Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: Henri Wilson on 28 Jul 2005 01:14 On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 19:43:46 +0200, Kim B <spamfree(a)use.net> wrote: >On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:41:00 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: > >>Clocks change when placed in orbit. Time doesn't. > >Right. All clocks do. Radioactive decays, biological, chemical, >mechanical clocks all change the same way. Idiot! Where is your evidence? Did you find it written in a book about relativity ? >Too bad it wasnt time that >changed instead, that would have made everything much simpler GR says it IS time which changes, idiot. Don't you even know the theory you worship? > >Kim HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Henri Wilson on 28 Jul 2005 01:35 On 27 Jul 2005 00:45:43 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 01:06:43 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> >> wrote: >> >> >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >> >news:b2fde1d400qt6lek0t5qp15ocvc9i2hll6(a)4ax.com: >> > >> >> Cesium clocks represent man's best attempt to measure time accurately. >> >> However their rates DO deviate slightly when subject to different >> >> physical conditions. >> >> This is borne out by GPS clocks which are observed to increase rates by >> >> around 1 in 10^10 when relieved of gravitational self-compression. >> > >> >It is pure coincidence that the amount of relief happens [for the GPS >> >orbital clocks] to equal the change predictable through the use of >> >SR/GR/EEP. Right? >> >> Nobody has bothered to make an accurate comparison. >> After launch, the GPS clocks are software synched with the ground clock reading >> and rate anyway. > >[snip] > >The adjustment is much smaller than the GR correction. > >If you were paying attention the last time this was explained to you, >by Minor Crank, you would know this. Geese, if you ever feel like some exercise, why don't you try running around a London railway station with a large rucksack on your back. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Henri Wilson on 28 Jul 2005 01:47 On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:18:04 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:23:35 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >> >>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>> >>>>On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 23:05:18 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >> >>>>>BTW, what DID you say the reason was? >>>>>I must have forgotten. >>>>>Was it something about gas which slows down photons >>>>>to explain why light from distant galaxies are red shifted, >>>>>but which OTOH adjust the speed of light from binaries to be c? >>>> >>>> >>>>Only relativists believe that all light from stars travels at exactly c wrt >>>>little planet Earth. >>> >>>Indeed. >>>So ? >> >> >> They are the only people stupid enough. >> >> One would think physicists would be able to see beyond their own egocentric >> desires......but relativists are apparently still under the impression that >> they define the centre of the universe. > >Well said, Henri. >That the speed of light in vacuum is invariant does obviously >imply that every physicist is the centre of the universe. >But it takes a genius like you to realize that, of course. That's what LET says. Have you been converted? >>>>.....and yes, molecules in rare space DO tend to unify the speed of all light >>>>traveling in any particular direction. All light is redshifted in the process. >>> >>>So we can conclude that all the light coming from any particular >>>direction is red shifted by the same amount? :-) >> >> >> That's the kind of ridiculous coment that makes me feel SO superior to you >> Paul. >> Think about it again and hide your head in shame. > >Dodn't you understand the consequence of your claim, Henri? >I think you do. > >There is no way you can fail to see that the consequence of unifying >"the speed of all light traveling in any particular direction" >is that all light coming from any particular direction have >the same speed. 1) 'tends to unify' does not mean 'co,plete unification'.2) the volumes of space that are responsible for the tendency towards unity might themselves be moving wrt little planet Earth. So the final speed wrt Earth EVEN WITH 100% UNIFICATION can have any value. >So I repeat. >We can conclude that all the light coming from any particular >direction is red shifted by the same amount. > >Or maybe you can explain why this does not folow from your claim? Paul, according to my very plausible and obviously correct theory, light loses a minute amount of momentum every time it drags an atom along. Do you deny that a photon loses momentum when it drags an atom along? If the momentum lost is, on average proportional to momentum (all wrt the source frame) then the decrease would be an exponential one. As you know small sections of an