>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message >news:9qu8f5p0ni9off3fqaef5ql7a55lpdifml@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 21:56:02 -0000, "Androcles" >> <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_p> >> wrote: >>>>>Produce an equation or fuck off, you are an embarrassment.
>>>> I have
>>>> Now go back and check your work.
>>>Produce an equation or fuck off, you are an embarrassment.
>> You are confusing ordinary VDoppler with time compression.
>I haven't confused anything except you, all I've asked you to do >is provide an equation, you dumb sheep shagger.
A single equation wont tell you much. I have a whole program that allows you to see what happens. I'm currently upgrading and streamlining it.
Nearly all time compression occurs when the binary star pair is in the concave half of a larger orbit....concave wrt the observer that is. The maximum achievable effect occurs at eccentricity about 0.386 with the perihelion nearest the observer...like Algol. However, the brightness curve of the orbiting binary will be distorted. I suspect this is one reason why the cepheid type curve is more common than its opposite. The star's brightness also increases dramatically during time compression. Its observed period might be 1/200th of its real one....explaining the claimed 'contact binaries' and maybe even some pulsars. Observed orbit frequencies of stars in this situation should drift more or less sinusoidally over time. That is observed regularly.
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 09:12:52 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote: >"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message >news:gtu8f59eljk90a96sdamp7shbeob8b81cs@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 13:00:20 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>>>>> I understand just fine. Ken's theory is self-contradictory. Although >>>>> it >>>>> does predict relativity of simultaneity,
>>>> Fucking idiot....My theory predicts simultaneity is absolute.
>>>Nope. And if you insist that it is, your theory is self-contradictoy
>>>> That's >>>> why the speed of light is isotropic in all inertial frames.
>>>It can only be isotropic BECAUSE of RoS. Without it you get different >>>speeds
>>>> If >>>> simultaneity is relative then you get anisotropic light speed of c-v >>>> and c+v for the M' observer and isotropic c for the M observer.
>>>You have everything backward, your stupid little dipshit
>> Ken may have his faults but his theory is a lot more sound than >> Einstein's.
>You're just as bad. You' don't THINK about what you're saying .. You're so >prejudiced that Einstein must be wrong, due to either you jealousy of his >success or resentment over your failure to learn physics, that you can no >longer think clearly. Let go of your hate and jealousy and leave the dark >side.
I don't hate Einstein, dopey. Anyone who can get away with his nonsense for 100 years is obviously a pretty good salesman. I'm interested in real physics, not the phairyland type.
>>>>>>Produce an equation or fuck off, you are an embarrassment.
>>>>> I have
>>>>> Now go back and check your work.
>>>>Produce an equation or fuck off, you are an embarrassment.
>>> You are confusing ordinary VDoppler with time compression.
>>I haven't confused anything except you, all I've asked you to do >>is provide an equation, you dumb sheep shagger.
> A single equation wont tell you much.
A VDoppler will tell everyone a D.umb Sc.umbag doesn't mean what he says or say what he means. <babbling drool snipped> Produce an equation or fuck off, you are an embarrassment.
>>>>>> > That's what I passed on to inertial and diaper. It's far too hard >>>>>> > for >>>>>> > them >>>>>> > though.
>>>>>> I understand just fine. Ken's theory is self-contradictory. >>>>>> Although >>>>>> it >>>>>> does predict relativity of simultaneity,
>>>>> Fucking idiot....My theory predicts simultaneity is absolute.
>>>>Nope. And if you insist that it is, your theory is self-contradictoy
>>>>> That's >>>>> why the speed of light is isotropic in all inertial frames.
>>>>It can only be isotropic BECAUSE of RoS. Without it you get different >>>>speeds
>>>>> If >>>>> simultaneity is relative then you get anisotropic light speed of c-v >>>>> and c+v for the M' observer and isotropic c for the M observer.
>>>>You have everything backward, your stupid little dipshit
>>> Ken may have his faults but his theory is a lot more sound than >>> Einstein's.
>>You're just as bad. You' don't THINK about what you're saying .. You're >>so >>prejudiced that Einstein must be wrong, due to either you jealousy of his >>success or resentment over your failure to learn physics, that you can no >>longer think clearly. Let go of your hate and jealousy and leave the dark >>side.
> I don't hate Einstein, dopey. Anyone who can get away with his nonsense > for 100 > years is obviously a pretty good salesman. I'm interested in real > physics, not > the phairyland type.
