GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Androcles on 15 Oct 2007 18:41 "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:u8p7h3l41okcp8vsnitaikbp10e04fipan(a)4ax.com... : On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:35:01 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> : wrote: : : > : >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message : >news:gff2h3t1b7usrumct7fq6ae36bdql9fbsl(a)4ax.com... : >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:21:51 +0100, "George Dishman" : : > : >But the angles between the emission and detection points : >aren't 2 pi radians in ewither direction. Why are you : >arguing Henry, I am trying explain to Andy why _you_ are : >_right_? : > : >>> http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/SameWavelength.png : >>> : >>>Or you can count from the yellow dot to the : >>>green dot: : >>> : >>> http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/NumberOfWaves.png : >>> : >>> lambda_blue =(2pi + alpha)R / 11.2 : >>> lambda_red = (2pi - alpha)R / 7.8 : >>> : >>>You get the same wavelength by either method. : > : >Get it yet? : > : >"You get the same wavelength by either method." : > : >I am saying your claim is _correct_ so stop and : >_think_ before disagreeing! : : I'm basicaly disagreeing with him. That's good, Wilson, I want it on record that you disagreed with me. "There are about 13 waves in the blue and 6 in the red." --Wilson, 12 Oct 2007. "the number of waves between the source and detector is the same in both paths and constant." -- Wilson, 15 Oct 2007. "That's the kind of argument I'd expect from a desperate person....completely out of ideas... ahahahaha!" -- Wilson. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
From: George Dishman on 16 Oct 2007 03:34 On 15 Oct, 19:45, "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:1192460718.255292.114600(a)v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com... <snip history> > : Not even close, the waves move at v+c and v-c > : while yours are static. > > The wave IS static. The photons moves at v+/-c. > That's the entire confusion about wave and particle duality. I see what you are saying now, this is the one that conveys your view; http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/Photon.gif You haven't thought it through though. Consider what is seen at one location versus time as the photon passes. Before it arrives there is no field and once it has passed you see a residual DC level. The time when the step change occurs is when the photon passes so at a time d/c after the photon is emitted at a distance d from a source which is at rest. What we see in reality is a sine wave whose phase depends on d/c. Plot multiple points and you get a travelling wave. Connect an RF source to a terminated transmission line and slide a scope probe along the wire. Sync the scope to the source and you will see a sine wave at any point and the signal phase is delayed as you move the point of contact. Do the same with a series of antennas and a radiated EM signal and you will see the same thing, the waves travel. The difference between Maxwell's Equations and Ritz's idea was only the speed at which the waves move, c+v instead of c, and that is what Henry and I are discussing. > [snip confusion and whining] I can see why you don't understand Jerry's model now. The bit you snipped previously that explains Ritz's ballistic theory is this: Ritz's ballistic theory was a model of simple propagating waves with the only difference from an aether theory being that those waves move at a speed that depends on the source. Put a through of water round the carousel with a plate to stop it flowing past Grandpa, turn the the carousel at constant speed taking the water with it and then let Grandpa make regular ripples at constant frequency, a simple sine wave on the water. That is what Ritz described and what is shown in Jerry's animation only she showed the two circulating waves spearately instead of their sum to help Henry understand. George
From: George Dishman on 16 Oct 2007 03:42 On 15 Oct, 23:10, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:35:01 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message > >news:gff2h3t1b7usrumct7fq6ae36bdql9fbsl(a)4ax.com... > >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:21:51 +0100, "George Dishman" > > >But the angles between the emission and detection points > >aren't 2 pi radians in ewither direction. Why are you > >arguing Henry, I am trying explain to Andy why _you_ are > >_right_? > > >>>http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/SameWavelength.png > > >>>Or you can count from the yellow dot to the > >>>green dot: > > >>>http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/NumberOfWaves.png > > >>> lambda_blue =(2pi + alpha)R / 11.2 > >>> lambda_red = (2pi - alpha)R / 7.8 > > >>>You get the same wavelength by either method. > > >Get it yet? > > >"You get the same wavelength by either method." > > >I am saying your claim is _correct_ so stop and > >_think_ before disagreeing! > > I'm basicaly disagreeing with him. I know. > ..but I disagree with you on other counts... Yes, but you have got so used to disagreeing with me that you say I'm wrong without thinking even when I agree with you. What's the point? You obviously aren't giving what I say any consideration and just post knee-jerk contrary statements whether they reflect what you actually believe or not. It's taken you two weeks and dozens of posts to finally accept that Jerry's animation is correct and the signals arrive in phase. A few minutes scratching your head at the start could have avoided all that tedious effort. All you are doing is wasting everybody's time and the only outcome is to make you look like an idiot because you have to back down and admit we are right every time. Think first - post later ! George
From: Androcles on 16 Oct 2007 04:20 "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:1192520099.391084.63890(a)e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com... : On 15 Oct, 19:45, "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: : > "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message : > news:1192460718.255292.114600(a)v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com... : : <snip history> : : > : Not even close, the waves move at v+c and v-c : > : while yours are static. : > : > The wave IS static. The photons moves at v+/-c. : > That's the entire confusion about wave and particle duality. : : I see what you are saying now, this is the one : that conveys your view; Good, you are learning. : : http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/Photon.gif : : You haven't thought it through though. Oh yes I have. You are still in the process of thinking it through, you haven't thought it yet, through. : Consider : what is seen at one location versus time as the : photon passes. Before it arrives there is no : field and once it has passed you see a residual : DC level. http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/SHO/damp.html Consider what is seen at one location versus time as the mass on a spring (say a car) passes. Before it arrives there is no height above the road and once it has passed you see a residual height level. I know you were crazy, Dishpan, all relativists are. I didn't realize just how crazy.
From: Androcles on 16 Oct 2007 04:26
"George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:1192520579.948426.35110(a)i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com... : On 15 Oct, 23:10, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote: : > On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:35:01 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: : > >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message : > >news:gff2h3t1b7usrumct7fq6ae36bdql9fbsl(a)4ax.com... : > >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:21:51 +0100, "George Dishman" : > : > >But the angles between the emission and detection points : > >aren't 2 pi radians in ewither direction. Why are you : > >arguing Henry, I am trying explain to Andy why _you_ are : > >_right_? : > : > >>>http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/SameWavelength.png : > : > >>>Or you can count from the yellow dot to the : > >>>green dot: : > : > >>>http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/NumberOfWaves.png : > : > >>> lambda_blue =(2pi + alpha)R / 11.2 : > >>> lambda_red = (2pi - alpha)R / 7.8 : > : > >>>You get the same wavelength by either method. : > : > >Get it yet? : > : > >"You get the same wavelength by either method." : > : > >I am saying your claim is _correct_ so stop and : > >_think_ before disagreeing! : > : > I'm basicaly disagreeing with him. : : I know. : : > ..but I disagree with you on other counts... : : Yes, but you have got so used to disagreeing : with me that you say I'm wrong without thinking : even when I agree with you. What's the point? : You obviously aren't giving what I say any : consideration and just post knee-jerk contrary : statements You do the same thing, Dishpan. So does Jeery. Even I do it when I've had one scotch too many. The commonest problem of all is understanding which frame the other person is thinking in, which is why I say Grandpa doesn't ride. He still has a point of view, though. Jeery says Grandpa has to ride. That's wrong. The kids ride, they are the rotating observers. What I'm doing is naming the observer so that we are not forever talking about "the observer" and causing confusion. When Wilson says the emission point moves backwards in the frame of the source he's right, but YOUR knee jerk reaction is to say "No, ...." |