"Pax" wrote in message
m...
|
| Somewhere it seems to have come across that I'm under the delusion I have
| some revolutionary knowledge concerning light. I'm not. I also think
| Einstein was correct... I'm just not so sure others are correct in their
| interpretation of him.

He was hopelessly wrong, and if you think he was right, prove it.

|
| You've just demonstrated one reason I feel that way, the swelling army of
| Numberheads that have followed Einstein. Einstein was a THEORETICAL
| Physicist, who used imagination,

LOL! You got that right, but his daydreams bear no resemblance to the real
world.
For quotations following, reference:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)

1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body",
a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support it.

2) "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in empty
space.",
an admitted assumption that is quite worthless when there is any
relative motion between A and B, yet essential to the derivation of the
remainder of Einstein's nonsense.

3) The equation
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) ,
the ½ of which is derived from 2) above and is tantamount to saying
(1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.

4) The missing 0' from that equation, since x' = x-vt, hence 0' = 0-vt,
and the equation should be
½[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
at the very least.

5) The further assumption "IF we place x' = x-vt ... " without considering
IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we derive (using Einstein's method)
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen

6) The statements
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
and
"It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we obtain
V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
which are contradictory, the first being Galilean, the second being
contrary to the vector addition of velocities, an axiom of a vector space.

7) The lack of a check to verify the theory is self-consistent by feeding
the new PoR given in 6) into the equation given in 3) and finding a total
failure.
Check:
(t1-t)/(t2-t)*[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/V+x'/V)] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/V)

| observational insight, and visualization
| first and numbers last, but those who have come after, insisting they have
| Einstein all knowed up, ride almost exclusively on numbers. Further, not
| only do they have no imagination or insight themselves, they demonstrate
| their insecurity with those who do by deriding them mercilessly. They have
| become identical those very ones who almost kept us from ever having
| Einstein.

You like having a lunatic to do your dreaming for you?
This is real observation, not imagination.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....ctual_data.htm

|
| It's on the fine points concerning the constancy of c and WHY it's
constant
| that logic breaks down for me, and "Because that's just the way it is"
isn't
| an answer I have ever been able to take easily.

That's because it isn't.


| It's not logical that the
| only part of our universe that steps outside its laws is light. Further,
| it's illogical to the nth to reshape everything to fit a conundrum rather
| than solving that mystery.

I agree.


| But you're right, it could very well be that I
| really don't understand Einstein, no matter how much I've studied him,
since
| the necessary math area is where I'm crippled.

Is it logical to express your intuition that Einstein was right when you
don't understand what he said?
|
| Through the years, I've mentioned things on these newsgroups that have
given
| those who do have the necessary math skills a new direction to explore.

Been done. http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....ekerinTime.htm


| The
| most memorable was when I stated here and elsewhere that a Big Crunch was
| not needed, all that was needed was for all the black holes to finally eat
| everything.

Wild imagination.


A couple of years after I had stated this... and was summarily
| reprimanded for my stupidity... I read an article in Time outlining
exactly
| what I'd said, complete with graphs and charts, and impressive full-color
| graphics.

More wild imagination.


|
| That's not the only time one of my "stupid" ideas have wound up being not
| that stupid after all to you number-crunchers, it's just an example. No, I
| don't have the math, but I do have a 160 IQ and a good grasp of Einstein's
| logic through his copious visual demonstrations, especially since I'm also
a
| spatial thinker capable of "seeing" what he's saying. Do I have an eye on
| revolutionizing the world of Physics? Nope. I'm just extremely interested
in
| the things that field covers, since the realm of Physics encompasses the
| greatest mysteries of any age.
|
| If you don't want to be bothered with my stupid ideas, don't read me.
|
| Be well - Pax
Ok...
Androcles.

"Androcles" wrote in message ...

As I don't subscribe to Einstein's premises (I prefer those of TECCS),
I do not want to get into the nitty gritty technicalities of his
system- -model. But I will run past you this comment on your point 1,
which refers to one of his premises or postulates or "by
definition[s]", that the speed of light is constant ... So, I just
might get you, may I say, unstuck from point 1.

So it is a premise or postulate; it is "by definition" - "We have not
defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot be
defined at all unless we establish by definition that the ``time''
required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it
requires to travel from B to A.". Perhaps we can settle on the term
"given".

It seems to me that unless one has some absolute point from which to
develop a system, one must start with a premise or given - with a "by
definition". He chooses c.

If you are having trouble with that then I think it leads to
consideration of what a theory or model or system is - it leads to
philosophy ( - the field which has so badly let down the world).

(I also believe that every concept connotes the entire system of which
it is a feature, or alternatively is the genes of the system which
will be developed from it. Therefore, if the given is a very
formidable one then the system will be very formidable. If the concept
is a desperate reaction to a collapsing philosophical system - perhaps
even an attempt to shore it up - then it is not likely to be well
grounded).


For quotations following, reference:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)

1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body",
a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support it.


--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/

"Androcles" wrote in message ...

For quotations following, reference:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)

1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body",
a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support it.


As I don't subscribe to Einstein's premises (I prefer those of TECCS),
I do not want to get into the nitty gritty technicalities of his
system- -model. But I will run past you this comment on your point 1,
which refers to one of his premises or postulates or "by
definition[s]", that the speed of light is constant ... So, I just
might get you, may I say, unstuck from point 1.

So it is a premise or postulate; it is "by definition" - "We have not
defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot be
defined at all unless we establish by definition that the ``time''
required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it
requires to travel from B to A.". Perhaps we can settle on the term
"given".

It seems to me that unless one has some absolute point from which to
develop a system, one must start with a premise or given - with a "by
definition". He chooses c.

If you are having trouble with that then I think it leads to
consideration of what a theory or model or system is - it leads to
philosophy ( - the field which has so badly let down the world).

