| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Keith Stein" |
| Date: |
20 Feb 2004 04:29:28 AM |
| Object: |
Einstein's ELEMENTARY ERROR Eh! |
Einstein wrote:
velocity = (light path) / (time interval)
[Big deal eh! but he couldn't even apply this elementary equation
correctly, because the very next equations he wrote were:-]
tB - tA = rAB / (c - v ) and tA' - tB = rAB / ( c + v )
where
tA is the time the light left A,
tB the time the light is reflected at B,
tA' the time the light arrived back at A.
v is the velocity of the rod.
rAB denotes the length of the rod - measured in the stationary system.
keith stein wrote:
AND THESE EQUATIONS ARE WRONG!
Since the rod is moving, the far end of the rod must move during the
time it takes light to travel between A and B. Therefore the distance the
light travels is not, and cannot be represented as,equal to the length
of the rod 'rAB'
The easiest way to see that both of Einstein's equations given above
are very definitely WRONG, is to note that the LHS of both equations
are independent of the velocity of the rod, while the RHS of both these
equations are dependant on the arbitary velocity of the rod.
Einstein's radical conclusion from this thought experiment was:-
"Observers moving with the moving rod would thus find that
the two clocks were not synchronous,while observers in the
stationary system would declare the clocks to be synchronous.
So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification
to the concept of simultaneity........." A. Einstein
and this is of course just as erroneous as the equations he derived it from.
keith stein
.
|
|
| User: "V ertner Vergon" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's ELEMENTARY ERROR Eh! |
20 Feb 2004 11:33:49 AM |
|
|
"Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<5klZb.7679$YY6.2104@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
Einstein wrote:
velocity = (light path) / (time interval)
[Big deal eh! but he couldn't even apply this elementary equation
correctly, because the very next equations he wrote were:-]
tB - tA = rAB / (c - v ) and tA' - tB = rAB / ( c + v )
where
tA is the time the light left A,
tB the time the light is reflected at B,
tA' the time the light arrived back at A.
v is the velocity of the rod.
rAB denotes the length of the rod - measured in the stationary system.
keith stein wrote:
AND THESE EQUATIONS ARE WRONG!
Since the rod is moving, the far end of the rod must move during the
time it takes light to travel between A and B. Therefore the distance the
light travels is not, and cannot be represented as,equal to the length
of the rod 'rAB'
The easiest way to see that both of Einstein's equations given above
are very definitely WRONG, is to note that the LHS of both equations
are independent of the velocity of the rod, while the RHS of both these
equations are dependant on the arbitary velocity of the rod.
Einstein's radical conclusion from this thought experiment was:-
"Observers moving with the moving rod would thus find that
the two clocks were not synchronous,while observers in the
stationary system would declare the clocks to be synchronous.
So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification
to the concept of simultaneity........." A. Einstein
and this is of course just as erroneous as the equations he derived it from.
keith stein
In fact Einstein made another interpretation of his equations that is
wrong.
Not only was the intrerpretation wrong but it is inconsistent with the
one you give.
He postulates two identical clocks side by side. One clock then
travels away from the stationary clock and returns.
Upon return he finds the moving clock is "behind" the stationary one.
His conclusion is that the moving clock ran "slower" than the inertial
clock.
Thus was born the concept (erroneous) of time dilation with its famous
Twin
Paradox.
Another explanation for the transit time differential is that the
moving
clock traveled a shorter world line -- and therefore took less time.
I have a different explanation. Due to the constancy of the velocity
of light,
a fast moving coordinate system is observed traveling at a velocity
slower than it actually is. An object traveling at an infinitely great
velocity
would be observed at c. For all the bouble values between you will
find that the observed parameters (momentum, energy)of the faster
(Newtonian) velocity are to be found in the presence of the observed
velocity. Therefore, the moving clock, having traveled faster than
observed, will exhibit less time
(be behind) the stationary clock when it returns.
