On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 04:00:11 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
H@
wrote
on Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:21:44 GMT
:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:00:11 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:


Relativists agree that a third observer can perceive light approaching objects
at speeds other than c.
What does relativity say about 'speeds of departure'?

SR says all lightspeed is c. Ballistic theory says
lightspeed from a lamp *cannot* be c, unless the lamp's
temperature is at absolute zero.

You really do have a vivid imagination Ghost.
Have you ever thought of writing SciFi?

And you are slightly clueless. Has it occurred to you *why* I
state that ballistic theory cannot have lightspeed c emitting
from a hot lamp, hot star, or even an atom vibrating in deep space?

Sorry, Ghost, I underestimated your intentions there.

The ballistic theory basically says that light is emitted at c from each moving
molecule.
As you know, starlight emission spectral lines are broadened because of thermal
speeds. That also fits the theory. THe R$MS speeds of H in O type stars is
around 10000 m/sec which is unimaginably fast...0.000033c in fact.

I have already provided an example of this in my variable star program. The
user can plug in an approximate random distribution of molecular speeds and see
how a brightness curve might be affected. I have used only one value for the
mean... about 900m/sec (in the observer direction).

Its inclusion makes a considerable difference to brightness curves, in
particular to the distances at which a certain change will occur.

I haven't looked closely at this but it is important.
One must consider the possibility that the speeds of different photons are
somehow unified by gases surrounding the star. ...so it all ends up leaving at
around c wrt the star centre.

The answer should be obvious to anyone having a passing knowledge
of kinetic molecular theory.

Thank you Ghost. You are correct..... but I had mentioned this before.

As for sci-fi, I've written some. I can't say it's good and it's
certainly unpublished, but it's on my Website. :-P

There's an awful lot on this NG. Not necessarily yours.


[rest snipped]


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.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 07:32:55 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org wrote:


"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
| In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
| H@

| You really do have a vivid imagination Ghost.
| Have you ever thought of writing SciFi?
|
| And you are slightly clueless.

LOL! Coming from you that's a laugh.


| Has it occurred to you *why* I
| state that ballistic theory cannot have lightspeed c emitting
| from a hot lamp, hot star, or even an atom vibrating in deep space?

Who can fathom how someone else's mind works? Why WOULD you state
something so stupid?

| The answer should be obvious to anyone having a passing knowledge
| of kinetic molecular theory.

Oh, we are supposed to guess now, it being "obvious"...

My guess would be that you are phuckwit.

don't be too hard on him A. His question was quite legitimate and important..

I think we both misunderestood what he was getting at.


Androcles.


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.

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
|
| wrote
| on Sun, 18 Sep 2005 04:34:00 GMT
| :
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
| message ...
| | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| |
| | wrote
| | on Sat, 17 Sep 2005 07:43:38 GMT
| | :
| |
| | "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote
in
| | message ...
| | | In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
| | | H@
| | | wrote
| | | on Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:25:39 GMT
| | | :
| | | On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:45:59 +0200, YBM
wrote:
| | |
| | | Henri Wilson wrote :
| | | Thank you Dinky.
| | |
| | | You have fully supported the notion that the BaT is the
main
| cause
| | of star
| | | brightness variation.
| | | You aren't totally useless after all!
| | |
| | | You've just shown how illiterate you are in basic geometry,
| algebra
| | | and physics (not speaking about common sense).
| | |
| | | How do you feel now ?
| | |
| | | Moron, your religion accepts 'closing speeds' that are not
c.
| | |
| | | Surely the same approach produces 'departing speeds' that
are
| also
| | not c.
| | |
| | | Entirely possible and easy, in fact.
| | |
| | |
| | | C
| | | ==v A*--------- c B
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | O
| | |
| | | Let O be a distance D from A, who is moving at velocity v
| | | at right angles to O at a certain time 0.
| | | Stationary mirrors at B and C aid O's measurements.
| |
| | Stationary with respect to what?
| |
| | O.
| Why isn't O moving through empty space, taking his mirrors
| with him? Print your diagram and take it on a bus with you,
| let me know if you've added the speed of the bus to O
| and everything else, or if A jumped off the paper and got
| left behind at the bus stop.
|
| O is moving on a bus somewhere in Europe, running round a traffic
| circle. The traffic circle is securely attached to a point on
| the Earth. The Earth is rotating at a speed of approximately
| 72.722 microradians/second. The Earth is also revolving around
| the Sun at a speed of about 199.1 nanoradians per second. The
| Sun's velocity around the galactic Core is unknown; the
| galactic velocity relative to the Local Group is unknown; the
| Local Group is moving with respect to... somebody.
|
| Yet the light source is also rigidly attached to the bus, and
| is therefore stationary with respect to O.

