| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » An Embarrassing Question for Relativists... |
|
Page 21 of 23 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 20, 21, 22, 23 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Inertial... |
 Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:rgv3f5durejr5kvj4gviava0dk8sd2mbcv at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 06:39:34 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 3, 6:54 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:14:13 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 3, 4:05 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
Mphph... mmmhumm....mmMWAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahaha.... heh heh... sorry.
I think it's time you took a course in basic physics, Diaper.
Gladly. What textbook would you recommend I use that supports what
you've just said?
Or is your suggestion just a boondoggle like EVERY SINGLE THING YOU'VE
EVER SAID?
Just read the definition of a FoR.
OK, what reference do you recommend for this definition, and where
will it tell me that relative speed and/or closing speed is frame-
independent?
You know what amuses me most Diaper?
[/quote]
Your own idiocy?
[quote]Nothing can exceed light speed unless it is 'closing speed'.
[/quote]
Yeup .. its your own idiocy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"PD" <thedraperfamily at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cf7ab16a-7b82-45e2-8758-97a4e94f69df at (no spam) d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
[quote]PD
[/quote]
Oh .. did you notice Porat has started a new thread "Paul Draper stole my
book !!" and is publically accusing you (across multiple newsgroups) of
being a thief and having stolen his book? He should be taken to court for
that .. maybe get a court order to have him banned from using the internet.
Although by the time it got through the courts, he'd probably be dead. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:38:57 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
[quote]"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:rgv3f5durejr5kvj4gviava0dk8sd2mbcv at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 06:39:34 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 3, 6:54 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:14:13 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 3, 4:05 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
Mphph... mmmhumm....mmMWAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahaha.... heh heh... sorry.
I think it's time you took a course in basic physics, Diaper.
Gladly. What textbook would you recommend I use that supports what
you've just said?
Or is your suggestion just a boondoggle like EVERY SINGLE THING YOU'VE
EVER SAID?
Just read the definition of a FoR.
OK, what reference do you recommend for this definition, and where
will it tell me that relative speed and/or closing speed is frame-
independent?
You know what amuses me most Diaper?
Your own idiocy?
Nothing can exceed light speed unless it is 'closing speed'.
Yeup .. its your own idiocy.
[/quote]
What about the gamma term, sqrt(c+v)(c-v)
Is c+v a speed greater than c?
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:2v04f5htc314gbpqlshp2phiirnutibob9 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:38:57 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:rgv3f5durejr5kvj4gviava0dk8sd2mbcv at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 06:39:34 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 3, 6:54 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:14:13 -0800 (PST), PD
thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 3, 4:05 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
Mphph... mmmhumm....mmMWAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahaha.... heh heh...
sorry.
I think it's time you took a course in basic physics, Diaper.
Gladly. What textbook would you recommend I use that supports what
you've just said?
Or is your suggestion just a boondoggle like EVERY SINGLE THING
YOU'VE
EVER SAID?
Just read the definition of a FoR.
OK, what reference do you recommend for this definition, and where
will it tell me that relative speed and/or closing speed is frame-
independent?
You know what amuses me most Diaper?
Your own idiocy?
Nothing can exceed light speed unless it is 'closing speed'.
Yeup .. its your own idiocy.
What about the gamma term, sqrt(c+v)(c-v)
Is c+v a speed greater than c?
[/quote]
BAHAHA .. you're such a clown. Ever thought about doing stand-up comedy at
a science convention? You'd be a huge success .. they'd be rolling in the
aisles |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Androcles... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:v3t3f5t3udg2ms0qd2el906k7n8hf3l72b at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:20:02 -0000, "Androcles"
Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p
wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:4vi2f5dd1s07nrr34nshukm3s3jcu740ni at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 01:05:42 -0000, "Androcles"
Now wait a minute.
Time compression occurs only for half the orbit. For the other half the
opposite happens. I don't see why there is an overall red shift. You
have
thought about this longer that I have. Please elaborate. You might have
a
good
idea here.
Now YOU wait a minute. Look at the graph.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
Time compression occurs for only a fraction of the PERIOD.
The rest of the period is time-expanded. The star APPEARS
to drag its arse for half the orbit and races around the other half,
but you are not going to be around for 100,000 years to see it
happen.