(I also believe that every concept connotes the entire system of which
it is a feature, or alternatively is the genes of the system which
will be developed from it. Therefore, if the given is a very
formidable one then the system will be very formidable. If the concept
is a desperate reaction to a collapsing philosophical system - perhaps
even an attempt to shore it up - then it is not likely to be well
grounded).

--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/

"Peter Kinane" wrote in message
om...
| "Androcles" wrote in message
...
|
| As I don't subscribe to Einstein's premises (I prefer those of TECCS),
| I do not want to get into the nitty gritty technicalities of his
| system- -model.

Why are you writing to this newsgroup then?
This is sci.physics.relativity.
This is where we get into the nitty gritty technicalities of Einstein's
model.
You don't want to get into it because you don't understand it.


BTW, IHNIWTECCSISTM. DYAIYWATUT.
(translation: By the way, I have no idea what TECCS is supposed to mean.
Define your acronyms if you want anyone to understand them.)


| But I will run past you this comment on your point 1,
| which refers to one of his premises or postulates or "by
| definition[s]", that the speed of light is constant ... So, I just
| might get you, may I say, unstuck from point 1.
|
| So it is a premise or postulate; it is "by definition" -

| "We have not
| defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot be
| defined at all unless we establish by definition that the ``time''
| required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it
| requires to travel from B to A.".
Perhaps we can settle on the term "given".
|
| It seems to me that unless one has some absolute point from which to
| develop a system, one must start with a premise or given - with a "by
| definition". He chooses c.
|
| If you are having trouble with that

Why do you commence a sentence with "if" and then proceed to draw
a conclusion in the vain hope that I'll agree that your premise was true?

If you do not have trouble with that I need say no more.
However, you clearly do, by your own demonstration.
No matter.

I shall now establish a common time for every oscillator in
the Universe by adding a counter to each one, thereby making
it a clock. The counter can take any form, and may be as simple
as you or I doing the counting, or it may be a mechanical or electrical
odometer, perhaps markings on the side of a candle or on the side
of a bucket catching drips of water.
Here are some oscillators that are part of the set of all oscillators,
set in a table, and an approximate count ratio between them. I'll
leave you to supply a more precise ratio, I'm using integer counts.

Mercury Venus Earth
Mercury 1 88/225 88/365
Venus 225/88 1 225/365
Earth 365/88 365/88 1

For each orbit of the sun, Venus will take 88/225 of Mercury's time and
365/225 of Earth's time.
Likewise Mercury will take 365/88 of Earth's time, and the minute hand
for a clock will take 60/1 of the hour hand.
For ANY pair of oscillators I can establish a ratio as an entry in the
table.
Here is one more. Your watch counts 60*60*24 = 86400 seconds in a day.
I shall use 'w' as the algebraic symbol for 86400 to save space.

Mercury Venus Earth yourwatch
Mercury 1 88/225 88/365 88/(365*w)
Venus 225/88 1 225/365 225/(365*w)
Earth 365/88 365/88 1 1/w
yourwatch 365w/88 364w/225 w 1
Thus I've added a new column and row, and can continue for
all oscillators throughout the universe.

Thus I have defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for it most
CERTAINLY CAN be defined totally INDEPENDENTLY
of the time light takes to travel from A to B or from B to A, and
Einstein was an idiot for saying it cannot be done.


| then I think

No you don't. You don't think at all. I'm the one that thinks.
If you actually thought, you wouldn't be questioning me.
You want to get me unstuck from point 1? No chance.
Point 1 is independent of time. No connection whatsoever.


From above:
| "It seems to me that unless one has some absolute point
I've given one, so "unless" is meaningless, no matter what it may "seem" to
you.


from which to
| develop a system, one must start with a premise or given - with a "by
| definition". He chooses c."
I choose absolute time. His definition is nonsense.
Now try thinking.

Androcles.

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Pax" wrote in message
m...
|
| Somewhere it seems to have come across that I'm under the delusion I
have
| some revolutionary knowledge concerning light. I'm not. I also think
| Einstein was correct... I'm just not so sure others are correct in their
| interpretation of him.

He was hopelessly wrong, and if you think he was right, prove it.

I can't with math. You win.

| You've just demonstrated one reason I feel that way, the swelling army
of
| Numberheads that have followed Einstein. Einstein was a THEORETICAL
| Physicist, who used imagination,

LOL! You got that right, but his daydreams bear no resemblance to the real
world.

Okay.

For quotations following, reference:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)

Thanks for the link.

1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body",
a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support it.

Okay.

2) "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in
empty
space.",
an admitted assumption that is quite worthless when there is any
relative motion between A and B, yet essential to the derivation of the
remainder of Einstein's nonsense.

Everyone passes over "locally". Michelson-Morley.

3) The equation
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) ,
the ½ of which is derived from 2) above and is tantamount to saying
(1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.

No kidding? I'd kill for your math skills.

4) The missing 0' from that equation, since x' = x-vt, hence 0' = 0-vt,
and the equation should be
½[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
at the very least.

Okay.

5) The further assumption "IF we place x' = x-vt ... " without considering
IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we derive (using Einstein's method)
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen

6) The statements
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
and
"It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we
obtain
V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
which are contradictory, the first being Galilean, the second being
contrary to the vector addition of velocities, an axiom of a vector space.

Okay...

7) The lack of a check to verify the theory is self-consistent by feeding
the new PoR given in 6) into the equation given in 3) and finding a total
failure.
Check:
(t1-t)/(t2-t)*[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/V+x'/V)] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/V)

Okay.

| observational insight, and visualization
| first and numbers last, but those who have come after, insisting they
have
| Einstein all knowed up, ride almost exclusively on numbers. Further, not
| only do they have no imagination or insight themselves, they demonstrate
| their insecurity with those who do by deriding them mercilessly. They
have
| become identical those very ones who almost kept us from ever having
| Einstein.

