Ah - you still think that this is the same as ballistic theory?
Keep reading, Jack.
Look, you have already been defeated on this.
Ah - you still think that this is the same as ballistic theory?
Keep reading, Jack.
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.Look, you have already been defeated on this.
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.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.;
In 15 years of study you have never seen a single equation written using algebra?And when you put two letters together like this vd you are saying v*d right? ;
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.
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.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
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 $$\lambda = \gamma$$.I asked a question, I didn't ask you to go off topic.
Oh Jesus, I just saw this (you edited your post after I'd replied).so this.............(vd/c + d)/λ
is really (v*d) / (c + d) / λ .... whatever λ is?
400?Is that Upsilon then 400?
that's nice, jack.
*pats head*
go on and play now.
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.
Is that Upsilon then 400?
That's nice, Jack.
*pats head*
Go on and play now.
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.
*shrug*Actually, by comparing the rods after the experiment, it is impossible for there to exist one light beam.
*sigh*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.
*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.
Done to death, Jack. I'm done spoonfeeding you. Time to put some effort in.OK Pete, time to show how how to create two different light beams from one.
Show me.
Why? Didn't you read the last two times I wrote it?I was wondering if you would get that distinction for emission theory.
If you showed any sign of comprehension, perhaps your opinion would carry weight.That is completely absurd.
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.
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.Do you think folks reading this will believe you are credible?