So if the star is apparently dragging for 85% of the period (half
the orbit) and racing for 15% of the period (the other half of the
orbit) you'll see redshift for 85% of the time, for that star.
Hmmmm
That sounds good but there's a problem that i can't quite solve yet.
For half the orbit (the 'concave' bit), time is compressed and the other
half
expanded.
[/quote]
You've rotated 90 degrees. It's the receding half and the approaching half,
not the concave back half and the convex front half. When multiple images
appear they appear one behind the other.
[quote]But in each half the star is moving towards us for half the time and
moving
away for the other half. So even though the star is 'dragging' for half
the
time, its light, which should be dimmer, is still equally red and blue
shifted
when it arrives.
[/quote]
Assume the period is 100,000 years.
Yes, each star is equally redshifted for 85,000 years and blueshifted
for 15,000 years. They all are. So we take a picture, and all pictures
of distant galaxies have long exposure times. Assume the exposure
time is 100 minutes. For 85 minutes we collect red photons and for
15 minutes we collect blue photons. Or, if you like, we collect 85
red photons a second and 15 blue photons a second. After 100
minutes we have 85 *60 * 100 = 510,000 red pixels and 90,000
blue pixels caught on the image.
[quote]And of course for all of them, except that those nearer to the
centre really are travelling faster. So a star that is really travelling
faster near the centre will have an even greater red/blue shift than
one at the rim and hence more time compression, making it appear
to slow down. Since that is what is seen, dork matter was invented
by the dorks to explain it.
I'll think about it.
[/quote]
Hahahahaha! Then you'll claim it was your idea.
[quote]I have always pointed out that ALL light from a galaxy is redshifted
because it
slows as it escapes, even if tit has to pass through the centre.
Yes, but I'm saying that 50% of the light is redshifted for 85% of the
period,
and 50% is blueshifted for 15% of the period, the 85% and 15% being when
it reaches the observer. It would still be 50:50 at the source.
I know exactly what you are saying but something doesn't add up....but OK,
I
think I've just got it.
What I said above applies to conventional VDoppler. Time compression (or
ADoppler), which is what you are referring to, far outweighs the VDoppler
effect...so yes this now makes sense.
Another interesting point is that the observed red and blueshifts that
astronomers use for all their analyses are not simple VDoppler
effects...they
are 90 deg different in phase. ...so astronomers are creating even more
bullshit theories to explain their willusions.
[/quote]
So you thought of it first after I did. Gotcha.
[quote]So 85%
of the stars we see in the galaxy are redshifted and that would lead
Edwin Hubble to conclude the galaxy as a whole was moving away.
The blue shifted stars are there, but their light is swamped by the
redshifted
stars.
Yes.
It doesn't
speed up as much when it reaches Earth because we lie on the outskirts
of
the
Milky Way.
I've even written a program that does the calculations...and since GR
has
the
same equation as BaTh I don't see how the relativists can criticize.
.
Forget the relativists, they are nothing but a pain in the arse.
We certainly agree on that.
Light doesn't change speed at all, it has no reason to.
Suppose the galaxy were at the right distance so that every star in it
was a recurrent nova like V 1493 Aql. As each star comes around
it appears very bright, then fades to dim for the rest of the time.
If they ALL did it, we'd see one bright star all of the time and not
see a galaxy at all. It would look like a quasar.
This wipes out any unifuckation
idea or "tired light" idea you may have, but is completely consistent
with apparent time dilation of the Wilson-Sekerin hypothesis. You
don't realise just how important that idea is or you would not be
babbling about unifuckation or light slowing down.
Every star in a galaxy HAS to have an apparent time dilation -
except for galaxies seen face-on.
But half experience the opposite effect.
Yes, but only for a fraction of the period. You can't have your
cake and eat it too. If apparent time is compressed for half
the orbit is has to be compressed for a fraction of the period
and expanded for the remainder. If you squeeze all the light
into a fraction of the period the star will appear bright for
that fraction and dim for the rest of the period. That happens
when the blueshifted light is arriving and the rest of the time
we see the red-shifted light. Just look again at the graph.