Ok.



|
|
| | | A stationary lightsource
| |
| | Stationary with respect to what?
|
| NO ANSWER?
|
| O, of course, given the conditions above.

Thank you.

| | right next to C of a different color
| | | is also available. This lightsource emits a pulse towards
| | | both C and B at exactly the time A passes by C.
| | |
| | | O will see a lightpulse from C at time d/c, and a lightpulse
| | | from B at time l_B/c + sqrt(l_B^2 + d^2)/c, where l_B is
| | | the distance from C to B and c is nominal lightspeed.
| |
| | lightspeed with respect to what?
| |
| | O.
|
| Print your diagram and take it on a bus with you,
| let me know if you've added the speed of the bus to lightspeed
| and everything else, or if lightspeed jumped off the paper and got
| left behind at the bus stop.
|

NO ANSWER?

O, of course, given the conditions above.

Thank you. The speed of light is therefore proven source
dependent, in contradiction to the phuckwit Einstein's second
postulate, "light is always propagated in empty space with a
definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion
of the emitting body".

|
| |
| |
| |
| | Since
| | | none of the equipment is moving
| |
| | Moving with respect to what?
| |
| | O.
|
|
| Print your diagram and take it on a bus with you,
| now all the equipment is moving. Does it still work?
|
| No, it does not. (Sagnac's Effect.)

Sagnac makes the marks on your diagram leap off?
Ride a carousel and look at the diagram as you bounce up
and down on a wooden horse. Are you sure your diagram
is no longer valid?
Try this experiment:
Sit on the wooden horse, face straight forward. Do not turn
your head. Hold a toilet roll core to your eye, close the other eye.
Look through the toilet roll core. Does the world move?

"Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and
a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative
motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws
a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the
other of these bodies is in motion."--Albert's opening paragraph that he
quickly forgot about.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/


What is the CUSTOMARY view, and what is the observable phenomena?

You can do this without a carousel, assuming you have normal vision
while sitting at home in a comfy armchair.
Place your forefinger against the lid of your eye and keeping both eyes
open, gently push your eyeball to the side. You will see two worlds.
It's called seeing double. Don't worry about it, you are ****ing
with your own brain and it needs a jolt in the gedanken department,
there are not two worlds.
The *customary* view of Sagnac is to watch the carousel rotate.
Relativity of the REAL kind, Galilean, is to view the phenomenon
while riding the carousel. Your MMX experiment on board the
carousel will not produce a fringe shift for you, but it will (and DOES)
produce a fringe shift for me standing off and watching you ride
your wooden horse, becasue that IS the Sagnac effect.
According to the phuckwit Einstein this will make MY watch
slow down, so if you want to outlive your friends go and watch
a carousel, my atheist SRian and phuckwit friend, I'm doing you
a favour and helping you live longer by giving you phuckwit
advice.


Let me know when all your markings jump off the
diagram and stays at the bus stop, since it will have a
different result.

Androcles.

"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 04:00:11 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
| wrote:
|
| In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
| H@
| wrote
| on Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:21:44 GMT
| :
| On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:00:11 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
| wrote:
|
|
| Relativists agree that a third observer can perceive light
approaching objects
| at speeds other than c.
| What does relativity say about 'speeds of departure'?
|
| SR says all lightspeed is c. Ballistic theory says
| lightspeed from a lamp *cannot* be c, unless the lamp's
| temperature is at absolute zero.
|
| You really do have a vivid imagination Ghost.
| Have you ever thought of writing SciFi?
|
| And you are slightly clueless. Has it occurred to you *why* I
| state that ballistic theory cannot have lightspeed c emitting
| from a hot lamp, hot star, or even an atom vibrating in deep space?
|
| Sorry, Ghost, I underestimated your intentions there.
|
| The ballistic theory basically says that light is emitted at c from
each moving
| molecule.
| As you know, starlight emission spectral lines are broadened because
of thermal
| speeds. That also fits the theory. THe R$MS speeds of H in O type
stars is
| around 10000 m/sec which is unimaginably fast...0.000033c in fact.
|
| I have already provided an example of this in my variable star
program. The
| user can plug in an approximate random distribution of molecular
speeds and see
| how a brightness curve might be affected. I have used only one value
for the
| mean... about 900m/sec (in the observer direction).
|
| Its inclusion makes a considerable difference to brightness curves, in
| particular to the distances at which a certain change will occur.
|
| I haven't looked closely at this but it is important.
| One must consider the possibility that the speeds of different photons
are
| somehow unified by gases surrounding the star. ...so it all ends up
leaving at
| around c wrt the star centre.