You like having a lunatic to do your dreaming for you?

Define "lunatic".

This is real observation, not imagination.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....ctual_data.htm

Have saved your link, thanks.

| It's on the fine points concerning the constancy of c and WHY it's
constant
| that logic breaks down for me, and "Because that's just the way it is"
isn't
| an answer I have ever been able to take easily.

That's because it isn't.

"Locally", it is.

| It's not logical that the
| only part of our universe that steps outside its laws is light. Further,
| it's illogical to the nth to reshape everything to fit a conundrum
rather
| than solving that mystery.

I agree.

Thank you.

| But you're right, it could very well be that I
| really don't understand Einstein, no matter how much I've studied him,
since
| the necessary math area is where I'm crippled.

Is it logical to express your intuition that Einstein was right when you
don't understand what he said?

No, if his explanations were not in keeping with his math which, for the
most part, I couldn't understand past a certain level. He said "the speed of
light locally," and tied that "locally" to individual inertial frames. To
me, that doesn't sound as if he thought light had any actual speed, but was
locked to the constant c only locally, what we can observe from our own
local inertial frame of reference... which allows for variations in velocity
of inertial frames while still maintaining c as a constant and allowing
light to have no actual limit as to speed.

| Through the years, I've mentioned things on these newsgroups that have
given
| those who do have the necessary math skills a new direction to explore.

Been done. http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....ekerinTime.htm

Okay. Nice page.

| The
| most memorable was when I stated here and elsewhere that a Big Crunch
was
| not needed, all that was needed was for all the black holes to finally
eat
| everything.

Wild imagination.

True. It wasn't that I thought that... I'm not actually convinced there is a
singularity at the bottom of a black hole... it was just an observation to
refute the necessity of a Big Crunch. Of course, any such Big Crunch has now
been decided to be impossible, the Black Hole Buffet actually hasn't... yet.
Of course the current popular scenario, since the discovery that the
Universal Constant is not zero, is that now all the galaxies eventually go
off into their own dark corners to die.

A couple of years after I had stated this... and was summarily
| reprimanded for my stupidity... I read an article in Time outlining
exactly
| what I'd said, complete with graphs and charts, and impressive
full-color
| graphics.

More wild imagination.

Sure was impressive to look through, though.

| That's not the only time one of my "stupid" ideas has wound up being not
| that stupid after all to you number-crunchers, it's just an example. No,
I
| don't have the math, but I do have a 160 IQ and a good grasp of
Einstein's
| logic through his copious visual demonstrations, especially since I'm
also
a
| spatial thinker capable of "seeing" what he's saying. Do I have an eye
on
| revolutionizing the world of Physics? Nope. I'm just extremely
interested
in
| the things that field covers, since the realm of Physics encompasses the
| greatest mysteries of any age.
|
| If you don't want to be bothered with my stupid ideas, don't read me.
|
| Be well - Pax

Ok...
Androcles.

Thanks for your reply, Androcles, it was thought-provoking.

Be well - Pax

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Peter Kinane" wrote in message
om...
| "Androcles" wrote in message
...

That was fascinating snipping throughout.

To recall the point to which I was replying:
Androcles wrote:
"[Einstein] was hopelessly wrong []".

"LOL! [] his daydreams bear no resemblance to the real
world.
For quotations following, reference:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)

1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body",
a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support it.".

Emphasis: "a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support it.".

|
| As I don't subscribe to Einstein's premises (I prefer those of TECCS),
| I do not want to get into the nitty gritty technicalities of his
| system- -model.

Why are you writing to this newsgroup then?
This is sci.physics.relativity.
This is where we get into the nitty gritty technicalities of Einstein's
model.
You don't want to get into it because you don't understand it.


BTW, IHNIWTECCSISTM. DYAIYWATUT.
(translation: By the way, I have no idea what TECCS is supposed to mean.
Define your acronyms if you want anyone to understand them.)


| But I will run past you this comment on your point 1,
| which refers to one of his premises or postulates or "by
| definition[s]", that the speed of light is constant ... So, I just
| might get you, may I say, unstuck from point 1.
|
| So it is a premise or postulate; it is "by definition" -

| "We have not
| defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot be
| defined at all unless we establish by definition that the ``time''
| required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it
| requires to travel from B to A.".
Perhaps we can settle on the term "given".
|
| It seems to me that unless one has some absolute point from which to
| develop a system, one must start with a premise or given - with a "by
| definition". He chooses c.
|
| If you are having trouble with that

Why do you commence a sentence with "if" and then proceed to draw
a conclusion in the vain hope that I'll agree that your premise was true?

If you do not have trouble with that I need say no more.
However, you clearly do, by your own demonstration.
No matter.

I shall now establish a common time for every oscillator in
the Universe by adding a counter to each one, thereby making
it a clock. The counter can take any form, and may be as simple
as you or I doing the counting, or it may be a mechanical or electrical
odometer, perhaps markings on the side of a candle or on the side
of a bucket catching drips of water.
Here are some oscillators that are part of the set of all oscillators,
set in a table, and an approximate count ratio between them. I'll
leave you to supply a more precise ratio, I'm using integer counts.

Mercury Venus Earth
Mercury 1 88/225 88/365
Venus 225/88 1 225/365
Earth 365/88 365/88 1

For each orbit of the sun, Venus will take 88/225 of Mercury's time and
365/225 of Earth's time.
Likewise Mercury will take 365/88 of Earth's time, and the minute hand
for a clock will take 60/1 of the hour hand.
For ANY pair of oscillators I can establish a ratio as an entry in the
table.
Here is one more. Your watch counts 60*60*24 = 86400 seconds in a day.
I shall use 'w' as the algebraic symbol for 86400 to save space.