This result is contrary to the one given in your quote.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's ELEMENTARY ERROR Eh! |
20 Feb 2004 02:49:18 PM |
|
|
Keith Stein wrote:
Einstein wrote:
velocity = (light path) / (time interval)
Actually Einstein wrote in 1905 that the speed of light
is a constant. This, of course was verified many times and
is now understood to be a fundamental constant of nature.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpeedofLight.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keith Stein" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's ELEMENTARY ERROR Eh! |
21 Feb 2004 06:17:36 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote
Keith Stein wrote:
Einstein wrote:
velocity = (light path) / (time interval)
Actually Einstein wrote in 1905 that the speed of light
is a constant.
Indeed he wrote that in the very same paper in which he wrote
the above equation, Mr. Wormley
This, of course was verified many times
No experiment ever showed that the speed of light is
the same for all observers. Indeed any determination
of the one way speed of light can be used to demonstrate
the speed of light is NOT the same for all observers....
A light----> B <-you
< ----------- L --------------> v m/s
Use syncronised clocks at A amd B to time how long it takes
light to travel a distance of L meters across the laboratory..
Speed of light relative to the laboratory = L/ (tB - tA) = c
where 'tA' is the time at which the light left A
and 'tB' is the at which the light arrived at B
Now repeat the experiment while running towards B at v m/s
Note that 'in your frame of reference' the point B is moving ,
so that the light must travel an extra distance = v * (tB - tA)
which is the distance B has moved as the light travels from
A to B.
Therefore:
Speed of light relative to you = (L+ v * (tB - tA)) / (tB - tA)
= c + v
keith stein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's ELEMENTARY ERROR Eh! |
21 Feb 2004 11:15:54 AM |
|
|
Keith Stein wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote
Actually Einstein wrote in 1905 that the speed of light
is a constant. This, of course was verified many times and
is now understood to be a fundamental constant of nature.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpeedofLight.html
No experiment ever showed that the speed of light is
the same for all observers.
Ha ahahhahhhahhahhhahhahahhaaahaha.... all experiments show that
the speed of light is the same for all observers! Ahahahhaa ha
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keith Stein" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's ELEMENTARY ERROR Eh! |
21 Feb 2004 03:35:32 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40379247.3B2CA070@mchsi.com...
Keith Stein wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote
Actually Einstein wrote in 1905 that the speed of light
is a constant. This, of course was verified many times and
is now understood to be a fundamental constant of nature.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpeedofLight.html
No experiment ever showed that the speed of light is
the same for all observers.
Ha .... all experiments show that
ALL EXPERIMENTS !!
I suppose Sam's going to tell US that if anyone gets "c + v "
when they run towards the apparatus, then it's because
their rules have shrunk !! and their clocks are going slow !!
and moved out of sync too no doubt, hahahahahahahaha
the speed of light is the same for all observers.
By definition eh!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Greenfield" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's ELEMENTARY ERROR Eh! |
22 Feb 2004 12:39:05 AM |
|
|
"Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<raQZb.7593$kb1.5385@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40379247.3B2CA070@mchsi.com...
Keith Stein wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote
Actually Einstein wrote in 1905 that the speed of light
is a constant. This, of course was verified many times and
is now understood to be a fundamental constant of nature.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpeedofLight.html
No experiment ever showed that the speed of light is
the same for all observers.
Ha .... all experiments show that
ALL EXPERIMENTS !!
I suppose Sam's going to tell US that if anyone gets "c + v "
when they run towards the apparatus, then it's because
their rules have shrunk !! and their clocks are going slow !!
and moved out of sync too no doubt, hahahahahahahaha
the speed of light is the same for all observers.
By definition eh!
One despairs, eh? The DHR's, for all their degrees, publications, and
mutual tribal back-slappings, CANNOT SEE that the ends of the rod do
not STOP while it is in motion, and the light beam is traversing
it!!!!!!!!!! As you point out (and I continue to try to), they
"freeze" time at one end, while allowing it to "run" at the
other...........and this is SR????? or SCIENCE???????????
