Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #619037 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-08-27 02:50 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-08-28 01:45 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 113 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 02:50 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 03:46 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-27 06:31 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 07:21 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-27 11:26 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 19:01 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-28 05:15 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 12:04 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-29 02:02 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-29 07:19 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-29 11:32 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-29 11:59 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-29 12:54 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-29 16:56 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-30 06:52 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-30 08:00 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-30 08:51 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-30 12:01 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-30 12:17 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-30 13:15 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-30 16:07 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-09-01 06:08 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-09-01 06:46 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-29 19:35 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-30 06:13 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-30 06:48 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-30 06:57 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-30 07:50 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-30 08:47 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-30 11:49 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-30 11:58 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-30 12:14 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-30 12:22 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-30 13:26 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-30 17:24 -0400
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-30 22:12 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-09-01 05:37 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-09-01 06:56 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-09-01 12:42 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-09-01 15:49 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-09-02 02:30 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-09-02 05:21 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-09-02 08:21 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-09-02 09:22 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-09-02 11:34 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-09-02 14:37 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-09-02 15:45 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-09-02 16:56 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-09-02 18:31 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-09-02 18:56 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-09-03 02:57 -0700
Crank Lou keeps on lying "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-09-03 06:40 -0700
Re: Crank Lou keeps on lying Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-09-03 15:54 -0700
Re: Crank Lou keeps on lying Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-09-03 17:03 -0700
Re: Crank Lou keeps on lying "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-09-03 22:04 -0700
Re: Crank Lou keeps on lying Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-09-04 05:45 -0700
Re: Crank Lou keeps on lying "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-09-04 07:20 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-09-03 09:00 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-09-03 10:40 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-09-02 19:50 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-01 09:51 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-09-01 12:25 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-09-02 11:29 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-09-02 11:52 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-09-02 16:12 -0400
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-09-02 15:38 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-09-03 01:18 -0400
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-09-03 02:16 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-09-03 17:02 -0400
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-09-04 06:01 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-09-04 08:06 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-09-04 14:30 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-09-04 18:21 -0400
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-09-04 21:52 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever Trenton Zhaba <nroz@ennetata.nt> - 2023-09-05 07:36 +0000
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-09-05 18:13 -0500
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever Evangelista Tzaregradsky <lzes@itkdlavl.tt> - 2023-09-06 16:00 +0000
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-09-07 19:28 -0500
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever Rod Finkel <eere@rfleffoo.ei> - 2023-09-08 10:07 +0000
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 18:08 -0500
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-09-05 06:38 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-09-05 12:25 -0400
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-09-05 09:35 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-09-06 05:52 -0700
Crank Lou perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-09-06 09:04 -0700
Re: Crank Lou perseveres Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-09-07 05:13 -0700
Re: Crank Lou perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-09-07 07:58 -0700
Re: Crank Lou perseveres Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-09-07 08:26 -0700
Re: Crank Lou perseveres nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-09-07 20:32 +0200
Re: Crank Lou perseveres Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-09-08 05:38 -0700
Re: Crank Lou perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-09-08 06:47 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-09-06 12:36 -0400
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever Weston Belogorsky <yooe@ewtgsnto.or> - 2023-09-06 16:45 +0000
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-09-07 05:21 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-09-07 22:38 -0400
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-09-08 09:32 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-09-07 05:27 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-09-04 19:41 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-09-05 06:31 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-09-05 11:54 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode Hagan Prigara <aina@hharaian.gi> - 2023-09-03 10:28 +0000
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-31 11:01 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-09-01 06:03 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-09-01 06:32 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-09-01 12:36 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-29 05:53 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-29 06:21 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 23:36 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-27 23:42 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-28 05:36 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 15:37 -0700
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-08-28 11:41 +0300
Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-28 01:45 -0700
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-01 09:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode |
| Message-ID | <947569b9-4a78-4478-a582-aa71ffa1b36dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #619327 |
On September 1, Lou wrote: > OK let’s look,at what we actually observe in deSitters binary star: > We see that the star wobbles around roughly in an *ellipse* ... > The star light also is observed to * not pile up*. Even in the emission theory, there's no 'pile up'. Later light overtakes earlier light, such that, at a couple of points, the observed orbit appears to split in two. This is not observed. > Now let’s look at what the Ritzian model predicts: > It predicts that in the source frame, (a frame where the *earth observer rotates*), > light travels at constant speeds isotropically and *does not pile up*. > And therefore using a simple galilean trans to the earth observer frame > the light from the source can not pile up ( seeing as it’s not piling up in the > source frame) and also the light from the source will appear to be dragged > around in an ellipse in the observer frame. OK In the sun's frame, no pile up, light travels at constant speed c. And in the earth's frame, no pile up or other weirdness, we see an ellipse. So the light doesn't pile up for anybody, objective reality survives, and earth sees light approach at speed c. > Isn’t that what is observed? Yes. Therefore, source and observer frames agree that, in the c + kv formula, k = 0. Which refutes the emission theory. Normally, to engage in debate, a difference of opinion must manifest. Are we debating? -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-01 12:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode |
| Message-ID | <4d88af3c-8709-4db2-9d29-cf71092a3f44n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #619335 |
