Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: Henri Wilson on 4 Jul 2005 20:24 On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 13:46:45 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h959jujt3smv4vodtn(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 20:46:49 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> >The Ballistic Theory is refuted by the double slit experiment. >> > >> >> Why? photons have cross-sections. >> >> The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure. >> If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between wavecrests >change >> or not? > >You missed the point. If BaT is true then we should not have observed the >interfference fringes with the double slit-experiment. We should have just >saw the images of the two slits. I cannot see why light speed should affect the proincile of the double slit experiment. How could it? > >Ken Seto > > HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: kenseto on 4 Jul 2005 22:42 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:fmkjc1htvje39ccfbcdmmllpg9dgcfisjo(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 13:46:45 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message > >news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h959jujt3smv4vodtn(a)4ax.com... > >> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 20:46:49 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > >> >The Ballistic Theory is refuted by the double slit experiment. > >> > > >> > >> Why? photons have cross-sections. > >> > >> The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure. > >> If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between wavecrests > >change > >> or not? > > > >You missed the point. If BaT is true then we should not have observed the > >interfference fringes with the double slit-experiment. We should have just > >saw the images of the two slits. > > I cannot see why light speed should affect the proincile of the double slit > experiment. > How could it? Sigh.....light speed got nothing to do with the experiment. If light is bullet (according to BaT) then there should not be any interference fringes.
From: yt56erd on 5 Jul 2005 10:26 kenseto is the runt of cranks. henri wilson is a crank. this thread could implode.
From: Henri Wilson on 5 Jul 2005 17:13 On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 02:42:36 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:fmkjc1htvje39ccfbcdmmllpg9dgcfisjo(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 13:46:45 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >> >news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h959jujt3smv4vodtn(a)4ax.com... >> >> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 20:46:49 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> >> >> >The Ballistic Theory is refuted by the double slit experiment. >> >> > >> >> >> >> Why? photons have cross-sections. >> >> >> >> The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure. >> >> If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between wavecrests >> >change >> >> or not? >> > >> >You missed the point. If BaT is true then we should not have observed the >> >interfference fringes with the double slit-experiment. We should have >just >> >saw the images of the two slits. >> >> I cannot see why light speed should affect the proincile of the double >slit >> experiment. >> How could it? > >Sigh.....light speed got nothing to do with the experiment. If light is >bullet (according to BaT) then there should not be any interference fringes. > Ken, a photon is not like an ordinary bullet... Let me try to explain. Have you ever illustrated magnetic lines of force around a bar magnet with iron filings? It you move the magnet, you can imagine those force lines moving along with it. Now throw a way the magnet and consider that these field lines remain and are stretched out in a long cigar shape. They are rapidly oscilating from front to back and all the time, perpendicular to them is an associated E- field that oscillates in synchrony. The two fields mutually reinforce each other and will oscillate virtually forever in completely empty space. Can you now imagine something like that coming up against a double slit? HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Jerry on 6 Jul 2005 00:27
Henri Wilson wrote: > On 4 Jul 2005 01:29:02 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> The extincr\tion argument was put forward by a gentleman called Fox, who > >> subsequently showed that DeSitter's argument against the BaT was wrong. > > > >...and this very same Fox conducted an experiment specifically > >designed to counter extinction arguments, the result of which > >was ihnconsistent with BaT. > > Different Fox. Can't you get even THIS simple matter right? The same John G. Fox wrote Fox, J.G., Amer. J. Phys. 30, 297(1962) Fox, J.G., Amer. J. Phys. 33, 1(1964) (critiqued DeSitter) and also wrote Filipas, T.A. and Fox, J.G. Phys. Rev. 135, B1071(1964) (conducted experiment designed to counter extinction arguments, obtained results inconsistent with BaT.) Jerry |