Re: 'Source and Observer'

From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 07/11/04 

Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 13:45:05 GMT

"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:d8097fcc.0407110149.562eac44@posting.google.com...
| "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uAYHc.402$G_3.4852944@news-text.cableinet.net...
| >
| > "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
| > news:d8097fcc.0407091331.507c3d84@posting.google.com...
| > | Androcles and Ballisticus,
| > |
| > | Not wishing to distract from my last post which calls for comments on
| > | the calendar idea, but:
| > |
| > | How does Einstein, and those who subscribe to this feature of his
| > | model, get from realising, or reconcile that the embankment looks
| > | different - has a different speed - measured from the embankment than
| > | measured from the train to the idea that value is the same to all
| > | observers - as he says in On The Elect ...
| > | http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ : "They suggest
| > | rather that, as has already been shown
| >
| > The next few words are all important.
| >
| > "to the first order of small quantities,"
| >
| > | the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid
| > | for all frames of reference for which
| >
| > "the equations of mechanics hold good."
| >
| > In reality, he claims this and then denies it. What ARE the equations of
| > mechanics that we are expected to hold good?
| > Certainly one of them is the vector addition of velocities, V = v+u.
| > He says that is only correct "to the first order of small quantities,"
and
| > the exact equation is
| > V = (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2).
| > Ok, so why doesn't he use this in his "But the ray moves relatively to
the
| > initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the
| > velocity c-v, so that x'/(c-v) = t."?
| > Clearly it should be x'/[(c-v)/1-v/c)] = t.
| > In other words, Einstein cannot handle algebra.
| > He uses a relation he says he cannot.
| > |
| > |
| > | He seems to premise that value is discrete. I find that it effects
| > | through relationship of forces - so, necessarily, different forces
| > | will effect different value. (The effecting speed will be determined
| > | by the forces through which it effects - and different forces (such as
| > | speed of the party forces, which includes observer) would effect
| > | different speeds).
| > |
| > | This, of course, would tie in with his unfortunate concept of time.
| >
| > Once it is realized that the ONLY value for Einstein's v is zero, ALL
| > paradox will vanish.
| > Anyone that thinks
| > (1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3 has to be crazy, but that is just what
| > ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
| > IS saying.
| > Androcles
| >
|
| Re "ALL paradox will vanish.":
| The system still would express philosophy or philosophies throughout -
| even at the magic math. stage, if it is only that philosophy does not
| matter.
|
| This is what the approx.100 years of squabbles has been about -
| philosophy, and some of those in the squabbles were smart enough to
| see that. But with formal philosophy in such a bad state there was no
| help there.
|
| Sam Wormley's post is quite supportive of my position on this:
| *Quoting John Wheeler from "STEPHEN HAWKING'S A BRIEF HISTORY OF
| TIME, A READER'S COMPANION", "I had worked with the other great man
| in the quantum debate, Niels Bohr, in Copenhagen. And I know no
| greater debate in the last hundreds of years than the debate between
| Bohr and Einstein, no greater debate between two greater men, or one
| that extended over a longer period of time--twenty-eight years--at a
| higher level of colleagueship. To put it in brief: Does the world
| exist out there independent of us, as Einstein thought; or, as Bohr
| thought, is there some sense in which we, through our choice of
| observing equipment, have something to do with what comes about..."*
|
| It seems to me the more backward one prevailed, as happened 2,300
| years earlier.
|
| There seems to be fairly wide agreement in this group on what became
| of philosophy in those thousands of years - I believe it also made a
| huge difference to the people and the world - and that was when it was
| still seen as all rather theoretical.
|
| What future for physics if the Einstein camp continues to prevail, and
| for people and the world given that the matter is now more-so seen as
| having, shall we say, "experimental support" (that philosophy does not
| matter)?
|
| What prospect of, shall we say, the Bohr camp becoming ascendant given
| what happened in philosophy and given (Bohr-Einstein debate) that
| current physics is the old philosophy?
|
|
| I think O'Barr's post is good, although I'm not planning on engaging
| in a further analysis and support of it:
| news:e9b03d3c.0407080744.439fc206@posting.google.com...