On Friday, 1 September 2023 at 17:51:31 UTC+1, RichD wrote: > On September 1, Lou wrote: > > OK let’s look,at what we actually observe in deSitters binary star: > > We see that the star wobbles around roughly in an *ellipse* ... > > The star light also is observed to * not pile up*. > Even in the emission theory, there's no 'pile up'. Later light > overtakes earlier light, such that, at a couple of points, the > observed orbit appears to split in two. > Pure nonsense. If light travels at c in the source frame it doesn’t pile up get “split in 2” or anything else. It does what it says on the package. It TRAVELS at constant c in the source frame. > This is not observed. Sorry to break the news to you. But for more than a century Light has been observed to travel at constant speeds and c in the source frame. > > Now let’s look at what the Ritzian model predicts: > > It predicts that in the source frame, (a frame where the *earth observer rotates*), > > light travels at constant speeds isotropically and *does not pile up*. > > And therefore using a simple galilean trans to the earth observer frame > > the light from the source can not pile up ( seeing as it’s not piling up in the > > source frame) and also the light from the source will appear to be dragged > > around in an ellipse in the observer frame. > OK > In the sun's frame, no pile up, light travels at constant speed c. > And in the earth's frame, no pile up or other weirdness, we see > an ellipse. So the light doesn't pile up for anybody, objective > reality survives, and earth sees light approach at speed c. > > Isn’t that what is observed? > Yes. > Therefore, source and observer frames agree that, in the c + kv > formula, k = 0. Which refutes the emission theory. > What the f? Where did you get this ridiculous v and k? Alberts ass? There is no formula for light in the source frame for Ritzian emission model. Light just travels at constant speeds of c in the source frame. Period. You relativists are barmy. To make SR look like the only contender you make up imaginary formulas and imaginary speeds for emission theory to falsely refute emission theory. Here...I’ll do the same thing for SR: SR predicts light in the source frame will be at speeds defined by the following formula...c+k^2/v-1+dt-y Seeing as light is not observed to be at these speeds...SR is refuted. > Normally, to engage in debate, a difference of opinion must > manifest. Are we debating? > Not if you falsely pretend that emission theory predicts that light travels at variable speeds in the source frame. Which is what deSitter does. That’s not debating. That’s dogmatic gobbledegook.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-02 11:29 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode |
| Message-ID | <919d9695-cc9a-449b-ae7d-4bcd1cfc1c4fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #619346 |
On September 1, Lou wrote: > If light travels at c in the source frame it doesn’t pile up > get “split in 2” or anything else. er, yes. Are we debating? > But for more than a century Light has been observed to travel at > constant speeds and c in the source frame. All experiments measure light speed in the receiver frame. We're incapable of such experiments in the source frame, except when source is stationary relative to the receiver, which is the trivial case. You display confusion on a basic point of relativity. >> > Now let’s look at what the Ritzian model predicts: >> > It predicts that in the source frame, (a frame where the *earth observer rotates*), >> > light travels at constant speeds isotropically and *does not pile up*. > >> In the sun's frame, no pile up, light travels at constant speed c. >> And in the earth's frame, no pile up or other weirdness, we see >> an ellipse. So the light doesn't pile up for anybody, objective >> reality survives, and earth sees light approach at speed c. >> Therefore, source and observer frames agree that, in the c + kv >> formula, k = 0. Which refutes the emission theory. > > What the f? Where did you get this ridiculous v and k? > There is no formula for light in the source frame for Ritzian emission model. According to emission theory, the RECEIVER observes light approach at c + kv. > SR predicts light in the source frame will be at speeds defined by the following > formula...c+k^2/v-1+dt-y That's news to me - >> Normally, to engage in debate, a difference of opinion must >> manifest. Are we debating? > > Not if you falsely pretend that emission theory predicts that light > travels at variable speeds in the source frame. No, emission theory refers specifically to the receiver frame. If you run toward me at velocity v, and flick on a flashlight, does the light approach me at c + v, in MY frame? That's what emission theory claims. Your confusion seems to grow by the day. -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-02 11:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode |
| Message-ID | <5144e131-19a9-4bbb-b3cd-4baef68a3a52n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #619439 |
On Saturday, 2 September 2023 at 19:29:22 UTC+1, RichD wrote: > On September 1, Lou wrote: > > If light travels at c in the source frame it doesn’t pile up > > get “split in 2” or anything else. > er, yes. > Are we debating? Who knows. Are we? You seem to be suggesting that light travelling at c in the source frame refutes emission theory. I disagree. Not least because the only or most important rule in emission theory is ....that it travels at constant speeds c in the source frame. I say we also have evidence for this source speed dependence...MMX. > > But for more than a century Light has been observed to travel at > > constant speeds and c in the source frame. > All experiments measure light speed in the receiver frame. > We're incapable of such experiments in the source frame, > except when source is stationary relative to the receiver, > which is the trivial case. > If the source frame is the same as the receiver frame as in MMX, then we can be sure light is travelling at constant speeds isotropically relative to the source. > You display confusion on a basic point of relativity. > >> > Now let’s look at what the Ritzian model predicts: > >> > It predicts that in the source frame, (a frame where the *earth observer rotates*), > >> > light travels at constant speeds isotropically and *does not pile up*. > > > >> In the sun's frame, no pile up, light travels at constant speed c. > >> And in the earth's frame, no pile up or other weirdness, we see > >> an ellipse. So the light doesn't pile up for anybody, objective > >> reality survives, and earth sees light approach at speed c. > >> Therefore, source and observer frames agree that, in the c + kv > >> formula, k = 0. Which refutes the emission theory. > > > > What the f? Where did you get this ridiculous v and k? > > There is no formula for light in the source frame for Ritzian emission model. > According to emission theory, the RECEIVER observes light > approach at c + kv. What is this k? If the observer approaches the source at v,.. they see the light at c+v in emission theory. There is no k. That is your fantasy. > > SR predicts light in the source frame will be at speeds defined by the following > > formula...c+k^2/v-1+dt-y > That's news to me - > >> Normally, to engage in debate, a difference of opinion must > >> manifest. Are we debating? > > > > Not if you falsely pretend that emission theory predicts that light > > travels at variable speeds in the source frame. > No, emission theory refers specifically to the receiver frame. > If you run toward me at velocity v, and flick on a flashlight, > does the light approach me at c + v, in MY frame? That's what > emission theory claims. > Ritzian emission theory says light should always propagate at c in the source frame. If you move towards the source then yes you will see c+v But if you look at the deSitter thought experiment, and do your maths properly you will realise that deSitter has light propagating away from the source at variable speeds. This is not only NOT consistent with an emission model. It is not observed or consistent with experiments like MMX or Sagnac where light always travels at c relative to the source. > Your confusion seems to grow by the day. > And you aren’t confused when you say emission theory does not predict light at c in the source frame, when in fact emission theory explicitly states light must always be at c in the c source frame?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-02 16:12 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode |
| Message-ID | <ud050a$hjht$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #619327 |
On 9/1/2023 8:37 AM, Lou wrote: > On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 22:24:05 UTC+1, Volney wrote: >> On 8/30/2023 3:14 PM, Lou wrote: >> >>> Screw your imaginary relativistic inertial coordinate nonsense. There is no such >>> thing as an object on an inertial path. All objects in the universe rotate, spiral, revolve, >>> accelerate, decelerate etc. >>> >> [...] >>> Obviously you understand physics or this emission model I describe. >>> Because it doesn’t matter if the sun moves relative to Betelgeuse or the Virgo >>> Galaxy cluster. Light will always travel at constant c relative to the sun. So all >>> one has to do is place the sun immobile in its own frame. Have light propagate >>> away from it isotropically at constant speeds. >> Since you claim there are no inertial coordinates, that means that this >> frame you "place the sun immobile" in is not inertial, so it can >> accelerate. Let's say this necessarily non-inertial frame, after >> emitting light toward the observer, wiggles back and forth, does >> loop-the-loops, figure 8's or whatever. Does the observer see the light >> following the figure 8s so that it appears to come from the sun always, >> or does it come from the place where the sun WAS when the light was emitted? > > OK let’s look,at what we actually observe in deSitters binary star: > Let’s focus on one star of the two. We see that the star wobbles around > roughly in an *ellipse*. I imagine it’s probably a bit more complex > than that but an ellipse for sake of argument. The star light also > is observed to * not pile up*. Correct. We can simplify things by looking at what happens at two points in the orbit. At one point, one star is on, say, the left side of the other, and is moving away from earth at a speed v. The instantaneous inertial source frame of the star is moving away from the earth at a speed v, because the star itself is moving away at speed v at that instant. 