 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » An Embarrassing Question for Relativists... |
|
Page 18 of 23 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 17, 18, 19 ... 21, 22, 23 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Inertial... |
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:p8uue51gut7srsdac45gvd4l5anuuee1ps at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:20:58 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:dljue5techsn97b6kdsggeniguste1etsj at (no spam) 4ax.com...
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.
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]
This is an automatic reply:
I do not read your posts.
[/quote]
It wouldn't matter if you did, you haven't the intellectual capacity to
understand the basic physics involved, as is evident by the crap you've
posted in this thread alone. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:55:50 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 4:26 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:37:11 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 3:13 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
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,
no....only in SR.
No, by *definition*. Really, you should look at the definition.
Its real name, 'relative speed between two objects' is NOT frame dependent.
like many
other frame-dependent quantities, such as momentum and kinetic energy.
Not a thing wrong with that.
Naturally they are frame dependent. They depend on RELATIVE speed.
So is electric field frame-dependent. Hmm....
So let's see. You say that kinetic energy, which is dependent on
RELATIVE speed, is naturally frame dependent because of that fact.
But "relative speed between two objects", which is obviously dependent
on RELATIVE speed, is obviously NOT frame-dependent?
You really should try to THINK, Diaper.
The relative speed between any two objects, dx/dt, IS the relative speed
between their two frames.
[/quote]
So you do not know what reference frames are either.
It doesn't involve any other frames and no physical
[quote]quantity can be dependent on itself....although relativists rely on such
circular logic for their entire theory.
[/quote]
You really are into the word salad now.
[quote]
An object's KE and P are directly linked to its speed relative to whichever
frame the measurement applies....so naturally it IS frame dependent.
...can you see the difference, Diaper?
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Inertial wrote:
[quote]"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:p8uue51gut7srsdac45gvd4l5anuuee1ps at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:20:58 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively at (no spam) rest.com
wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:dljue5techsn97b6kdsggeniguste1etsj at (no spam) 4ax.com...
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.
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]
This is an automatic reply:
I do not read your posts.
It wouldn't matter if you did, you haven't the intellectual capacity to
understand the basic physics involved, as is evident by the crap you've
posted in this thread alone.
[/quote]
Are his lies posted by an automatic reply?
[quote]
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:33:56 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
[quote]
Inertial wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:p8uue51gut7srsdac45gvd4l5anuuee1ps at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:20:58 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively at (no spam) rest.com
wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:dljue5techsn97b6kdsggeniguste1etsj at (no spam) 4ax.com...
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.
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]
This is an automatic reply:
I do not read your posts.
It wouldn't matter if you did, you haven't the intellectual capacity to
understand the basic physics involved, as is evident by the crap you've
posted in this thread alone.
Are his lies posted by an automatic reply?
[/quote]
This is an automatic reply
I haven't read your posts for years
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:27:16 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p>
wrote:
[quote]
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:qasue5llu5tsttp291jn9hq1agal5sungq at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:55:50 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 2, 4:26 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:37:11 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 2, 3:13 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
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,
no....only in SR.
No, by *definition*. Really, you should look at the definition.
Its real name, 'relative speed between two objects' is NOT frame
dependent.
like many
other frame-dependent quantities, such as momentum and kinetic energy.
Not a thing wrong with that.
Naturally they are frame dependent. They depend on RELATIVE speed.
So is electric field frame-dependent. Hmm....
So let's see. You say that kinetic energy, which is dependent on
RELATIVE speed, is naturally frame dependent because of that fact.
But "relative speed between two objects", which is obviously dependent
on RELATIVE speed, is obviously NOT frame-dependent?
You really should try to THINK, Diaper.
The relative speed between any two objects, dx/dt, IS the relative speed
between their two frames. It doesn't involve any other frames and no
physical
quantity can be dependent on itself....although relativists rely on such
circular logic for their entire theory.
An object's KE and P are directly linked to its speed relative to
whichever
frame the measurement applies....so naturally it IS frame dependent.
...can you see the difference, Diaper?
Diaper is a troll, you are guilty of feeding trolls.