Look closely then. I have.



|
| The answer should be obvious to anyone having a passing knowledge
| of kinetic molecular theory.
|
| Thank you Ghost. You are correct..... but I had mentioned this before.

The answer IS obvious.
1) A cool gas will produce spectral emission lines.
2) A hot gas will produce shifted spectral emission lines.
3) Shifted lines (both blue and red-shifted) lay side-by-side.
4) Lines side-by-side produce a continuous spectrum.
5) Ghost is a nitwit, but seems to be educable up to dimwit.
6) Henri is a dimwit, but seems to be educable up to halfwit.
7) Andersen and moortel are phuckwits, will never make it to nitwit
but Andersen is a self-confessed tusselad (Norwegian troll) and
it is clear moortel is also.
8) Alan Schwartz is an ineducable double-phuckwit troll.




|
| As for sci-fi, I've written some. I can't say it's good and it's
| certainly unpublished, but it's on my Website. :-P
|
| There's an awful lot on this NG. Not necessarily yours.

There is an awful lot throughout the world and history, starting with
earth, air, fire and water as elements, proceeding to Ptolemy's
epicycles, then John Goodricke's binary eclipses, Maxwell's aether,
Einstein's cuckoo time, all of which were believed by phuckwits,
nitwits, dimwits and halfwits. The father of science was Galileo,
the mathematician Euclid and the true Naturalist was Newton,
contributions gratefully accepted from Copernicus, Kepler,
Michelson et al., da Vinci was an engineer and artist.
Phuckwits and trolls outnumber the halfwit "I have a theory,
I want you to accept it" brigade of Gaasenbeek and Wilson
types who wouldn't know what a Seyfert galaxy or dwarf
cepheid was, one inventing helical waves and the other fairy dust.
I don't advance any theories, only suggestions based on the
proven worth of the real genii on whose shoulders I stand
to see as far as I can, and I've seen planets that no other
has seen before me. I do not call them Wilson cool heavies
or Gaasenbeek waves, I call them planets, and neither do
I call the vector addition of velocities a bat, I am not an
egotistical halfwit looking for praise.
Climb on my shoulders instead of my knees, look out
and gaze with wonder at the universe as it really is, not
at the universe you would invent.
Androcles.

"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 07:32:55 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org
wrote:
|
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
| message ...
| | In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
| | H@
|
| | You really do have a vivid imagination Ghost.
| | Have you ever thought of writing SciFi?
| |
| | And you are slightly clueless.
|
| LOL! Coming from you that's a laugh.
|
|
| | Has it occurred to you *why* I
| | state that ballistic theory cannot have lightspeed c emitting
| | from a hot lamp, hot star, or even an atom vibrating in deep space?
|
| Who can fathom how someone else's mind works? Why WOULD you state
| something so stupid?
|
| | The answer should be obvious to anyone having a passing knowledge
| | of kinetic molecular theory.
|
| Oh, we are supposed to guess now, it being "obvious"...
|
| My guess would be that you are phuckwit.
|
| don't be too hard on him A. His question was quite legitimate and
important..
|
| I think we both misunderestood what he was getting at.

Ok, so he's not a phuckwit, he's nitwit. He might make it to dimwit or
even halfwit in 20 years or so. If we haven't taught him to think by
then
it's too late, we'll be dead or senile and who will carry on the
teaching?
The world is already plunged into the black hole of ignorance,
there is not enough time left to dig it all out ourselves, better to say
**** it, cave the sides in and bury it whole rather than be hard on
poor Ghost.
Androcles.