Don't read the things you post then .. they aren't physics .. they're almost as bad as ken's stuff
>>>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message >>>news:9qu8f5p0ni9off3fqaef5ql7a55lpdifml@4ax.com... >>>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 21:56:02 -0000, "Androcles" >>>> <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_p> >>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>Produce an equation or fuck off, you are an embarrassment.
>>>>>> I have
>>>>>> Now go back and check your work.
>>>>>Produce an equation or fuck off, you are an embarrassment.
>>>> You are confusing ordinary VDoppler with time compression.
>>>I haven't confused anything except you, all I've asked you to do >>>is provide an equation, you dumb sheep shagger.
>> A single equation wont tell you much.
>A VDoppler will tell everyone a D.umb Sc.umbag doesn't mean >what he says or say what he means. ><babbling drool snipped> >Produce an equation or fuck off, you are an embarrassment.
>>>>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message >>>>news:9qu8f5p0ni9off3fqaef5ql7a55lpdifml@4ax.com... >>>>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 21:56:02 -0000, "Androcles" >>>>> <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_p> >>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>Produce an equation or fuck off, you are an embarrassment.
>>>>>>> I have
>>>>>>> Now go back and check your work.
>>>>>>Produce an equation or fuck off, you are an embarrassment.
>>>>> You are confusing ordinary VDoppler with time compression.
>>>>I haven't confused anything except you, all I've asked you to do >>>>is provide an equation, you dumb sheep shagger.
>>> A single equation wont tell you much.
>>A VDoppler will tell everyone a D.umb Sc.umbag doesn't mean >>what he says or say what he means. >><babbling drool snipped> >>Produce an equation or fuck off, you are an embarrassment.
> What brand are you on today?
x = [ -b +/- sqrt(b^2-4ac)]/2a Being a single equation it won't tell you much, you are fuckin' stupid to know what it means.
>"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message >news:iunbf51g31q14l4evofnq6bimhav1cl34a@4ax.com... >> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 06:45:00 -0000, "Androcles" >>>> A single equation wont tell you much.
>>>A VDoppler will tell everyone a D.umb Sc.umbag doesn't mean >>>what he says or say what he means. >>><babbling drool snipped> >>>Produce an equation or fuck off, you are an embarrassment.
>> What brand are you on today?
>x = [ -b +/- sqrt(b^2-4ac)]/2a >Being a single equation it won't tell you much, you are fuckin' >stupid to know what it means.
Here are some of mine....on the way to proving einstein wrong.....
>>>>A VDoppler will tell everyone a D.umb Sc.umbag doesn't mean >>>>what he says or say what he means. >>>><babbling drool snipped> >>>>Produce an equation or fuck off, you are an embarrassment.
>>> What brand are you on today?
>>x = [ -b +/- sqrt(b^2-4ac)]/2a >>Being a single equation it won't tell you much, you are fuckin' >>stupid to know what it means.
> Here are some of mine....on the way to proving einstein wrong.....
Produce an equation or fuck off, you are an embarrassment.
'*********************************************************************** Public Sub Frame6_Click() 'start brightness curve, yellow button GBoption = True: overt = False Call Labelhide Call brightness End Sub 'OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO Public Function brightness() compare.Cls Call combovalues Call diagram 'shows position of observer, bottom left. YawScan.Label16.Visible = False: YawScan.Label17.Visible = False YawScan.Caption = "yawscan OF BRIGHTNESS CURVES VERSUS YAW ANGLE" Comhowto.Caption = "Instructions" Timer1.Enabled = False If cut = False Then 'Stops a crash Lwarn.Visible = True GoTo outyetagain End If If ecc <> eccindex Then 'Stops a crash compare.Visible = False
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 21:11:02 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_p> > wrote:
> >"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message > >news:iunbf51g31q14l4evofnq6bimhav1cl34a@4ax.com... > >> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 06:45:00 -0000, "Androcles" > >>>> A single equation wont tell you much.
> >>>A VDoppler will tell everyone a D.umb Sc.umbag doesn't mean > >>>what he says or say what he means. > >>><babbling drool snipped> > >>>Produce an equation or fuck off, you are an embarrassment.
> >> What brand are you on today?
> >x = [ -b +/- sqrt(b^2-4ac)]/2a > >Being a single equation it won't tell you much, you are fuckin' > >stupid to know what it means.
> Here are some of mine....on the way to proving einstein wrong.....