Jim G
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's ELEMENTARY ERROR Eh! |
22 Feb 2004 05:36:00 AM |
|
|
"Jim Greenfield" <greenfield_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c4afb26.0402212239.7ce4db03@posting.google.com...
"Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<raQZb.7593$kb1.5385@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40379247.3B2CA070@mchsi.com...
Keith Stein wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote
Actually Einstein wrote in 1905 that the speed of light
is a constant. This, of course was verified many times and
is now understood to be a fundamental constant of nature.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpeedofLight.html
No experiment ever showed that the speed of light is
the same for all observers.
Ha .... all experiments show that
ALL EXPERIMENTS !!
I suppose Sam's going to tell US that if anyone gets "c + v "
when they run towards the apparatus, then it's because
their rules have shrunk !! and their clocks are going slow !!
and moved out of sync too no doubt, hahahahahahahaha
the speed of light is the same for all observers.
By definition eh!
One despairs, eh? The DHR's, for all their degrees, publications, and
mutual tribal back-slappings, CANNOT SEE that the ends of the rod do
not STOP while it is in motion, and the light beam is traversing
it!!!!!!!!!! As you point out (and I continue to try to), they
"freeze" time at one end, while allowing it to "run" at the
other...........and this is SR????? or SCIENCE???????????
Actually, no. You really ought to read the matter until you understand it
before presuming to pontificate about it, and please tell that fool Stein to
do the same.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keith Stein" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's ELEMENTARY ERROR Eh! |
22 Feb 2004 03:32:36 PM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:c1a46v$dgp$1@titan.btinternet.com...
the speed of light is the same for all observers.
By definition eh!
One despairs, eh? The DHR's, for all their degrees, publications, and
mutual tribal back-slappings, CANNOT SEE that the ends of the rod do
not STOP while it is in motion, and the light beam is traversing
it!!!!!!!!!! As you point out (and I continue to try to), they
"freeze" time at one end, while allowing it to "run" at the
other...........and this is SR????? or SCIENCE???????????
Actually, no. You really ought to read the matter until you understand it
before presuming to pontificate about it, and please tell that fool Stein
to
do the same.
Franz
keith stein wrote:
No experiment ever showed that the speed of light is
the same for all observers.
Ha .... all experiments show that
ALL EXPERIMENTS !!
No experiment ever showed that the speed of light is
the same for all observers. Indeed any determination
of the one way speed of light can be used to demonstrate
the speed of light is NOT the same for all observers....
A light----> B <-you
< ----------- L --------------> v m/s
Use syncronised clocks at A amd B to time how long it takes
light to travel a distance of L meters across the laboratory..
Speed of light relative to the laboratory = L/ (tB - tA) = c
where 'tA' is the time at which the light left A
and 'tB' is the at which the light arrived at B
Now repeat the experiment while running towards B at v m/s
Note that 'in your frame of reference' the point B is moving ,
so that the light must travel an extra distance = v * (tB - tA)
which is the distance B has moved as the light travels from
A to B.
Therefore:
Speed of light relative to you = (L+ v * (tB - tA)) / (tB - tA)
= c + v
I suppose Mr. Heyman's going to tell US that if anyone gets "c + v "
when they run towards the apparatus, then it's because
their rules have shrunk !! and their clocks are going slow !!
and moved out of sync too no doubt, hahahahahahahaha
keith stein
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Greenfield" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's ELEMENTARY ERROR Eh! |
22 Feb 2004 06:37:06 PM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<c1a46v$dgp$1@titan.btinternet.com>...
"Jim Greenfield" <greenfield_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c4afb26.0402212239.7ce4db03@posting.google.com...
"Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<raQZb.7593$kb1.5385@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40379247.3B2CA070@mchsi.com...
Keith Stein wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote
Actually Einstein wrote in 1905 that the speed of light
is a constant. This, of course was verified many times and
is now understood to be a fundamental constant of nature.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpeedofLight.html
No experiment ever showed that the speed of light is
the same for all observers.
Ha .... all experiments show that
ALL EXPERIMENTS !!
