# Thread: The burn mark problem

1. Originally Posted by Pete
Ah - you still think that this is the same as ballistic theory?

Look, you have already been defeated on this.

2. That's nice, Jack.

Go on and play now.

3. Originally Posted by Jack_
Look, you have already been defeated on this.
If you're so sure about it I'll wager $1000 that when submitted to a reputable journal you'll get rejected. If you're so sure, put your money where your mouth is. 4. what does this sign λ mean? I looked it up as Lambda, but that didn't help much. I want to be able to follow the thread. And when you put two letters together like this vd you are saying v*d right? so this.............(vd/c + d)/λ is really (v*d) / (c + d) / λ .... whatever λ is? 5. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton what does this sign λ mean? I looked it up as Lambda, but that didn't help much. I want to be able to follow the thread.; He's using non-standard notation. Surely with your 15 years of study into science you've looked at special relativity? It underpins just about all advanced physics. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton And when you put two letters together like this vd you are saying v*d right? ; In 15 years of study you have never seen a single equation written using algebra? Conclusive proof you haven't studied anything. 6. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric He's using non-standard notation. Surely with your 15 years of study into science you've looked at special relativity? It underpins just about all advanced physics. In 15 years of study you have never seen a single equation written using algebra? Conclusive proof you haven't studied anything. Well if SR was through water you could never use it, because you would never know the currents, so I don't think it works, because it removed the Aether part of science, but still, I want to follow the thread, even though you aren't using all of the possibilities. I asked a question, I didn't ask you to go off topic. 7. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton Well if SR was through water you could never use it, because you would never know the currents, so I don't think it works Special relativity does work, thats an experimental fact. Provide me with an experiment which contradicts special relativity. Further more special relativity does apply (and has been applied) to objects in water. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton I asked a question, I didn't ask you to go off topic. In high school algebra when multiplying together two variables, yes you neglect the times sign, so ab = a*b. This is stuff taught to 12 year olds! And you claim to have studied physics for 15 years! And $\lambda = \gamma$. 8. Is that Upsilon then 400? 9. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton so this.............(vd/c + d)/λ is really (v*d) / (c + d) / λ .... whatever λ is? Oh Jesus, I just saw this (you edited your post after I'd replied). You think (vd/c + d)/λ = (v*d) / (c + d) / λ ?! You have just demonstrated you can't do the mathematics taught to 12 year olds! When a student of mine does that I write in huge red letters "NO, THIS IS WRONG" and give them zero, because its such a simple and fundamental bit of algebra that its something no one past age 13 should be getting wrong. Further more, if you knew any physics you'd know that you can't add c+d. Do you know why? It's a 1 word answer. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton Is that Upsilon then 400? 400? You claim to have studied science for the last 15 years. What have you been reading if you can't do a childs homework or even recognise basic equations? Being ignorant of special relativity isn't too bad, since its something not taught in compulsory education but you're showing you couldn't even graduate high school if you were tested tomorrow. 10. Originally Posted by pete that's nice, jack. *pats head* go on and play now. lol 11. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric If you're so sure about it I'll wager$1000 that when submitted to a reputable journal you'll get rejected. If you're so sure, put your money where your mouth is.
I would think, judging from what I have seen and all the silliness, I would agree with you.

But, I am submitting a collection.

12. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
Is that Upsilon then 400?
I altered the experiment to make is simpler.

I measured the experiment only in the stationary coordinates.

Then I brought the two rods together and layed them down.

I concluded the only way there exists one light beam is if v never occurred.

13. Originally Posted by Pete
That's nice, Jack.

Go on and play now.

Actually, by comparing the rods after the experiment, it is impossible for there to exist one light beam.

If it is the case there exists two light beams, then SR contradicts the nature of light.

If you argue, there exists a light emission point in each frame, then you argue the light sphere proceeds from the emission point in the frame for all frames and hence this is Ritz's theory of light.

Do you have another path to argue?

14. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
If you're so sure about it I'll wager \$1000 that when submitted to a reputable journal you'll get rejected. If you're so sure, put your money where your mouth is.
However the twins paradox is one of the most published areas in SR.

