The burn mark problem

Look, you have already been defeated on this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's nice, Jack.
*pats head*

Go on and play now.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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?

 

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.

 

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.

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 \(\lambda = \gamma\).

 

Is that Upsilon then 400?

 

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.

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.

 

lol

 

I would think, judging from what I have seen and all the silliness, I would agree with you.

But, I am submitting a collection.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

*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.

*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.

 

OK Pete, time to show how how to create two different light beams from one.

Show me.

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

oke:

 

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.

 

Obviously, you are over your head.

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.

 

Yes, that's nice Jack.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

We're clearly not getting anywhere.

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.