 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » An Embarrassing Question for Relativists... |
|
Page 22 of 23 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 21, 22, 23 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Androcles... |
 Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:4la6f5lqfesu94cidcmumbkpocqahf3qiq at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:21:02 -0000, "Androcles"
Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p
wrote:
"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.
I have
Now go back and check your work.
[/quote]
Produce an equation or fuck off, you are an embarrassment. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"kenseto" <kenseto at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:76151882-4cbf-41b5-b71c-b032e4725b8a at (no spam) o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Nov 3, 7:52 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"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,
Fucking idiot....My theory predicts simultaneity is absolute.
[/quote]
Nope. And if you insist that it is, your theory is self-contradictoy
[quote]That's
why the speed of light is isotropic in all inertial frames.
[/quote]
It can only be isotropic BECAUSE of RoS. Without it you get different
speeds
[quote]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]
You have everything backward, your stupid little dipshit |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| kenseto... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:05 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 9:00 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
[quote]"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:76151882-4cbf-41b5-b71c-b032e4725b8a at (no spam) o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 7:52 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"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,
Fucking idiot....My theory predicts simultaneity is absolute.
Nope. And if you insist that it is, your theory is self-contradictoy
[/quote]
It's not self-contradictory at all. IRT endorses the idea that the
speed of light is isotropic in all inertial frames. The bogus concept
of RoS is self contratradictory....it asserts that the speed of light
is isotropic only in the observer's frame and that it is anistropic in
the observed M' frame because the light fronts from the ends of the
train are arriving at M'at different speeds of (c+v) and (c-v).
You are so fucking stupid.
Ken Seto
[quote]
That's
why the speed of light is isotropic in all inertial frames.
It can only be isotropic BECAUSE of RoS. Without it you get different
speeds
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.
You have everything backward, your stupid little dipshit- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 21:56:02 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p>
wrote:
[quote]
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:4la6f5lqfesu94cidcmumbkpocqahf3qiq at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:21:02 -0000, "Androcles"
Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p
wrote:
"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.
I have
Now go back and check your work.
Produce an equation or fuck off, you are an embarrassment.
[/quote]
I have equations, animations, programs ...the lot.
However, many different short sections of orbits can cause time compression
depending on YAW angle.
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 21:56:02 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p>
wrote:
[quote]
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:4la6f5lqfesu94cidcmumbkpocqahf3qiq at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:21:02 -0000, "Androcles"
Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p
wrote:
"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.
I have
Now go back and check your work.
Produce an equation or fuck off, you are an embarrassment.
[/quote]
You are confusing ordinary VDoppler with time compression.
[quote]
[/quote]
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 13:00:20 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
[quote]"kenseto" <kenseto at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:76151882-4cbf-41b5-b71c-b032e4725b8a at (no spam) o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 7:52 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"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,
Fucking idiot....My theory predicts simultaneity is absolute.
Nope. And if you insist that it is, your theory is self-contradictoy
That's
why the speed of light is isotropic in all inertial frames.
It can only be isotropic BECAUSE of RoS. Without it you get different
speeds
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.
You have everything backward, your stupid little dipshit
[/quote]
Ken may have his faults but his theory is a lot more sound than Einstein's.
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Androcles... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:bct7f513b6lael95dju37tnv8vhikmf54l at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 21:56:02 -0000, "Androcles"
Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p
wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:4la6f5lqfesu94cidcmumbkpocqahf3qiq at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:21:02 -0000, "Androcles"
Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p
wrote:
"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.
I have
Now go back and check your work.
Produce an equation or fuck off, you are an embarrassment.
I have equations, animations, programs ...the lot.
However, many different short sections of orbits can cause time
compression
depending on YAW angle.
Then say what it is, you silly bastard.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Androcles... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:9qu8f5p0ni9off3fqaef5ql7a55lpdifml at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 21:56:02 -0000, "Androcles"
Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p
wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:4la6f5lqfesu94cidcmumbkpocqahf3qiq at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 09:21:02 -0000, "Androcles"
Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p
wrote:
"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.