In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles

wrote
on Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:06:56 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
|
| wrote
| on Sun, 18 Sep 2005 04:34:00 GMT
| :
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
| message ...
| | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| |
| | wrote
| | on Sat, 17 Sep 2005 07:43:38 GMT
| | :
| |
| | "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote
in
| | message ...
| | | In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
| | | H@
| | | wrote
| | | on Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:25:39 GMT
| | | :
| | | On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:45:59 +0200, YBM
wrote:
| | |
| | | Henri Wilson wrote :
| | | Thank you Dinky.
| | |
| | | You have fully supported the notion that the BaT is the
main
| cause
| | of star
| | | brightness variation.
| | | You aren't totally useless after all!
| | |
| | | You've just shown how illiterate you are in basic geometry,
| algebra
| | | and physics (not speaking about common sense).
| | |
| | | How do you feel now ?
| | |
| | | Moron, your religion accepts 'closing speeds' that are not
c.
| | |
| | | Surely the same approach produces 'departing speeds' that
are
| also
| | not c.
| | |
| | | Entirely possible and easy, in fact.
| | |
| | |
| | | C
| | | ==v A*--------- c B
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | O
| | |
| | | Let O be a distance D from A, who is moving at velocity v
| | | at right angles to O at a certain time 0.
| | | Stationary mirrors at B and C aid O's measurements.
| |
| | Stationary with respect to what?
| |
| | O.
| Why isn't O moving through empty space, taking his mirrors
| with him? Print your diagram and take it on a bus with you,
| let me know if you've added the speed of the bus to O
| and everything else, or if A jumped off the paper and got
| left behind at the bus stop.
|
| O is moving on a bus somewhere in Europe, running round a traffic
| circle. The traffic circle is securely attached to a point on
| the Earth. The Earth is rotating at a speed of approximately
| 72.722 microradians/second. The Earth is also revolving around
| the Sun at a speed of about 199.1 nanoradians per second. The
| Sun's velocity around the galactic Core is unknown; the
| galactic velocity relative to the Local Group is unknown; the
| Local Group is moving with respect to... somebody.
|
| Yet the light source is also rigidly attached to the bus, and
| is therefore stationary with respect to O.

Ok.



|
|
| | | A stationary lightsource
| |
| | Stationary with respect to what?
|
| NO ANSWER?
|
| O, of course, given the conditions above.

Thank you.

| | right next to C of a different color
| | | is also available. This lightsource emits a pulse towards
| | | both C and B at exactly the time A passes by C.
| | |
| | | O will see a lightpulse from C at time d/c, and a lightpulse
| | | from B at time l_B/c + sqrt(l_B^2 + d^2)/c, where l_B is
| | | the distance from C to B and c is nominal lightspeed.
| |
| | lightspeed with respect to what?
| |
| | O.
|
| Print your diagram and take it on a bus with you,
| let me know if you've added the speed of the bus to lightspeed
| and everything else, or if lightspeed jumped off the paper and got
| left behind at the bus stop.
|

NO ANSWER?

O, of course, given the conditions above.

Thank you. The speed of light is therefore proven source
dependent, in contradiction to the phuckwit Einstein's second
postulate, "light is always propagated in empty space with a
definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion
of the emitting body".

|
| |
| |
| |
| | Since
| | | none of the equipment is moving
| |
| | Moving with respect to what?
| |
| | O.
|
|
| Print your diagram and take it on a bus with you,
| now all the equipment is moving. Does it still work?
|
| No, it does not. (Sagnac's Effect.)

Sagnac makes the marks on your diagram leap off?
Ride a carousel and look at the diagram as you bounce up
and down on a wooden horse. Are you sure your diagram
is no longer valid?

Yes, the light describes a curve in the accelerated reference frame.
SR is no longer valid in this frame.

Try this experiment:
Sit on the wooden horse, face straight forward. Do not turn
your head. Hold a toilet roll core to your eye, close the other eye.
Look through the toilet roll core. Does the world move?

Depends on how the carousel is moving relative to the world (or,
if you prefer, how the world is moving relative to the carousel).


"Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and
a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative
motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws
a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the
other of these bodies is in motion."--Albert's opening paragraph that he
quickly forgot about.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Totally wrong, it turns out. If the magnet is moving in an inertial
reference frame, that's one thing, but a spinning magnet introduces
additional effects.

It is also not clear whether the velocity of A relative to B (as
measured by A) is the same as the velocity of B relative to A
(as measured by B). This is a fundamental flaw of SRian relativity,
which is fixable but requires quite a bit of work to express properly.



What is the CUSTOMARY view, and what is the observable phenomena?