Okay, Wilson, so if your theory is assumed to be correct then how do you explain the following:
1) A spacecraft moving at 50% c emits a light signal in the opposite direction of it's motion and then speeds up just a bit to 51% c. Some distance away, a 'stationary' observer reflects the signal back to the ship. Do the occupants on the ship ever receive the signal?
2) The above spacecraft accelerates to 99.999999999999999999% c and then emits another ray of light. The ray would be moving so slowly as if through molasses, would it not?
3) If the said spacecraft were then to emit a beam of light in the direction of it's motion, by what means is the ray accelerated, as it has no mass? That is, with nothing for the ship to apply leverage to, how could it possibly impart momentum it?
> >> >> >>On Nov 2, 4:10 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > >> >> >>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 06:54:04 -0800 (PST), kenseto > >> >> >>> <kens...@erinet.com> > >> >> >>> wrote: > >> >> >>> >On Nov 1, 4:07 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
> >> >> >>> >> >The closing speed between any object and light is c as > >> >> >>> >> >measured > >> >> >>> >> >in > >> >> >>> >> >the > >> >> >>> >> >object's frame of reference. If an observer sends a light > >> >> >>> >> >pulse > >> >> >>> >> >toward > >> >> >>> >> >an object then the closing speed between that light pulse and > >> >> >>> >> >the > >> >> >>> >> >object is c+v or c-v.
> >> >> >>> >> I assume the object is moving at v wrt the absolute aether.
> >> >> >>> >NO the object is moving at v wrt the observer. The observer > >> >> >>> >assumes > >> >> >>> >that the speed of light in the ether is c. So when the observer > >> >> >>> >sends > >> >> >>> >a light pulse toward the object the closing speed between the > >> >> >>> >object > >> >> >>> >and the light pulse is c+v or c-v.
> >> >> >>> Let's see. > >> >> >>> If the observer is moving at u wrt the aether then the object is > >> >> >>> moving > >> >> >>> at u-v > >> >> >>> wrt Aether.
> >> >> >>No the object has its own state of absolute motion in the ether.
> >> >> > That's what I said
> >> >> >>>So the closing speed is c-u+v wrt the aether and therefore c+v wrt > >> >> >>> the observer.
> >> >> >>No the observer assumes that the speed of light in the ether is > >> >> >>c....therefore the closing speed for a light pulse from the observer > >> >> >>to the object is c+v or c-v.
> >> >> > That's what I said....but I just said c+v because v can be + or -.
> >> >> > I can understand why you don't know how to respond when someone > >> >> > agrees > >> >> > with > >> >> > you.
> >> >> >>> Very good Ken. I'm glad you got that correct without mentioning > >> >> >>> the > >> >> >>> LTs.
> >> >> >>> >> In that case, you will argue that the object's rods and clocks > >> >> >>> >> are > >> >> >>> >> contracted > >> >> >>> >> such that they will always MEASURE OWLS to be c...so your first > >> >> >>> >> statement is > >> >> >>> >> correct in aether theories...
> >> >> >>> >NO...the speed of light is a ratio in all frames as follows: > >> >> >>> >Light path length of physical ruler (299,792,458 m)/the absolute > >> >> >>> >time > >> >> >>> >content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
> >> >> >>> That is the same as I said. > >> >> >>> You assume both the ruler and clock contract by the same factor. > >> >> >>> You have now introduced the LTs.
> >> >> >>No I didn't introduce the LT. I show that the speed of light is a > >> >> >>constant ratio of light path length of ruler over the absolute time > >> >> >>content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler in all inertial > >> >> >>frame.
> >> >> > Isn't that saying the same thing?
> >> >> >>> >> The second statement says tha > >> >> >>> >t the closing speed is independent of source speed > >> >> >>> >> and so the closing speed is just the sum of c and the object's > >> >> >>> >> absolute speed > >> >> >>> >> wrt the aether.
> >> >> >>> >No there is no absolute speed involved.
> >> >> >>> >> So you have correctly stated the aether theory case.
> >> >> >>> >> LET is such a nice theory. What a pity there is no aether.
> >> >> >>> >Assertion is not a valid arguement.
> >> >> >>> >> There IS one thing that worries me.
> >> >> >>> >> Here, source S is at rest in the absolute aether. O1 and O2 are > >> >> >>> >> moving at v in > >> >> >>> >> opposite directions relative to the aether.