Mercury Venus Earth yourwatch
Mercury 1 88/225 88/365 88/(365*w)
Venus 225/88 1 225/365 225/(365*w)
Earth 365/88 365/88 1 1/w
yourwatch 365w/88 364w/225 w 1
Thus I've added a new column and row, and can continue for
all oscillators throughout the universe.

Thus I have defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for it most
CERTAINLY CAN be defined totally INDEPENDENTLY
of the time light takes to travel from A to B or from B to A, and
Einstein was an idiot for saying it cannot be done.


| then I think

No you don't. You don't think at all. I'm the one that thinks.
If you actually thought, you wouldn't be questioning me.
You want to get me unstuck from point 1? No chance.
Point 1 is independent of time. No connection whatsoever.


From above:
| "It seems to me that unless one has some absolute point
I've given one, so "unless" is meaningless, no matter what it may "seem"
to
you.


from which to
| develop a system, one must start with a premise or given - with a "by
| definition". He chooses c."
I choose absolute time. His definition is nonsense.
Now try thinking.

Androcles.

Sorry for wasting your precious time.
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/

"Pax" wrote in message
m...
|
| "Androcles" wrote in message
| ...
|
| "Pax" wrote in message
| m...
| |
| | Somewhere it seems to have come across that I'm under the delusion I
| have
| | some revolutionary knowledge concerning light. I'm not. I also think
| | Einstein was correct... I'm just not so sure others are correct in
their
| | interpretation of him.
|
| He was hopelessly wrong, and if you think he was right, prove it.
|
| I can't with math. You win.
Hmm... very graceful of you, thanks, it is appreciated.

|
| | You've just demonstrated one reason I feel that way, the swelling army
| of
| | Numberheads that have followed Einstein. Einstein was a THEORETICAL
| | Physicist, who used imagination,
|
| LOL! You got that right, but his daydreams bear no resemblance to the
real
| world.
|
| Okay.
|
| For quotations following, reference:
| http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)
|
| Thanks for the link.
You are welcome.
|
| 1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
| which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body",
| a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support it.
|
| Okay.
|
| 2) "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
| 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in
| empty
| space.",
| an admitted assumption that is quite worthless when there is any
| relative motion between A and B, yet essential to the derivation of the
| remainder of Einstein's nonsense.
|
| Everyone passes over "locally". Michelson-Morley.

MMX works for exactly the same reason that you can roll two marbles
along different chutes, have them leave together and arrive together.
Turning
the apparatus through 90 degrees makes no difference. If we made the
chutes into tubes and sent sound through them, the same woud be true.
What would make difference is if a wind blew down one tube but not the
other.
We could "tune" the length of one tube so that an integer number of
wavelengths
arrived, and then move the wind to the other tube and detect a phase-shift.
This was Michelson's idea, the 'wind' being the Earth moving through the
supposed aether. That's about as 'locally' as it gets.

|
| 3) The equation
| ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
,
| the ½ of which is derived from 2) above and is tantamount to saying
| (1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.
|
| No kidding? I'd kill for your math skills.

Take it apart and you'll see it.
(0,0,0,t) refers to the origin, (x,y,z,t). 't' is an arbitrary value which
we can take
as zero when the stopwatch is reset, although we usually mean 24th Sept 2004
at
9:15:45 pm or whatever the current time happens to be.
The function tau(0,0,0,t) has a value be found from the argument (0,0,0,t)
x' is previously given as x' = x-vt.
x'/(speed) is a time, just as 30 miles / 15 mph = 2 hours.
The speeds are c-v and c+v.
On the RHS, you'll notice that the time is one way.
The y and z coordinates don't do anything, they are place holders.

|
| 4) The missing 0' from that equation, since x' = x-vt, hence 0' = 0-vt,
| and the equation should be
| ½[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
| tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
| at the very least.
|
| Okay.
|
| 5) The further assumption "IF we place x' = x-vt ... " without
considering
| IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we derive (using Einstein's method)
| tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
|
| 6) The statements
| "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
| when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
| and
| "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
| composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we
| obtain
| V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
| which are contradictory, the first being Galilean, the second being
| contrary to the vector addition of velocities, an axiom of a vector
space.
|
| Okay...
|
| 7) The lack of a check to verify the theory is self-consistent by
feeding
| the new PoR given in 6) into the equation given in 3) and finding a
total
| failure.
| Check:
| (t1-t)/(t2-t)*[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/V+x'/V)] =
| tau(x',0,0,t+x'/V)
|
| Okay.
|
| | observational insight, and visualization
| | first and numbers last, but those who have come after, insisting they
| have
| | Einstein all knowed up, ride almost exclusively on numbers. Further,
not
| | only do they have no imagination or insight themselves, they
demonstrate
| | their insecurity with those who do by deriding them mercilessly. They
| have
| | become identical those very ones who almost kept us from ever having
| | Einstein.
|
| You like having a lunatic to do your dreaming for you?
|
| Define "lunatic".
Someone that believes his own imagination and attempts to prove it to the
gullible.
Examples are :
Nostradamus, Einstein, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, von Daneken to name but a
few.

| This is real observation, not imagination.
| http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....ctual_data.htm
|
| Have saved your link, thanks.
|
| | It's on the fine points concerning the constancy of c and WHY it's
| constant
| | that logic breaks down for me, and "Because that's just the way it is"
| isn't
| | an answer I have ever been able to take easily.
|
| That's because it isn't.
|
| "Locally", it is.
Not even locally.
If I you are situated midway between to sources of light, say the window
and a lamp by the opposite wall, then the light has speed c from the
window and from the lamp.