The customary view is the view according to custom. Earth is
treated as an inertial reference frame; a ball thrown from a
carousel is observed *from the carousel* as traversing a curved
path -- but that's because the carousel itself is rotating. (Of
course it describes a curved path even in the Earth rest frame,
but that's because of gravity. Nothing horribly mysterious
about that.)


You can do this without a carousel, assuming you have normal vision
while sitting at home in a comfy armchair.
Place your forefinger against the lid of your eye and keeping both eyes
open, gently push your eyeball to the side. You will see two worlds.
It's called seeing double. Don't worry about it, you are ****ing
with your own brain and it needs a jolt in the gedanken department,
there are not two worlds.
The *customary* view of Sagnac is to watch the carousel rotate.
Relativity of the REAL kind, Galilean, is to view the phenomenon
while riding the carousel. Your MMX experiment on board the
carousel will not produce a fringe shift for you, but it will (and DOES)
produce a fringe shift for me standing off and watching you ride
your wooden horse, becasue that IS the Sagnac effect.

Actually, it should produce a fringe shift for me as well.

According to the phuckwit Einstein this will make MY watch
slow down, so if you want to outlive your friends go and watch
a carousel, my atheist SRian and phuckwit friend, I'm doing you
a favour and helping you live longer by giving you phuckwit
advice.

The main problem with this advice is that in order for me to
gain any significant time savings on a carousel I'd have to
be squished by centripetal force to a bloody pulp.


Let me know when all your markings jump off the
diagram and stays at the bus stop, since it will have a
different result.

The markings went to Venice for vacation a long time ago.
The bus is stopped somewhere in the yard for maintenance.


Androcles.



--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
H@
wrote
on Sun, 18 Sep 2005 09:36:26 GMT
:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 04:00:12 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
H@
wrote
on Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:25:39 GMT
:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:45:59 +0200, YBM wrote:


You've just shown how illiterate you are in basic geometry, algebra
and physics (not speaking about common sense).

How do you feel now ?

Moron, your religion accepts 'closing speeds' that are not c.

Surely the same approach produces 'departing speeds' that are also not c.

Entirely possible and easy, in fact.


C
==v A*--------- c B



O

Let O be a distance D from A, who is moving at velocity v
at right angles to O at a certain time 0.
Stationary mirrors at B and C aid O's measurements.
A stationary lightsource right next to C of a different color
is also available. This lightsource emits a pulse towards
both C and B at exactly the time A passes by C.

O will see a lightpulse from C at time d/c, and a lightpulse
from B at time l_B/c + sqrt(l_B^2 + d^2)/c, where l_B is
the distance from C to B and c is nominal lightspeed. Since
none of the equipment is moving O can easily calibrate
his equipment.

What is the velocity, *as calculated by O*, between the
lightpulse and A? Answer: c+v.

Very good Ghost.......
..and that is the REAL speed between the light pulse and A.

.....but this is still 'closing speed', Ghost.

No, it's real speed. You just said so.


Modify your experiment a little. Make A the source.

If A is the source, then the speed of light becomes c-v+adj,
where adj is a temperature-dependent randomization factor.


Question: what is the 'departing speed' of A's pulse wrt C?

I'm not sure this question makes sense as stated; are you asking:

[1] what C measures as the departing speed of the lightpulse
originating at A, and A?
[2] what C measures as the departing speed of the lightpulse
originating at A, and C?



[rest snipped]


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.


--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
|
| wrote
| on Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:06:56 GMT
| :
|
| "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
| message ...
| | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| |
| | wrote
| | on Sun, 18 Sep 2005 04:34:00 GMT
| | :
| |
| | "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote
in
| | message ...
| | | In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
| | |
| | | wrote
| | | on Sat, 17 Sep 2005 07:43:38 GMT
| | | :
| | |
| | | "The Ghost In The Machine"
wrote
| in
| | | message ...
| | | | In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
| | | | H@
| | | | wrote
| | | | on Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:25:39 GMT
| | | | :
| | | | On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:45:59 +0200, YBM