You must admit, you have not seen the reciprocal*time dilation of SR matched up against logical decidability using the clock sync as in the other thread.

15. Originally Posted by Jack_
Actually, by comparing the rods after the experiment, it is impossible for there to exist one light beam.
*shrug*
It's been demonstrated several times in this thread that it is possible. You've either deliberately chosen to ignore those demonstrations, or not been able to understand them and deliberately chosen not to try.
Originally Posted by Jack_
If you argue, there exists a light emission point in each frame, then you argue the light sphere proceeds from the emission point in the frame for all frames and hence this is Ritz's theory of light.
*sigh*
Jack, the difference between SR and ballistic light is simple. I've given the simple explanation twice in this thread. Since you introduced ballistic light into the thread I would have expected you to understand it already, but since you still seem to be misinformed...

According to the ballistic theory of light, the light sphere will be centred on the inertial emitter (O) in all frames of reference. For example, in the rest frame of O', the light sphere will remain centred on O as O moves away. This in turn implies that the speed of light is equal to c in the inertial rest frame of the emitter only. It is different in other reference frames.

According to SR, in any inertial reference frame the light sphere will be centred on the location of emission in that inertial reference frame. For example, in the rest frame of O', the light sphere will remain centred on O', not on O. This is consistent with the speed of light being equal to c in all inertial reference frames.

When you insist that SR = ballistic light, you are simply being ignorant.

16. Originally Posted by Pete
*shrug*
It's been demonstrated several times in this thread that it is possible. You've either deliberately chosen to ignore those demonstrations, or not been able to understand them and deliberately chosen not to try.
OK Pete, time to show how how to create two different light beams from one.

Show me.

Originally Posted by Pete
*sigh*
Jack, the difference between SR and ballistic light is simple. I've given the simple explanation twice in this thread. Since you introduced ballistic light into the thread I would have expected you to understand it already, but since you still seem to be misinformed...

According to the ballistic theory of light, the light sphere will be centred on the inertial emitter (O) in all frames of reference. For example, in the rest frame of O', the light sphere will remain centred on O as O moves away. This in turn implies that the speed of light is equal to c in the inertial rest frame of the emitter only. It is different in other reference frames.

According to SR, in any inertial reference frame the light sphere will be centred on the location of emission in that inertial reference frame. For example, in the rest frame of O', the light sphere will remain centred on O', not on O. This is consistent with the speed of light being equal to c in all inertial reference frames.

When you insist that SR = ballistic light, you are simply being ignorant.
I was wondering if you would get that distinction for emission theory.

I have been waiting.

It is in the absolute sense.

Very good.

Now, SR is a hybrid of emission theory. Whereas, in Ritz's theory the light sphere moves in the absolute sense with the emitting frame, SR has the light sphere moving in all frames from the light emission point.

That is completely absurd.

Oh, and you already agreed to this absurdity.

17. Originally Posted by Jack_
OK Pete, time to show how how to create two different light beams from one.

Show me.
Done to death, Jack. I'm done spoonfeeding you. Time to put some effort in.

I was wondering if you would get that distinction for emission theory.
Why? Didn't you read the last two times I wrote it?

That is completely absurd.
If you showed any sign of comprehension, perhaps your opinion would carry weight.

18. Originally Posted by Pete
Done to death, Jack. I'm done spoonfeeding you. Time to put some effort in.

Why? Didn't you read the last two times I wrote it?

If you showed any sign of comprehension, perhaps your opinion would carry weight.

As I ran you into Ritz's theory, you cannot run me anywhere.

You have not demonstrated anything except you agree one light beam spawns into several.

Do you think folks reading this will believe you are credible?

Yet, you are a defender of SR.

So, they will understand SR is a failure.

19. Yes, that's nice Jack.

We're clearly not getting anywhere.
Do you think folks reading this will believe you are credible?
Yes, I do. I think that you have your head so far up your own ass that you can't see how foolish and immature your whole approach to "learning" is.
Grow up, learn some humility.

20. This thread has descended to the personal insult stage, as was inevitable.

Jack_ is clearly not interested in learning anything, so there's no point in continuing with this.