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 6 Jul 2005 03:20 On 5 Jul 2005 21:27:04 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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 I know a fellow called Arnold Fox who reckoned DeSitter was wrong, too. 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 10:38 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 5 Jul 2005 21:27:04 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> 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 > > I know a fellow called Arnold Fox who reckoned DeSitter was wrong, too. You are attempting to muddy the waters. The plain fact of the matter is that you are hopelessly ignorant of the literature, and are likely to remain so for eternity. Jerry
From: George Dishman on 6 Jul 2005 15:04 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h959jujt3smv4vodtn(a)4ax.com... .... > The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure. Not really, it's the distance between points of equal phase measured in the directon of propagation. > If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between wavecrests > change > or not? Unless wavelength = speed / frequency, you need your "tick fairies" at every change of refractive index. Think of light passing through a sheet of glass, there must be the same number of wavefronts passing a point within the glass as points outside in any given time. George
From: George Dishman on 6 Jul 2005 15:07 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:wsmye.46998$7X1.43224(a)tornado.ohiordc.rr.com... > "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: .... >> >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. The suggestion is that is it wave-like but that the speed of the waves depends on the speed of the source that emits them. I don't agree (for many reasons, the most obvious being the Sagnac effect) but you should try to understand his suggestion if you want to offer valid criticisms. George
From: Henri Wilson on 7 Jul 2005 18:08
On 6 Jul 2005 07:38:21 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 5 Jul 2005 21:27:04 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> >> 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 >> >> I know a fellow called Arnold Fox who reckoned DeSitter was wrong, too. > >You are attempting to muddy the waters. > >The plain fact of the matter is that you are hopelessly >ignorant of the literature, and are likely to remain so for >eternity. Just read MY literature and you will learn considerably more than you will from DeSitter. > >Jerry 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. |