
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:t0dm1213j7s67078d74lp3qg26s2gpp768@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:12:12 0000, "George Dishman"
> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>>news:71if12h4k83or50gb792j3su322h0gb822@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 23:38:15 0000, "George Dishman"
>>> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> >> Well I don't accept that spacetime is anything other than a maths
>>>>>>> >> convenience.
>>>>>>> >> It is certainly interesting to plot various movements in 2D space
>>>>>>> >> and
>>>>>>> >> 1D
>>>>>>> >> time...which can be done fairly easily.
>>>>>>> >> y t
>>>>>>> >>  /
>>>>>>> >>  /
>>>>>>> >> /________x
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> 4D can be represented this way too if a series of lines is drawn
>>>>>>> >> representing
>>>>>>> >> the movement at different TIME coordinates.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> y z
>>>>>>> >>  / ___t1
>>>>>>> >>  /__/
>>>>>>> >> /________x
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Alternatively you can try plotting 4D on THESE axes, varying the
>>>>>>> >> 'z'
>>>>>>> >> instead of
>>>>>>> >> 't':
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> y t
>>>>>>> >>  /
>>>>>>> >>  /
>>>>>>> >> /________x
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >You can but remember the minus sign for t^2 values
>>>>>>> >though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I though time went backwards I would give it a  sign.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's not your to choose, and it's "t^2", not "t".
>>>>>
>>>>> You're confusing this with the maths of SR.
>>>>
>>>>That's what we are talking about  see above.
>>>>
>>>>> Einstein uses ict as the time axis,
>>>>
>>>>Nope, he uses t as the time axis.
>>>>
>>>>> the imaginary nature denoting
>>>>> orthogonality.
>>>>
>>>>Nope, the negative sign is the change in the
>>>>Pythagorean equation produced by the geometry.
>>>>
>>>>> But of course 'ct' is not TIME at all. It is distance moved by light
>>>>> traveling
>>>>> at c.
>>>>
>>>>Nope, it is time expressed in units of metres.
>>>>
>>>>> 'Spacetime' in not space and time.
>>>>
>>>>Correct, it is a single 4D manifold. Hey, you
>>>>got one right :)
>>>
>>> It isn't even 4D. It is 3D space but with an extra imaginary spatial
>>> axis
>>> that
>>> denotes the distance light would move at c in unit time.
>>
>>If you are just going to ignore what I say, there's
>>not much point in commenting. The t axis is still
>>time, not a distance.
>
> It is 'ct'....definitely distance.
If you have guests who arrive at 8pm and leave
at 9pm, they stayed an hour. Multiply by c and
you get one light hour, but it's stil the time
they stayed, not how far they travelled to get
there. "ct" is still a time measurement but in
units of metres.
>>>>> It is Euclidean space plus a spatial axis based on light movement.
>>>>
>>>>Back to normal, your showing your ignorance
>>>>of SR again Henry.
>>>
>>> x^2+y^2+z^2ct^2=c.tor^2
>>>
>>> Think about what that means George.
>>>
>>> What is the vector c.tor?
>>
>>It isn't even a vector Henry.
>>
>>>>>>> >>>Maxwell's Equations require it, Sagnac's experiment
>>>>>>> >>>directly supports Einstein's postulate from which it is
>>>>>>> >>>logically derived and the MMX, Ives and Stilwell, Hulse
>>>>>>> >>>and Taylor and many more confirm its predictions.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>
>>>>>>> >The speed is dx/dt. Maxwell may have conceptualised
>>>>>>> >an aether but it isn't in the equations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Correct, the speed is dx/dt where x is distance in the aether
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Don't be stupid Henry, nobody can even prove
>>>>>>an aether exists never mind measure distance
>>>>>>relative to it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct. There isn't an aether...but SR cannot exist without one.
>>>>
>>>>Already proven to be a fallacious assertion,
>>>>but again irrelevant, x is not "distance in
>>>>the aether".
>>>
>>> It is 'contracted' distance in the aether, as per Lorentz.
>>
>>Nope, Maxwell's Equations were written years
>>before Lorentz got involved.
>
> When Maxwell believed in an aether.
He may have believed in fairies too, but
they don't appear in the equations.
>>>>>>It doesn't matter anyway, whatever
>>>>>>you take for x, the value of dx/dt is the same for
>>>>>>all source in Maxwell's Equations so they cannot
>>>>>>be used for a Ritzian model. You seem to be having
>>>>>>a lot of trouble grasping this simple point.
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to be having difficulty in grasping that speed must always
>>>>> have
>>>>> a reference.
>>>>
>>>>No, you seem to be having difficulty grasping
>>>>that dx/dt has only one value whatever the
>>>>reference so light from all sources travels
>>>>at the same speed according to the equations.
>>>
>>> ..and I hope I continue to have difficulty grasping such an
>>> impossibility.
>>>
>>>>> You seem to be having difficulty in grasping the fact that two
>>>>> differently
>>>>> moving observers
>>>>
>>>>You seem to be having trouble remembering that
>>>>my proof of your error only uses one observer
>>>>and two sources, not vice versa.
>>>
>>> You cannot answr a question by changing the question, George.
>>
>>Then why are you trying? Stick to my original
>>point, one observer and two sources, not multiple
>>observers.
>
> The speed at which light travels wrt its source has nothing to do with any
> observer. How could it? Light has no idea where it is heading.
I understand your point, but see what you say next.
> Maxwell's 'c' ...
Why do you think 'c' is "Maxwell's"?
> ... refers to the speed of light emitted in the frame of the
> apparatus which measured the constants that produced the answer. The
> answer in
> turn reflects the permittivity and permeability of the apparatus, not
> those of
> completely empty space.
OK so the speed is relative to the apparatus,
and it applies to all light that passes through
the region where the constants were measured,
for example the air in Maxwell's lab. That is
true regardless of the motion of the source,
which is the point you have yet to learn.
>>> Sorry George, they are perfectly compatible. They produce the value c
>>> for
>>> light speed wrt its source.
>>
>>Learn some basic maths Henry, how to solve
>>differential equations and superposition of
>>solutions.
>
> Learn some basic logic George. The equations apply to a medium.
First you said the speed was relative to the
apparatus that measured the constants, now you
say it is relative to a medium. Whatever you
think the reference is, the equations say the
light from all sources travels at the SAME
speed, that's why they don't work with Ritz.
>>>>>>> Nothing! It might provide a value for the universal constant 'c' but
>>>>>>> clearly
>>>>>>> light cannot be moving at the same speed wrt both observers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you think the speeds aren't going to
>>>>>>be the same, then you can't use those
>>>>>>equations. That was my point.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't just THINK they cannot be the saem. They obviously cannot.
>>>>
>>>>We know from experiment that they are, it is
>>>>only your philosophy that conflicts.
>>>
>>> What experiments George?
>>
>>See the previous times I've listed them.
>
> Not one is believable.
They are all beyond any doubt Henry, denial
isn't an argument:
>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>>news:segf129fejadut5jvc8rb1mdn0qf6k3e2o@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>> Measurements are measurements. Interpreting them is another matter.
What you have to do is offer an alternative
model that predicts the known results
accurately. As always, the ball is in your
court.
George