I suppose Sam's going to tell US that if anyone gets "c + v "
when they run towards the apparatus, then it's because
their rules have shrunk !! and their clocks are going slow !!
and moved out of sync too no doubt, hahahahahahahaha
the speed of light is the same for all observers.
By definition eh!
One despairs, eh? The DHR's, for all their degrees, publications, and
mutual tribal back-slappings, CANNOT SEE that the ends of the rod do
not STOP while it is in motion, and the light beam is traversing
it!!!!!!!!!! As you point out (and I continue to try to), they
"freeze" time at one end, while allowing it to "run" at the
other...........and this is SR????? or SCIENCE???????????
Actually, no. You really ought to read the matter until you understand it
before presuming to pontificate about it, and please tell that fool Stein to
do the same.
Franz
You are sitting at the front of a speeding train, and if you are a
DHR, you "observe" the rear catching you up. (place X next to
agree........
disagree.........
Now what would be the immensity of the foolishness of that observer,
that he thinks the front has slowed/stopped, to allow that to
happen???????
Future generations will view Neanderthals as vastly more intelligent
than these
social groups who cannot recognise crap like that: at least they threw
their spears where the front would be in the future!!!!!!!
Jim G
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Greenfield" |
|
| Title: Wormley and Heymann cowardice? |
26 Feb 2004 07:07:54 PM |
|
|
(Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<3c4afb26.0402221637.14e7ec71@posting.google.com>...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<c1a46v$dgp$1@titan.btinternet.com>...
"Jim Greenfield" < > wrote in message
news:3c4afb26.0402212239.7ce4db03@posting.google.com...
"Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<raQZb.7593$kb1.5385@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40379247.3B2CA070@mchsi.com...
Keith Stein wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote
Actually Einstein wrote in 1905 that the speed of light
is a constant. This, of course was verified many times and
is now understood to be a fundamental constant of nature.
One despairs, eh? The DHR's, for all their degrees, publications, and
mutual tribal back-slappings, CANNOT SEE that the ends of the rod do
not STOP while it is in motion, and the light beam is traversing
it!!!!!!!!!! As you point out (and I continue to try to), they
"freeze" time at one end, while allowing it to "run" at the
other...........and this is SR????? or SCIENCE???????????
Actually, no. You really ought to read the matter until you understand it
before presuming to pontificate about it, and please tell that fool Stein to
do the same.
Franz
You are sitting at the front of a speeding train, and if you are a
DHR, you "observe" the rear catching you up. (place X next to
agree........
disagree.........
Now what would be the immensity of the foolishness of that observer,
that he thinks the front has slowed/stopped, to allow that to
happen???????
Future generations will view Neanderthals as vastly more intelligent
than these
social groups who cannot recognise crap like that: at least they threw
their spears where the front would be in the future!!!!!!!
Jim G
Regular readers of sci. phys may have formed the idea that luminaries
such
as these would have the intellectual courage to perform such a simple
task as placing a tick in the space provided. Not so!! Their failure
to do so is but one more example in a litany of ridicule and
derision, totally bereft of logical, rational, and sound debate. Their
moral strength well suits the strength of the Relativity Theory which
they chant.
Jim G
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Wormley and Heymann cowardice? |
27 Feb 2004 05:06:01 AM |
|
|
"Jim Greenfield" <greenfield_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c4afb26.0402261707.20a18e25@posting.google.com...
[snip]
Regular readers of sci. phys may have formed the idea that luminaries
such
as these would have the intellectual courage to perform such a simple
task as placing a tick in the space provided. Not so!! Their failure
to do so is but one more example in a litany of ridicule and
derision, totally bereft of logical, rational, and sound debate. Their
moral strength well suits the strength of the Relativity Theory which
they chant.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RelativityCancer.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gullible.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OneDim.html
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Greenfield" |
|
| Title: Re: Wormley and Heymann cowardice? |
27 Feb 2004 09:38:13 PM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<twF%b.14909$jT5.713858@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
"Jim Greenfield" <greenfield_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c4afb26.0402261707.20a18e25@posting.google.com...