Yes OK, I see the answer. ADoppler far exceeds the conventional VDoppler
shifts.
So you thought of it first after I did. Gotcha. Now write the equation.[/quote]
[quote]I agree that time compression might be able to explain the distance
anomaly and
obviate the need for unification....but I haven't really looked into it
yet.
It might also explain why De Sitter's findings were wrong.
What deSitter findings?[/quote]
[quote]http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070910.html
The more edge-on and further away the galaxy is, the redder it is.
The more face on or nearer it is, the bluer (or whiter) is appears.
The further away the galaxy is, the more the apparent
Wilson/Sekerin-time dilates for MOST of the galactic period...
hence the redshift.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
The cause of increasing redshift with distance was discovered by
Androcles using the discovery of Wilson-Sekerin.
Besides, it isn't redshift alone that matters, anything moving away
will cause that. It is redshift as a function of distance.
Tired light is the main contributor.
I used to support tired light, but I was never comfortable with it
because it lacks a mechanism, a cause. One may as well say the
universe expands away from a Big Bang for all the good it does.
I would be very surprised if light DID NOT slow down as it travels for
billion
of years....only slightly though....because distant images are quite
sharp.
[/quote]
Doesn't take much to surprise you, does it? Images are only as sharp
as the grain size in the photographic plate or the pixel resolution of
the CCD. How sharp is this surprise?
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap970219.html
Surprise, surprise.
How sharp is this surprise?
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html
Surprise, surprise.
You don't think, Wilson. You sputter the first thing that pops into
your head and then you believe it yourself. You are the type that
would see canals on Mars if Lowell drew pictures of them.
[quote]A universe that stretches forever in all directions is a steady state
universe that has always existed and always will. It's only the little
minds that cannot grasp it. And no, I don't have all the answers
but nobody else does either. What I do know is the laws of
physics have to be obeyed and both tired light and Big Bang
don't apply. Tired light is only for those that can't think of anything
else, but it's magic and that won't do for a scientist.
I wouldn't rule out tired light. I believe the cosmic redshift is due to
more
than one factor.
[/quote]
Yeah, and Mars has canals.
http://michaelgr.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/mars-canals-003.jpg
Famous astronomer, Lowell. He has an observatory named after him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowell_Observatory
Just throw away conservation of momentum and you'll be a full blown
relativist, Wilson. You may as well, you'll never be a scientist. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 00:10:41 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p>
wrote:
[quote]
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:v3t3f5t3udg2ms0qd2el906k7n8hf3l72b at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:20:02 -0000, "Androcles"
Now YOU wait a minute. Look at the graph.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
Time compression occurs for only a fraction of the PERIOD.
The rest of the period is time-expanded. The star APPEARS
to drag its arse for half the orbit and races around the other half,
but you are not going to be around for 100,000 years to see it
happen.
So if the star is apparently dragging for 85% of the period (half
the orbit) and racing for 15% of the period (the other half of the
orbit) you'll see redshift for 85% of the time, for that star.
Hmmmm
That sounds good but there's a problem that i can't quite solve yet.
For half the orbit (the 'concave' bit), time is compressed and the other
half
expanded.
You've rotated 90 degrees. It's the receding half and the approaching half,
not the concave back half and the convex front half.
[/quote]
No I haven't. The whole concave half experiences time compression. Check you
own.
[quote]When multiple images
appear they appear one behind the other.
[/quote]
Actually it is more complicated than that, depending on observer distance.
At exactly the critical distance, the star appears to flare up then continue on
the same orbit becoming dimmer again as it goes.
A more a distant observer will see the star moving normally, before a bright
flash suddenly appears at another point on the orbit. TWO images appear there,
and move in opposite directions. So for a while there are three images. The one
going backwards either fades away before joining the original one oR it joins
the original and they BOTH fade away together. The second continues on the
correct orbit somewhat ahead of the original one's phase. This procedure
repeats itself with another bright flash appearing at the same point each
cycle.
The main feature is that the new image splits and each half moves in opposite
directions for a while.
[quote]But in each half the star is moving towards us for half the time and
moving
away for the other half. So even though the star is 'dragging' for half
the
time, its light, which should be dimmer, is still equally red and blue
shifted
when it arrives.