| wrote:
| | | |
| | | | Henri Wilson wrote :
| | | | Thank you Dinky.
| | | |
| | | | You have fully supported the notion that the BaT is
the
| main
| | cause
| | | of star
| | | | brightness variation.
| | | | You aren't totally useless after all!
| | | |
| | | | You've just shown how illiterate you are in basic
geometry,
| | algebra
| | | | and physics (not speaking about common sense).
| | | |
| | | | How do you feel now ?
| | | |
| | | | Moron, your religion accepts 'closing speeds' that are
not
| c.
| | | |
| | | | Surely the same approach produces 'departing speeds'
that
| are
| | also
| | | not c.
| | | |
| | | | Entirely possible and easy, in fact.
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | C
| | | | ==v A*--------- c B
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | O
| | | |
| | | | Let O be a distance D from A, who is moving at velocity v
| | | | at right angles to O at a certain time 0.
| | | | Stationary mirrors at B and C aid O's measurements.
| | |
| | | Stationary with respect to what?
| | |
| | | O.
| | Why isn't O moving through empty space, taking his mirrors
| | with him? Print your diagram and take it on a bus with you,
| | let me know if you've added the speed of the bus to O
| | and everything else, or if A jumped off the paper and got
| | left behind at the bus stop.
| |
| | O is moving on a bus somewhere in Europe, running round a traffic
| | circle. The traffic circle is securely attached to a point on
| | the Earth. The Earth is rotating at a speed of approximately
| | 72.722 microradians/second. The Earth is also revolving around
| | the Sun at a speed of about 199.1 nanoradians per second. The
| | Sun's velocity around the galactic Core is unknown; the
| | galactic velocity relative to the Local Group is unknown; the
| | Local Group is moving with respect to... somebody.
| |
| | Yet the light source is also rigidly attached to the bus, and
| | is therefore stationary with respect to O.
|
| Ok.
|
|
|
| |
| |
| | | | A stationary lightsource
| | |
| | | Stationary with respect to what?
| |
| | NO ANSWER?
| |
| | O, of course, given the conditions above.
|
| Thank you.
|
| | | right next to C of a different color
| | | | is also available. This lightsource emits a pulse towards
| | | | both C and B at exactly the time A passes by C.
| | | |
| | | | O will see a lightpulse from C at time d/c, and a
lightpulse
| | | | from B at time l_B/c + sqrt(l_B^2 + d^2)/c, where l_B is
| | | | the distance from C to B and c is nominal lightspeed.
| | |
| | | lightspeed with respect to what?
| | |
| | | O.
| |
| | Print your diagram and take it on a bus with you,
| | let me know if you've added the speed of the bus to lightspeed
| | and everything else, or if lightspeed jumped off the paper and
got
| | left behind at the bus stop.
| |
|
| NO ANSWER?
|
| O, of course, given the conditions above.
|
| Thank you. The speed of light is therefore proven source
| dependent, in contradiction to the phuckwit Einstein's second
| postulate, "light is always propagated in empty space with a
| definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion
| of the emitting body".
|
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | Since
| | | | none of the equipment is moving
| | |
| | | Moving with respect to what?
| | |
| | | O.
| |
| |
| | Print your diagram and take it on a bus with you,
| | now all the equipment is moving. Does it still work?
| |
| | No, it does not. (Sagnac's Effect.)
|
| Sagnac makes the marks on your diagram leap off?
| Ride a carousel and look at the diagram as you bounce up
| and down on a wooden horse. Are you sure your diagram
| is no longer valid?
|
| Yes, the light describes a curve in the accelerated reference frame.
| SR is no longer valid in this frame

SR isn't valid in ANY frame on earth, we are all accelerated by gravity.
Call CERN and let them know they have the wrong frequency,
it is now YOUR responsibility, my atheist SRian chum(p).


| Try this experiment:
| Sit on the wooden horse, face straight forward. Do not turn
| your head. Hold a toilet roll core to your eye, close the other eye.
| Look through the toilet roll core. Does the world move?
|
| Depends on how the carousel is moving relative to the world (or,
| if you prefer, how the world is moving relative to the carousel).

I'm asking you what you see. It's no good guessing, this is a real
experiment, not an armchair experiment.

| "Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet
and
| a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the
relative
| motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view
draws
| a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or
the
| other of these bodies is in motion."--Albert's opening paragraph
that he
| quickly forgot about.
| http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
|
| Totally wrong, it turns out. If the magnet is moving in an inertial
| reference frame, that's one thing, but a spinning magnet introduces
| additional effects.