[snip]
Regular readers of sci. phys may have formed the idea that luminaries
such
as these would have the intellectual courage to perform such a simple
task as placing a tick in the space provided. Not so!! Their failure
to do so is but one more example in a litany of ridicule and
derision, totally bereft of logical, rational, and sound debate. Their
moral strength well suits the strength of the Relativity Theory which
they chant.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RelativityCancer.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gullible.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OneDim.html
Dirk Vdm
This is a great honour! To be so recognised by one so THICK that he
still hasn't figured out, or more likely is TOO GUTLESS to answer!!
why aeroplane mounted radars have to look SIDEWAYS to calculate the
speed of other planes.
Jim G
.
|
|
|
| User: "Titan Point" |
|
| Title: Re: Wormley and Heymann cowardice? |
01 Mar 2004 03:11:19 AM |
|
|
(Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<3c4afb26.0402271938.66f0365b@posting.google.com>...
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<twF%b.14909$jT5.713858@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
"Jim Greenfield" < > wrote in message news:3c4afb26.0402261707.20a18e25@posting.google.com...
[snip]
Regular readers of sci. phys may have formed the idea that luminaries
such
as these would have the intellectual courage to perform such a simple
task as placing a tick in the space provided. Not so!! Their failure
to do so is but one more example in a litany of ridicule and
derision, totally bereft of logical, rational, and sound debate. Their
moral strength well suits the strength of the Relativity Theory which
they chant.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RelativityCancer.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gullible.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OneDim.html
Dirk Vdm
This is a great honour! To be so recognised by one so THICK that he
still hasn't figured out, or more likely is TOO GUTLESS to answer!!
why aeroplane mounted radars have to look SIDEWAYS to calculate the
speed of other planes.
Jim G
No need. Your grasp of logic and reality go before you (or in your
case, to one side)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Wormley and Heymann cowardice? |
01 Mar 2004 01:04:54 PM |
|
|
"Titan Point" <titanpoint@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7c642197.0403010111.22f65086@posting.google.com...
greenfield_7@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<3c4afb26.0402271938.66f0365b@posting.google.com>...
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<twF%b.14909$jT5.713858@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
"Jim Greenfield" <greenfield_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c4afb26.0402261707.20a18e25@posting.google.com...
[snip]
Regular readers of sci. phys may have formed the idea that luminaries
such
as these would have the intellectual courage to perform such a simple
task as placing a tick in the space provided. Not so!! Their failure
to do so is but one more example in a litany of ridicule and
derision, totally bereft of logical, rational, and sound debate. Their
moral strength well suits the strength of the Relativity Theory which
they chant.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RelativityCancer.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gullible.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OneDim.html
Dirk Vdm
This is a great honour! To be so recognised by one so THICK that he
still hasn't figured out, or more likely is TOO GUTLESS to answer!!
why aeroplane mounted radars have to look SIDEWAYS to calculate the
speed of other planes.
Jim G
No need. Your grasp of logic and reality go before you (or in your
case, to one side)
"Dumb all over - An' maybe even a little ugly on the side"
- Frank Zappa
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Greenfield" |
|
| Title: Re: Wormley and Heymann cowardice? |
01 Mar 2004 05:41:49 PM |
|
|
(Titan Point) wrote in message news:<7c642197.0403010111.22f65086@posting.google.com>...
greenfield_7@hotmail.com (Jim Greenfield) wrote in message news:<3c4afb26.0402271938.66f0365b@posting.google.com>...
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<twF%b.14909$jT5.713858@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
"Jim Greenfield" <greenfield_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c4afb26.0402261707.20a18e25@posting.google.com...