1/2 of the orbital period P later, the star is on the right side of the other, but is now approaching earth at a speed v. The instantaneous inertial source frame of the star is now moving toward the earth at a speed v. Obviously, these frames are different, because the star has moved non-inertially (it's in orbit). SR states light travels at c in all inertial frames at c, regardless of the motion of the source. If the star is a distance D away, the time the light reaches us will be D/c and D/c+P/2. Now the cranks claim the light travels at c-v and c+v respectively, as seen on the earth. So the first light pulse will take time D/(c+v) to reach us, while the second takes a shorter time, D/(c-v). Earth observers will see the first light at time D/(c+v) and the second at time D/(c-v) + P/2. DeSitter, being much smarter than the average crank, realized the second pulse is emitted later but would be moving faster than the first. Could they arrive at the same time on earth? That would mean solving the equation D/(c+v) = (D/(c-v) + P/2). You can do the algebra yourself, but the answer is yes, the faster pulse can catch up to the slower pulse when both reach earth. Now, what would this mean? What would we earthlings see? We would see both lights at the same time. One red shifted, the other blue shifted. If we can resolve the stars we'd see TWO images of the star, once to the left of the other and once to the right of the other. I won't try to figure out what would be seen from light emitted between the endpoints, but others have described it as a mess. Now when looking at *real* binary stars, we see one going round and round the other, alternately becoming blue shifted and red shifted, but always one image of the orbiting star, and never both blue shifted and red shifted at the same time. Because we see that and not the "pile up" mess, DeSitter showed that light cannot be traveling at c+v and c-v from the binary stars, and this invalidates all theories which claim light travels at c+v and c-v.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-02 15:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode |
| Message-ID | <815a8641-c94f-4321-8c77-4bd639e05e85n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #619455 |
On Saturday, 2 September 2023 at 21:13:01 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > On 9/1/2023 8:37 AM, Lou wrote: > > On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 22:24:05 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > >> On 8/30/2023 3:14 PM, Lou wrote: > >> > >>> Screw your imaginary relativistic inertial coordinate nonsense. There is no such > >>> thing as an object on an inertial path. All objects in the universe rotate, spiral, revolve, > >>> accelerate, decelerate etc. > >>> > >> [...] > >>> Obviously you understand physics or this emission model I describe. > >>> Because it doesn’t matter if the sun moves relative to Betelgeuse or the Virgo > >>> Galaxy cluster. Light will always travel at constant c relative to the sun. So all > >>> one has to do is place the sun immobile in its own frame. Have light propagate > >>> away from it isotropically at constant speeds. > >> Since you claim there are no inertial coordinates, that means that this > >> frame you "place the sun immobile" in is not inertial, so it can > >> accelerate. Let's say this necessarily non-inertial frame, after > >> emitting light toward the observer, wiggles back and forth, does > >> loop-the-loops, figure 8's or whatever. Does the observer see the light > >> following the figure 8s so that it appears to come from the sun always, > >> or does it come from the place where the sun WAS when the light was emitted? > > > > OK let’s look,at what we actually observe in deSitters binary star: > > Let’s focus on one star of the two. We see that the star wobbles around > > roughly in an *ellipse*. I imagine it’s probably a bit more complex > > than that but an ellipse for sake of argument. The star light also > > is observed to * not pile up*. > Correct. > > We can simplify things by looking at what happens at two points in the > orbit. At one point, one star is on, say, the left side of the other, > and is moving away from earth at a speed v. The instantaneous inertial > source frame of the star is moving away from the earth at a speed v, > because the star itself is moving away at speed v at that instant. 1/2 > of the orbital period P later, the star is on the right side of the > other, but is now approaching earth at a speed v. The instantaneous > inertial source frame of the star is now moving toward the earth at a > speed v. Obviously, these frames are different, because the star has > moved non-inertially (it's in orbit). > Your relativistic inertial nonsense doesn’t cut it. Emission theory states that to correctly calculate light speeds...calculate in the source frame. Can’t do it ? Thought not. You don’t want to admit deSitter was a liar. > SR states light travels at c in all inertial frames at c, regardless of > the motion of the source. If the star is a distance D away, the time the > light reaches us will be D/c and D/c+P/2. > > Now the cranks claim the light travels at c-v and c+v respectively, as > seen on the earth. So the first light pulse will take time D/(c+v) to > reach us, while the second takes a shorter time, D/(c-v). Earth > observers will see the first light at time D/(c+v) and the second at > time D/(c-v) + P/2. > Problem here with your analysis. If your light pulse was travelling at a constant c+-v to get here to earth. It has to be travelling at a variable speed relative to the source. Which ISNT what emission theory predicts. And if you tried calculating in the SOURCE FRAME where the earth observer rotates. Then you would find that light doesn’t pile up. But relativists, like deSitter, are such cowards they know their lies will be exposed if they calculated in the source frame. So they lie and pretend that emission theory says light travels at variable speeds in the source frame. So as to create the false impression that emission theory is refuted. > DeSitter, being much smarter than the average crank, realized the second > pulse is emitted later but would be moving faster than the first. Could > they arrive at the same time on earth? That would mean solving the > equation D/(c+v) = (D/(c-v) + P/2). You can do the algebra yourself, but > the answer is yes, the faster pulse can catch up to the slower pulse > when both reach earth. > Try doing your calculation in the source frame. Does the light pile up ? No That’s why you are too scared to even attempt this correct method. Don’t talk to me about how to do algebra. You can’t even do basic maths. > Now, what would this mean? What would we earthlings see? We would see > both lights at the same time. One red shifted, the other blue shifted. > If we can resolve the stars we'd see TWO images of the star, once to the > left of the other and once to the right of the other. > > I won't try to figure out what would be seen from light emitted between > the endpoints, but others have described it as a mess. > > Now when looking at *real* binary stars, we see one going round and > round the other, alternately becoming blue shifted and red shifted, but > always one image of the orbiting star, and never both blue shifted and > red shifted at the same time. Because we see that and not the "pile up" > mess, DeSitter showed that light cannot be traveling at c+v and c-v from > the binary stars, and this invalidates all theories which claim light > travels at c+v and c-v. Try doing your calculation in the source frame where earth observer rotates and emission theory says light always travels at c. Can’t do it? Thought not. It would expose deSitters lies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-03 01:18 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Mode |
| Message-ID | <ud14vu$pdjd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #619466 |
On 9/2/2023 6:38 PM, Lou wrote: > On Saturday, 2 September 2023 at 21:13:01 UTC+1, Volney wrote: >> On 9/1/2023 8:37 AM, Lou wrote: >>> On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 22:24:05 UTC+1, Volney wrote: >>>> On 8/30/2023 3:14 PM, Lou wrote: >>>> >>>>> Screw your imaginary relativistic inertial coordinate nonsense. There is no such >>>>> thing as an object on an inertial path. All objects in the universe rotate, spiral, revolve, >>>>> accelerate, decelerate etc. >>>>> >>>> [...] >>>>> Obviously you understand physics or this emission model I describe. >>>>> Because it doesn’t matter if the sun moves relative to Betelgeuse or the Virgo >>>>> Galaxy cluster. Light will always travel at constant c relative to the sun. So all >>>>> one has to do is place the sun immobile in its own frame. Have light propagate >>>>> away from it isotropically at constant speeds. >>>> Since you claim there are no inertial coordinates, that means that this >>>> frame you "place the sun immobile" in is not inertial, so it can >>>> accelerate. Let's say this necessarily non-inertial frame, after >>>> emitting light toward the observer, wiggles back and forth, does >>>> loop-the-loops, figure 8's or whatever. Does the observer see the light >>>> following the figure 8s so that it appears to come from the sun always, >>>> or does it come from the place where the sun WAS when the light was emitted? >>> >>> OK let’s look,at what we actually observe in deSitters binary star: >>> Let’s focus on one star of the two. We see that the star wobbles around >>> roughly in an *ellipse*. I imagine it’s probably a bit more complex >>> than that but an ellipse for sake of argument. The star light also >>> is observed to * not pile up*. >> Correct. >> >> We can simplify things by looking at what happens at two points in the >> orbit. At one point, one star is on, say, the left side of the other, >> and is moving away from earth at a speed v. The instantaneous inertial >> source frame of the star is moving away from the earth at a speed v, >> because the star itself is moving away at speed v at that instant. 