Re: SR theory is simplistic

On Mar 7, 3:29 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 7 Mar 2007 06:27:06 -0800, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

This was settled a century ago.
The - basically same - faulty calculation pops up every
now and then, "proving" that you can have fully dragged
ether AND stellar aberration.
IIRC, you presented such a wrong derivation some time ago.

Paul

A very likely scenario is that local EM frames of reference surround every
significant mass. The Earth has one, the whole solar system has another, the
MMX apparutus had its own such frame...and so does a particle accelerator.

Lovely. Let's see if we can piece this together. You've said that a
frame of reference is all those objects that are stationary with
respect to a defined point. So the whole solar system has a "local EM
frame of reference" but it doesn't include the Earth, because the
Earth is not at rest with respect to the solar system. So the "local
EM frame of reference" corresponding to the whole solar system has to
exclude the "local EM frame of reference" that contains the Earth.
Pray tell, where is the boundary between the whole solar system local
EM frame of reference and the earth local EM frame of reference?

Draper, the concept of 'frames' is obviously much too hard for you.
You really should give up physics.

Well, since you can't answer a simple question about YOUR notion of
"local EM frames of reference", one has to wonder about how hard it is
for you, too, Henri.


These 'frames vary in strength.
The Earth also has an atmosphere that acts very much like an 'aether'.

One thing is certain, light moves initially at c wrt its source and at c+v wrt
the remote observer.

How certain is it? Perhaps you could come up with a calculated (or
simulated) deviation from what's from invariant c for the case of the
highly elliptical orbit of Halley's comet. Since the light on approach
is coming faster than c, then it should appear further ahead of the
position expected from light traveling at c.

Hahahahahohohohohho! ..yet another Draperian blunder....

Really? Perhaps you could point out the blunder.
Tell me, Henri, suppose you have a gun approaching you and it emits
bullets at two different firings, and one of those bullets has speed c
+v and the other has speed c, and it so happens that they both arrive
at the target at the same time. From this, which bullet was fired
first and which one was fired second? Can you figure out this simple
puzzle?


Have another go Draper....

Likewise, since the light
on recession is coming slower than c, then it should appear further
behind the position expected from light traveling at c. I'm sure you
can calculate this expected deviation and compare it to measured
positions. In fact, you should be able to do that for just about every
comet in our systems. And since you claim there is a "local EM frame"
associated with the solar system, there shouldn't be must effect due
to convergence to c, should there?

Positions of comets are not where we see them. We see the Willusion based on a
varying c+v. Astronomers use a constant c...end get the orbits wrong.
...So when astronomers predict that a certain comet will miss planet Earth,
they could easily be very wrong.

Ah, very good, and so when we predict where the comet should be seen
next month, based on where it was two months ago, using Newtonian
mechanics and assuming a constant speed of propagation of light c, we
will obviously be making a mistake and it won't end up where we think
it will be, because the speed of propagation ISN'T c, it's c+v. And so
you should be able to tell us how far off that prediction should be.
Unless of course, both the constant speed of propagation AND Newtonian
mechanics is wrong, and comets proceed by dynamics other than what
Newtonian mechanics predicts. What say you, Ralph? Where's your
numbers?


Empty space, below the Wilson Field Density Threshold progressively loses all
'aetherlike' properties as the proportion of space occupied by 'Wilson
Nort-holes' increases.

And what are the laws that govern electromagnetic fields in a "Wilson
Nort-hole"?

Nort-holes are regions completely devoid of fields. Fields are quantized and
cannot go to 1/infinity. They everntually become fragmented.

Fragmented into what?

So let's see, you have little holes in space which are *defined* to be
the places where nothing is, even fields. And you don't know what the
laws of physics are in those "Wilson Nort-holes" are, and the second
you try to learn anything about them by, say, observing a particle or
a field in them, they disappear because they are no longer empty by
definition. Sounds like a Wilson Nort-Hole is a close relative to the
leprechaun's pot of gold at the bottom of a rainbow.

Superb physics, that!
I think it would be good if you could also turn your physics attention
to the density of pin-dwelling angels.

PD

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SR theory is simplistic
    ... So the whole solar system has a "local EM ... frame of reference" but it doesn't include the Earth, ... behind the position expected from light traveling at c. I'm sure you ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Running outside or treadmill
    ... I can and will still argue that the treadmill and earth are the same. ... If you're going to ignore the math (feel free to bring in math ... you're using the earths frame of reference. ...
    (rec.running)
  • Re: SR theory is simplistic
    ... A very likely scenario is that local EM frames of reference surround every ... So the whole solar system has a "local EM ... frame of reference" but it doesn't include the Earth, ... below the Wilson Field Density Threshold progressively loses all ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Movement in an independent frame of reference, which is made out of light
    ... Earth is not in the center of the movements of heavenly bodies, ... something about a frame of reference. ... a frame of an observer in equal rights, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: SR time dilation on remote objects ?
    ... Perhaps someone would say they move farther apart, ... >different frames of reference. ... >in a frame of reference centered on the earth, ...
    (sci.astro)