Assume the period is 100,000 years.
Yes, each star is equally redshifted for 85,000 years and blueshifted
for 15,000 years. They all are. So we take a picture, and all pictures
of distant galaxies have long exposure times. Assume the exposure
time is 100 minutes. For 85 minutes we collect red photons and for
15 minutes we collect blue photons. Or, if you like, we collect 85
red photons a second and 15 blue photons a second. After 100
minutes we have 85 *60 * 100 = 510,000 red pixels and 90,000
blue pixels caught on the image.
[/quote]
There is one problem though. The star appears much brighter during the time
compression stage and that might compensate for the shorter time.. I'm not
disagreeing but can see a few problems..
[quote]And of course for all of them, except that those nearer to the
centre really are travelling faster. So a star that is really travelling
faster near the centre will have an even greater red/blue shift than
one at the rim and hence more time compression, making it appear
to slow down. Since that is what is seen, dork matter was invented
by the dorks to explain it.
I'll think about it.
Hahahahaha! Then you'll claim it was your idea.
[/quote]
No I wont. I have hinted before though that WaSh might reduce the need for so
much unification.
The whole issue is very comlicated and difficult, particularly as we have very
little available data to go on.
[quote]I have always pointed out that ALL light from a galaxy is redshifted
because it
slows as it escapes, even if tit has to pass through the centre.
Yes, but I'm saying that 50% of the light is redshifted for 85% of the
period,
and 50% is blueshifted for 15% of the period, the 85% and 15% being when
it reaches the observer. It would still be 50:50 at the source.
I know exactly what you are saying but something doesn't add up....but OK,
I
think I've just got it.
What I said above applies to conventional VDoppler. Time compression (or
ADoppler), which is what you are referring to, far outweighs the VDoppler
effect...so yes this now makes sense.
Another interesting point is that the observed red and blueshifts that
astronomers use for all their analyses are not simple VDoppler
effects...they
are 90 deg different in phase. ...so astronomers are creating even more
bullshit theories to explain their willusions.
So you thought of it first after I did. Gotcha.
[/quote]
You still don't understand ADoppler. George Dishman helped me discover that by
arguing so much.
[quote]This wipes out any unifuckation
idea or "tired light" idea you may have, but is completely consistent
with apparent time dilation of the Wilson-Sekerin hypothesis. You
don't realise just how important that idea is or you would not be
babbling about unifuckation or light slowing down.
Every star in a galaxy HAS to have an apparent time dilation -
except for galaxies seen face-on.
But half experience the opposite effect.
Yes, but only for a fraction of the period. You can't have your
cake and eat it too. If apparent time is compressed for half
the orbit is has to be compressed for a fraction of the period
and expanded for the remainder. If you squeeze all the light
into a fraction of the period the star will appear bright for
that fraction and dim for the rest of the period. That happens
when the blueshifted light is arriving and the rest of the time
we see the red-shifted light. Just look again at the graph.
Yes OK, I see the answer. ADoppler far exceeds the conventional VDoppler
shifts.
So you thought of it first after I did. Gotcha. Now write the equation.
[/quote]
You are 90 out of phase with your time compression.
[quote]I agree that time compression might be able to explain the distance
anomaly and
obviate the need for unification....but I haven't really looked into it
yet.
It might also explain why De Sitter's findings were wrong.
What deSitter findings?
[/quote]
Whatever he...er..... 'found'....
[quote]
I used to support tired light, but I was never comfortable with it
because it lacks a mechanism, a cause. One may as well say the
universe expands away from a Big Bang for all the good it does.
I would be very surprised if light DID NOT slow down as it travels for
billion
of years....only slightly though....because distant images are quite
sharp.
Doesn't take much to surprise you, does it? Images are only as sharp
as the grain size in the photographic plate or the pixel resolution of
the CCD. How sharp is this surprise?
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap970219.html
[/quote]
They are going in opposite direction like a double image should.
[quote]Surprise, surprise.
How sharp is this surprise?
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html
Surprise, surprise.
[/quote]
Not terribly sharp.
[quote]You don't think, Wilson. You sputter the first thing that pops into
your head and then you believe it yourself.