Call Westinghouse, Mather & Platt, General Electric.
Tell them their generators and motors are totally wrong.
Do not use an electric motor at home, do not charge the battery
in your car as you drive it.
Better yet, here's a more comphensive list.
http://www.thomasnet.com/products/ge...4475004-1.html
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...rers&spell= 1
Call them all and save the world.



|
| It is also not clear whether the velocity of A relative to B (as
| measured by A) is the same as the velocity of B relative to A
| (as measured by B). This is a fundamental flaw of SRian relativity,
| which is fixable but requires quite a bit of work to express properly.
|
|
|
| What is the CUSTOMARY view, and what is the observable phenomena?
|
| The customary view is the view according to custom. Earth is
| treated as an inertial reference frame;

It can't be, it's a carousel and we should all fly off.
Or maybe you belong to the Flat Earth Society, you
seem to be that kind of phuckwit.


a ball thrown from a
| carousel is observed *from the carousel* as traversing a curved
| path -- but that's because the carousel itself is rotating. (Of
| course it describes a curved path even in the Earth rest frame,
| but that's because of gravity. Nothing horribly mysterious
| about that.)

Nonsense, I can throw a ball high in the air across the carousel,
ride round to the other side and catch it, the ball went straight up
and down.
A ball thrown from a carousel is observed *from the carousel*
as traversing a STRAIGHT path. Nothing horribly mysterious
about that.


|
|
| You can do this without a carousel, assuming you have normal vision
| while sitting at home in a comfy armchair.
| Place your forefinger against the lid of your eye and keeping both
eyes
| open, gently push your eyeball to the side. You will see two worlds.
| It's called seeing double. Don't worry about it, you are ****ing
| with your own brain and it needs a jolt in the gedanken department,
| there are not two worlds.
| The *customary* view of Sagnac is to watch the carousel rotate.
| Relativity of the REAL kind, Galilean, is to view the phenomenon
| while riding the carousel. Your MMX experiment on board the
| carousel will not produce a fringe shift for you, but it will (and
DOES)
| produce a fringe shift for me standing off and watching you ride
| your wooden horse, becasue that IS the Sagnac effect.
|
| Actually, it should produce a fringe shift for me as well.

Ok, so you've found aether on carousels. Well done.
Don't call Stockholm, they'll call you.

|
| According to the phuckwit Einstein this will make MY watch
| slow down, so if you want to outlive your friends go and watch
| a carousel, my atheist SRian and phuckwit friend, I'm doing you
| a favour and helping you live longer by giving you phuckwit
| advice.
|
| The main problem with this advice is that in order for me to
| gain any significant time savings on a carousel I'd have to
| be squished by centripetal force to a bloody pulp.

I never said it would be significant. This is YOUR belief, atheist
SRian, YOUR religion. Newton and I don't think you can affect
time, but you and Einstein do. I'm giving a phuckwit some
phuckwit advice. If that crushes you to a bloody pulp, it's one
less phuckwit to care about.

|
| Let me know when all your markings jump off the
| diagram and stays at the bus stop, since it will have a
| different result.
|
| The markings went to Venice for vacation a long time ago.
| The bus is stopped somewhere in the yard for maintenance.


Venice Italy or Venice Florida?
I've been to one but not the other, I didn't see the marks
from your diagram.
Androcles.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:58:14 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 04:00:11 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
| wrote:
|
| In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
| H@
| wrote
| on Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:21:44 GMT
| :
| On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:00:11 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
| wrote:
|
|
| Relativists agree that a third observer can perceive light
approaching objects
| at speeds other than c.
| What does relativity say about 'speeds of departure'?
|
| SR says all lightspeed is c. Ballistic theory says
| lightspeed from a lamp *cannot* be c, unless the lamp's
| temperature is at absolute zero.
|
| You really do have a vivid imagination Ghost.
| Have you ever thought of writing SciFi?
|
| And you are slightly clueless. Has it occurred to you *why* I
| state that ballistic theory cannot have lightspeed c emitting
| from a hot lamp, hot star, or even an atom vibrating in deep space?
|
| Sorry, Ghost, I underestimated your intentions there.
|
| The ballistic theory basically says that light is emitted at c from
each moving
| molecule.
| As you know, starlight emission spectral lines are broadened because
of thermal
| speeds. That also fits the theory. THe R$MS speeds of H in O type
stars is
| around 10000 m/sec which is unimaginably fast...0.000033c in fact.
|
| I have already provided an example of this in my variable star
program. The
| user can plug in an approximate random distribution of molecular
speeds and see
| how a brightness curve might be affected. I have used only one value
for the
| mean... about 900m/sec (in the observer direction).
|
| Its inclusion makes a considerable difference to brightness curves, in
| particular to the distances at which a certain change will occur.
|
| I haven't looked closely at this but it is important.
| One must consider the possibility that the speeds of different photons
are
| somehow unified by gases surrounding the star. ...so it all ends up
leaving at
| around c wrt the star centre.