1/2 >> of the orbital period P later, the star is on the right side of the >> other, but is now approaching earth at a speed v. The instantaneous >> inertial source frame of the star is now moving toward the earth at a >> speed v. Obviously, these frames are different, because the star has >> moved non-inertially (it's in orbit). >> > > Your relativistic inertial nonsense doesn’t cut it. Emission theory > states that to correctly calculate light speeds...calculate in the source frame. Which one? > Can’t do it ? Thought not. Which source frame? The star as it recedes or the star as it approaches? > You don’t want to admit deSitter was a liar. > > >> SR states light travels at c in all inertial frames at c, regardless of >> the motion of the source. If the star is a distance D away, the time the >> light reaches us will be D/c and D/c+P/2. >> >> Now the cranks claim the light travels at c-v and c+v respectively, as >> seen on the earth. So the first light pulse will take time D/(c+v) to >> reach us, while the second takes a shorter time, D/(c-v). Earth >> observers will see the first light at time D/(c+v) and the second at >> time D/(c-v) + P/2. >> > > Problem here with your analysis. If your light pulse was travelling at > a constant c+-v to get here to earth. It has to be travelling at a variable > speed relative to the source. Say what? It travels at c+v or c-v, according to the cranks. v was constant at the moment of emission so the speed is purportedly c+v or c-v. > Which ISNT what emission theory predicts. > And if you tried calculating in the SOURCE FRAME Which source frame? I simplified things to two frames even if there really are an infinite number of them. > where the earth > observer rotates. You are talking about the earth's rotation now? How does that factor in? > Then you would find that light doesn’t pile up. I explained how light piles up when the fast (c+v) later light catches up to the slow (c-v) earlier light. >> DeSitter, being much smarter than the average crank, realized the second >> pulse is emitted later but would be moving faster than the first. Could >> they arrive at the same time on earth? That would mean solving the >> equation D/(c+v) = (D/(c-v) + P/2). You can do the algebra yourself, but >> the answer is yes, the faster pulse can catch up to the slower pulse >> when both reach earth. >> > Try doing your calculation in the source frame. Which source frame? > Does the light pile up ? > No Yes. > That’s why you are too scared to even attempt this correct method. > Don’t talk to me about how to do algebra. You can’t even do basic maths. > > >> Now, what would this mean? What would we earthlings see? We would see >> both lights at the same time. One red shifted, the other blue shifted. >> If we can resolve the stars we'd see TWO images of the star, once to the >> left of the other and once to the right of the other. >> >> I won't try to figure out what would be seen from light emitted between >> the endpoints, but others have described it as a mess. >> >> Now when looking at *real* binary stars, we see one going round and >> round the other, alternately becoming blue shifted and red shifted, but >> always one image of the orbiting star, and never both blue shifted and >> red shifted at the same time. Because we see that and not the "pile up" >> mess, DeSitter showed that light cannot be traveling at c+v and c-v from >> the binary stars, and this invalidates all theories which claim light >> travels at c+v and c-v. > > Try doing your calculation in the source frame where earth observer > rotates and emission theory says light always travels at c. Again, which source frame? And earth rotating? How does that factor in? Earth revolving around the sun? I hope you don't mean an effect of the star's orbiting...(looks at earlier posts)...oh dear, I see what Bill means about your 'utterly nutty belief' where you seem to believe waving a flashlight around affects the light it emitted earlier, and moving the star around in its orbit also affects the light the star emitted earlier. > Can’t do it? Thought not. It would expose deSitters lies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-03 02:16 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever |
| Message-ID | <2432206a-cee0-4f4c-ad6d-a6d59225234en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #619481 |
On Sunday, 3 September 2023 at 06:18:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > On 9/2/2023 6:38 PM, Lou wrote: > > On Saturday, 2 September 2023 at 21:13:01 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > >> On 9/1/2023 8:37 AM, Lou wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 22:24:05 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 8/30/2023 3:14 PM, Lou wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Screw your imaginary relativistic inertial coordinate nonsense. There is no such > >>>>> thing as an object on an inertial path. All objects in the universe rotate, spiral, revolve, > >>>>> accelerate, decelerate etc. > >>>>> > >>>> [...] > >>>>> Obviously you understand physics or this emission model I describe. > >>>>> Because it doesn’t matter if the sun moves relative to Betelgeuse or the Virgo > >>>>> Galaxy cluster. Light will always travel at constant c relative to the sun. So all > >>>>> one has to do is place the sun immobile in its own frame. Have light propagate > >>>>> away from it isotropically at constant speeds. > >>>> Since you claim there are no inertial coordinates, that means that this > >>>> frame you "place the sun immobile" in is not inertial, so it can > >>>> accelerate. Let's say this necessarily non-inertial frame, after > >>>> emitting light toward the observer, wiggles back and forth, does > >>>> loop-the-loops, figure 8's or whatever. Does the observer see the light > >>>> following the figure 8s so that it appears to come from the sun always, > >>>> or does it come from the place where the sun WAS when the light was emitted? > >>> > >>> OK let’s look,at what we actually observe in deSitters binary star: > >>> Let’s focus on one star of the two. We see that the star wobbles around > >>> roughly in an *ellipse*. I imagine it’s probably a bit more complex > >>> than that but an ellipse for sake of argument. The star light also > >>> is observed to * not pile up*. > >> Correct. > >> > >> We can simplify things by looking at what happens at two points in the > >> orbit. At one point, one star is on, say, the left side of the other, > >> and is moving away from earth at a speed v. The instantaneous inertial > >> source frame of the star is moving away from the earth at a speed v, > >> because the star itself is moving away at speed v at that instant. 1/2 > >> of the orbital period P later, the star is on the right side of the > >> other, but is now approaching earth at a speed v. The instantaneous > >> inertial source frame of the star is now moving toward the earth at a > >> speed v. Obviously, these frames are different, because the star has > >> moved non-inertially (it's in orbit). > >> > > > > Your relativistic inertial nonsense doesn’t cut it. Emission theory > > states that to correctly calculate light speeds...calculate in the source frame. > Which one? Nice try. How many source frames are there in MMX as it rotates around the earths axis? 1 > > Can’t do it ? Thought not. > Which source frame? The star as it recedes or the star as it approaches? Nice try. How many frames is the MMX setup in as it rotates around the earths axis? And if you pretend it’s more than one...then how is it that SR treats it as one lab frame ? > > You don’t want to admit deSitter was a liar. > > > > > >> SR states light travels at c in all inertial frames at c, regardless of > >> the motion of the source. If the star is a distance D away, the time the > >> light reaches us will be D/c and D/c+P/2. , > >> > >> Now the cranks claim the light travels at c-v and c+v respectively, as > >> seen on the earth. So the first light pulse will take time D/(c+v) to > >> reach us, while the second takes a shorter time, D/(c-v). Earth > >> observers will see the first light at time D/(c+v) and the second at > >> time D/(c-v) + P/2. > >> > > > > Problem here with your analysis. If your light pulse was travelling at > > a constant c+-v to get here to earth. It has to be travelling at a variable > > speed relative to the source. > Say what? It travels at c+v or c-v, according to the cranks. v was > constant at the moment of emission so the speed is purportedly c+v or c-v. Imagine your light leaving a point on one of your binary stars and heading up directly towards the earth observer.. Now..Do the same on earth. Have light leave a laser as you stand beside it. (Barring atmospheric extinction) DeSitter and you say that the light in the beam slows down and speeds up as it travels away from your laser. Yet MMX, and the lunar ranging experiment show no such variability in light speed. And it takes 2.6 seconds round trip so you can’t pretend that no appreciable rotation of earth occurs during the round trip as relativists pretend with MMX. > >> DeSitter, being much smarter than the average crank, realized the second > >> pulse is emitted later but would be moving faster than the first. Could > >> they arrive at the same time on earth? That would mean solving the > >> equation D/(c+v) = (D/(c-v) + P/2). You can do the algebra yourself, but > >> the answer is yes, the faster pulse can catch up to the slower pulse > >> when both reach earth. > >> > > Try doing your calculation in the source frame. > Which source frame? Choose one one of the two stars. Obviously each star is a seperate source. And if you are desperate...choose one atom on that star. > > Does the light pile up ? > > No > Yes. Where’s your evidence? No such piling up occurs. Looks like emission theory has been Confirmed by observation. > > Try doing your calculation in the source frame where earth observer > > rotates and emission theory says light always travels at c. > Again, which source frame? > Use either star. > And earth rotating? How does that factor in? Earth revolving around the > sun? I hope you don't mean an effect of the star's orbiting...