurement of the values
that apply to the actual fields used in the measuring process. Space free of
fields and matter has no permittivity or permeability.
This means that light speed from distant stars and galaxies can be source
dependent. ...and we now have overwhelming evidence from variable star curves
that this is true.
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:37:11 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 3:13 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 07:55:49 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 2:43 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:13:46 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 2:26 am, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
And where is that the case?
You claim that the closing speed of S2 on O2 is not c is the type of fairytale
one would expect to hear in a madhouse or a mosque....or, of course, in the
home of an aetherist..
Nonsense. In the frame drawn, light is traveling from right to left at
c. In the frame drawn, O2 is traveling from right to left at v.
By *definition* of closing speed (you perhaps should look it up), it
is c-v.
Closing speed is DEFINED as the numerical difference between the
speeds of two objects, as seen by an observer that is neither of those
objects.
Funny! that sounds just like Netonian definition of speed.
That's how it's defined. Now, you will notice that this closing speed
does not correspond to a *measurable* quantity. The *measured*
relative speed between those two bodies is the measurement done by one
of the bodies. And in that case you find that the measured value does
not match the numerical difference found in the closing speed. This is
where the break with Newtonian physics happens.
OK let's get this straight.
We know that the true closing speed of S1's light on O1 is c.... because the
two are MAR.
MAR? Mutually at rest? No, the there is no "true" closing speed that
has precedence over any other value obtained by its DEFINITION.
Please do not try to make closing speed anything other than what its
DEFINITION says it is.
There is a theory called SR that says that closing speed is c-v to an observer,
O3, who is moving wrt S1.
Well, yes, by definition of closing speed.
I ask you, why would anyone have faith in a theory that knowingly produces a
WRONG answer?
What experimental evidence is there that it is wrong?
The true closing speed is c.
Repeating an error does not make it any closer to being correct. See
the *definition* of closing speed.
SR can give it any value simply by moving an observer.
Yes, indeed. Closing speed is a frame-dependent quantity,
[/quote]
no....only in SR.
Its real name, 'relative speed between two objects' is NOT frame dependent.
[quote]like many
other frame-dependent quantities, such as momentum and kinetic energy.
Not a thing wrong with that.
[/quote]
Naturally they are frame dependent. They depend on RELATIVE speed.
[quote]SR is nonsense.
No, it really is quite sensible. I know YOU have difficulty with it,
but that's just because you've never bothered to check on the meaning
of the terms used. Like "closing speed".
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
[/quote]
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 21:51:01 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p>
wrote:
[quote]
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:6jjue51k7rg0u83ei3krl14vmg1ijdctl2 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 21:19:19 -0000, "Androcles"
Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p
wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:0qiue59ho4k23mso4udsaepliq6g1o1tkg at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 07:55:49 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Oct 31, 2:43 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:13:46 -0700 (PDT), PD
thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Oct 31, 2:26 am, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
And where is that the case?
You claim that the closing speed of S2 on O2 is not c is the
type
of fairytale
one would expect to hear in a madhouse or a mosque....or, of
course, in the
home of an aetherist..
Nonsense. In the frame drawn, light is traveling from right to
left
at
c. In the frame drawn, O2 is traveling from right to left at v.
By *definition* of closing speed (you perhaps should look it up),
it
is c-v.
Closing speed is DEFINED as the numerical difference between the
speeds of two objects, as seen by an observer that is neither of
those
objects.
Funny! that sounds just like Netonian definition of speed.
That's how it's defined. Now, you will notice that this closing speed
does not correspond to a *measurable* quantity. The *measured*
relative speed between those two bodies is the measurement done by
one
of the bodies. And in that case you find that the measured value does
not match the numerical difference found in the closing speed. This
is
where the break with Newtonian physics happens.
OK let's get this straight.
We know that the true closing speed of S1's light on O1 is c....
because
the
two are MAR.
MAR? Mutually at rest? No, the there is no "true" closing speed that
has precedence over any other value obtained by its DEFINITION.
Please do not try to make closing speed anything other than what its
DEFINITION says it is.
There is a theory called SR that says that closing speed is c-v to an
observer,
O3, who is moving wrt S1.
Well, yes, by definition of closing speed.
I ask you, why would anyone have faith in a theory that knowingly
produces a
WRONG answer?
What experimental evidence is there that it is wrong?
The true closing speed is c.
SR can give it any value simply by moving an observer.
SR is nonsense.
The true closing speed is c.
Unifuckation can give it any value simply by moving an observer.
BaThwater is nonsense.
nobody reads your posts
Does he? How nice. I haven't seen him for years, I plonked him.
Poor old nobody, he was as clueless as you.
Unifuckation, as invented and exploited by Wilson BaThwater, is a
deceptive lie.
You cannot explain the fact that your 'v' includes cos(yaw).cos(pitch).