I have
Now go back and check your work.
Produce an equation or fuck off, you are an embarrassment.
You are confusing ordinary VDoppler with time compression.
[/quote]
I haven't confused anything except you, all I've asked you to do
is provide an equation, you dumb sheep shagger. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"kenseto" <kenseto at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:362889e1-9cff-46b2-a9a8-6fcce5381f3d at (no spam) p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Nov 5, 9:00 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:76151882-4cbf-41b5-b71c-b032e4725b8a at (no spam) o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 7:52 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"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,
Fucking idiot....My theory predicts simultaneity is absolute.
Nope. And if you insist that it is, your theory is self-contradictoy
It's not self-contradictory at all.
[/quote]
Yes it is .. even a small amount of thinking on your part would realise this
[quote]IRT endorses the idea that the
speed of light is isotropic in all inertial frames.
[/quote]
Which cannot happen unless there is RoS.
Simply having clocks tick slower cannot make light isotropic in multiple
frames. Nor can just changing lengths of rod.
[quote]The bogus concept
of RoS is self contratradictory....
[/quote]
Nope .. it works perfectly, as SR and LET math shows
[quote]it asserts that the speed of light
is isotropic only in the observer's frame
[/quote]
Nope .. in every frame. You've got it backwards. It is your theory that
does not allow light to be isotropic in any frame other than your 'aether'
frame
[quote]and that it is anistropic in
the observed M' frame because the light fronts from the ends of the
train are arriving at M'at different speeds of (c+v) and (c-v).
[/quote]
You still have it backward
[quote]You are so fucking stupid.
[/quote]
You're talking about yourself again |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:gtu8f59eljk90a96sdamp7shbeob8b81cs at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 13:00:20 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kenseto at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:76151882-4cbf-41b5-b71c-b032e4725b8a at (no spam) o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 7:52 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"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,
Fucking idiot....My theory predicts simultaneity is absolute.
Nope. And if you insist that it is, your theory is self-contradictoy
That's
why the speed of light is isotropic in all inertial frames.
It can only be isotropic BECAUSE of RoS. Without it you get different
speeds
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.
You have everything backward, your stupid little dipshit
Ken may have his faults but his theory is a lot more sound than
Einstein's.
[/quote]
You're just as bad. You' don't THINK about what you're saying .. You're so
prejudiced that Einstein must be wrong, due to either you jealousy of his
success or resentment over your failure to learn physics, that you can no
longer think clearly. Let go of your hate and jealousy and leave the dark
side. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 20:11:04 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p>
wrote:
[quote]
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:9qu8f5p0ni9off3fqaef5ql7a55lpdifml at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 21:56:02 -0000, "Androcles"
Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p
wrote:
Produce an equation or fuck off, you are an embarrassment.
I have
Now go back and check your work.
Produce an equation or fuck off, you are an embarrassment.
You are confusing ordinary VDoppler with time compression.
I haven't confused anything except you, all I've asked you to do
is provide an equation, you dumb sheep shagger.
[/quote]
A single equation wont tell you much.
I have a whole program that allows you to see what happens.
I'm currently upgrading and streamlining it.
Nearly all time compression occurs when the binary star pair is in the concave
half of a larger orbit....concave wrt the observer that is.
The maximum achievable effect occurs at eccentricity about 0.386 with the
perihelion nearest the observer...like Algol.
However, the brightness curve of the orbiting binary will be distorted. I
suspect this is one reason why the cepheid type curve is more common than its
opposite. The star's brightness also increases dramatically during time
compression. Its observed period might be 1/200th of its real one....explaining
the claimed 'contact binaries' and maybe even some pulsars. Observed orbit
frequencies of stars in this situation should drift more or less sinusoidally
over time. That is observed regularly.
l
[quote]
[/quote]
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 09:12:52 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
[quote]"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:gtu8f59eljk90a96sdamp7shbeob8b81cs at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 13:00:20 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kenseto at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:76151882-4cbf-41b5-b71c-b032e4725b8a at (no spam) o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 7:52 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
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,
Fucking idiot....My theory predicts simultaneity is absolute.
