sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment

Subject: Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment
From: "Eric Gisse"
Date: 22 Mar 2006 15:51:06 -0800
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:02:26 -0000, "George Dishman" 
> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
> >news:segf129fejadut5jvc8rb1mdn0qf6k3e2o@xxxxxxxxxx
> >> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 00:02:35 -0000, "George Dishman"
> >> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>> But according to SR, I can move my screen sideways ...
> >>>
> >>>Irrelevant, the equations only permit a single speed
> >>>for all sources which is incompatibel with Ritz.
> >>
> >> It is also incompatible with logic and physics as we know it.
> >
> >The whole of "physics as we know it" is based on
> >relativity, you are trying to resurrect physics
> >from the nineteenth century.
>
> You are right. A whole section of physics has been hijacked by Einstein and 
> his
> followers and is now heading nowhere with all the symptoms of genetic
> inbreeding.
>
> >>>> andd the pulses will remain
> >>>> at the same original speed wrt the table.
> >>>> Silly isn't it. ..but that's what the second postulate says. No doubt
> >>>> about it
> >>>> George.
> >>>
> >>>It's also what Maxwell's Equations say Henry, no doubt
> >>>about it.
> >>
> >> Maxwell's equation tell us there is an infinte number of different light
> >> speeds
> >> in a perfect vacuum.
> >> You had better face the truth George.
> >
> >No, they tell you there is one speed in any frame,
> >and that applies to all sources. Your argument is
> >forgetting the effects of the formula for adding
> >velocities in "physics as we know it".
>
> Second postulate: w = c = c(c+v)/c+v) = (c+v)/1+cv/c^2)

That isn't the second postulate, shit for brains.

>
> How could I possibly forget this logical masterpiece, George?

Quite easily since you never learned it in the first place.

>
>
>
>
>
> >>
> >> Yes George, they give a value for the constant c, which is also light sped
> >> wrt its source.
> >
> >Or the aether, or the apparatus, depending on
> >which of your posts I read.
>
> The apparatus isn't infinite.
>
> >
> >>>> A perfect vacuum contains an infinite number of
> >>>> differently moving imaginary points. To which one does Maxwell's 'c'
> >>>> refer?
> >>>
> >>>All of them, that's the point.
> >>
> >> The point is George, you sem to have lost your marbles.
> >
> >The point is, you seem to have lost the
> >ability to read equations.
>
> This argument is not about maths. It is about conceptual matters.
> Maxwell's maths apply to an absolute medium that has electrical and magnetic
> properties.

Doesn't matter. Maxwell's equations demand a constant speed of light. I
have attempted to show this to you before, but since you were lying
about your degree in applied mathematics you didn't understand the
argument.

>
> >>>> The whole theory is ridiculous without a light carrying medium.
> >>>
> >>>There is no medium in the equations no matter
> >>>how ridiculous you might think that is.
> >>
> >> It IS ridiculous ....and experimental results prove it.
> >
> >What experiments Henry?
> >
> >>>>>> Otherwise light moves at c wrt its source. What other speed referece
> >>>>>> does it
> >>>>>> have?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Rhetorical questions don't alter the equations, and
> >>>>>they only allow one speed for their solution. Perhaps
> >>>>>you should get out a maths text book that covers
> >>>>>solving differential equations.
> >>>>
> >>>> No George.
> >>>
> >>>That doesn't surprise me.
> >>>
> >>>> Maxwell's equations allow for an infinite number of speeds in a
> >>>> perfect vacuum. One speed for every differently moving imaginary point.
> >>>
> >>>The same speed.
> >>
> >> Yes, wrt each point.
> >
> >Or the aether, or the apparatus, or the source
> >depending on which of your posts I read.
> >
> >> Lorentz thought of that first, you know.
> >
> >Before Maxwell gathered the equations?
>
> You arguments are degenerating George.
>
> >> ,,,but at least his theory works, for
> >> his parameters, even if it is completely wrong. SR doesn't even work and
> >> IS also completely wrong.
> >
> >You cannot name a repeatable experiment in
> >which GR gives an inaccurate prediction.
>
> that would be because much of GR is exactly the same as the BaTh gravity
> theory.

You are lying.