[/quote]
This is an automated reply
I might start reading your posts again if you remain sober
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Androcles... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:hcsve59hrp285459bv5bl5dp8blt8eepsf at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:33:56 -0800, doug <xx at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
Inertial wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:p8uue51gut7srsdac45gvd4l5anuuee1ps at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:20:58 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively at (no spam) rest.com
wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:dljue5techsn97b6kdsggeniguste1etsj at (no spam) 4ax.com...
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.
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]
This is an automatic reply:
I do not read your posts.
It wouldn't matter if you did, you haven't the intellectual capacity to
understand the basic physics involved, as is evident by the crap you've
posted in this thread alone.
Are his lies posted by an automatic reply?
This is an automatic reply
I haven't read your posts for years
[/quote]
You cannot explain the fact that your 'v' includes cos(yaw).cos(pitch).
Therefore your unifuckation is a "eceptive lie" but not a receptive lie
or an exceptive lie.
"There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
"In BaTh there is NO DOPPLER SHIFT AT THE OBSERVER" -- Wilson
news:uemrk39d4o3dka3tukbb68dtiaeu7oamm1 at (no spam) 4ax.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:38:25 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
[quote]"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:qasue5llu5tsttp291jn9hq1agal5sungq at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:55:50 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
But "relative speed between two objects", which is obviously dependent
on RELATIVE speed, is obviously NOT frame-dependent?
You really should try to THINK, Diaper.
The relative speed between any two objects, dx/dt, IS the relative speed
between their two frames. It doesn't involve any other frames and no
physical
quantity can be dependent on itself....although relativists rely on such
circular logic for their entire theory.
And that is NOT closing or separation speed, which by definition uses the
difference in distance between TWO object between two times as observed in
an observers frame. That is also the same as the addition/subtraction of
the (relative) speeds of the two objects in that frame.
It does NOT use the difference in distance of a single object from the
observer between two times in that observers frame, which is what relative
speed is.
Two very different concepts, that happen to have the same value in theories
where Galilean transforms apply
[/quote]
Closing speed is the only true relative speed. Any theory that doesn't get c
for the speed of light between a source and observer that are MAR is bogus.
[quote]
An object's KE and P are directly linked to its speed relative to
whichever
frame the measurement applies....so naturally it IS frame dependent.
As is closing speed.
[/quote]
yes, that's the ERROR.
[quote]...can you see the difference, Diaper?
You're the one who is confused, not PD. Have you not embarrassed yourself
enough in this thread yet?
[/quote]
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:24:37 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p>
wrote:
[quote]
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:vdtue55o9li4rr7vhfoc529brsvi09eoak at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 23:45:21 -0000, "Androcles"
Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p
wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:komue55u5qs8lk0f9inn8scotl117k44mn at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:37:11 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
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,
no....only in SR.
Its real name, 'relative speed between two objects' is NOT frame
dependent.
like many
other frame-dependent quantities, such as momentum and kinetic energy.
Not a thing wrong with that.
Naturally they are frame dependent. They depend on RELATIVE speed.
Bwhahahahahahahahahaha!
Wilson is not an idiot. Naturally Wilson is an idiot.
This is an automatic reply:
I do not read your posts.
You are incapable of writing automatic replies, Mr. nobody DSc.
You cannot explain the fact that your 'v' includes cos(yaw).cos(pitch).
Therefore your unifuckation is a "eceptive lie" but not a receptive lie
or an exceptive lie.
"There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
"In BaTh there is NO DOPPLER SHIFT AT THE OBSERVER" -- Wilson
news:uemrk39d4o3dka3tukbb68dtiaeu7oamm1 at (no spam) 4ax.com
[/quote]
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 5:54 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 23:42:24 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmas... at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p
wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
nobody reads your posts
Obviously you do, you must be nobody.
I don't read your posts.
[/quote]
Gotta love this. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 6:14 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
[quote]
This is an automatic reply:
I do not read your posts.
[/quote]
Even better! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 6:13 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:55:50 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 4:26 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:37:11 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 3:13 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
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,
no....only in SR.
No, by *definition*. Really, you should look at the definition.
Its real name, 'relative speed between two objects' is NOT frame dependent.
like many
other frame-dependent quantities, such as momentum and kinetic energy..
Not a thing wrong with that.
Naturally they are frame dependent. They depend on RELATIVE speed.
