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: George Dishman on 27 Sep 2005 14:05 <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message news:1127814856.490827.50300(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Jim I said a few days ago you were missing some posts and continuing to repeat old errors. There is another example today: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2005/28/full/ I said some time ago I thought we were going to see mounting evidence that our ideas of galaxy formation need an overhaul and this is leading the same way. If galaxies formed by slow aggregation then this would be problematic. There is mounting evidence that supermassive black holes are a key component and I wonder whether we are seeing evidence that they and dark matter clump first and pull in large masses of gas that then forms stars very quickly so galaxies start large and shrink rather than starting small and growing, at least in the earliest epochs. George
From: Paul B. Andersen on 27 Sep 2005 17:29 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:23:40 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 20:22:48 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>>>Some light will always hit at "the midpoint" >>>>of the combining mirror, and what happens in >>>>that point is only determined by the phase >>>>difference of the two light paths that >>>>actually hit that point. If the fringes shifts, >>>>it means that the phase difference changes, >>>>which only can mean that the length difference >>>>of the light paths have changed. >>>> >>>>The ballistic theory predicts no length difference >>>>of the light paths (measured in wavelengths) >>>>and thus no fringe shifts when the Sagnac ring rotates. >>>> >>>>But the fringes do shift when the Sagnac ring rotates. >>>> >>>>Sagnac falsifies the ballistic theory. >>>> >>>>No other conclusion is possible. >>> >>> >>>This whole posting would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. >>>You are making it all up just to suit your own theory. >> >>Was this the best you can do? >>Since you cannot refute my arguments, >>you flee the discussion. > > > no point in discussing something about which YOU know nothing. It's rather obvious that you are fleeing the discussion because you understand that I do indeed know something about the issue. >> >>>The truth is, the sagnac principle relies on the fact that light has its own >>>built-in 'gyro' in the form of an 'axis'. >>>It is not directly related to changes in light speed. Rather, the rotation of >>>the axes at each reflection gives rise to fringes when the >>>beams reunite (at different angles). >> >> >>This is very funny even if it is pathetic, :-) >>You are making it all up just to suit your own theory. >> >>So the Sagnac interferometer works in an entirely different >>way than other interferometers? > > > Yes. I see. :-) >>The interference pattern is formed by different laws of nature? >>The interference pattern is moving, not because the path length >>difference between the two beams is changing, but because >>the photons are rotated? :-) > > > Well, Paul, your alternative 'SR' explanation assumes an aether exists. > > I think I prefer mine. Quite. Invent new laws of nature if that's what it takes to explain away an obvious falsification of the ballistic theory. That's Wonderland physics at its very best. >>There is no limit to the stupidities you can invent >>to explain why the ballistic theory doesn't predict >>what it predicts, is it? >> >> >>>PS: You wont find this in any book. >> >>I wonder why. :-) >> >>Seriously, Henri. >>If you really believe your fantasies yourself, >>you have a serious sanity problem. >> >>But you do not really believe it, of course. > > > Ask yourself: > What happens to the axis of a photon when it bounces off a mirror? > What happens to the axis of a photon when it bounces off a MOVING mirror? The photon gets dizzy? :-) The fact that you to defend the ballistic theory have to claim that the Sagnac interferometer works in unknown, mysterious ways different from all other interferometers, is indeed a convincing argument for that Sagnac falsifies the ballistic theory. Well done. Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 27 Sep 2005 18:30 On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:29:13 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> >> >> Well, Paul, your alternative 'SR' explanation assumes an aether exists. >> >> I think I prefer mine. > >Quite. >Invent new laws of nature if that's what it takes to >explain away an obvious falsification of the ballistic theory. >That's Wonderland physics at its very best. > >>>There is no limit to the stupidities you can invent >>>to explain why the ballistic theory doesn't predict >>>what it predicts, is it? >>> >>> >>>>PS: You wont find this in any book. >>> >>>I wonder why. :-) >>> >>>Seriously, Henri. >>>If you really believe your fantasies yourself, >>>you have a serious sanity problem. >>> >>>But you do not really believe it, of course. >> >> >> Ask yourself: >> What happens to the axis of a photon when it bounces off a mirror? >> What happens to the axis of a photon when it bounces off a MOVING mirror? > >The photon gets dizzy? :-) > >The fact that you to defend the ballistic theory have to >claim that the Sagnac interferometer works in unknown, >mysterious ways different from all other interferometers, >is indeed a convincing argument for that Sagnac falsifies >the ballistic theory. What happened when Michelson's interferometer was rotated? > >Well done. > >Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
From: Henri Wilson on 27 Sep 2005 18:34 On 26 Sep 2005 18:07:30 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >[snip] > >> >> no point in discussing something about which YOU know nothing. > >The less things change, the more they stay the same. > >[snip] > >> >> Well, Paul, your alternative 'SR' explanation assumes an aether exists. > >The less things change, the more they stay the same. > >Why is it you refuse to accept what practically every other scientists >knows : SR is not an aether theory? then answer the following: ->S1______________________p <-S2 How does SR explain why pulses of light from differently moving sources should travel together through space? > >> >> I think I prefer mine. > >Obviously. > >> >> > >> >There is no limit to the stupidities you can invent >> >to explain why the ballistic theory doesn't predict >> >what it predicts, is it? >> > >> >> PS: You wont find this in any book. >> > >> >I wonder why. :-) >> > >> >Seriously, Henri. >> >If you really believe your fantasies yourself, >> >you have a serious sanity problem. >> > >> >But you do not really believe it, of course. >> >> Ask yourself: >> What happens to the axis of a photon when it bounces off a mirror? >> What happens to the axis of a photon when it bounces off a MOVING mirror? > >How do you define the photon's axis? > >God knows you refuse to go with convention and go with what everyone >else uses. Or is that Don1? I forget, the idiots merge together when >I'm not paying attention. > >> >> > >> > >> >Paul >> >> >> HW. >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >> see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe >> >> "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. >> The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
From: Eric Gisse on 27 Sep 2005 21:36
Henri Wilson wrote: > On 26 Sep 2005 18:07:30 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >Henri Wilson wrote: > > > >[snip] > > > >> > >> no point in discussing something about which YOU know nothing. > > > >The less things change, the more they stay the same. > > > >[snip] > > > >> > >> Well, Paul, your alternative 'SR' explanation assumes an aether exists. > > > >The less things change, the more they stay the same. > > > >Why is it you refuse to accept what practically every other scientists > >knows : SR is not an aether theory? > > then answer the following: > > ->S1______________________p > <-S2 > > How does SR explain why pulses of light from differently moving sources should > travel together through space? Why should I play your little game? You can't even answer some simple questions about derivations you said you had done before. |