[/quote]
Look who's bloody talking.....That glenlivet usually makes you rave
nonsensically for hours.
[quote]You are the type that
would see canals on Mars if Lowell drew pictures of them.
[/quote]
where else would the hippos live?
[quote]A universe that stretches forever in all directions is a steady state
universe that has always existed and always will. It's only the little
minds that cannot grasp it. And no, I don't have all the answers
but nobody else does either. What I do know is the laws of
physics have to be obeyed and both tired light and Big Bang
don't apply. Tired light is only for those that can't think of anything
else, but it's magic and that won't do for a scientist.
I wouldn't rule out tired light. I believe the cosmic redshift is due to
more
than one factor.
Yeah, and Mars has canals.
http://michaelgr.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/mars-canals-003.jpg
Famous astronomer, Lowell. He has an observatory named after him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowell_Observatory
Just throw away conservation of momentum and you'll be a full blown
relativist, Wilson. You may as well, you'll never be a scientist.
[/quote]
Well I'm certainly not a useless engineer.
Incidentally, I might replace the name 'BaTh' with 'WET' , (Wilson's Emission
Theory).
WET WaSh sounds better that BaTh WaSh.
Would you agree?
..
[quote]
[/quote]
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:10:17 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 4:46 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:38:57 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:rgv3f5durejr5kvj4gviava0dk8sd2mbcv at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 06:39:34 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 3, 6:54 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:14:13 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 3, 4:05 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
Mphph... mmmhumm....mmMWAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahaha.... heh heh... sorry.
I think it's time you took a course in basic physics, Diaper.
Gladly. What textbook would you recommend I use that supports what
you've just said?
Or is your suggestion just a boondoggle like EVERY SINGLE THING YOU'VE
EVER SAID?
Just read the definition of a FoR.
OK, what reference do you recommend for this definition, and where
will it tell me that relative speed and/or closing speed is frame-
independent?
You know what amuses me most Diaper?
Your own idiocy?
Nothing can exceed light speed unless it is 'closing speed'.
Yeup .. its your own idiocy.
What about the gamma term, sqrt(c+v)(c-v)
Is c+v a speed greater than c?
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
Henri, if I make a sum (c + c + c + c + 2348c + 19.5/c), this is a
number that has units of speed. Does that make it the measurable speed
of ANYTHING?
[/quote]
Aha! So you will naturally agree with my latest thread then ...that 'c' is not
a speed at all..... even though it has dimensions L/T.
It is just a universal constant.
[quote]
PD
[/quote]
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 1:46 am, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
[quote]On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:10:17 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 4, 4:46 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:38:57 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:rgv3f5durejr5kvj4gviava0dk8sd2mbcv at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 06:39:34 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 3, 6:54 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:14:13 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 3, 4:05 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
Mphph... mmmhumm....mmMWAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahaha.... heh heh... sorry.
I think it's time you took a course in basic physics, Diaper.
Gladly. What textbook would you recommend I use that supports what
you've just said?
Or is your suggestion just a boondoggle like EVERY SINGLE THING YOU'VE
EVER SAID?
Just read the definition of a FoR.
OK, what reference do you recommend for this definition, and where
will it tell me that relative speed and/or closing speed is frame-
independent?
You know what amuses me most Diaper?
Your own idiocy?
Nothing can exceed light speed unless it is 'closing speed'.
Yeup .. its your own idiocy.
What about the gamma term, sqrt(c+v)(c-v)
Is c+v a speed greater than c?
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
Henri, if I make a sum (c + c + c + c + 2348c + 19.5/c), this is a
number that has units of speed. Does that make it the measurable speed
of ANYTHING?
Aha! So you will naturally agree with my latest thread then ...that 'c' is not
a speed at all..... even though it has dimensions L/T.
[/quote]
c is not a speed because (c + c + c + 2986c) is not a measurable speed
of anything?
Hmmmm....
[quote]
It is just a universal constant.
[/quote]
That some things travel at a speed matching that constant.
Hmmm....
[quote]
PD
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Androcles... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:qos4f5lbvmn8np853ubm9g0k77qcnujpsf at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 00:10:41 -0000, "Androcles"
Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p
wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:v3t3f5t3udg2ms0qd2el906k7n8hf3l72b at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:20:02 -0000, "Androcles"
Now YOU wait a minute. Look at the graph.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
Time compression occurs for only a fraction of the PERIOD.