Look closely then. I have.



|
| The answer should be obvious to anyone having a passing knowledge
| of kinetic molecular theory.
|
| Thank you Ghost. You are correct..... but I had mentioned this before.

The answer IS obvious.
1) A cool gas will produce spectral emission lines.
2) A hot gas will produce shifted spectral emission lines.

Actually, A, it produces broadened lines.

3) Shifted lines (both blue and red-shifted) lay side-by-side.
4) Lines side-by-side produce a continuous spectrum.
5) Ghost is a nitwit, but seems to be educable up to dimwit.

Ghost is one of the more amenable contributors here. Sometimes I think he is
wavering. It wouldn't require much to bring him come across to our side.

6) Henri is a dimwit, but seems to be educable up to halfwit.

Androcles is a radio engineer who missed out on basic physics training.

7) Andersen and moortel are phuckwits, will never make it to nitwit
but Andersen is a self-confessed tusselad (Norwegian troll) and
it is clear moortel is also.
8) Alan Schwartz is an ineducable double-phuckwit troll.

.....or even worse....





|
| As for sci-fi, I've written some. I can't say it's good and it's
| certainly unpublished, but it's on my Website. :-P
|
| There's an awful lot on this NG. Not necessarily yours.

There is an awful lot throughout the world and history, starting with
earth, air, fire and water as elements, proceeding to Ptolemy's
epicycles, then John Goodricke's binary eclipses, Maxwell's aether,
Einstein's cuckoo time, all of which were believed by phuckwits,
nitwits, dimwits and halfwits. The father of science was Galileo,
the mathematician Euclid and the true Naturalist was Newton,
contributions gratefully accepted from Copernicus, Kepler,
Michelson et al., da Vinci was an engineer and artist.
Phuckwits and trolls outnumber the halfwit "I have a theory,
I want you to accept it" brigade of Gaasenbeek and Wilson
types who wouldn't know what a Seyfert galaxy or dwarf
cepheid was, one inventing helical waves and the other fairy dust.
I don't advance any theories, only suggestions based on the
proven worth of the real genii on whose shoulders I stand
to see as far as I can, and I've seen planets that no other
has seen before me. I do not call them Wilson cool heavies
or Gaasenbeek waves, I call them planets, and neither do
I call the vector addition of velocities a bat, I am not an
egotistical halfwit looking for praise.
Climb on my shoulders instead of my knees, look out
and gaze with wonder at the universe as it really is, not
at the universe you would invent.

....what is it this time, A? ....Vodka, beer, whisky...?

Androcles.



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.

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 22:19:00 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message ...

Relativists agree that a third observer can perceive light approaching objects
at speeds other than c.

With a few notable exceptions everyone in the world agrees
that a third party observer can perceive the distance between
light signals and/or objects to shrink or grow at time-rates
between 0 and 2c.
Usually this is called
- closing speed between... , or
- relative speed between... as seen by a third party.


What does relativity say about 'speeds of departure'?

One could decide to reseve "closing speed" for the time rate
of shrinking of the distance between light signals and/or objects,
and "opening speed" for the time rate of growing of the distance


If a photon

forget photons. Take light signals - photons are more complicated.


leaves source at c relative to the source, what departing speed
does a third observer ascribe to it?

As you well know, c+v or c-v, depending on the directions.


If two relatively moving sources emit photons in a particular direction, what
departing speeds does the third observer assign to them....wrt either source?

Everyone, including the third observer, would agree that
an observer riding with the source, measures every signal
to have speed c w.r.t. himself.
As ssen by the thitd party, depending on what you mean
with "a particular direction", the "closing" or "opening"
speeds between either source and either signal could be
c+v, c-v, c+u or c-u. Between the sources u+v or |u-v|.
Between the signals 0 or 2c.


Thank you Dinky.

You have fully supported the notion that the BaT is the main cause of star
brightness variation.

Of course a bright guy like you will immediately realize that:
"Everyone, including the third observer, would agree that
an observer riding with the source, measures every signal
to have speed c w.r.t. himself."
supports the ballistic theory. :-)

Well done.

Paul