O'Barr has only one point of view, his precious LET.
He is totally oblivious to emission theory, yet proclaims
"The problem of science, to know and understand our
reality so that we can control it for the benefit of
man, is really difficult. "
The problem of O'Barr is that he is prejudiced.
Science is the study of Nature, not the study of competing theories,
LET and SR, both of which are failures.
LET because MMX throws it out, and SR as I have described above.
Let's not go down that blind alley, let's go down this blind alley instead,
with O'Barr leading us.
Somehow I don't think anyone is paying any attention to O'Barr, people LIKE
time dilation, it is an exotic concept popularized in fiction. SR is fiction
also.
Since he wishes to be blind to the evidence by choice, he cannot be
considered a scientist. Just ask him to produce an equation in support of
LET. He cannot and never has.
He claims "We have communications between each
other. Thus we can learn from each other."
What can we learn from O'Barr? Not a darned thing, he waffles on and on
saying "LET is superior to SR". So be it, it is still unrelated to the
universe around us and a figment of O'Barr's imagination. He might as well
tell a pilot dropping laser-guided munitions that an arrow is superior to a
crossbow bolt. Another fletcher might listen to him.

| The same goes for Laurent on these two posts - even if they got a
| rather negative reception:
| news:nLGdnb7L9ckbN3Dd4p2dnA@comcast.com...

"The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed
of light"
Speed of light relative to what?
Yet another vague statement that is meaningless.
The vehicle that lays a dotted line down the middle of the road can travel
at a range of speeds relative to the road and the frequency of paint spray
changed to compensate so that the "wavelength" remains constant, and indeed
this does happen.
Laurent winds up with "Contradict me if you can."
Obviously he isn't prepared to listen to reasoned argument, so why bother?

| news:L5idnVERD4YQLnDdRVn-hQ@comcast.com...

"Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits"

Okay, so what? The symbol "0" represents the quantity of nothing.

There is no aether because
1) It was a figment to begin with, based on an assumed conduit for light as
a wave.
2) Attempts to discover it failed (MMX) and will continue to do so.
3) Cepheids, recurrent novae, so called "eclipsing" variables and flare
stars remarkably have luminosity curves that match a ballistic photon model.
 http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

|
| and of course I've received some support in this thread.
|
|
| Anyone else for revolution- and preferbly the revolution I am
| championing: Effectuationism?

I'm all for revolution in physics but I'll leave the probing of the psyche
to you. I'll stick with what I can deduce about Nature, it is less complex
than people.

Androcles

| --
| Peter Kinane
| http://www.effectuationism.com/

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hammond sees the obvious?
    ... >> That is philosophy, as you say, and not science. ... END OF THE DEBATE, ... Particularly when what you say it TOTALLY insane, irrationsal, illogical, ... >> From my own POV, having as much qualification in philosophy, as you ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: MVP - CHEAP SHOT
    ... Therefore your position of 'if you're going to provide support, ... Now the "philosophy' behind the comment. ... As I see this thread on Google groups, the first post in this thread ( ... And maybe if Mr. Russo doesn't have the time, ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6_outlookexpress)
  • Re: Free Public Debate on Animal Rights on November 16th in
    ... way implies an obligation to waste time listening to idiots, ... the exercise remarkably like philosophical debate. ... Just a couple of philosophy profs chasing their ... provide a soap box for those with extreme views to air their pet cause. ...
    (rec.hunting)
  • Re: What is a physical theory and variable
    ... and he refused saying that we should do so ... >> apparently, sensing defeat, again refuses to debate the issue. ... And you know how to precisely divide between physics and philosophy? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Open letter to the relativity NG from God
    ... satisfaction....i don't agree that it is philosophy trivia however but ... and so we must conclude that the nature of reality to be ... and the writers of Genesis were FULLY AWARE ... UNQULIFIED to either read or debate this scientific ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)