> >> >> >>> >OK
> >> >> >>> >> How can they both measure the speed of light from S to be > >> >> >>> >> always c > >> >> >>> >> when its > >> >> >>> >> closing speeds are c+v and c-v
> >> >> >>> >From S point of view the closing speed to of light to o1 is c+v > >> >> >>> >and > >> >> >>> >to > >> >> >>> >o2 is c-v. However O1 and O2 will measure the light from S to be > >> >> >>> >c > >> >> >>> >as > >> >> >>> >follows: > >> >> >>> >c=(measured frequency)(measured wavelength). > >> >> >>> >As I pointed out to you earlier this SR arguement is bogus. The > >> >> >>> >speed > >> >> >>> >of light to O1 and O2 are different as follows: > >> >> >>> >c'1=(measured higher frequency of approching light source > >> >> >>> >S)(universal > >> >> >>> >wavelength of the source) > >> >> >>> >c'2=(measured lower frequency of the receding light source S) > >> >> >>> >(universal wavelength of the source)
> >> >> >>> I understand what you are saying.
> >> >> >>> Einstein's idea is that every observer carries a 'personal aether' > >> >> >>> that > >> >> >>> determines ligh speed in his frame.
> >> >> >>No it doesn't have to be that way if the speed of light is a > >> >> >>constant > >> >> >>ratio as I shown above.
> >> >> > That's what I passed on to inertial and diaper. It's far too hard > >> >> > for > >> >> > them > >> >> > though.
> >> >> I understand just fine. Ken's theory is self-contradictory. Although > >> >> it > >> >> does predict relativity of simultaneity,
> >> > Fucking idiot....My theory predicts simultaneity is absolute.
> >> Nope. And if you insist that it is, your theory is self-contradictoy
> > It's not self-contradictory at all.
> Yes it is .. even a small amount of thinking on your part would realise this
> > IRT endorses the idea that the > > speed of light is isotropic in all inertial frames.
> Which cannot happen unless there is RoS.
> Simply having clocks tick slower cannot make light isotropic in multiple > frames. Nor can just changing lengths of rod.
Hey idiot....in IRT the speed of light is a constant ratio in all inertial frames as follows: Light path length of ruler (299.792,458m long physically)/the absolute time content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
> > The bogus concept > > of RoS is self contratradictory....
> Nope .. it works perfectly, as SR and LET math shows
No it doesn't work at all....it violates the isotroppy of the speed of light in the train.
> > it asserts that the speed of light > > is isotropic only in the observer's frame
> Nope .. in every frame. You've got it backwards. It is your theory that > does not allow light to be isotropic in any frame other than your 'aether' > frame
> > and that it is anistropic in > > the observed M' frame because the light fronts from the ends of the > > train are arriving at M'at different speeds of (c+v) and (c-v).
> You still have it backward
> > You are so fucking stupid.
> You're talking about yourself again- Hide quoted text -
>Okay, Wilson, so if your theory is assumed to be correct then how do >you explain the following:
>1) A spacecraft moving at 50% c emits a light signal in the opposite >direction of it's motion and then speeds up just a bit to 51% c. Some >distance away, a 'stationary' observer reflects the signal back to the >ship. Do the occupants on the ship ever receive the signal?
>2) The above spacecraft accelerates to 99.999999999999999999% c and >then emits another ray of light. The ray would be moving so slowly as >if through molasses, would it not?
It moves at c wrt the spaceship.
>3) If the said spacecraft were then to emit a beam of light in the >direction of it's motion, by what means is the ray accelerated, as it >has no mass? That is, with nothing for the ship to apply leverage to, >how could it possibly impart momentum it?
This is an extremely poor message. You don't seem to understand the basic principle of relativity. Are you an aetherist?
1) I can only assume you mean the above speeds are relative to the observer. The answer to (1) is obvious. Yes.
2) When you talk about speeds, you must provide a reference. I assume you mean the spacecraft moves at 0.999999999999999999999c wrt the observer. The observer would eventually recceive a very weak long wave signal from the craft and observe it to be moving away at half the above speed.
(3) is nonsense. You should learn what relativity means.
>>Okay, Wilson, so if your theory is assumed to be correct then how do >>you explain the following:
>>1) A spacecraft moving at 50% c emits a light signal in the opposite >>direction of it's motion and then speeds up just a bit to 51% c. Some >>distance away, a 'stationary' observer reflects the signal back to the >>ship. Do the occupants on the ship ever receive the signal?