>
> >>>>>> You are using circular logic again. You are assuming the second
> >>>>>> postulate to
> >>>>>> derive transforms that in turn support the second postulate.
> >>>>>> This is surely a joke George.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>What are you gibbering about Henry? Maxwell didn't
> >>>>>use Einstein's postulate to develop his Equations, you
> >>>>>know that perfectly well.
> >>>>
> >>>> Correct.
> >>>
> >>>In which case it isn't circular.
> >>>
> >>>> He used an absolute medium.
> >>>
> >>>No he didn't, he derived them from existing
> >>>empirical formulae which were derived from
> >>>lab experiments with Leyden jars and coils.
> >>
> >> I think that was Faraday or maybe Heaveside.
> >
> >Many people were involved, but you get the
> >point. All that investigation produced a
> >set of equations, and Einstein derived SR
> >from those, the process was not circular.
>
> The overiding fact George, is the speed must always have a reference.
> In Maxwell's case, it was the absolute aether.
>
> >> I doubt if Einstein ever saw a Leyden jar.
> >>
> >>>>>> >> ....and as I have explained above, that is clearly impossible
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> >I note your words but you have given no explanation,
> >>>>>> >just a repeated assertion. On the other hand the page
> >>>>>> >I cited is one of many that derives the speed using
> >>>>>> >maths that only allows one solution.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It gives one solution for the constant 'c' but it give no reference
> >>>>>> for
> >>>>>> speed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I suggest you read the page again, or don't you
> >>>>>know how to solve differential equations?
> >>>>
> >>>> One doesn't have to solve them to understand what they mean physically.
> >>>
> >>>Yes you do. Go learn some maths.
> >>
> >> The maths don't tell you what the reference is for light speed.
> >> Maxwell's equation provide a light speed in the absolute aether, which we
> >> now know doesn't exist.
> >
> >One speed for all light, that's the point.
>
> That's the MEANINGLESS point that you keep repeating.
> Light moves initially at c wrt its source. That's all we can say.
> If Einstein hadn't led physics up the wrong creek, people like you might try 
> to
> find WHY light moves at c wrt its source instead of stuffing around with all
> your illogical nonsense.

Blah blah blah, the broken record repeats. We already know you believe
Einstein hijacked physics, even though you have no understanding of the
theory or the histoy of physics.

>
>
>
> >>>
> >>>I am telling you basic calculus which you
> >>>should know already.
> >>
> >> Forget the calculus, that's the easy part.
> >
> >Why do you keep getting it wrong then?
> >
> >> What YOU cannot understand is that speed no matter what or where must be
> >> specified relative to something.
> >> Maxwell's equations are meaningless without an aether.
> >>
> >>>> Either you accept that you are stating 'light speed moves at c wrt its
> >>>> source'
> >>>> or you must accept an absolute aether.
> >>>
> >>>That is what you would like, it is not what the
> >>>equations tell you. They say it is c relative
> >>>to the inertial reference frame which defines
> >>>x and t. In terms you might find easier, they
> >>>say the speed is c relative to the observer.
> >>>If you try to use the equation for light moving
> >>>at c relative to the source or relative to any
> >>>arbitrary aether, you will find you CANNOT solve
> >>>them. Basic maths Henry.
> >>
> >> All I can say George, is your faith is so strong it takes away your power
> >> of
> >> reason.
> >> IF TWO DIFFERNETLY MOVING OBSERVERS OBTAIN THE SAME VALUE FOR C VIA
> >> MAXWELL, IT
> >> IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO MEASURE THE SAME OWLS FOR A PARTICULAR LIGHT
> >> PULSE.
> >
> >The value of c from the equations IS "the one-way
> >speed of light".
>
> At least you got that one right.
> Now do you agree it is impossible (above)?

No,  wit.

>
> >
> >> (unless an aether exists, which is not the case)
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>You don't have any choice in the matter, the equations
> >>>>>are completely explicit.
> >>>>
> >>>> The equations give a value for speed relative to an absolute frame.
> >>>
> >>>Wrong, go read that maths book.
> >>
> >> Are you claiming that Maxwell did not construct his equations on the basis
> >> that
> >> an aether existed? Really George, you're the one who should read the book.
> >
> >Most people felt that an aether would explain EM
> >phenomena but actually that's not what led him
> >to the solution AIUI. The key change he made was
> >to add the displacement current and the reasoning
> >behind that was from conservation of charge.
>
> There is no charge in a perfect vacuum devoid of fields. That's what most of
> space is made of. That's why packages of EM travel across vast distances of it
> at c wrt their sources.
> When they enter a telescope or the plates of a capacitor, they probably slow
> very rapidly to the natural light speed set by its 'local aether'.

"probably". You have no  ing idea because you neither read the
literature nor do you perform experiments.

>
>
> >> We don't know how often we see multiple images. They don't carry a sign
> >> saying,
> >> "I have twenty-five indentical brothers".
> >
> >Yes they do, the Doppler shift. When you look at
> >a line in a spectroscopic binary, you should see
> >several lines, some rising, others falling because
> >each if the overlapping images was transmitted from
> >a different point in the orbit.
>
> Without extinction effects, a multiple image will suddenly appear in a bright
> flash after which two separate images will move in oposite directions away 
> from
> the point where the flash occured.
> This kind of phenomenon is never likely to be seen however because stars which
> exhibit it will always be too far away for sufficient resolution.
>
>
> >>>> You wish, George.
> >>>> Observing distant stars is a lot more complicated that looking at
> >>>> something
> >>>> across the road, where light speed doesn't matter.
> >>>
> >>>You time the arrival of the pulses against a local
> >>>clock. It is far from easy of course, but your ideas
> >>>on the source speed don't invalidate the measurement
> >>>process, they only influence how the orbit would be
> >>>inferred from the times.
> >>
> >> Measurements are measurements. Interpreting them is another matter.
> >
> >Exactly what I said a few lines back Henry.
> >
> >> Stars aren't right outside your window.
> >
> >That's lucky :-o
> >
> >George
> >
> 
> 
> HW.
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>