[snip]
Regular readers of sci. phys may have formed the idea that luminaries
such
as these would have the intellectual courage to perform such a simple
task as placing a tick in the space provided. Not so!! Their failure
to do so is but one more example in a litany of ridicule and
derision, totally bereft of logical, rational, and sound debate. Their
moral strength well suits the strength of the Relativity Theory which
they chant.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RelativityCancer.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gullible.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OneDim.html
Dirk Vdm
This is a great honour! To be so recognised by one so THICK that he
still hasn't figured out, or more likely is TOO GUTLESS to answer!!
why aeroplane mounted radars have to look SIDEWAYS to calculate the
speed of other planes.
Jim G
No need. Your grasp of logic and reality go before you (or in your
case, to one side)
Another one!! Empty, vaccuous, and totally unable or too cowardly to
commit an answer to such a seemingly easy question. Put up or shut up?
-not likely, you mud slingers- too ***** scared it will bounce back
onto your beautiful invisible cloaks
Jim G
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Wormley and Heymann cowardice? |
26 Feb 2004 08:37:01 PM |
|
|
Jim Greenfield wrote:
Regular readers of sci. phys may have formed the idea that luminaries such
as these would have the intellectual courage to perform such a simple
task as placing a tick in the space provided. Not so!! Their failure
to do so is but one more example in a litany of ridicule and
derision, totally bereft of logical, rational, and sound debate. Their
moral strength well suits the strength of the Relativity Theory which
they chant.
You make the mistake of thinking of me as a luminary... I'm just a
learner of physics as I find many aspects fascinating.
You, Jim, should develop the common sense to do some learning yourself.
Physics isn't a subject the determined by the outcome of debates in a
USENET newsgroup. Physics, like all sciences, is a process for finding
out how things work in nature... based on the empirical results of
observation and experiment.
Suggest read about the physics community has learned in the last century
especially in the area of Special Relativity!
Are There Any Good Books on Relativity Theory?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: Wormley and Heymann cowardice? |
29 Feb 2004 06:27:27 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 02:37:01 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Jim Greenfield wrote:
Regular readers of sci. phys may have formed the idea that luminaries such
as these would have the intellectual courage to perform such a simple
task as placing a tick in the space provided. Not so!! Their failure
to do so is but one more example in a litany of ridicule and
derision, totally bereft of logical, rational, and sound debate. Their
moral strength well suits the strength of the Relativity Theory which
they chant.
You make the mistake of thinking of me as a luminary... I'm just a
learner of physics as I find many aspects fascinating.
Then one thing you should have learnt by now is that OWLS has never been
measured at all, let alone been shown to be constant.
You talk continuous crap Wormsley.
Henri Wilson.
A woman's I.Q. = 1/(litres boiled to make ONE cuppa)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Wormley and Heymann cowardice? |
29 Feb 2004 07:00:07 PM |
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
Then one thing you should have learnt by now is that OWLS has never been
measured at all, let alone been shown to be constant.
You talk continuous crap Wormsley.
Henri Wilson.
One grabbed something running in the snow--leaving marks from its
wing tips--measured about 1.8 meters from tip to tip.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Wormley and Heymann cowardice? |
29 Feb 2004 10:59:59 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Mon, 01 Mar 2004 01:00:07 GMT
<40428AF8.5E9E02B2@mchsi.com>:
Henri Wilson wrote:
Then one thing you should have learnt by now is that OWLS has never been
measured at all, let alone been shown to be constant.
You talk continuous crap Wormsley.
Henri Wilson.
One grabbed something running in the snow--leaving marks from its
wing tips--measured about 1.8 meters from tip to tip.
Heh. Not to mention of course that one could easily photograph
them, and ... oh, wait, I think he meant One-Way-Light-Speed. :-)
Of course, how does one measure OWLS and not end up measuring TWLS
by mistake?
Not that it matters. It's easily shown that, if OLWS is not constant,
neither is TWLS, by analogy of the canoeist in a flowing river,
or an airplane battling a constant headwind.
A<----------------l---------------->B
Let an entity in a still wind be propelled from A to B at constant
velocity c. The time taken for the trip will be of course l/c.
The time for the return trip wil be l/c as well. Total time: 2l/c.
Now introduce a wind from B to A, of velocity v.