>>2) The above spacecraft accelerates to 99.999999999999999999% c and >>then emits another ray of light. The ray would be moving so slowly as >>if through molasses, would it not?
> It moves at c wrt the spaceship.
>>3) If the said spacecraft were then to emit a beam of light in the >>direction of it's motion, by what means is the ray accelerated, as it >>has no mass? That is, with nothing for the ship to apply leverage to, >>how could it possibly impart momentum it?
> This is an extremely poor message. You don't seem to understand the basic > principle of relativity. Are you an aetherist?
He's a fuckwit. You are right on the money, H. He doesn't understand the PoR. He's also a troll, so plonk the dumbfuck and get back to serious science.
> 1) I can only assume you mean the above speeds are relative to the > observer. > The answer to (1) is obvious. Yes.
> 2) When you talk about speeds, you must provide a reference. I assume you > mean > the spacecraft moves at 0.999999999999999999999c wrt the observer. > The observer would eventually recceive a very weak long wave signal from > the > craft and observe it to be moving away at half the above speed.
> (3) is nonsense. You should learn what relativity means.
>> >> >> >>On Nov 2, 4:10 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 06:54:04 -0800 (PST), kenseto >> >> >> >>> <kens...@erinet.com> >> >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >> >>> >On Nov 1, 4:07 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote:
>> >> >> >>> >> >The closing speed between any object and light is c as >> >> >> >>> >> >measured >> >> >> >>> >> >in >> >> >> >>> >> >the >> >> >> >>> >> >object's frame of reference. If an observer sends a light >> >> >> >>> >> >pulse >> >> >> >>> >> >toward >> >> >> >>> >> >an object then the closing speed between that light pulse >> >> >> >>> >> >and >> >> >> >>> >> >the >> >> >> >>> >> >object is c+v or c-v.
>> >> >> >>> >> I assume the object is moving at v wrt the absolute aether.
>> >> >> >>> >NO the object is moving at v wrt the observer. The observer >> >> >> >>> >assumes >> >> >> >>> >that the speed of light in the ether is c. So when the >> >> >> >>> >observer >> >> >> >>> >sends >> >> >> >>> >a light pulse toward the object the closing speed between the >> >> >> >>> >object >> >> >> >>> >and the light pulse is c+v or c-v.
>> >> >> >>> Let's see. >> >> >> >>> If the observer is moving at u wrt the aether then the object >> >> >> >>> is >> >> >> >>> moving >> >> >> >>> at u-v >> >> >> >>> wrt Aether.
>> >> >> >>No the object has its own state of absolute motion in the ether.
>> >> >> > That's what I said
>> >> >> >>>So the closing speed is c-u+v wrt the aether and therefore c+v >> >> >> >>>wrt >> >> >> >>> the observer.
>> >> >> >>No the observer assumes that the speed of light in the ether is >> >> >> >>c....therefore the closing speed for a light pulse from the >> >> >> >>observer >> >> >> >>to the object is c+v or c-v.
>> >> >> > That's what I said....but I just said c+v because v can be + >> >> >> > or -.
>> >> >> > I can understand why you don't know how to respond when someone >> >> >> > agrees >> >> >> > with >> >> >> > you.
>> >> >> >>> Very good Ken. I'm glad you got that correct without mentioning >> >> >> >>> the >> >> >> >>> LTs.
>> >> >> >>> >> In that case, you will argue that the object's rods and >> >> >> >>> >> clocks >> >> >> >>> >> are >> >> >> >>> >> contracted >> >> >> >>> >> such that they will always MEASURE OWLS to be c...so your >> >> >> >>> >> first >> >> >> >>> >> statement is >> >> >> >>> >> correct in aether theories...
>> >> >> >>> >NO...the speed of light is a ratio in all frames as follows: >> >> >> >>> >Light path length of physical ruler (299,792,458 m)/the >> >> >> >>> >absolute >> >> >> >>> >time >> >> >> >>> >content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
>> >> >> >>> That is the same as I said. >> >> >> >>> You assume both the ruler and clock contract by the same >> >> >> >>> factor. >> >> >> >>> You have now introduced the LTs.
>> >> >> >>No I didn't introduce the LT. I show that the speed of light is a >> >> >> >>constant ratio of light path length of ruler over the absolute >> >> >> >>time >> >> >> >>content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler in all >> >> >> >>inertial >> >> >> >>frame.