W--------------------U---------------------L
If you now move toward the window, you will have a real blue shift from
the window light and real redshift from the lamp light. To you, the speed
of light will be c+v from the window and c-v from the lamp.
To force it to c, your watch must slow down for the lamp light, allowing
extra time for it to reach you and simultaneously speed up for the window
light.
Einstein doesn't consider this. His calculations are solely for the lamp
light.


|
| | It's not logical that the
| | only part of our universe that steps outside its laws is light.
Further,
| | it's illogical to the nth to reshape everything to fit a conundrum
| rather
| | than solving that mystery.
|
| I agree.
|
| Thank you.
You are welcome.
|
| | But you're right, it could very well be that I
| | really don't understand Einstein, no matter how much I've studied him,
| since
| | the necessary math area is where I'm crippled.
|
| Is it logical to express your intuition that Einstein was right when you
| don't understand what he said?
|
| No, if his explanations were not in keeping with his math which, for the
| most part, I couldn't understand past a certain level. He said "the speed
of
| light locally," and tied that "locally" to individual inertial frames. To
| me, that doesn't sound as if he thought light had any actual speed, but
was
| locked to the constant c only locally, what we can observe from our own
| local inertial frame of reference... which allows for variations in
velocity
| of inertial frames while still maintaining c as a constant and allowing
| light to have no actual limit as to speed.

Quite so. He actually says (you have the reference above) :
"For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of
light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great
velocity."

|
| | Through the years, I've mentioned things on these newsgroups that have
| given
| | those who do have the necessary math skills a new direction to
explore.
|
| Been done. http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....ekerinTime.htm
|
| Okay. Nice page.
|
| | The
| | most memorable was when I stated here and elsewhere that a Big Crunch
| was
| | not needed, all that was needed was for all the black holes to finally
| eat
| | everything.
|
| Wild imagination.
|
| True. It wasn't that I thought that... I'm not actually convinced there is
a
| singularity at the bottom of a black hole... it was just an observation to
| refute the necessity of a Big Crunch. Of course, any such Big Crunch has
now
| been decided to be impossible, the Black Hole Buffet actually hasn't...
yet.
| Of course the current popular scenario, since the discovery that the
| Universal Constant is not zero, is that now all the galaxies eventually go
| off into their own dark corners to die.

"jahn" was talking in another thread about painting a sphere. If you
make the sphere twice as big, you need 4 times the paint.
This is the well-known inverse square law, 1/r^2.
A star at the centre of a sphere will have a finite amount of energy, (the
paint
pot doesn't get larger) so to "paint" a larger sphere with energy the coat
will
have to be thinner.
We are at the surface of the sphere of light from the star, and at the
surface of the further star. We MUST get less energy from the further star.
Since Planck worked out the energy was proportional to the freqency,
We EXPECT the wavelength of the more distant star to be red-shifted
compared to the closer, and the futher away, the greater the shift.
There is no reason to suppose the star (or a galaxy of them) is moving.

|
| A couple of years after I had stated this... and was summarily
| | reprimanded for my stupidity... I read an article in Time outlining
| exactly
| | what I'd said, complete with graphs and charts, and impressive
| full-color
| | graphics.
|
| More wild imagination.
|
| Sure was impressive to look through, though.
I'm sure it was. The popular concepts are somewhat exotic. Nature
is far simpler than we manufacture it to be.
|
| | That's not the only time one of my "stupid" ideas has wound up being
not
| | that stupid after all to you number-crunchers, it's just an example.
No,
| I
| | don't have the math, but I do have a 160 IQ and a good grasp of
| Einstein's
| | logic through his copious visual demonstrations, especially since I'm
| also
| a
| | spatial thinker capable of "seeing" what he's saying. Do I have an eye
| on
| | revolutionizing the world of Physics? Nope. I'm just extremely
| interested
| in
| | the things that field covers, since the realm of Physics encompasses
the
| | greatest mysteries of any age.
| |
| | If you don't want to be bothered with my stupid ideas, don't read me.
| |
| | Be well - Pax
|
| Ok...
| Androcles.
|
| Thanks for your reply, Androcles, it was thought-provoking.
|
| Be well - Pax
|
You are welcome. You might like to compare
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....ekerinTime.htm
with
http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/a...01/psr1913.htm
In the diagram I've given, the slope of the light changes.
Although not drawn, an equivalent diagram would have only one slope, c,
for the Cornell site, so the spacing is exactly the same at the source
(bottom)
as it is for the observer (top).
The complexity of GR is required to make this happen, when it is really
quite
simple.
"In 1993, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Russell Hulse and Joseph
Taylor of Princeton University for their 1974 discovery of a pulsar,
designated PSR1913+16, in a binary system, in orbit with another star around
a common center of mass. "

They won't give one to me, though. My explanation is too easy.

Androcles.