So is electric field frame-dependent. Hmm....
So let's see. You say that kinetic energy, which is dependent on
RELATIVE speed, is naturally frame dependent because of that fact.
But "relative speed between two objects", which is obviously dependent
on RELATIVE speed, is obviously NOT frame-dependent?
You really should try to THINK, Diaper.
The relative speed between any two objects, dx/dt, IS the relative speed
between their two frames. It doesn't involve any other frames and no physical
quantity can be dependent on itself....although relativists rely on such
circular logic for their entire theory.
[/quote]
Oh dear, Henri. Has making stuff up worked for you up to this point?
If not, why do you keep doing it?
[quote]
An object's KE and P are directly linked to its speed relative to whichever
frame the measurement applies....so naturally it IS frame dependent.
[/quote]
But relative speed is not linked to relative speed, and therefore
relative speed is frame independent.
Mphph... mmmhumm....mmMWAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahaha.... heh heh... sorry.
[quote]
...can you see the difference, Diaper?
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Androcles... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:2hsve5hoa7urprfc9nkpkt53kop660p31u at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 00:27:16 -0000, "Androcles"
Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p
wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:qasue5llu5tsttp291jn9hq1agal5sungq at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:55:50 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 2, 4:26 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:37:11 -0800 (PST), PD
thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 2, 3:13 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
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,
no....only in SR.
No, by *definition*. Really, you should look at the definition.
Its real name, 'relative speed between two objects' is NOT frame
dependent.
like many
other frame-dependent quantities, such as momentum and kinetic
energy.
Not a thing wrong with that.
Naturally they are frame dependent. They depend on RELATIVE speed.
So is electric field frame-dependent. Hmm....
So let's see. You say that kinetic energy, which is dependent on
RELATIVE speed, is naturally frame dependent because of that fact.
But "relative speed between two objects", which is obviously dependent
on RELATIVE speed, is obviously NOT frame-dependent?
You really should try to THINK, Diaper.
The relative speed between any two objects, dx/dt, IS the relative speed
between their two frames. It doesn't involve any other frames and no
physical
quantity can be dependent on itself....although relativists rely on such
circular logic for their entire theory.
An object's KE and P are directly linked to its speed relative to
whichever
frame the measurement applies....so naturally it IS frame dependent.
...can you see the difference, Diaper?
Diaper is a troll, you are guilty of feeding trolls.
This is an automated reply
I might start reading
[/quote]
I might start reading yours when you admit you fucked up.
Until then I'll just keep plugging away for all to see.
You cannot explain the fact that your 'v' includes cos(yaw).cos(pitch).
Therefore your unifuckation is a "eceptive lie" but not a receptive lie
or an exceptive lie.
"There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
"In BaTh there is NO DOPPLER SHIFT AT THE OBSERVER" -- Wilson
news:uemrk39d4o3dka3tukbb68dtiaeu7oamm1 at (no spam) 4ax.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:05 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 6:28 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:51:44 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 4:18 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 08:05:55 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... 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.
Actually, the POSTULATE says nothing about closing speed. That's a
separate thing entirely. The POSTULATE refers to relative speed, not
closing speed.
But you're right, the closing speeds have the values you indicate, in
the screen frame.
The general notion comes directly from P2
No, it doesn't. It comes from the *definition* of closing speed.
The closing speeds would be different if light speed was source dependent..
[/quote]
Or even if light speed were source independent. By *definition* of
closing speed.
[quote]
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.
Well, no, I don't think it's a good name for it, for a couple of
reasons. There is no aether implied at all by SR, though you may want
to believe otherwise.
Ah! but there is....as Seto's accidental revelation pointed out. AETHER
THEORIES, WITHOUT ANY CONTRACTIONS produce the same result as Einy's P2.
[/quote]
OK, but so do theories without any aether whatsoever.
[quote]It is impossible to achieve source independency of light speed without an
absolute reference frame for all light.
[/quote]
Of course there is. That's what nature does, and what SR describes.
[quote]
(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.
Or no aether at all.
'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.