Nope. And if you insist that it is, your theory is self-contradictoy
That's
why the speed of light is isotropic in all inertial frames.
It can only be isotropic BECAUSE of RoS. Without it you get different
speeds
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.
You have everything backward, your stupid little dipshit
Ken may have his faults but his theory is a lot more sound than
Einstein's.
You're just as bad. You' don't THINK about what you're saying .. You're so
prejudiced that Einstein must be wrong, due to either you jealousy of his
success or resentment over your failure to learn physics, that you can no
longer think clearly. Let go of your hate and jealousy and leave the dark
side.
[/quote]
I don't hate Einstein, dopey. Anyone who can get away with his nonsense for 100
years is obviously a pretty good salesman. I'm interested in real physics, not
the phairyland type.
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Androcles... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:r24af5h76n42o5jet0ger8d3p6rh75p3kj at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 20:11:04 -0000, "Androcles"
Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p
wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:9qu8f5p0ni9off3fqaef5ql7a55lpdifml at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 21:56:02 -0000, "Androcles"
Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p
wrote:
Produce an equation or fuck off, you are an embarrassment.
I have
Now go back and check your work.
Produce an equation or fuck off, you are an embarrassment.
You are confusing ordinary VDoppler with time compression.
I haven't confused anything except you, all I've asked you to do
is provide an equation, you dumb sheep shagger.
A single equation wont tell you much.
[/quote]
A VDoppler will tell everyone a D.umb Sc.umbag doesn't mean
what he says or say what he means.
<babbling drool snipped>
Produce an equation or fuck off, you are an embarrassment. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:ao4af5tl41t2kmfcgtoeanpdo50el2trm9 at (no spam) 4ax.com...
[quote]On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 09:12:52 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:gtu8f59eljk90a96sdamp7shbeob8b81cs at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 13:00:20 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively at (no spam) rest.com
wrote:
"kenseto" <kenseto at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:76151882-4cbf-41b5-b71c-b032e4725b8a at (no spam) o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 7:52 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
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,
Fucking idiot....My theory predicts simultaneity is absolute.
Nope. And if you insist that it is, your theory is self-contradictoy
That's
why the speed of light is isotropic in all inertial frames.
It can only be isotropic BECAUSE of RoS. Without it you get different
speeds
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.
You have everything backward, your stupid little dipshit
Ken may have his faults but his theory is a lot more sound than
Einstein's.
You're just as bad. You' don't THINK about what you're saying .. You're
so
prejudiced that Einstein must be wrong, due to either you jealousy of his
success or resentment over your failure to learn physics, that you can no
longer think clearly. Let go of your hate and jealousy and leave the dark
side.
I don't hate Einstein, dopey. Anyone who can get away with his nonsense
for 100
years is obviously a pretty good salesman. I'm interested in real
physics, not
the phairyland type.
[/quote]
Don't read the things you post then .. they aren't physics .. they're almost
as bad as ken's stuff |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Henry Wilson DSc... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 06:45:00 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p>
wrote:
[quote]
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:r24af5h76n42o5jet0ger8d3p6rh75p3kj at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 20:11:04 -0000, "Androcles"
Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p
wrote:
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW at (no spam) ..> wrote in message
news:9qu8f5p0ni9off3fqaef5ql7a55lpdifml at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 21:56:02 -0000, "Androcles"
Headmaster at (no spam) Hogwarts.physics_p
wrote:
Produce an equation or fuck off, you are an embarrassment.
I have
Now go back and check your work.
Produce an equation or fuck off, you are an embarrassment.
You are confusing ordinary VDoppler with time compression.
I haven't confused anything except you, all I've asked you to do
is provide an equation, you dumb sheep shagger.
A single equation wont tell you much.
A VDoppler will tell everyone a D.umb Sc.umbag doesn't mean
what he says or say what he means.
babbling drool snipped
Produce an equation or fuck off, you are an embarrassment.
[/quote]
What brand are you on today?
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 Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:05 am
|
|