"Peter Kinane" wrote in message
om...
| "Androcles" wrote in message
| ...
|
| "Peter Kinane" wrote in message
| om...
| | "Androcles" wrote in message
| ...
|
| That was fascinating snipping throughout.
|
| To recall the point to which I was replying:
| Androcles wrote:
| "[Einstein] was hopelessly wrong []".
|
| "LOL! [] his daydreams bear no resemblance to the real
| world.
| For quotations following, reference:
| http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)
|
| 1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
| which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body",
| a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support it.".
|
| Emphasis: "a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support
it.".
|
| |
| | As I don't subscribe to Einstein's premises (I prefer those of TECCS),
| | I do not want to get into the nitty gritty technicalities of his
| | system- -model.
|
| Why are you writing to this newsgroup then?
| This is sci.physics.relativity.
| This is where we get into the nitty gritty technicalities of Einstein's
| model.
| You don't want to get into it because you don't understand it.
|
|
| BTW, IHNIWTECCSISTM. DYAIYWATUT.
| (translation: By the way, I have no idea what TECCS is supposed to mean.
| Define your acronyms if you want anyone to understand them.)
|
|
| | But I will run past you this comment on your point 1,
| | which refers to one of his premises or postulates or "by
| | definition[s]", that the speed of light is constant ... So, I just
| | might get you, may I say, unstuck from point 1.
| |
| | So it is a premise or postulate; it is "by definition" -
|
| | "We have not
| | defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot be
| | defined at all unless we establish by definition that the ``time''
| | required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it
| | requires to travel from B to A.".
| Perhaps we can settle on the term "given".
| |
| | It seems to me that unless one has some absolute point from which to
| | develop a system, one must start with a premise or given - with a "by
| | definition". He chooses c.
| |
| | If you are having trouble with that
|
| Why do you commence a sentence with "if" and then proceed to draw
| a conclusion in the vain hope that I'll agree that your premise was
true?
|
| If you do not have trouble with that I need say no more.
| However, you clearly do, by your own demonstration.
| No matter.
|
| I shall now establish a common time for every oscillator in
| the Universe by adding a counter to each one, thereby making
| it a clock. The counter can take any form, and may be as simple
| as you or I doing the counting, or it may be a mechanical or electrical
| odometer, perhaps markings on the side of a candle or on the side
| of a bucket catching drips of water.
| Here are some oscillators that are part of the set of all oscillators,
| set in a table, and an approximate count ratio between them. I'll
| leave you to supply a more precise ratio, I'm using integer counts.
|
| Mercury Venus Earth
| Mercury 1 88/225 88/365
| Venus 225/88 1 225/365
| Earth 365/88 365/88 1
|
| For each orbit of the sun, Venus will take 88/225 of Mercury's time and
| 365/225 of Earth's time.
| Likewise Mercury will take 365/88 of Earth's time, and the minute hand
| for a clock will take 60/1 of the hour hand.
| For ANY pair of oscillators I can establish a ratio as an entry in the
| table.
| Here is one more. Your watch counts 60*60*24 = 86400 seconds in a day.
| I shall use 'w' as the algebraic symbol for 86400 to save space.
|
| Mercury Venus Earth yourwatch
| Mercury 1 88/225 88/365 88/(365*w)
| Venus 225/88 1 225/365 225/(365*w)
| Earth 365/88 365/88 1 1/w
| yourwatch 365w/88 364w/225 w 1
| Thus I've added a new column and row, and can continue for
| all oscillators throughout the universe.
|
| Thus I have defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for it most
| CERTAINLY CAN be defined totally INDEPENDENTLY
| of the time light takes to travel from A to B or from B to A, and
| Einstein was an idiot for saying it cannot be done.
|
|
| | then I think
|
| No you don't. You don't think at all. I'm the one that thinks.
| If you actually thought, you wouldn't be questioning me.
| You want to get me unstuck from point 1? No chance.
| Point 1 is independent of time. No connection whatsoever.
|
|
| From above:
| | "It seems to me that unless one has some absolute point
| I've given one, so "unless" is meaningless, no matter what it may "seem"
| to
| you.
|
|
| from which to
| | develop a system, one must start with a premise or given - with a "by
| | definition". He chooses c."
| I choose absolute time. His definition is nonsense.
| Now try thinking.
|
| Androcles.
|
| Sorry for wasting your precious time.

Pouting will get you everywhere.
Androcles.

| --
| Peter Kinane
| http://www.effectuationism.com/

"Androcles" wrote in message
. ..

"Pax" wrote in message
m...
|
| "Androcles" wrote in message
| ...
|
| "Pax" wrote in message
| m...
| |
| | Somewhere it seems to have come across that I'm under the delusion I
| have
| | some revolutionary knowledge concerning light. I'm not. I also think
| | Einstein was correct... I'm just not so sure others are correct in
their
| | interpretation of him.
|
| He was hopelessly wrong, and if you think he was right, prove it.
|
| I can't with math. You win.
Hmm... very graceful of you, thanks, it is appreciated.

|
| | You've just demonstrated one reason I feel that way, the swelling
army
| of
| | Numberheads that have followed Einstein. Einstein was a THEORETICAL
| | Physicist, who used imagination,
|
| LOL! You got that right, but his daydreams bear no resemblance to the
real
| world.
|
| Okay.
|
| For quotations following, reference:
| http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)
|
| Thanks for the link.
You are welcome.
|
| 1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity
c
| which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body",
| a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support it.
|
| Okay.
|
| 2) "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
| 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in
| empty
| space.",
| an admitted assumption that is quite worthless when there is any
| relative motion between A and B, yet essential to the derivation of
the
| remainder of Einstein's nonsense.
|
| Everyone passes over "locally". Michelson-Morley.

MMX works for exactly the same reason that you can roll two marbles
along different chutes, have them leave together and arrive together.

Good analogy.

Turning
the apparatus through 90 degrees makes no difference. If we made the
chutes into tubes and sent sound through them, the same would be true.
What would make difference is if a wind blew down one tube but not the
other.
We could "tune" the length of one tube so that an integer number of
wavelengths
arrived, and then move the wind to the other tube and detect a
phase-shift.
This was Michelson's idea, the 'wind' being the Earth moving through the
supposed aether. That's about as 'locally' as it gets.

The "locally" was wrt the constancy of c, but I like your explanation of
MMX, very easy to see.

| 3) The equation
| ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
,
| the ½ of which is derived from 2) above and is tantamount to saying
| (1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.
|
| No kidding? I'd kill for your math skills.

Take it apart and you'll see it.
(0,0,0,t) refers to the origin, (x,y,z,t). 't' is an arbitrary value which
we can take
as zero when the stopwatch is reset, although we usually mean 24th Sept
2004
at
9:15:45 pm or whatever the current time happens to be.