(looks at > earlier posts)...oh dear, I see what Bill means about your 'utterly > nutty belief' where you seem to believe waving a flashlight around > affects the light it emitted earlier, and moving the star around in its > orbit also affects the light the star emitted earlier. Looks like you and Bill still haven’t any evidence to refute Ritzian emission theory. Seeing as emission theory so far...correctly predicts no piling up of light from binary stars, Sagnac, Lunar Ranging, MMX, Ives Stillwell, Filipas Fox. Etc Oh Well I suppose that doesn’t matter to relativists. You guys don’t like dara and observations. It always refutes relativity. After all your Relativity/Standard model concoctions can’t explain why solar Hydrogen emits 7 times more radiation and far more energetic g rays than can be explained theoretically. Can’t explain thousands of mature galaxies in early universe when your theories say there should be none, can’t explain recent behaviour of muons not acting like muons etc etc etc. I think the real problem you guys have is you know a Ritzian emission model is better than SR, and not as ridiculous or as counter intuitive as magic action at a distance, constant speeds in all frames, and having trillions upon trillions of galaxy mass condensed into a space smaller than an atom. So you pretend an emission theory which correctly predicts all known observations isn’t acceptable physics.😂🤣 > > Can’t do it? Thought not. It would expose deSitters lies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-03 17:02 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever |
| Message-ID | <ud2s8c$12pq7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #619487 |
On 9/3/2023 5:16 AM, Lou wrote: > On Sunday, 3 September 2023 at 06:18:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote: >> On 9/2/2023 6:38 PM, Lou wrote: >>> On Saturday, 2 September 2023 at 21:13:01 UTC+1, Volney wrote: >>>> On 9/1/2023 8:37 AM, Lou wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 22:24:05 UTC+1, Volney wrote: >>>>>> On 8/30/2023 3:14 PM, Lou wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Screw your imaginary relativistic inertial coordinate nonsense. There is no such >>>>>>> thing as an object on an inertial path. All objects in the universe rotate, spiral, revolve, >>>>>>> accelerate, decelerate etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> Obviously you understand physics or this emission model I describe. >>>>>>> Because it doesn’t matter if the sun moves relative to Betelgeuse or the Virgo >>>>>>> Galaxy cluster. Light will always travel at constant c relative to the sun. So all >>>>>>> one has to do is place the sun immobile in its own frame. Have light propagate >>>>>>> away from it isotropically at constant speeds. >>>>>> Since you claim there are no inertial coordinates, that means that this >>>>>> frame you "place the sun immobile" in is not inertial, so it can >>>>>> accelerate. Let's say this necessarily non-inertial frame, after >>>>>> emitting light toward the observer, wiggles back and forth, does >>>>>> loop-the-loops, figure 8's or whatever. Does the observer see the light >>>>>> following the figure 8s so that it appears to come from the sun always, >>>>>> or does it come from the place where the sun WAS when the light was emitted? >>>>> >>>>> OK let’s look,at what we actually observe in deSitters binary star: >>>>> Let’s focus on one star of the two. We see that the star wobbles around >>>>> roughly in an *ellipse*. I imagine it’s probably a bit more complex >>>>> than that but an ellipse for sake of argument. The star light also >>>>> is observed to * not pile up*. >>>> Correct. >>>> >>>> We can simplify things by looking at what happens at two points in the >>>> orbit. At one point, one star is on, say, the left side of the other, >>>> and is moving away from earth at a speed v. The instantaneous inertial >>>> source frame of the star is moving away from the earth at a speed v, >>>> because the star itself is moving away at speed v at that instant. 1/2 >>>> of the orbital period P later, the star is on the right side of the >>>> other, but is now approaching earth at a speed v. The instantaneous >>>> inertial source frame of the star is now moving toward the earth at a >>>> speed v. Obviously, these frames are different, because the star has >>>> moved non-inertially (it's in orbit). >>>> >>> >>> Your relativistic inertial nonsense doesn’t cut it. Emission theory >>> states that to correctly calculate light speeds...calculate in the source frame. >> Which one? > > Nice try. How many source frames are there in MMX as it > rotates around the earths axis? One. > >>> Can’t do it ? Thought not. >> Which source frame? The star as it recedes or the star as it approaches? > > Nice try. How many frames is the MMX setup in as it rotates around the earths axis? One, since the rotation of the earth in a few nanoseconds is much, much less than other sources of error. > And if you pretend it’s more than one...then how is it that SR treats it as > one lab frame ? It is perfectly acceptable to write off errors far too small to affect the outcome. >>>> SR states light travels at c in all inertial frames at c, regardless of >>>> the motion of the source. If the star is a distance D away, the time the >>>> light reaches us will be D/c and D/c+P/2. , >>>> >>>> Now the cranks claim the light travels at c-v and c+v respectively, as >>>> seen on the earth. So the first light pulse will take time D/(c+v) to >>>> reach us, while the second takes a shorter time, D/(c-v). Earth >>>> observers will see the first light at time D/(c+v) and the second at >>>> time D/(c-v) + P/2. >>>> >>> >>> Problem here with your analysis. If your light pulse was travelling at >>> a constant c+-v to get here to earth. It has to be travelling at a variable >>> speed relative to the source. >> Say what? It travels at c+v or c-v, according to the cranks. v was >> constant at the moment of emission so the speed is purportedly c+v or c-v. > > Imagine your light leaving a point on one of your binary stars and heading > up directly towards the earth observer.. > Now..Do the same on earth. Have light leave a laser as you stand beside it. > (Barring atmospheric extinction) DeSitter and you say that the light in the > beam slows down and speeds up as it travels away from your laser. Say what? I believe in constant speed of light c. DeSitter concluded that the speed of light must not be affected by the source's velocity otherwise light would bunch up, so concluded the speed of light was constant. > Yet MMX, and the lunar ranging experiment show no such variability > in light speed. Proving deSitter and Einstein were correct. > And it takes 2.6 seconds round trip so you can’t pretend > that no appreciable rotation of earth occurs during the round trip as > relativists pretend with MMX. Lunar ranging could be modeled as light moving along two sides of a thin triangle A B C, where A is the source laser, B the lunar reflector, C the detector. The times the light pulse is at A B C are the only times which matter. The position of the detector C has to account for the earth rotating 2𝜋*(2.6/86400) rotations times the distance that latitude rotates and the angles to the moon. Lots of algebra, but easy peasy. > >>>> DeSitter, being much smarter than the average crank, realized the second >>>> pulse is emitted later but would be moving faster than the first. Could >>>> they arrive at the same time on earth? That would mean solving the >>>> equation D/(c+v) = (D/(c-v) + P/2). You can do the algebra yourself, but >>>> the answer is yes, the faster pulse can catch up to the slower pulse >>>> when both reach earth. >>>> >>> Try doing your calculation in the source frame. >> Which source frame? > > Choose one one of the two stars. Obviously each star > is a seperate source. And if you are desperate...choose one atom > on that star. Is that the frame where the star is receding from earth or approaching earth? What about the other light pulse? > >>> Does the light pile up ? >>> No >> Yes. > > Where’s your evidence? Solve the equation where D/(c+v) = D/(c-v) + P/2. That's the time when the two lights reach earth at the same time. > No such piling up occurs. Looks like emission theory has been > Confirmed by observation. The above refutes it. > >>> Try doing your calculation in the source frame where earth observer >>> rotates and emission theory says light always travels at c. >> Again, which source frame? >> > Use either star. Which source frame? When the star approaches or recedes? [bla bla bla] It's obvious that you are accusing Bill/Ritz of believing what you yourself believe in. That is, the star as it wiggles back and forth/goes round and round the other star makes the already emitted light wiggle and change speed. It is you who believes wiggling the flashlight causes the already emitted light to be affected. But I am late to this subthread. Convince me why the orbiting of the star magically changes the speed of light previously emitted from it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-04 06:01 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever |
| Message-ID | <7b065de7-21fe-4d24-ad82-c05ae62585d4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #619545 |
