The burn mark problem

[Jack_]

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.

Let's see do you confess you agreed to multiple light emission points?

I can get the posts.

You did not know what I was doing did you. LOL

Oh, mesage from my father.

Don't send a boy to do a man's job.

[Pete]

Jack, the light emission event is the meeting of O and O'.
The light emission location is x=0 in the rest frame of O, and x'=0 in the rest frame of O'.

Yes, these are different locations at all times except t=0. This is not a 'confession' or an 'admission', it's very basic 400 year old science.

This is in contrast to the ballistic theory, which says that the light sphere is always centred on O, in every frame of reference.

[Jack_]

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.

I am not sure this is true.

This thread is on the thousands of page views and it is not me.

I can show you other places I go and get 13,000 PV's in a month.

There are others where records are set.

So, you might think you have some logic but you do not.

As such, folks come here for truth and they are seeing it and not with you.

Again, check the page views.

I suggest you look within yourself.

You believe in light emission theory which is consistent with SR

[Jack_]

Jack, the light emission event is the meeting of O and O'.
The light emission location is x=0 in the rest frame of O, and x'=0 in the rest frame of O'.

Yes, these are different locations at all times except t=0.

This is in contrast to the ballistic theory, which says that the light sphere is always centred on O, in every frame of reference.

Yes, when the target is hit, where do the frames measure their emission points?

It is the emission point in the frame which diverge by the LT values of (vd/c)λ .

[Pete]

It is the emission point in the frame which diverge by the LT values of (vd/c)λ .

You're fond of repetition, aren't you Jack?

Has it got through your thick skull yet that it isn't controversial that a location is frame dependent?

[Pete]

I am not sure this is true.

This thread is on the thousands of page views and it is not me.

Searchbots, Jack. You're not that special.

You believe in light emission theory which is consistent with SR

I know that SR is a self consistent theory which you have demonstrated yourself to be unable to apply to a simple scenario.

[Jack_]

You're fond of repetition, aren't you Jack?

Has it got through your thick skull yet that it isn't controversial that a location is frame dependent?

Yea through my head.

Can you get it though your brain, that is Ritz's theory.

Now, if you think that is false.

Prove multiple light emission points is inconsistent with Ritz's theory.

Let me know.

[Pete]

It's plain to see, Jack.
Like I said, in ballistic theory the light sphere is centred on O in both rest frames.
In SR, it's centred on O' in the rest frame of O', and on O in the rest frame of O.

Maybe you're just too stubborn or stupid to understand. So be it. I'm done spoonfeeding.

[Jack_]

Searchbots, Jack. You're not that special.


I know that SR is a self consistent theory which you have demonstrated yourself to be unable to apply to a simple scenario.

LOL, yea I am. What can I say.

When a thread in the same place is at 100 and mine are at 13000, I do not think that is search bots.

Here is one of mine.

They only leave them open 30 days.

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mai...revisited.html

Hits show here
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/index4.html

15479

This is just one of them

[Jack_]

It's plain to see, Jack.
Like I said, in ballistic theory the light sphere is centred on O in both rest frames.
In SR, it's centred on O' in the rest frame of O', and on O in the rest frame of O.

Maybe you're just too stubborn or stupid to understand. So be it. I'm done spoonfeeding.

Here is another

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/index6.html

10,000 hits, 1100 posts less than 30 days because mods thought better than all others.

There are other forums

[Pete]

Search bots love high traffic threads, Jack.
And don't forget how many times you hit refresh waiting for the next post to show up.

[Pete]

So why are you here? Did you get tired of being called a loser at baut? Do you think there's a reason that you get consistent responses to your spam?

[Jack_]

Search bots love high traffic threads, Jack.
And don't forget how many times you hit refresh waiting for the next post to show up.

I do not.

Say, why don't you apply that logic in the areas I have with you.

Mine set records. Go back to the past with the policy of 30 day threads.

You can claim all you want but the evidence shows otherwise.


I do not refresh, I leave and look without logging in.

If I see bold, I log in.


So, you believe in multiple light emission points.

Folks are reading this.

[Jack_]

So why are you here? Did you get tired of being called a loser at baut? Do you think there's a reason that you get consistent responses to your spam?

Let's see, they posted thousands of times.

Why?

[Jack_]

So why are you here? Did you get tired of being called a loser at baut? Do you think there's a reason that you get consistent responses to your spam?

Spam?

I forced you to admit Ritz's theory of light.

[Pete]

LOL, you pride yourself on page count records? You really are a loser!

I forced you to admit Ritz's theory of light.

Ha!
You 'forced' me to admit what now?

You really need to work on that reading problem, Jack.

[Pete]

Let's see, they posted thousands of times.

Why?

Because you're a troll. You repeat the same bullshit over and over again, ignoring all corrections, and people feel obliged to continue to try to point you in the right direction, or at least help others see you for what you are.

You're like the pervert at the kiddie pool, smiling about how much attention you're getting from the parents.

[Jack_]

LOL, you pride yourself on page count records? You really are a loser!


Ha!
You 'forced' me to admit what now?

You really need to work on that reading problem, Jack.

Pete
Doctor in training (7,010 posts)
Today, 02:08 PM #244

“ Originally Posted by Jack_
Let me make sure I understand you.

Are you now agreeing with the fact that SR is the theory of multiple light emission points? ”

In the same way that Newtonian mechanics is "a theory of multiple light emission points". There's nothing special about light or SR in that sense, Jack. The location of any event diverges in the same way under newtonian mechanics.

You're 400 years behind the times. Catch up.

[Pete]

Ah - you still think that this is the same as ballistic theory?

Keep reading, Jack.

[Jack_]

Because you're a troll. You repeat the same bullshit over and over again, ignoring all corrections, and people feel obliged to continue to try to point you in the right direction, or at least help others see you for what you are.

You're like the pervert at the kiddie pool, smiling about how much attention you're getting from the parents.

This is fairly primtive.

This indicates you are inferior to me.

You must do this to just to make yourself feel better.

You need some help.