# Thread: The burn mark problem

1. Originally Posted by Jack_
Stop right here.

Show me the emission points.
O and O', of course. Now go back and read the rest of the post.

2. Originally Posted by Jack_
Well let's see.
I have you evolved to the point you submit to the logic that each frame carries their own light emission point.
No, Jack, that was there from the start. You're just too dumb to see it.

3. Originally Posted by Pete
O and O', of course. Now go back and read the rest of the post.
Repost

Sure I understand.

Each frame carries their own light sphere according to Ritz's theory.
You love the ballistic theory of light.

You boneheads fell right into this.

4. Originally Posted by Jack_
But since the emission points diverge, this implies each frame carries their own light sphere.
Yes, Jack, this is nothing new.

5. Originally Posted by Jack_
Each frame carries their own light sphere according to Ritz's theory.
You love the ballistic theory of light.
No, Jack, it has nothing to do with ballistic light. This is really ancient stuff.

6. Jack_:

Originally Posted by Jack_
Sure I understand.
Good. Are we done, then?

Each frame carries their own light sphere according to Ritz's theory.
What's Ritz's theory?

You love the ballistic theory of light.
What's the ballistic theory of light?

You boneheads fell right into this.
Personal insults, Jack_? Tut tut. They tend to destroy your credibility, because they make it look like you have no substantive response, so that the only way you feel you can save face is to resort to ad hominem abuse. In future discussions of this kind, I suggest you avoid such comments. Otherwise you risk people immediately dismissing you as not worth talking to.

7. Originally Posted by Pete
No, Jack, that was there from the start. You're just too dumb to see it.
Pete, you will need to backpeddle from the multiple light emission points since that is the ballistic theory of light, light emission theory, Ritz's theory.

LOL.

Checkmate.

8. No, Jack, I see you don't understand ballistic theory either.

O emits a flash of light as O' passes by.
In the ballistic theory, the result is an expanding sphere of light centred on O, in both rest frames of reference.

In SR, the result in an expanding sphere of light centred on O in the rest frame of O, and centred on O' in the rest frame of O'.

9. Originally Posted by Pete
No, Jack, it has nothing to do with ballistic light. This is really ancient stuff.
Problems with emission theory
The simplest form of emission theory says that radiating objects throw off light with a speed of "c" relative to their own state of motion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

Emission theory
Walter Ritz's emitter theory (or ballistic theory), was also consistent with the results of the experiment, not requiring aether. The theory postulates that light has always the same velocity in respect to the source.[6] However it also led to several "obvious" optical effects that were not seen in astronomical photographs, notably in observations of binary stars in which the light from the two stars could be measured in an interferometer. If this was correct, the light from the stars should cause fringe shifting due to the velocity of the stars being added to the speed of the light, but again, no such effect could be seen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michels...ley_experiment

The velocity v_ is the velocity of the source and v_(t − r/c) is the velocity of the source at the moment of emission. Equation (10) describes an expanding sphere whose center is no longer at rest in the coordinate system; if the source were to continue to move uniformly with velocity v_, it would remain the center of the sphere. This geometrical description was favored by Ritz. http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Einstein1905.pdf

10. Originally Posted by Jack_
LOL.

Checkmate.
Yeah, real funny. Now you're not just an ignorant asshole, you're a trolling ignorant asshole spammer.

How many boards have you posted this bullshit on? How many more people are you going to waste the time of?

Get a fucking life, or at least an education.

11. Originally Posted by James R
Jack_:

Good. Are we done, then?

What's Ritz's theory?

What's the ballistic theory of light?

Personal insults, Jack_? Tut tut. They tend to destroy your credibility, because they make it look like you have no substantive response, so that the only way you feel you can save face is to resort to ad hominem abuse. In future discussions of this kind, I suggest you avoid such comments. Otherwise you risk people immediately dismissing you as not worth talking to.
Look how you are.

My statement was accurate.

12. Originally Posted by Jack_
if the source were to continue to move uniformly with velocity v_, it would remain the center of the sphere. This geometrical description was favored by Ritz. http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Einstein1905.pdf
That's right, Jack. Just like I said:

O emits a flash of light as O' passes by.
In the ballistic theory, the result is an expanding sphere of light centred on O, in both rest frames of reference.

In SR, the result is an expanding sphere of light centred on O in the rest frame of O, and centred on O' in the rest frame of O'.

13. Originally Posted by Pete
Yeah, real funny. Now you're not just an ignorant asshole, you're a trolling ignorant asshole spammer.

How many boards have you posted this bullshit on? How many more people are you going to waste the time of?

Get a fucking life, or at least an education.
The problem is the following.

At first, you claimed only one light emission point.

Then I proved to you that is the ballistic theory of light.

Now, you are upset.

Before you take a superior attitude, I recommend you know who you are talking to.

14. Originally Posted by Pete
That's right, Jack. Just like I said:

O emits a flash of light as O' passes by.
In the ballistic theory, the result is an expanding sphere of light centred on O, in both rest frames of reference.

In SR, the result is an expanding sphere of light centred on O in the rest frame of O, and centred on O' in the rest frame of O'.
Yes, you have it now.

Now go tell the world SR is the ballistic theory of light.

LOL

15. Originally Posted by Jack_
The problem is the following.

At first, you claimed only one light emission point.

The problem, Jack, is that you're a lazy shit who can't be bothered to read what people write.

I consistenly claimed one light emission event, and frame dependent light emission location.

Then I proved to you that is the ballistic theory of light.
Then you proved that you also don't know what the ballistic theory of light is.

Before you take a superior attitude, I recommend you know who you are talking to.
I'm Pete, who the fuck are you?

16. Originally Posted by Pete
That's right, Jack. Just like I said:

O emits a flash of light as O' passes by.
In the ballistic theory, the result is an expanding sphere of light centred on O, in both rest frames of reference.

In SR, the result is an expanding sphere of light centred on O in the rest frame of O, and centred on O' in the rest frame of O'.
You did not get it yet.

he velocity v_ is the velocity of the source and v_(t − r/c) is the velocity of the source at the moment of emission. Equation (10) describes an expanding sphere whose center is no longer at rest in the coordinate system; if the source were to continue to move uniformly with velocity v_, it would remain the center of the sphere. This geometrical description was favored by Ritz. http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Einstein1905.pdf

17. Originally Posted by Jack_
Yes, you have it now.

Now go tell the world SR is the ballistic theory of light.

LOL
What, you can't read well enough to see the difference?

18. Originally Posted by Jack_
You did not get it yet.

he velocity v_ is the velocity of the source and v_(t − r/c) is the velocity of the source at the moment of emission. Equation (10) describes an expanding sphere whose center is no longer at rest in the coordinate system; if the source were to continue to move uniformly with velocity v_, it would remain the center of the sphere. This geometrical description was favored by Ritz. http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Einstein1905.pdf

19. Originally Posted by Pete
The problem, Jack, is that you're a lazy shit who can't be bothered to read what people write.

I consistenly claimed one light emission event, and frame dependent light emission location.

Then you proved that you also don't know what the ballistic theory of light is.

I'm Pete, who the fuck are you?
Well now, such talk.

I am not lazy.

We are not talking one emission event.

You confessed multiple emission points until I checkmated you.

Now you are claiming something else.

You look real funny.
LOL

20. Whatever, dude. What I wrote is there for anyone interested to read.
Not that anyone will bother after the first page, except for search bots.