Got it

The function tau(0,0,0,t) has a value be found from the argument (0,0,0,t)
x' is previously given as x' = x-vt.
x'/(speed) is a time, just as 30 miles / 15 mph = 2 hours.
The speeds are c-v and c+v.

Sorry, but I'm stuck at "tau", could you define it?

On the RHS, you'll notice that the time is one way.
The y and z coordinates don't do anything, they are place holders.

Got it

| 4) The missing 0' from that equation, since x' = x-vt, hence 0' =
0-vt,
| and the equation should be
| ½[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
| tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
| at the very least.
|
| Okay.
|
| 5) The further assumption "IF we place x' = x-vt ... " without
considering
| IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we derive (using Einstein's method)
| tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
|
| 6) The statements
| "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
| when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
| and
| "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered
by
| composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we
| obtain
| V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
| which are contradictory, the first being Galilean, the second being
| contrary to the vector addition of velocities, an axiom of a vector
space.
|
| Okay...
|
| 7) The lack of a check to verify the theory is self-consistent by
feeding
| the new PoR given in 6) into the equation given in 3) and finding a
total
| failure.
| Check:
| (t1-t)/(t2-t)*[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/V+x'/V)] =
| tau(x',0,0,t+x'/V)
|
| Okay.
|
| | observational insight, and visualization
| | first and numbers last, but those who have come after, insisting
they
| have
| | Einstein all knowed up, ride almost exclusively on numbers. Further,
not
| | only do they have no imagination or insight themselves, they
demonstrate
| | their insecurity with those who do by deriding them mercilessly.
They
| have
| | become identical those very ones who almost kept us from ever having
| | Einstein.
|
| You like having a lunatic to do your dreaming for you?
|
| Define "lunatic".

Someone that believes his own imagination and attempts to prove it to the
gullible.
Examples are :
Nostradamus, Einstein, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, von Daneken to name but a
few.

Actually, Nostradamus obfuscated, but he was very enlightened for his age.
Hitler was hyped on speed all the time and nuttier than a squirrel's pantry.
Saddam is a sadistic, homicidal coward. Eric von Daneken made a few rather
entertaining observations concerning the giant Nazca glyphs, although his
Incan pyramid stuff came across as, "Oh, look! That cloud's a giant bunny!
See it?" When it was discovered there was an ancient tribe of indians in
Peru who regularly flew around in hot air balloons, his Nazca stuff fell
apart too.

It's hard to place Einstein in that group. The man had his head on straight
in too many areas besides physics.

| This is real observation, not imagination.
| http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....ctual_data.htm
|
| Have saved your link, thanks.
|
| | It's on the fine points concerning the constancy of c and WHY it's
| constant
| | that logic breaks down for me, and "Because that's just the way it
is"
| isn't
| | an answer I have ever been able to take easily.
|
| That's because it isn't.
|
| "Locally", it is.
Not even locally.
If I you are situated midway between to sources of light, say the window
and a lamp by the opposite wall, then the light has speed c from the
window and from the lamp.

W--------------------U---------------------L
If you now move toward the window, you will have a real blue shift from
the window light and real redshift from the lamp light. To you, the speed
of light will be c+v from the window and c-v from the lamp.
To force it to c, your watch must slow down for the lamp light, allowing
extra time for it to reach you and simultaneously speed up for the window
light.
Einstein doesn't consider this. His calculations are solely for the lamp
light.

Such infinitesimal differences can't be noted, can they (at least not
without extremely sensitive apparatus)? Colliders have now proven both time
dilation and foreshortening, from the last I read on the RHIC site.

| | It's not logical that the
| | only part of our universe that steps outside its laws is light.
Further,
| | it's illogical to the nth to reshape everything to fit a conundrum
| rather
| | than solving that mystery.
|
| I agree.
|
| Thank you.
You are welcome.
|
| | But you're right, it could very well be that I
| | really don't understand Einstein, no matter how much I've studied
him,
| since
| | the necessary math area is where I'm crippled.
|
| Is it logical to express your intuition that Einstein was right when
you
| don't understand what he said?
|
| No, if his explanations were not in keeping with his math which, for the
| most part, I couldn't understand past a certain level. He said "the
speed
of
| light locally," and tied that "locally" to individual inertial frames.
To
| me, that doesn't sound as if he thought light had any actual speed, but
was
| locked to the constant c only locally, what we can observe from our own
| local inertial frame of reference... which allows for variations in
velocity
| of inertial frames while still maintaining c as a constant and allowing
| light to have no actual limit as to speed.

Quite so. He actually says (you have the reference above) :
"For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of
light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great
velocity."

Great quote!

| | Through the years, I've mentioned things on these newsgroups that
have
| given
| | those who do have the necessary math skills a new direction to
explore.
|
| Been done. http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....ekerinTime.htm
|
| Okay. Nice page.
|
| | The
| | most memorable was when I stated here and elsewhere that a Big
Crunch
| was
| | not needed, all that was needed was for all the black holes to
finally
| eat
| | everything.
|
| Wild imagination.
|
| True. It wasn't that I thought that... I'm not actually convinced there
is
a
| singularity at the bottom of a black hole... it was just an observation
to
| refute the necessity of a Big Crunch. Of course, any such Big Crunch has
now
| been decided to be impossible, the Black Hole Buffet actually hasn't...
yet.
| Of course the current popular scenario, since the discovery that the
| Universal Constant is not zero, is that now all the galaxies eventually
go
| off into their own dark corners to die.