On Sunday, 3 September 2023 at 22:02:08 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > On 9/3/2023 5:16 AM, Lou wrote: > > On Sunday, 3 September 2023 at 06:18:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > >> On 9/2/2023 6:38 PM, Lou wrote: > >>> On Saturday, 2 September 2023 at 21:13:01 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 9/1/2023 8:37 AM, Lou wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 22:24:05 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/30/2023 3:14 PM, Lou wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Screw your imaginary relativistic inertial coordinate nonsense. There is no such > >>>>>>> thing as an object on an inertial path. All objects in the universe rotate, spiral, revolve, > >>>>>>> accelerate, decelerate etc. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> [...] > >>>>>>> Obviously you understand physics or this emission model I describe. > >>>>>>> Because it doesn’t matter if the sun moves relative to Betelgeuse or the Virgo > >>>>>>> Galaxy cluster. Light will always travel at constant c relative to the sun. So all > >>>>>>> one has to do is place the sun immobile in its own frame. Have light propagate > >>>>>>> away from it isotropically at constant speeds. > >>>>>> Since you claim there are no inertial coordinates, that means that this > >>>>>> frame you "place the sun immobile" in is not inertial, so it can > >>>>>> accelerate. Let's say this necessarily non-inertial frame, after > >>>>>> emitting light toward the observer, wiggles back and forth, does > >>>>>> loop-the-loops, figure 8's or whatever. Does the observer see the light > >>>>>> following the figure 8s so that it appears to come from the sun always, > >>>>>> or does it come from the place where the sun WAS when the light was emitted? > >>>>> > >>>>> OK let’s look,at what we actually observe in deSitters binary star: > >>>>> Let’s focus on one star of the two. We see that the star wobbles around > >>>>> roughly in an *ellipse*. I imagine it’s probably a bit more complex > >>>>> than that but an ellipse for sake of argument. The star light also > >>>>> is observed to * not pile up*. > >>>> Correct. > >>>> > >>>> We can simplify things by looking at what happens at two points in the > >>>> orbit. At one point, one star is on, say, the left side of the other, > >>>> and is moving away from earth at a speed v. The instantaneous inertial > >>>> source frame of the star is moving away from the earth at a speed v, > >>>> because the star itself is moving away at speed v at that instant. 1/2 > >>>> of the orbital period P later, the star is on the right side of the > >>>> other, but is now approaching earth at a speed v. The instantaneous > >>>> inertial source frame of the star is now moving toward the earth at a > >>>> speed v. Obviously, these frames are different, because the star has > >>>> moved non-inertially (it's in orbit). > >>>> > >>> > >>> Your relativistic inertial nonsense doesn’t cut it. Emission theory > >>> states that to correctly calculate light speeds...calculate in the source frame. > > >> Which one? > > > > Nice try. How many source frames are there in MMX as it > > rotates around the earths axis? > One. > > > >>> Can’t do it ? Thought not. > > >> Which source frame? The star as it recedes or the star as it approaches? > > > > Nice try. How many frames is the MMX setup in as it rotates around the earths axis? > One, since the rotation of the earth in a few nanoseconds is much, much > less than other sources of error. > > And if you pretend it’s more than one...then how is it that SR treats it as > > one lab frame ? > It is perfectly acceptable to write off errors far too small to affect > the outcome. It’s perfectly acceptable to assume an experiment (MMX) that doesn’t measure any aether drift...would have measured it but it was too small to measure!! I think that’s a no-no in physics (Pretending that an assumption is the same as an observation.) > >>>> SR states light travels at c in all inertial frames at c, regardless of > >>>> the motion of the source. If the star is a distance D away, the time the > >>>> light reaches us will be D/c and D/c+P/2. , > >>>> > >>>> Now the cranks claim the light travels at c-v and c+v respectively, as > >>>> seen on the earth. So the first light pulse will take time D/(c+v) to > >>>> reach us, while the second takes a shorter time, D/(c-v). Earth > >>>> observers will see the first light at time D/(c+v) and the second at > >>>> time D/(c-v) + P/2. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Problem here with your analysis. If your light pulse was travelling at > >>> a constant c+-v to get here to earth. It has to be travelling at a variable > >>> speed relative to the source. > > >> Say what? It travels at c+v or c-v, according to the cranks. v was > >> constant at the moment of emission so the speed is purportedly c+v or c-v. > > > > Imagine your light leaving a point on one of your binary stars and heading > > up directly towards the earth observer.. > > Now..Do the same on earth. Have light leave a laser as you stand beside it. > > (Barring atmospheric extinction) DeSitter and you say that the light in the > > beam slows down and speeds up as it travels away from your laser. > Say what? I believe in constant speed of light c. DeSitter concluded > that the speed of light must not be affected by the source's velocity > otherwise light would bunch up, so concluded the speed of light was > constant. If he and emission theory thought light was at a constant speed in the source frame...then why did he pretend it was at a variable speed in the source frames. Just for emission theory, but not for SR!!😂🤣 > > Yet MMX, and the lunar ranging experiment show no such variability > > in light speed. > Proving deSitter and Einstein were correct. > > And it takes 2.6 seconds round trip so you can’t pretend > > that no appreciable rotation of earth occurs during the round trip as > > relativists pretend with MMX. > Lunar ranging could be modeled as light moving along two sides of a thin > triangle A B C, where A is the source laser, B the lunar reflector, C > the detector. The times the light pulse is at A B C are the only times > which matter. The position of the detector C has to account for the > earth rotating 2𝜋*(2.6/86400) rotations times the distance that > latitude rotates and the angles to the moon. Lots of algebra, but easy > peasy. Thats hilarious Volney. Have you ever thought about doing stand up comedy? > >>>> DeSitter, being much smarter than the average crank, realized the second > >>>> pulse is emitted later but would be moving faster than the first. Could > >>>> they arrive at the same time on earth? That would mean solving the > >>>> equation D/(c+v) = (D/(c-v) + P/2). You can do the algebra yourself, but > >>>> the answer is yes, the faster pulse can catch up to the slower pulse > >>>> when both reach earth. > >>>> > >>> Try doing your calculation in the source frame. > > >> Which source frame? > > > > Choose one one of the two stars. Obviously each star > > is a seperate source. And if you are desperate...choose one atom > > on that star. > Is that the frame where the star is receding from earth or approaching > earth? Both. > What about the other light pulse? > > > >>> Does the light pile up ? > >>> No > > >> Yes. > > > > Where’s your evidence? > Solve the equation where D/(c+v) = D/(c-v) + P/2. That's the time when > the two lights reach earth at the same time. Two lights? What lights? > > No such piling up occurs. Looks like emission theory has been > > Confirmed by observation. > The above refutes it. > > Oh yes...I see your problem now. You think MMX didnt give a null result. > >>> Try doing your calculation in the source frame where earth observer > >>> rotates and emission theory says light always travels at c. > > >> Again, which source frame? > >> > > Use either star. > Which source frame? When the star approaches or recedes? > Both. > [bla bla bla] > > It's obvious that you are accusing Bill/Ritz of believing what you > yourself believe in. That is, the star as it wiggles back and forth/goes > round and round the other star makes the already emitted light wiggle > and change speed. It is you who believes wiggling the flashlight causes > the already emitted light to be affected. > > But I am late to this subthread. Convince me why the orbiting of the > star magically changes the speed of light previously emitted from it. Easy. Tell me you have proof that light “piles up” and travels at variable speeds as the beam travels away from your pocket laser. Therein lies your magic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-04 08:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever |
| Message-ID | <e0a942c8-cc73-41aa-b8e3-52a7ffe79d5dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #619611 |
In 1908 Ritz wrote:
"The pulses of luminous radiation emitted [from source P] at the
instant t move with constant radial speed and form a sphere for
which the center is animated with the motion of translation w that
had P at the instant of emission. If w is constant, this center will
continue therefore to coincide with P. It is this fundamental image
only that we will borrow from the theory of emission."
> The MMX null result could not be explained with any ether model.
You're mistaken. For example, Lorentz explained it with his ether model.
> Light appeared to propagate in this source frame isotropically regardless
> of the labs motion around earths axis, around sun, around galaxy core.
> Yet ether theory said one path should have been at a different speed !
Again, the null MMX result is entirely consistent with Lorentz's ether theory,
as explained in Lorentz's 1904 paper, and in Poincare's follow-up paper, and
Lorentz's subsequent writings. Note that the Lorentz contraction was not
an ad hoc assumption, he just overlooked this consequence of the laws
of electrodynamics in his previous paper.
> Einstein gave each observer their own entrained ether ...
No, you have that backwards. Einstein's account dispenses with ether, and is
based solidly on the principle of inertia, creating a Lorentz-invariant emission
theory (in effect), combining Galileo's principle of relativity with the recognition
that energy has inertia. It was Ritz who suggested (vaguely, he didn't actually
develop a theory) the somewhat strange idea that each time a pulse of light
is emitted a new inertial ether is created (in effect), and thereafter that pulse
propagates at c in that particular ether, even after interacting with other mirrors
and particles, etc.
*Your* belief is even nuttier that Ritz's, because your multiple ethers
are dragged eternally and telepathically in lockstep with the source
object, even if the source object no longer exists (ghost ethers), and you
deny that light has momentum, and you deny pulses follow inertial
trajectories, and you deny the existence of electrons, and you deny that
electromagnetic fields have an electric component, and you claim a
pulse of light has a magnetic moment, and so on.
> He says it must be a wave only model of light. No particles.