[/quote]
nobody reads your posts
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 21:49:45 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p>
wrote:
[quote]
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:ldjue5pkvice9ldhs0ll8fkmnj7vke41lt at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 20:54:56 -0000, "Androcles"
Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p
wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:fsfue5h9re89rkdp81u6iv1kivcgbe2a7o at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 07:17:16 -0800 (PST), rotchm <rotchm at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 2, 1:14 am, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
Closing speed doesn't exist in anything but SR.
??
Strange... the notion of closing speed appears in highschool
kinematics, galilean relativity etc... You were never introduced to
closing speed before SR? No wonder why you fear the expression so
much. CLOSING SPEED ... Booh! Haha, that made you jump didnt it?
Closing speed is the difference in speed between two entities, as
measured by a chosen observer.
That's not 'closing speed' That's RELATIVE SPEED....the one and only.
That defintion is independent of, and thus applies to: SR, Gal. R,
Newton...
WhoaH... A new defintion for wilson... you are going to have
nightmares tonight!
Not at all. SR invented closing speed so that its 'personal aether'
concept
would have an escape route.
You cannot explain the physical significance of closing speed being c+v
in
one
frame and c in another.
Closing speed, as invented and exploited by SR is a eceptive lie.
You cannot explain the fact that your 'v' includes cos(yaw).cos(pitch).
Unifuckation, as invented and exploited by Wilson BaThwater, is an
exceptive
lie.
nobody reads your posts
Does he? How nice. I haven't seen him for years, I plonked him.
Poor old nobody, he was as clueless as you.
Unifuckation, as invented and exploited by Wilson BaThwater, is a
deceptive lie.
You cannot explain the fact that your 'v' includes cos(yaw).cos(pitch).
[/quote]
nobody reads your posts
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 08:05:55 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 12:14 am, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:10:27 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:56lse5hig53t5v67pbb9960pblr78mc6r3 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 15:08:48 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
statements have no meaning.
Careful. There is only one relative speed involved.
There's one relative speed and a closing speed. They are different
things, as they are defined differently.
They are actually the same.
Nope. Not in any theory. Because the definitions are different.
Closing speed doesn't exist in anything but SR.
That's incorrect. But since you haven't read much in either physics or
relativity, it doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't know this.
One
involves a singe object and an observer, the other involves two objects and
an observer. Though they will always have the same value if Galilean
transforms apply. That is due to the nature of the transforms, not because
the definitions are the same (which clearly they cannot possibly be).
'Closing speed' and 'relative speed' are the same thing.
No, they're not, despite your lone insistence.
OK, by way of clarification, here's another experiment.
O1->v............................................................S1->w
O2-u....................................................S2->x
As usual, speeds are relative to the screen frame.
Now we know what SR says.
Its postulate says light from both S1 and S2 'close on' the observers at c+v
and c+u.
The general notion comes directly from P2 and is based on the Maxwellian theory
that light speed everywhere in an observer's frame is determined by his locally
measured values of e and mu. This I call Einstein's 'personal aether
theory'...... which is a good name for it. (Einstein uses the word 'frame'
instead of 'personal aether')
But as Ken rightly pointed out, the same result is obtained if only ONE
absolute aether exists. 'Closing speed' is still c-v in the frame of any
observer moving through the aether (or across the screen) at any speed. ..so
clearly Einstein stole his theory directly from Lorentz. It is no different.
There is of course no evidence that either theory is correct. It is certainly
possible that Maxwell's equations apply to some extent in the lab or even well
away from the Earth's surface. But there is absolutely no reason to believe
that the values of the constants as measured on Earth, apply in empty space or
on another galaxy. The impedance of free space might be 376 ohms here.... but
what is actualy being measured. I say it is merely a measurement of the values
that apply to the actual fields used in the measuring process. Space free of
fields and matter has no permittivity or permeability.
This means that light speed from distant stars and galaxies can be source
dependent. ...and we now have overwhelming evidence from variable star curves
that this is true.
[/quote]
Getting more desperate all the time, aren't you ralph. You keep lying
about this but it does not help you at all.
[quote]
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"kenseto" <kenseto at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:88feb880-0d58-4d0a-a48e-63dc1171efe1 at (no spam) r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Nov 1, 3:33 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"glird" <gl... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote in message
news:f84fcdc0-c756-4908-b6f9-d671a037f14c at (no spam) d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 1, 4:08 am, "Inertial" wrote:
LET says all distances compress,
but how is that any different to space contracting .. can space truly
be said to be not-compressed when every length IS? Similarly, does it
make sense to say time is unaffected when every process is slowed?
In STR's LTE, distances don't compress; moving lengths contract in
their direction of motion in empty space.
And the distances between thing get shorter.
As defined by Einstein and
as used in str equations, "time" is the indications of the hands of a
clock. If clock A runs slower than clock B, its time runs slower
accordingly.
And similarly space gets contracted
Is there really any difference between the two .. in any tangible
measureable sense?
In physics, nobody knows nor asks about "reality".