"jahn" was talking in another thread about painting a sphere. If you
make the sphere twice as big, you need 4 times the paint.
This is the well-known inverse square law, 1/r^2.
A star at the centre of a sphere will have a finite amount of energy, (the
paint
pot doesn't get larger) so to "paint" a larger sphere with energy the coat
will
have to be thinner.
We are at the surface of the sphere of light from the star, and at the
surface of the further star. We MUST get less energy from the further
star.
Since Planck worked out the energy was proportional to the frequency,
We EXPECT the wavelength of the more distant star to be red-shifted
compared to the closer, and the further away, the greater the shift.
There is no reason to suppose the star (or a galaxy of them) is moving.

With Doppler, motion, either toward or away from the light-emitting-object
is required... but I've thought along your lines before, especially since
it's known that dense clouds of dust can red-shift light. One would think
there'd have to be a rather dense cloud of dust similar to the Oort Cloud
incasing our galaxy in order for every red-shifted extra-galactic
measurement to be attributable to dust, and they haven't found anything like
that, have they? If the accretion theory is correct, guess it's logical to
assume such a cloud could have formed, though. (Sorry, typing what I was
thinking with no real facts to shore it up.)

| A couple of years after I had stated this... and was summarily
| | reprimanded for my stupidity... I read an article in Time outlining
| exactly
| | what I'd said, complete with graphs and charts, and impressive
| full-color
| | graphics.
|
| More wild imagination.
|
| Sure was impressive to look through, though.

I'm sure it was. The popular concepts are somewhat exotic. Nature
is far simpler than we manufacture it to be.

Not really. There are two interdependent components in all mitochondria,
one cannot exist separate from the other, so how did they ever form in the
first place? Is that "simple"? From what I've gathered, we can't even figure
out why the Earth's magnetic poles do a flip periodically. Man has a long
way to go before he can say nature is simple.

| | That's not the only time one of my "stupid" ideas has wound up being
not
| | that stupid after all to you number-crunchers, it's just an example.
No,
| I
| | don't have the math, but I do have a 160 IQ and a good grasp of
| Einstein's
| | logic through his copious visual demonstrations, especially since
I'm
| also
| a
| | spatial thinker capable of "seeing" what he's saying. Do I have an
eye
| on
| | revolutionizing the world of Physics? Nope. I'm just extremely
| interested
| in
| | the things that field covers, since the realm of Physics encompasses
the
| | greatest mysteries of any age.
| |
| | If you don't want to be bothered with my stupid ideas, don't read
me.
| |
| | Be well - Pax
|
| Ok...
| Androcles.
|
| Thanks for your reply, Androcles, it was thought-provoking.
|
| Be well - Pax
|
You are welcome. You might like to compare
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....ekerinTime.htm
with
http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/a...01/psr1913.htm

The orbits of the two suns are so odd the whole thing looks improbable...
Oh! I see! They not only eclipse, they must appear to wobble rather
erratically.

In the diagram I've given, the slope of the light changes.
Although not drawn, an equivalent diagram would have only one slope, c,
for the Cornell site, so the spacing is exactly the same at the source
(bottom)
as it is for the observer (top).
The complexity of GR is required to make this happen, when it is really
quite
simple.
"In 1993, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Russell Hulse and
Joseph
Taylor of Princeton University for their 1974 discovery of a pulsar,
designated PSR1913+16, in a binary system, in orbit with another star
around
a common center of mass. "

They won't give one to me, though. My explanation is too easy.

Easy? Perhaps... but still beyond my present capabilities to decipher.

Androcles.

Be well - Pax

"Pax" wrote in message
. ..
|
| "Androcles" wrote in message
| . ..
|
| "Pax" wrote in message
| m...
| |
| | "Androcles" wrote in message
| | ...
| |
| | "Pax" wrote in message
| | m...
| | |
| | | Somewhere it seems to have come across that I'm under the delusion
I
| | have
| | | some revolutionary knowledge concerning light. I'm not. I also
think
| | | Einstein was correct... I'm just not so sure others are correct in
| their
| | | interpretation of him.
| |
| | He was hopelessly wrong, and if you think he was right, prove it.
| |
| | I can't with math. You win.
| Hmm... very graceful of you, thanks, it is appreciated.
|
| |
| | | You've just demonstrated one reason I feel that way, the swelling
| army
| | of
| | | Numberheads that have followed Einstein. Einstein was a
THEORETICAL
| | | Physicist, who used imagination,
| |
| | LOL! You got that right, but his daydreams bear no resemblance to
the
| real
| | world.
| |
| | Okay.
| |
| | For quotations following, reference:
| | http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| | ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)
| |
| | Thanks for the link.
| You are welcome.
| |
| | 1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity
| c
| | which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body",
| | a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support it.
| |
| | Okay.
| |
| | 2) "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
| | 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light
in
| | empty
| | space.",
| | an admitted assumption that is quite worthless when there is any
| | relative motion between A and B, yet essential to the derivation of
| the
| | remainder of Einstein's nonsense.
| |
| | Everyone passes over "locally". Michelson-Morley.
|
| MMX works for exactly the same reason that you can roll two marbles
| along different chutes, have them leave together and arrive together.
|
| Good analogy.
|
| Turning
| the apparatus through 90 degrees makes no difference. If we made the
| chutes into tubes and sent sound through them, the same would be true.
| What would make difference is if a wind blew down one tube but not the
| other.
| We could "tune" the length of one tube so that an integer number of
| wavelengths
| arrived, and then move the wind to the other tube and detect a
| phase-shift.
| This was Michelson's idea, the 'wind' being the Earth moving through the
| supposed aether. That's about as 'locally' as it gets.
|
| The "locally" was wrt the constancy of c, but I like your explanation of
| MMX, very easy to see.
|
| | 3) The equation
| | ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
| tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
| ,
| | the ½ of which is derived from 2) above and is tantamount to saying
| | (1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.
| |
| | No kidding? I'd kill for your math skills.
|
| Take it apart and you'll see it.
| (0,0,0,t) refers to the origin, (x,y,z,t). 't' is an arbitrary value
which