Well, it was already clear in 1900 with Planck's work on black body
radiation, and especially by 1905 with Einstein's work on the photo-electric
effect, that the classical wave model of electromagnetic radiation was
inadequate to account for all the phenomena. In quantum electrodynamics
the wave-like and the particle-like attributes of light are accurately
represented. This confirms, among other things, that the phenomena
of physics are Lorentz invariant.
> To prove that light always travelled at c relative to a source
> even if it moved in a circle relative to another object....he had to basically
> ditch pretty well every notable theory on atoms electricity and light ...
Ritz did not claim that a pulse of light in vacuum could move in a circle
relative to some other object, because he was not crazy enough to suggest
your completely idiotic idea that the ethers are dragged in lockstep with an
accelerating source AFTER the pulse has been emitted, nor did he insanely
deny that light conveys momentum, nor did he insanely deny electric fields,
nor did he insanely claim a pulse of light has a magnetic moment, etc. But
yes, his suggestions did entail the rejection of much of classical science,
and would only have created far more problems than it solved. Again, it is
not the same as your belief, which is like Ritz on crack.
> And scum like deSitter took advantage of this and made up imaginary
> effects that Ritzs ether free model does not predict.
Not true. Ritz's suggestion clearly entails the effect that deSitter looked
for, i.e., the phases of light from binary star components would pass each
other and get all scrambled up if Ritz's suggestion applied. Of course,
if you had suggested YOUR crazy idea, deSitter would have pointed out
all the things wrong with it, including (but not limited to) the 800" offset
between the positions of binary components, the falsification of supernovas,
etc., not to mention the logically self-contradictory aspects of your nutty
belief.
> Ritz specifies on page 151 that he was going to accommodate
> acceleration in his emission model. Ie...rotation of the source.
No, that's a gross mis-reading. In fact, when Ritz discusses this issue
he explicitly states that the source remains at the center of the expanding
wave ONLY if it continues in uniform motion, and at no point in the paper
does he retract that statement. In fact, he repeats the point when he says:
"The pulses of luminous radiation emitted [from source P] at the
instant t move with constant radial speed and form a sphere for
which the center is animated with the motion of translation w that
had P at the instant of emission. If w is constant, this center will
continue therefore to coincide with P. It is this fundamental image
only that we will borrow from the theory of emission."
So, he emphasizes TWICE that this is the fundamental basis of his idea
for a theory (which he admits is not really an emission theory, but merely
borrows the above from emission theories). The mention of acceleration
on page 151 has absolutely nothing to do with this, and your dishonest
denial of what he actually said, and your false attribution of your nutjob
belief to Ritz, who can't defend himself, is simply disagraceful.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-04 14:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever |
| Message-ID | <e7ebb203-23b6-4b09-853a-0919ee2d7488n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #619617 |
On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 16:06:25 UTC+1, Bill wrote: > In 1908 Ritz wrote: > "The pulses of luminous radiation emitted [from source P] at the > instant t move with constant radial speed and form a sphere for > which the center is animated with the motion of translation w that > had P at the instant of emission. If w is constant, this center will > continue therefore to coincide with P. It is this fundamental image > only that we will borrow from the theory of emission." > > The MMX null result could not be explained with any ether model. > You're mistaken. For example, Lorentz explained it with his ether model. So did Einstein with his ether model where every observer has their own entrained ether. But only possible still by falsifying the data with a mathematical translation. Truth is...there is no ether. And any theory that relies on it is out of date. > > Light appeared to propagate in this source frame isotropically regardless > > of the labs motion around earths axis, around sun, around galaxy core. > > Yet ether theory said one path should have been at a different speed ! > > Again, the null MMX result is entirely consistent with Lorentz's ether theory, > as explained in Lorentz's 1904 paper, and in Poincare's follow-up paper, and > Lorentz's subsequent writings. Note that the Lorentz contraction was not > an ad hoc assumption, he just overlooked this consequence of the laws > of electrodynamics in his previous paper. > > > Einstein gave each observer their own entrained ether ... > No, you have that backwards. Einstein's account dispenses with ether, and is Thats what the SR propaganda says yes. > based solidly on the principle of inertia, creating a Lorentz-invariant emission > theory (in effect), combining Galileo's principle of relativity with the recognition > that energy has inertia. It was Ritz who suggested (vaguely, he didn't actually > develop a theory) the somewhat strange idea that each time a pulse of light > is emitted a new inertial ether is created (in effect), and thereafter that pulse > propagates at c in that particular ether, even after interacting with other mirrors > and particles, etc. > > *Your* belief is even nuttier that Ritz's, because your multiple ethers > are dragged eternally and telepathically in lockstep with the source > object, even if the source object no longer exists (ghost ethers), and you > deny that light has momentum, and you deny pulses follow inertial > trajectories, and you deny the existence of electrons, and you deny that > electromagnetic fields have an electric component, and you claim a > pulse of light has a magnetic moment, and so on. > > He says it must be a wave only model of light. No particles. > Obviously Ritz was right. You wouldn’t be so upset if you really thought it was a non starter. > Well, it was already clear in 1900 with Planck's work on black body > radiation, and especially by 1905 with Einstein's work on the photo-electric > effect, that the classical wave model of electromagnetic radiation was > inadequate to account for all the phenomena. In quantum electrodynamics > the wave-like and the particle-like attributes of light are accurately > represented. This confirms, among other things, that the phenomena > of physics are Lorentz invariant. > > > To prove that light always travelled at c relative to a source > > even if it moved in a circle relative to another object....he had to basically > > ditch pretty well every notable theory on atoms electricity and light ... > > Ritz did not claim that a pulse of light in vacuum could move in a circle > relative to some other object, because he was not crazy enough to suggest > your completely idiotic idea that the ethers are dragged in lockstep with an > accelerating source AFTER the pulse has been emitted, nor did he insanely > deny that light conveys momentum, nor did he insanely deny electric fields, > nor did he insanely claim a pulse of light has a magnetic moment, etc. But > yes, his suggestions did entail the rejection of much of classical science, > and would only have created far more problems than it solved. Again, it is > not the same as your belief, which is like Ritz on crack. > > > And scum like deSitter took advantage of this and made up imaginary > > effects that Ritzs ether free model does not predict. > > Not true. Ritz's suggestion clearly entails the effect that deSitter looked > for, i.e., the phases of light from binary star components would pass each > other and get all scrambled up if Ritz's suggestion applied. Of course, > if you had suggested YOUR crazy idea, deSitter would have pointed out > all the things wrong with it, including (but not limited to) the 800" offset > between the positions of binary components, the falsification of supernovas, > etc., not to mention the logically self-contradictory aspects of your nutty > belief. You seem very worried that a theory that has light constant c only in the source frame can explain all observations. And not end up with all the problems that the photon and Relativity gave us. > > Ritz specifies on page 151 that he was going to accommodate > > acceleration in his emission model. Ie...rotation of the source. > No, that's a gross mis-reading. In fact, when Ritz discusses this issue > he explicitly states that the source remains at the center of the expanding > wave ONLY if it continues in uniform motion, and at no point in the paper > does he retract that statement. In fact, he repeats the point when he says: > > "The pulses of luminous radiation emitted [from source P] at the > instant t move with constant radial speed and form a sphere for > which the center is animated with the motion of translation w that > had P at the instant of emission. If w is constant, this center will > continue therefore to coincide with P. It is this fundamental image > only that we will borrow from the theory of emission." > He also says he can accommodate acceleration. Which is fundamentally linked to rotation. You can’t edit his paper just because it’s a good theory. > So, he emphasizes TWICE that this is the fundamental basis of his idea > for a theory (which he admits is not really an emission theory, but merely > borrows the above from emission theories). The mention of acceleration > on page 151 has absolutely nothing to do with this, and your dishonest > denial of what he actually said, and your false attribution of your nutjob > belief to Ritz, who can't defend himself, is simply disagraceful. I’ll stick with physics,Ritz, no ether, no photons and wave only light. Magic isn’t my scene.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-04 18:21 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever |
| Message-ID | <ud5l8g$1l8rh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #619655 |