>> >> >> > Isn't that saying the same thing?
>> >> >> >>> >> The second statement says tha >> >> >> >>> >t the closing speed is independent of source speed >> >> >> >>> >> and so the closing speed is just the sum of c and the >> >> >> >>> >> object's >> >> >> >>> >> absolute speed >> >> >> >>> >> wrt the aether.
>> >> >> >>> >No there is no absolute speed involved.
>> >> >> >>> >> So you have correctly stated the aether theory case.
>> >> >> >>> >> LET is such a nice theory. What a pity there is no aether.
>> >> >> >>> >Assertion is not a valid arguement.
>> >> >> >>> >> There IS one thing that worries me.
>> >> >> >>> >> Here, source S is at rest in the absolute aether. O1 and O2 >> >> >> >>> >> are >> >> >> >>> >> moving at v in >> >> >> >>> >> opposite directions relative to the aether.
>> >> >> >>> >OK
>> >> >> >>> >> How can they both measure the speed of light from S to be >> >> >> >>> >> always c >> >> >> >>> >> when its >> >> >> >>> >> closing speeds are c+v and c-v
>> >> >> >>> >From S point of view the closing speed to of light to o1 is >> >> >> >>> >c+v >> >> >> >>> >and >> >> >> >>> >to >> >> >> >>> >o2 is c-v. However O1 and O2 will measure the light from S to >> >> >> >>> >be >> >> >> >>> >c >> >> >> >>> >as >> >> >> >>> >follows: >> >> >> >>> >c=(measured frequency)(measured wavelength). >> >> >> >>> >As I pointed out to you earlier this SR arguement is bogus. >> >> >> >>> >The >> >> >> >>> >speed >> >> >> >>> >of light to O1 and O2 are different as follows: >> >> >> >>> >c'1=(measured higher frequency of approching light source >> >> >> >>> >S)(universal >> >> >> >>> >wavelength of the source) >> >> >> >>> >c'2=(measured lower frequency of the receding light source S) >> >> >> >>> >(universal wavelength of the source)
>> >> >> >>> I understand what you are saying.
>> >> >> >>> Einstein's idea is that every observer carries a 'personal >> >> >> >>> aether' >> >> >> >>> that >> >> >> >>> determines ligh speed in his frame.
>> >> >> >>No it doesn't have to be that way if the speed of light is a >> >> >> >>constant >> >> >> >>ratio as I shown above.
>> >> >> > That's what I passed on to inertial and diaper. It's far too hard >> >> >> > for >> >> >> > them >> >> >> > though.
>> >> >> I understand just fine. Ken's theory is self-contradictory. >> >> >> Although >> >> >> it >> >> >> does predict relativity of simultaneity,
>> >> > Fucking idiot....My theory predicts simultaneity is absolute.
>> >> Nope. And if you insist that it is, your theory is self-contradictoy
>> > It's not self-contradictory at all.
>> Yes it is .. even a small amount of thinking on your part would realise >> this
>> > IRT endorses the idea that the >> > speed of light is isotropic in all inertial frames.
>> Which cannot happen unless there is RoS.
>> Simply having clocks tick slower cannot make light isotropic in multiple >> frames. Nor can just changing lengths of rod.
> Hey idiot....in IRT the speed of light is a constant ratio in all > inertial frames as follows: > Light path length of ruler (299.792,458m long physically)/the absolute > time content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
That's not a speed in the inertial frame, you moron.
>> > The bogus concept >> > of RoS is self contratradictory....
>> Nope .. it works perfectly, as SR and LET math shows
> No it doesn't work at all....it violates the isotroppy of the speed of > light in the train.
>> 1) I can only assume you mean the above speeds are relative to the observer. The answer to (1) is obvious. Yes.
But if the signal is travelling at 50% c and the ship 51%, how then could the reflected light possibly catch up?
>> When you talk about speeds, you must provide a reference. I assume you mean the spacecraft moves at 0.999999999999999999999c wrt the observer The observer would eventually recceive a very weak long wave signal from the craft and observe it to be moving away at half the above speed.
Why half? Wouldn't it be moving at 0.000000000000000000001 c? Furthermore, why has such "slow light" never been observed?
>> (3) is nonsense. You should learn what relativity means.
It was a question for your theory, not relativity. Again, for the addition of velocities to make sense, it would necessarily mean that the ship is somehow exerting an acceleration upon the light wave, correct? But if light is massless, then how would this be possible?
