Re: What is Proper Time?
- From: "Androcles" <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 05:23:12 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4mu6a5-k15.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson)
| <HW@>
| wrote
| on Thu, 06 Mar 2008 21:12:31 GMT
| <s7n0t3tj21on4cg791obtc95e1lc08ssk5@xxxxxxx>:
| > On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 07:35:21 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine
| > <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| >
| >>In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson)
| >><HW@>
| >> wrote
| >>on Thu, 06 Mar 2008 08:57:12 GMT
| >
| >>>>| >
| >>>>| > The clocks are in absolute synch in ALL frames, Ghost.
| >>>>|
| >>>>| Certainly they are, in BaTH. I'm in SR.
| >>>>
| >>>>SR - Stupid Relativity.
| >>>>Point out the experiment that showed 'the "time" required by
| >>>>light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel
| >>>>from B to A' , crank.
| >>>
| >>> The MMX, for one. The fact that ALL TWLS experiments produce the same
answer
| >>> for c is another.
| >>
| >>MMX proves nothing in this context. At best, one has two hockey pucks
| >>going on two paths with the same length, in the standard setup.
| >>
| >>t S-M-A-M-D
| >>t' S-M-B-M-D
| >> 0-1-2-3-4
| >>
| >>We can tell that t12 = t'12 and t23 = t'23 but that tells us absolutely
| >>nothing about the relationship of t12 and t23, or t'12 and t'23.
| >>
| >>If one assumes absolute time, the fact that TWLS experiments show the
| >>same speed indicates that there's no "headwind". The path there
| >>is S-M-S, and the S-M path goes at speed c-v (velocity v-c) with the
| >>M-S path c+v if one has a headwind with speed v. The total transit time
| >>is therefore
| >>
| >>t_h = d/(c-v) + d/(c+v)
| >>
| >>(or (-d)/(v-c) + d/(v+c) )
| >>
| >>= (d(c+v) + d(c-v))/(c^2-v^2) = 2dc/(c^2-v^2) = 2(d/c)/(1-v^2/c^2)
| >
| > That's what aether theory states.
| > There is no aether, therefore it's wrong. Why do you even bother with
the
| > maths?
|
| You will, of course, have alternate maths for BaTH, I trust?
|
| >
| >>However, TWLS shows nothing regarding nBaT (and presumably
| >>BaTh); the frictionless hockey puck encounters only the
| >>reflecting mirror and is always moving at speed c.
| >
| > Light normally moves at c wrt it source. ...and all components of the
| > interferometer.
|
| Only if the source is not moving with respect thereto, in BaTH.
|
| > Einstein's silly theory says virtually the same thing. He knew it was
correct
| > because Ritz influenced him.
| >
| >>I do not know if a TWLS has been attempted with a moving source.
| >>I would assume so but don't know offhand.
| >
| > It hasn't.....not in any believable experiment anyway.
| >
| >>> For christ's sake will you give up this aether nonsense. You are
supposed to
| >>> be a ballistician, remember
| >>
| >>But SR is an aether theory; Androcles has "proven" that. ;-)
| >
| > Well he should know, he's a great believer in aether theories.
|
| No no...he doesn't believe in SR. If anything, he vehemently disputes
| it. He's more in line with BaTH.
Wilson has no math, and BaTh is Wilson crap.
"When Einstein deviously rendered the aether redundant (although still a
reality)" -- Wilson the crank aetherialist.
news:pvetm3l83u901a5uljn7490fisjm2tjtfb@xxxxxxxx
"DON'T TRY TO USE ROTATING FRAMES." -- Wilson (who can't manage it).
news:aqqqm35ka2ef6qheidr8b1qh2bi0tv1bgo@xxxxxxx
"A rotating frame is not a 'rotating frame'...
hahahahhahahahaha!" --Wilson
news:mu2nm3d6urgddt8jgdnss0ddualtsrnm7n@xxxxxxx
"There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
"In BaTh there is NO DOPPLER SHIFT AT THE OBSERVER" -- Wilson
news:uemrk39d4o3dka3tukbb68dtiaeu7oamm1@xxxxxxx
"There is NO WAVELENGTH SHIFT at the observer."
news:ctb7l3lhh3vmq9b0sip2vt546ggrqrctab@xxxxxxx
"Light doesn't have a 'frequency'. It has a wavelength." --Wilson.
news:1193906355.448067.162590@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"SPINNING OBJECTS HAVE A FREQUENCY, NOT A BLOODY WAVELENGTH." -- Wilson
news:pllli3puamdqd70qnenjoonfsbjtv1ibmj@xxxxxxx
"Light doesn't have a particuar 'frequency' in the normal sense.
Frequency is the inferred rate at whichABSOLUTE wavecrests leave the
source" -- Wilson.
news:3ghfh3h30n795o2vs1sulouge37ve0n17i@xxxxxxx
"THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IN GENERAL, THE 'WAVELENGTH' OF AN OSCILLATION IS
THE
SAME IN ALL FRAMES." -- Wilson
news:920ni31ul6rb833qrltro49t3pnv2g5qk5@xxxxxxx
"Anyway, this now fits in perfectly with my 'intrinsic oscillation
frequency' idea.
Thankyou Jerry for helping me develop my theory...." -- Wilson,
October 26, 2007 1:03 PM
news:iml3i3dh0vmisp6ln34ron41uoljmonvni@xxxxxxx
"That's the kind of argument I'd expect from a desperate
person....completely out of ideas... ahahahaha!" -- Wilson.
"For one ray, ct = 2piR+vt , for the other ct = 2piR-vt. This gives t =
2piR/(c+v) and 2piR/(c-v)" -- Wilson.
news:q21vi3lmjhp5s9pkc554egjp1taus1drbt@xxxxxxxxxx
"That's for the nonrotating frame, dopey." -- Wilson.
news:cp7vi35bvqvta6o1vcvi4m1v6q8t4ro1la@xxxxxxxx
"There is NOT the same number of wavelengths between the STARTPOINT and
the detector" -- Wilson
news:8no1j39qhu9tk2nqglqkgt00u07se4i63q@xxxxxxx
"<plonk>" -- Wilson (faced with his own words)
news:gci9j3lf66t9d1j9ia3fdpqe7pfova2kln@xxxxxxx
.
- References:
- Re: What is Proper Time?
- From: Paul B. Andersen
- Re: What is Proper Time?
- From: Artful
- Re: What is Proper Time?
- From: The Ghost In The Machine
- Re: What is Proper Time?
- From: The Ghost In The Machine
- Re: What is Proper Time?
- From: Androcles
- Re: What is Proper Time?
- From: The Ghost In The Machine
- Re: What is Proper Time?
- From: The Ghost In The Machine
- Re: What is Proper Time?
- Prev by Date: Re: What is Proper Time?
- Next by Date: Re: "The Brilliance of Our Teachers"
- Previous by thread: Re: What is Proper Time?
- Next by thread: Re: What is Proper Time?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