The rest of the period is time-expanded. The star APPEARS
to drag its arse for half the orbit and races around the other half,
but you are not going to be around for 100,000 years to see it
happen.
So if the star is apparently dragging for 85% of the period (half
the orbit) and racing for 15% of the period (the other half of the
orbit) you'll see redshift for 85% of the time, for that star.
Hmmmm
That sounds good but there's a problem that i can't quite solve yet.
For half the orbit (the 'concave' bit), time is compressed and the other
half
expanded.
You've rotated 90 degrees. It's the receding half and the approaching
half,
not the concave back half and the convex front half.
No I haven't. The whole concave half experiences time compression. Check
you
own.
[/quote]
Produce an equation or fuck off, you are an embarrassment. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 1:44 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 05:11:39 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 1:46 am, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:10:17 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 4, 4:46 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
Henri, if I make a sum (c + c + c + c + 2348c + 19.5/c), this is a
number that has units of speed. Does that make it the measurable speed
of ANYTHING?
Aha! So you will naturally agree with my latest thread then ...that 'c' is not
a speed at all..... even though it has dimensions L/T.
c is not a speed because (c + c + c + 2986c) is not a measurable speed
of anything?
Hmmmm....
[/quote]
You think so?
[quote]
It is just a universal constant.
That some things travel at a speed matching that constant.
Yes. Light wrt its source.
[/quote]
Or light with respect to the observer, regardless of motion of the
source.
[quote]
Hmmm....
There's a scientific reason for everything.
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 3:49 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 12:28:21 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 1:44 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 05:11:39 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 1:46 am, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:10:17 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 4, 4:46 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
Henri, if I make a sum (c + c + c + c + 2348c + 19.5/c), this is a
number that has units of speed. Does that make it the measurable speed
of ANYTHING?
Aha! So you will naturally agree with my latest thread then ...that 'c' is not
a speed at all..... even though it has dimensions L/T.
c is not a speed because (c + c + c + 2986c) is not a measurable speed
of anything?
Hmmmm....
You think so?
It is just a universal constant.
That some things travel at a speed matching that constant.
Yes. Light wrt its source.
Or light with respect to the observer, regardless of motion of the
source.
...only in fairyland, Diaper.
[/quote]
Not a lick of evidence against it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| kenseto... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 7:52 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
[quote]"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in messagenews:cqi1f556fhffiot4nbgp350gt6kovijtn9 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:10:31 -0800 (PST), kenseto <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com
wrote:
On Nov 2, 4:10 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 06:54:04 -0800 (PST), kenseto <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com
wrote:
On Nov 1, 4:07 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
The closing speed between any object and light is c as measured in
the
object's frame of reference. If an observer sends a light pulse
toward
an object then the closing speed between that light pulse and the
object is c+v or c-v.
I assume the object is moving at v wrt the absolute aether.
NO the object is moving at v wrt the observer. The observer assumes
that the speed of light in the ether is c. So when the observer sends
a light pulse toward the object the closing speed between the object
and the light pulse is c+v or c-v.
Let's see.
If the observer is moving at u wrt the aether then the object is moving
at u-v
wrt Aether.
No the object has its own state of absolute motion in the ether.
That's what I said
So the closing speed is c-u+v wrt the aether and therefore c+v wrt
the observer.
No the observer assumes that the speed of light in the ether is
c....therefore the closing speed for a light pulse from the observer
to the object is c+v or c-v.
That's what I said....but I just said c+v because v can be + or -.
I can understand why you don't know how to respond when someone agrees
with
you.
Very good Ken. I'm glad you got that correct without mentioning the LTs.
In that case, you will argue that the object's rods and clocks are
contracted
such that they will always MEASURE OWLS to be c...so your first
statement is
correct in aether theories...
NO...the speed of light is a ratio in all frames as follows:
Light path length of physical ruler (299,792,458 m)/the absolute time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
That is the same as I said.
You assume both the ruler and clock contract by the same factor.
You have now introduced the LTs.