>>>3) If the said spacecraft were then to emit a beam of light in the >>>direction of it's motion, by what means is the ray accelerated, as it >>>has no mass? That is, with nothing for the ship to apply leverage to, >>>how could it possibly impart momentum it?
>> This is an extremely poor message. You don't seem to understand the basic >> principle of relativity. Are you an aetherist?
> He's a fuckwit. You are right on the money, H. He doesn't > understand the PoR. He's also a troll, so plonk the dumbfuck > and get back to serious science.
Androcles, What exactly are your credentials?
Glenn Smith Automation Engineer San Diego, Ca, USA
>>>>3) If the said spacecraft were then to emit a beam of light in the >>>>direction of it's motion, by what means is the ray accelerated, as it >>>>has no mass? That is, with nothing for the ship to apply leverage to, >>>>how could it possibly impart momentum it?
>>> This is an extremely poor message. You don't seem to understand the >>> basic >>> principle of relativity. Are you an aetherist?
>> He's a fuckwit. You are right on the money, H. He doesn't >> understand the PoR. He's also a troll, so plonk the dumbfuck >> and get back to serious science.
> Androcles, What exactly are your credentials?
> Glenn Smith > Automation Engineer > San Diego, Ca, USA
BA, B.Sc., Ph.D., Automation Engineer, computer graphics. (Flight Simulation (Singer Link-Miles), Robotics, Industrial Vision, Project Leader, QA Manager, now retired) Do you want my full résumé (curriculum vitae)?
If the said spacecraft were then to emit a stream of bullets in the direction of it[']s motion, by what means is the stream accelerated, as it has no mass of the cordite? That is, with nothing for the cannon to apply leverage to, how could it possibly impart momentum to the bullet?
> >>>>3) If the said spacecraft were then to emit a beam of light in the > >>>>direction of it's motion, by what means is the ray accelerated, as it > >>>>has no mass? That is, with nothing for the ship to apply leverage to, > >>>>how could it possibly impart momentum it?
> >>> This is an extremely poor message. You don't seem to understand the > >>> basic > >>> principle of relativity. Are you an aetherist?
> >> He's a fuckwit. You are right on the money, H. He doesn't > >> understand the PoR. He's also a troll, so plonk the dumbfuck > >> and get back to serious science.
> > Androcles, What exactly are your credentials?
> > Glenn Smith > > Automation Engineer > > San Diego, Ca, USA
> BA, B.Sc., Ph.D., Automation Engineer, computer graphics. > (Flight Simulation (Singer Link-Miles), Robotics, Industrial Vision, > Project Leader, QA Manager, now retired) > Do you want my full résumé (curriculum vitae)?
> If the said spacecraft were then to emit a stream of bullets in the > direction of it[']s motion, by what means is the stream accelerated, > as it has no mass of the cordite? That is, with nothing for the cannon > to apply leverage to, how could it possibly impart momentum to the > bullet?
Now, if you could just apply some of that QA experience to your posts, you'd have something to be proud of. It seems you'd rather insult strangers in cyberspace (quite easy, isn't it?) than make a genuine contribution to a discussion. Anyway, your "counter-example" doesn't even come close to a valid response, so I can only assume that you simply don't have a legitimate refutation (though I'm still willing to hear it, if you really do have one).
>>>>>3) If the said spacecraft were then to emit a beam of light in the >>>>>direction of it's motion, by what means is the ray accelerated, as it >>>>>has no mass? That is, with nothing for the ship to apply leverage to, >>>>>how could it possibly impart momentum it?
>>>> This is an extremely poor message. You don't seem to understand the >>>> basic >>>> principle of relativity. Are you an aetherist?
>>> He's a fuckwit. You are right on the money, H. He doesn't >>> understand the PoR. He's also a troll, so plonk the dumbfuck >>> and get back to serious science.
>> Androcles, What exactly are your credentials?
>> Glenn Smith >> Automation Engineer >> San Diego, Ca, USA > BA, B.Sc., Ph.D., Automation Engineer, computer graphics. > (Flight Simulation (Singer Link-Miles), Robotics, Industrial Vision, > Project Leader, QA Manager, now retired) > Do you want my full résumé (curriculum vitae)?
Androcles is a smart-mouthed but stupid-brained wanna-be physicist who cant understand basic math or physics. That he ever managed to hold down a job is a miracle.
|