Other than the aether notion raising even more unanswered questions.
Ask, and I will answer any such question you pose.
How does the aether cause ALL objects to compress,
It doen't. The physical length of an object remains the same in all
frames of reference.
[/quote]
Not in LET. An object only has its physical length in the aether frame. In
other frames it has the illusion of having its physical length because the
rulers you measure it with are also compressed
[quote]all types of fields to
compress .. everything to compress.
Fields are stresses in the ether and stress in the ether is caused by
the absolute motion of an object in the ether.
How does the aether cause all types of
processes to slow down by exactly the same amount?
It doesn't....nothing is slowdown according to absolute time.
[/quote]
It dees in LET. All processes slow down.
[quote]The
observed time dilation is due to a clock second contains a different
amount of absolute time in different frames (different states of
absolute motion).
[/quote]
Which is because the processes in the clock (no matter what clock) are
slowed down.
[quote]
How can the aether
behave like a perfect solid and yet allow matter to move through it
totally
unimpeded by it?
Matter particles are repulsive to the aether and thus they maintain
their motion without dlowing down.
[/quote]
So the aether moves out of the way? In which case how can it have any
compression of object or slowing of processes if it doesn't interact with
the matter?
[quote]What it the aether made of and what is its physucal
properties?
Hey idiot it is made of the ether.
[/quote]
So you don't know
[quote]How large is the arther?
Stupid question.
[/quote]
So you don't know
There's a lot you don't know and are wrong about Seto ... but we already
knew that. But it is nice the you oblige by demonstrating your ignorance. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"kenseto" <kenseto at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:d05c0126-88e1-4465-81ab-745dc973197e at (no spam) f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Nov 1, 6:47 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:04a251eb-18ca-4ad9-a9e5-38f15571c6a6 at (no spam) p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 1, 3:43 am, Ilja <ilja.schmel... at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
On 31 Okt., 19:01, kenseto <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote:
On Oct 30, 4:53 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
That is plainly an aether concept.
No....SR claims that EVERY OBSERVER will measure the speed of light
to
be istropic. LET claims that only the ether observer will measure
the
speed of light to be isotropic.
False. LET claims that our rulers and clocks are distorted in such
a way that, despite the fact that true light speed would be
anisotropic,
the light speed as measured with the distorted rulers and clocks
appears isotropic.
Question:
Does the ruler contracts differently when it is not oriented in the
direction of absolute motion?
How do you mean differently? The compression is only in the direction of
absolute motion in LET. There is no compression in the directions
orthogonal to the motion.
That's the point: if compression is only in the direction of absolute
motion then how can the speed of light is isotropic in all
directions???
[/quote]
Why do you think compression in the other directions (in which the object
does not move relative to the aether) would have ANY effect on the isotropy.
All it would change is what that common velocity would be. And, of course,
no amount of compression or slowing of clocks will result in isotropy of
measured light speed UNLESS there is also RoS,
You have previously shown you are totally incapable of understanding the
basic math and physics that shows that, so no point showing you again. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"kenseto" <kenseto at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:6d55739c-5050-4ae0-b416-5980b8d2baa5 at (no spam) m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Nov 2, 3:21 am, Ilja <ilja.schmel... at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
On 1 Nov., 20:51, kenseto <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 3:43 am, Ilja <ilja.schmel... at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
False. LET claims that our rulers and clocks are distorted in such
a way that, despite the fact that true light speed would be
anisotropic,
the light speed as measured with the distorted rulers and clocks
appears isotropic.
Question:
Does the ruler contracts differently when it is not oriented in the
direction of absolute motion? If the answer is yes then it can not
give isotropy of the speed of light.
They contract only in the direction of absolute motion. In the
directions
orthogonal to absolute motion there is no Lorentz contraction.
And it can give isotropy - but of course only if combined with
time dilation and the Einstein synchronization procedure.
This is wrong....you cannot have isotropy of the speed of light if
contraction is only happened in the direction of absolute motion.
[/quote]
You are wrong again
[quote]This
means that your assertion that LET says that the speed of light is
isotropic in all inertial frame is also wrong.
[/quote]
You are wrong again
[quote]So that means that what
I claimed originally that LET says that the speed of light is
isotropic only in the rest frame of the ether is correct.
[/quote]
You are wrong again
really .. why bother posting when you post so much crap that is clearly
wrong |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:dljue5techsn97b6kdsggeniguste1etsj at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 08:05:55 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
OK, by way of clarification, here's another experiment.
O1->v............................................................S1->w
O2-u....................................................S2->x
As usual, speeds are relative to the screen frame.
Now we know what SR says.
Its postulate says light from both S1 and S2 'close on' the observers at
c+v
and c+u.
[/quote]
Yeup. You finally got something right, assuming 'close on' means closing
speed. My god .. does this mean you have finally actually learnt something
... because you didn't seem to know this when you started this thread.
[snip nonsense] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:20 pm
|
|