No I didn't introduce the LT. I show that the speed of light is a
constant ratio of light path length of ruler over the absolute time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler in all inertial
frame.
Isn't that saying the same thing?
The second statement says tha
t the closing speed is independent of source speed
and so the closing speed is just the sum of c and the object's
absolute speed
wrt the aether.
No there is no absolute speed involved.
So you have correctly stated the aether theory case.
LET is such a nice theory. What a pity there is no aether.
Assertion is not a valid arguement.
There IS one thing that worries me.
S.......................................-v<-O1.............O2->v
Here, source S is at rest in the absolute aether. O1 and O2 are
moving at v in
opposite directions relative to the aether.
OK
How can they both measure the speed of light from S to be always c
when its
closing speeds are c+v and c-v
From S point of view the closing speed to of light to o1 is c+v and to
o2 is c-v. However O1 and O2 will measure the light from S to be c as
follows:
c=(measured frequency)(measured wavelength).
As I pointed out to you earlier this SR arguement is bogus. The speed
of light to O1 and O2 are different as follows:
c'1=(measured higher frequency of approching light source S)(universal
wavelength of the source)
c'2=(measured lower frequency of the receding light source S)
(universal wavelength of the source)
I understand what you are saying.
Einstein's idea is that every observer carries a 'personal aether' that
determines ligh speed in his frame.
No it doesn't have to be that way if the speed of light is a constant
ratio as I shown above.
That's what I passed on to inertial and diaper. It's far too hard for them
though.
I understand just fine. Ken's theory is self-contradictory. Although it
does predict relativity of simultaneity,
[/quote]
Fucking idiot....My theory predicts simultaneity is absolute . That's
why the speed of light is isotropic in all inertial frames. If
simultaneity is relative then you get anisotropic light speed of c-v
and c+v for the M' observer and isotropic c for the M observer.
[quote]but Ken doesn't have the brains to
actually see WHAT his theory predicts .. he just spouts the same old mantra
about light path length of rod without any concerns for its implications.
[/quote]
You are so fucking stupid I suggest that you go off to a corner and
commit suicide.
- Hide quoted text -
[quote]
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:21:02 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p>
wrote:
[quote]
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:qos4f5lbvmn8np853ubm9g0k77qcnujpsf at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 00:10:41 -0000, "Androcles"
Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p
wrote:
Hmmmm
That sounds good but there's a problem that i can't quite solve yet.
For half the orbit (the 'concave' bit), time is compressed and the other
half
expanded.
You've rotated 90 degrees. It's the receding half and the approaching
half,
not the concave back half and the convex front half.
No I haven't. The whole concave half experiences time compression. Check
you
own.
Produce an equation or fuck off, you are an embarrassment.
[/quote]
I have
Now go back and check your work.
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 05:11:39 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 1:46 am, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:10:17 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 4, 4:46 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
Henri, if I make a sum (c + c + c + c + 2348c + 19.5/c), this is a
number that has units of speed. Does that make it the measurable speed
of ANYTHING?
Aha! So you will naturally agree with my latest thread then ...that 'c' is not
a speed at all..... even though it has dimensions L/T.
c is not a speed because (c + c + c + 2986c) is not a measurable speed
of anything?
Hmmmm....
It is just a universal constant.
That some things travel at a speed matching that constant.
[/quote]
Yes. Light wrt its source.
[quote]Hmmm....
[/quote]
There's a scientific reason for everything.
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 12:28:21 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 1:44 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 05:11:39 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 1:46 am, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:10:17 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 4, 4:46 pm, HW at (no spam) ..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
Henri, if I make a sum (c + c + c + c + 2348c + 19.5/c), this is a
number that has units of speed. Does that make it the measurable speed
of ANYTHING?
Aha! So you will naturally agree with my latest thread then ...that 'c' is not
a speed at all..... even though it has dimensions L/T.
c is not a speed because (c + c + c + 2986c) is not a measurable speed
of anything?
Hmmmm....
You think so?
It is just a universal constant.
That some things travel at a speed matching that constant.
Yes. Light wrt its source.
Or light with respect to the observer, regardless of motion of the
source.
[/quote]
....only in fairyland, Diaper.
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:53 pm
|
|