If the entity's velocity is c *relative to the wind*, then
the time from A to B is l/(c - v), and the time back is l/(c + v).
Add them together and one gets
l(v+v) + l(c-v) / (c^2 - v^2) = 2lc / (c^2 - v^2) = 2l/(c(1 - v^2/c^2))
which is clearly not equal to 2l/c.
If the wind is a "crab wind", the AB component of the wind, assuming
again that the entity has velocity c relative to the wind (at an
angle), is sqrt(c^2 - v^2). This means that the time there and back,
which in this case is the same both ways, is 2l/sqrt(c^2 - v^2).
Since the MMX had a null result, if one squishes AB by the
corrective factor sqrt(c^2 - v^2)/c = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
when the wind is along AB, the two times becomes the same.
That factor looks awfully familiar. :-)
Perhaps Mr. Wilson can explain how one gets a constant TWLS
and a non-constant OLWS?
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Greenfield" |
|
| Title: Re: Wormley and Heymann cowardice? |
27 Feb 2004 09:55:13 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<403EAD3C.11331FE1@mchsi.com>...
Jim Greenfield wrote:
Regular readers of sci. phys may have formed the idea that luminaries such
as these would have the intellectual courage to perform such a simple
task as placing a tick in the space provided. Not so!! Their failure
to do so is but one more example in a litany of ridicule and
derision, totally bereft of logical, rational, and sound debate. Their
moral strength well suits the strength of the Relativity Theory which
they chant.
You make the mistake of thinking of me as a luminary... I'm just a
learner of physics as I find many aspects fascinating.
Me too! I learn a lot from posts and links to these groups: at this
point we part ways, because My learning involves applying logic to the
evidence supporting a certain position (in this case, the proposition
that a body "shrinks" as its' velocity increases. YOUR "learning"
seems to summed in your ability to remember and regurgitate claims and
formulae of others, never questioning whether THEIR writings are
correct.
You, Jim, should develop the common sense to do some learning yourself.
Physics isn't a subject the determined by the outcome of debates in a
USENET newsgroup. Physics, like all sciences, is a process for finding
out how things work in nature... based on the empirical results of
observation and experiment.
And you Sam, should think of how many "natural" things have been
observed at 1/2 size, due to their speed, and how many twins are/would
be of different ages, due to their travel histories.
Suggest read about the physics community has learned in the last century
especially in the area of Special Relativity!
Also how many bomb chuckers have learnt to recite the Q'ran word for
word!
Are There Any Good Books on Relativity Theory?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html
All this study, and you still can't insert a simple tick in a post???
Jim G
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "roy" |
|
| Title: Re: Einstein's ELEMENTARY ERROR Eh! |
22 Feb 2004 07:59:29 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 22:39:05 -0800, Jim Greenfield wrote:
"Keith Stein" <ks012a2355@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<raQZb.7593$kb1.5385@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40379247.3B2CA070@mchsi.com...
Keith Stein wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote
Actually Einstein wrote in 1905 that the speed of light
is a constant. This, of course was verified many times and
is now understood to be a fundamental constant of nature.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpeedofLight.html
No experiment ever showed that the speed of light is
the same for all observers.
Ha .... all experiments show that
ALL EXPERIMENTS !!
I suppose Sam's going to tell US that if anyone gets "c + v "
when they run towards the apparatus, then it's because
their rules have shrunk !! and their clocks are going slow !!
and moved out of sync too no doubt, hahahahahahahaha
the speed of light is the same for all observers.
By definition eh!
One despairs, eh? The DHR's, for all their degrees, publications, and
mutual tribal back-slappings, CANNOT SEE that the ends of the rod do
not STOP while it is in motion, and the light beam is traversing
it!!!!!!!!!! As you point out (and I continue to try to), they
"freeze" time at one end, while allowing it to "run" at the
other...........and this is SR????? or SCIENCE???????????
Most of them don't even understand that which is clearly written on
SR/GR never mind introducing something new to the debate!
roy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