exponential can appear fairly linear. Hence the resultant redshift (wrt source frame) is virtually proportional to distance from source. Goodbye Big Bang. >> >>>Does your foot hurt? >> >> >> Does your face turn red? > >Yes. >As opposed to you, I laugh at what I understand. >Right now I am laughing because I understand the consequence >of your very entertaining claim. Paul, if the Einsteinian fundamentalists ever decide to suicide bomb their opponents, why don't you apply for the leading role. You seem to have the perfect qualifications. > >Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 28 Jul 2005 06:10 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:18:04 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:23:35 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>>>.....and yes, molecules in rare space DO tend to unify the speed of all light >>>>>traveling in any particular direction. All light is redshifted in the process. >>>> >>>>So we can conclude that all the light coming from any particular >>>>direction is red shifted by the same amount? :-) >>> >>> >>>That's the kind of ridiculous coment that makes me feel SO superior to you >>>Paul. >>>Think about it again and hide your head in shame. >> >>Dodn't you understand the consequence of your claim, Henri? >>I think you do. >> >>There is no way you can fail to see that the consequence of unifying >>"the speed of all light traveling in any particular direction" >>is that all light coming from any particular direction have >>the same speed. > > > 1) 'tends to unify' does not mean 'co,plete unification'.2) the volumes of > space that are responsible for the tendency towards unity might themselves be > moving wrt little planet Earth. > So the final speed wrt Earth EVEN WITH 100% UNIFICATION can have any value. So we can conclude that all the light coming from any particular direction is red shifted by the same amount, but the amount can have any value. >>So I repeat. >>We can conclude that all the light coming from any particular >>direction is red shifted by the same amount. >> >>Or maybe you can explain why this does not folow from your claim? > > > Paul, according to my very plausible and obviously correct theory, light loses > a minute amount of momentum every time it drags an atom along. > > Do you deny that a photon loses momentum when it drags an atom along? > > If the momentum lost is, on average proportional to momentum (all wrt the > source frame) then the decrease would be an exponential one. As you know small > sections of an exponential can appear fairly linear. Hence the resultant > redshift (wrt source frame) is virtually proportional to distance from source. So we can conclude that molecules in rare space do NOT tend to unify the speed of all light travelling in any particular direction, it slows it down proportionally to the travelled distance. Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 28 Jul 2005 18:10
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 12:10:03 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:18:04 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >>>There is no way you can fail to see that the consequence of unifying >>>"the speed of all light traveling in any particular direction" >>>is that all light coming from any particular direction have >>>the same speed. >> >> >> 1) 'tends to unify' does not mean 'co,plete unification'.2) the volumes of >> space that are responsible for the tendency towards unity might themselves be >> moving wrt little planet Earth. >> So the final speed wrt Earth EVEN WITH 100% UNIFICATION can have any value. > >So we can conclude that all the light coming from any particular >direction is red shifted by the same amount, but the amount can have any value. Paul, I'm sure you weren't quite this confused before your recent holiday. > >>>So I repeat. >>>We can conclude that all the light coming from any particular >>>direction is red shifted by the same amount. >>> >>>Or maybe you can explain why this does not folow from your claim? >> >> >> Paul, according to my very plausible and obviously correct theory, light loses >> a minute amount of momentum every time it drags an atom along. >> >> Do you deny that a photon loses momentum when it drags an atom along? >> >> If the momentum lost is, on average proportional to momentum (all wrt the >> source frame) then the decrease would be an exponential one. As you know small >> sections of an exponential can appear fairly linear. Hence the resultant >> redshift (wrt source frame) is virtually proportional to distance from source. > >So we can conclude that molecules in rare space do NOT tend to unify >the speed of all light travelling in any particular direction, it slows >it down proportionally to the travelled distance. As I have pointed out many times, THERE ARE TWO DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT EFFECTS. Can you not read properly any more? > >Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. |