No, it is quite different. Einstein attributes the reason for this to
be due to the structure of spacetime. Lorentz thought it had something
to do with how the electromagnetic interaction worked. The fact that
it works identically for three other completely independent
interactions cast a small doubt on Lorentz's idea, though it is
completely explained by Einstein's idea.
There is of course no evidence that either theory is correct.
That depends on what you're looking for. In science if you run a bunch
of tests and none of them are inconsistent with the predictions of the
candidate theories, then that is considered evidence in support of the
theories.
[/quote]
You see?
[quote]
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.
Actually, there is. Because if there were changes in the values,
especially tracking sources that move in such a way that the
intervening space is swept over the time of observation, then there
would be obvious effects. You'll note that there are effects on the
appearance of the sun as it traverses a different slice of the
atmosphere from noon to sunset -- it is not hard to predict or detect
the effects of changes in those physical constants if a signal
traverses a changing gradient in them.
that's silly.
[/quote]
It's absolutely straightforward, and frankly I'm astounded that you
don't see it.
[quote]
Nor is there any reason to believe that two relatively moving observers will
get the same value for c at the same point in space by using Maxwell's method.
It has been impossible to perform any experiment that can check this.
[/quote]
Oh, I think you're pretty ignorant of the experiments that have
actually been done.
I imagine you believe it's impossible for a heavier-than-air craft to
fly, as well.
[quote]
Now of course, you can always invent some kind of cosmic conspiracy
that says that we really know nothing because nature has arranged
things to *give the appearance* of isotropy and uniformity even where
it is anisotropic and nonuniform.
OW isotropy has never been verified.
[/quote]
That's incorrect. Do you need the list of verifications AGAIN?
[quote]
This is similar to the creationists'
claim that God created fossils to *give the appearance* that dinosaurs
walked on the Earth 100 million years ago even though the earth is
really less than 7000 years old. I do appreciate that you think a lot
like a creationist.
But creationists are responsible for prolonging the BB theory nonsense which is
totally reliant on Einstein's P2.
[/quote]
Oh, Henri, now it's just obvious that you just say stuff to be
outlandish, and don't care how stupid it is.
Creationists are responsible for promoting the Big Bang theory?
REALLY?
[quote]
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..
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 3:02 am, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
[quote]
Are his lies posted by an automatic reply?
This is an automatic reply
I haven't read your posts for years
[/quote]
Henri outdoes himself.
Remember John Lovett and the compulsive liar character he played on
SNL? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:qjsve5pf1a25sb02jl3kg6gqjpv8v16bvb at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:38:25 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:qasue5llu5tsttp291jn9hq1agal5sungq at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:55:50 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
But "relative speed between two objects", which is obviously dependent
on RELATIVE speed, is obviously NOT frame-dependent?
You really should try to THINK, Diaper.
The relative speed between any two objects, dx/dt, IS the relative speed
between their two frames. It doesn't involve any other frames and no
physical
quantity can be dependent on itself....although relativists rely on such
circular logic for their entire theory.
And that is NOT closing or separation speed, which by definition uses the
difference in distance between TWO object between two times as observed in
an observers frame. That is also the same as the addition/subtraction of
the (relative) speeds of the two objects in that frame.
It does NOT use the difference in distance of a single object from the
observer between two times in that observers frame, which is what relative
speed is.
Two very different concepts, that happen to have the same value in
theories
where Galilean transforms apply
Closing speed is the only true relative speed.
[/quote]
Nosense. The speed of A relative to B is and must be the speed that B
measure A to have. And that is NOT the definition of closing speed.
Closing speed is the rate at which a third observer measures the distance
between A and B decreasing. That's not relative speed..
[quote]Any theory that doesn't get c
for the speed of light between a source and observer that are MAR is bogus
[/quote]
It *is* c. The speed of light is c for EVERY observer. You're such an
idiot Ralph.
[quote]An object's KE and P are directly linked to its speed relative to
whichever
frame the measurement applies....so naturally it IS frame dependent.
As is closing speed.
yes, that's the ERROR.
[/quote]
Only error is your lack of understanding of physics. Unfortunately all
attempt to rectify that have failed. You lose.
[quote]...can you see the difference, Diaper?
You're the one who is confused, not PD. Have you not embarrassed yourself
enough in this thread yet?
[/quote]
Obviously not |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:16 am
|
|