On 9/4/2023 5:30 PM, Lou wrote: > On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 16:06:25 UTC+1, Bill wrote: >> In 1908 Ritz wrote: >> "The pulses of luminous radiation emitted [from source P] at the >> instant t move with constant radial speed and form a sphere for >> which the center is animated with the motion of translation w that >> had P at the instant of emission. If w is constant, this center will >> continue therefore to coincide with P. It is this fundamental image >> only that we will borrow from the theory of emission." >>> The MMX null result could not be explained with any ether model. >> You're mistaken. For example, Lorentz explained it with his ether model. > > So did Einstein with his ether model where every observer has their > own entrained ether. Oh good grief. Obviously you never read the 1905 SR paper where Einstein explicitly states that he's not going to be involving any sort of ether in his paper. And never mentions it again. > Truth is...there is no ether. Which is what Einstein said. (actually he said he wasn't going to use any sort of ether) > And any theory that relies on it > is out of date. So SR isn't out of date according to that criterion. >>> Einstein gave each observer their own entrained ether ... >> No, you have that backwards. Einstein's account dispenses with ether, and is > > Thats what the SR propaganda says yes. No, that's what Einstein said, at the beginning of the SR paper. (why do relativity cranks try to dig up the grave of the ether and then blame that on Einstein?) > You seem very worried that a theory that has light constant c > only in the source frame can explain all observations. And not > end up with all the problems that the photon and Relativity gave us. SR starts off with light traveling at c for all destination frames, not source frames. Later derivation that it applies to all (inertial) frames implies it applies to the (inertial) source frame as well. > >>> Ritz specifies on page 151 that he was going to accommodate >>> acceleration in his emission model. Ie...rotation of the source. >> No, that's a gross mis-reading. In fact, when Ritz discusses this issue >> he explicitly states that the source remains at the center of the expanding >> wave ONLY if it continues in uniform motion, and at no point in the paper >> does he retract that statement. In fact, he repeats the point when he says: >> >> "The pulses of luminous radiation emitted [from source P] at the >> instant t move with constant radial speed and form a sphere for >> which the center is animated with the motion of translation w that >> had P at the instant of emission. If w is constant, this center will >> continue therefore to coincide with P. It is this fundamental image >> only that we will borrow from the theory of emission." >> > He also says he can accommodate acceleration. Which is fundamentally > linked to rotation. You can’t edit his paper just because it’s a good theory. > What good theory? He never came up with one that accommodates acceleration, so all anyone has from him is discussing uniform motion (inertial, no acceleration).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-04 21:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever |
| Message-ID | <66bf4cfb-2222-4181-969f-62cee7db4dfbn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #619659 |
On Tuesday, 5 September 2023 at 00:21:07 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 9/4/2023 5:30 PM, Lou wrote: > > On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 16:06:25 UTC+1, Bill wrote: > >> In 1908 Ritz wrote: > >> "The pulses of luminous radiation emitted [from source P] at the > >> instant t move with constant radial speed and form a sphere for > >> which the center is animated with the motion of translation w that > >> had P at the instant of emission. If w is constant, this center will > >> continue therefore to coincide with P. It is this fundamental image > >> only that we will borrow from the theory of emission." > >>> The MMX null result could not be explained with any ether model. > >> You're mistaken. For example, Lorentz explained it with his ether model. > > > > So did Einstein with his ether model where every observer has their > > own entrained ether. > Oh good grief. Obviously you never read the 1905 SR paper where Einstein And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy is some "Newton mode"? You're such an agnorant idiot, stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your moronic religion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trenton Zhaba <nroz@ennetata.nt> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-05 07:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever |
| Message-ID | <ud6lp0$1sse5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #619659 |
Volney wrote: > On 9/4/2023 5:30 PM, Lou wrote: >> So did Einstein with his ether model where every observer has their own >> entrained ether. > > Oh good grief. Obviously you never read the 1905 SR paper where Einstein > explicitly states that he's not going to be involving any sort of ether > in his paper. And never mentions it again. yes sure, absolutaley. Except that 𝗶𝘁_𝘄𝗮𝘀_𝗡𝗢𝗧 the young Einstine writing it. But 𝗵𝗶𝘀_𝗿𝗼𝘆_𝗺𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀, later on. Saying, "look at me, 𝗜 𝗱𝗼𝗻'𝘁 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗔𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-05 18:13 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever |
| Message-ID | <ud8cm0$109o8$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #619699 |
On 9/5/2023 2:36 AM, Trenton Zhaba wrote: > Volney wrote: > >> >> Oh good grief. Obviously you never read the 1905 SR paper where Einstein >> explicitly states that he's not going to be involving any sort of ether >> in his paper. And never mentions it again. > Hanson, let me borrow your post to remind something to Vulva (i.e. your other persona). Fuck you. Vulva, what you Vulvalize here is the reason these days they keep "papers" away from the general public. -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Evangelista Tzaregradsky <lzes@itkdlavl.tt> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-06 16:00 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever |
| Message-ID | <uda7mk$2icjl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #619736 |
Physfitfreak wrote: > Vulva, what you Vulvalize here is the reason these days they keep > "papers" away from the general public. > > -- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > www.avast.com this crap ass imbecile 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 is using "antivirus". How the fuck are you so stupid, opening you stupid mouth on your face. You are a shame to all 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗲𝘀 in the world. You fool. Using antivirus. What a fucking idiot. How about 𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗦𝗘𝗧𝗜_𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗿, are you still using 𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗦𝗘𝗧𝗜_𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗿, to appear a big scientist?? What a fucking jerk, 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀_𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 with changed name, moved to america, a prosper zone they want to rule.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-07 19:28 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever |
| Message-ID | <uddpr2$12qop$2@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #619789 |
On 9/6/2023 11:00 AM, Evangelista Tzaregradsky wrote: > Physfitfreak wrote: > >> Vulva, what you Vulvalize here is the reason these days they keep >> "papers" away from the general public. >> >> -- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> www.avast.com > > this crap ass imbecile 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 is using "antivirus". How the fuck are you > so stupid, opening you stupid mouth on your face. You are a shame to all > 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗲𝘀 in the world. You fool. Using antivirus. What a fucking idiot. > How about 𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗦𝗘𝗧𝗜_𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗿, are you still using 𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗦𝗘𝗧𝗜_𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗿, to > appear a big scientist?? What a fucking jerk, 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀_𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 with changed > name, moved to america, a prosper zone they want to rule. Hanson, you Archie's cock sucker. A groupie like you who's gone through this much to appear on my screen, would've ordinarily hanged himself soon. Why are you still alive? Did you not hang yourself because you wanted to read me? Did I save your miserable life? You got to continue sucking Archie's dick? Cro_Magnon piece of turd that you are, Hanson, this is how you show your appreciation to a real human who's saved your life. Even your other persona ended up being called Vulva! Hang yourself, Hanson. This world is not your place anymore. -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rod Finkel <eere@rfleffoo.ei> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-08 10:07 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever |
| Message-ID | <uderpk$3dniu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #619876 |
Physfitfreak wrote: >> this crap ass imbecile 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 is using "antivirus". How the fuck >> are you so stupid, opening you stupid mouth on your face. You are a >> shame to all 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗲𝘀 in the world. > > Hanson, you Archie's cock sucker. A groupie like you who's gone through > -- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > www.avast.com shut the fuck up. 𝗜_𝗳𝘂𝗰𝗸_𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿_𝗮𝘀𝘀.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-09-08 18:08 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Modever |
| Message-ID | <udg9he$13v59$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #619898 |
On 9/8/2023 5:07 AM, Rod Finkel wrote: > Physfitfreak wrote: > >>> this crap ass imbecile 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 is using "antivirus". How the fuck >>> are you so stupid, opening you stupid mouth on your face. You are a >>> shame to all 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗲𝘀 in the world. >> >> Hanson, you Archie's cock sucker. A groupie like you who's gone through >> -- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> www.avast.com > > shut the fuck up. 𝗜_𝗳𝘂𝗰𝗸_𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿_𝗮𝘀𝘀. What happened to the rest of my description of you, Mr. Vulva Hanson? I thought I'd turned you cro-magnon turd into a masochist. You don't enjoy my spitting on you anymore? Why did you omit that. Poor thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web