GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Androcles on 21 Oct 2007 05:02 "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:elclh3pg8rj180prv9bs0rilk4savk5mfj(a)4ax.com... : On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:25:17 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> : wrote: : : > : >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message : >news:j5vkh352fclcpn5foofltrc9aba5n0na6j(a)4ax.com... : : > : >The rays are never in phase, they have difference speeds. : > : >: It makes no : >: difference if the wheel spins. The positions of the teeth are the same. : > : >These three wheels are all in phase all the time: : > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/inphase.gif : >These three are NEVER in phase: : > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/nophase.gif : > : >Explain that, Wilson. : : What is there to explain? Why one set is in phase and the other isn't. : If you want to represent a ring gyro... I don't right now, I want you to explain phase and tick fairies. These three wheels are all in phase all the time: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/inphase.gif These three are NEVER in phase: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/nophase.gif Explain that, Wilson.
From: Androcles on 21 Oct 2007 05:12 "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:utclh3lpnipbhahhic0coshi83jm7be6fs(a)4ax.com... : On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:44:51 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> : wrote: : : > : >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message : >news:tk0lh3l045j914i2bru14hvch37vst9abc(a)4ax.com... : >: On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 13:59:53 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> : >: wrote: : : >: > As a first experiment, I suggest letting the simulation run : >: > for five seconds, then clicking once on the rotation rate : >: > spinner (either up or down). After doing this, one one will : >: > then see, to the right, a rapid, continuously increasing : >: > displacement of the fringes until the total displacement : >: > reaches slightly more than one fringe width. The fringes then : >: > "snap back" to their original position (i.e. zero displacement) : >: > since the light has had a chance to catch up. After reaching : >: > steady state with a constant rotation rate, Ballistic Theory : >: > predicts that the fringe displacement will be zero. : >: > : >: > Ballistic Theory is, of course, disproven once again. : >: : >: Give up Jerry. : >: Your colleagues still cannot grasp the difference between 'the 'static : >emission : >: point' and the 'moving source'. : >: They have become psychologically resistant to reason because the fact that : >the : >: emission point MOVES backwards in the rotating frame makes a complete : >mockery : >: of all their previous sagnac arguments against BaTh. : >: : >: The truth is revealed at: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm : >: and: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/toothwheel.exe : >: : >: It gives the right answer...who was that fellow, Ockham, anyway? : > : >There wasn't one. Ockham is in Surrey and William lived there. : > : >You have become psychologically resistant to reason because : >you are senile and cannot count. : > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/inphase.gif : > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/nophase.gif : > : >Give up, Wilson, the tick fairy cannot help you. : : No tick fairies needed. They are all employed by relativists anyway. How do you explain this, then? http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/inphase.gif http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/nophase.gif
From: George Dishman on 21 Oct 2007 06:34 "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:1192913993.809726.3630(a)e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 16, 2:50 am, George Dishman <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> On 15 Oct, 23:24, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote: >> >> > On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 14:52:37 +0100, "George Dishman" >> > <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> > >Try to think that through Henry, I'm sure it will >> > >give you some difficulty. >> >> > I have already George. Much of what you say is >> > basically correct except that you are completely >> > overlooking the vital question of what happens >> > during an acceleration. >> > The answer is, "everything". >> >> The fringes will vary in a complex way but there >> is no memory in the system. Sagnac didn't switch >> on the light bulb until the speed was stable so >> what would have happened to fringes had he switched >> on the bulb is moot, only the phase difference >> while the bulb was on matters. > > I've survived Midterm Week! After getting home Friday, > I decided to write a new applet to address Henri's > misconceptions about how acceleration may affect the > results. > > Original applet: > http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/sagnac/BallisticSagnac.htm > > Scroll down a bit for the new applet, or click on the following: > http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/sagnac/BallisticSagnac.htm#transients > > Here are my comments on my web site concerning the new applet: Excellent Jerry, though Henry doesn't have the ability to understand any of this. Still, the point is that any lurkers who have trouble following the verbal descriptions can access the applet and see what ballistic theory really says. I often think it must be difficult for anyone coming into such a long running thread to pick up on the references to previous parts of the discussions. best regards George
From: George Dishman on 21 Oct 2007 06:36 "Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:tk0lh3l045j914i2bru14hvch37vst9abc(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 13:59:53 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> > wrote: .... >>Scroll down a bit for the new applet, or click on the following: >>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/sagnac/BallisticSagnac.htm#transients > > Still wrong. ... > Your colleagues still cannot grasp the difference between 'the 'static > emission > point' and the 'moving source'. That's because the emission "point" moves with the source, your model is for a dragged aether which is statinary in the lab. That theory actually survives Sagnac's, ballistic theory doesn't. George
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 21 Oct 2007 17:35
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 08:42:32 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >: > >: >That's ok, nobody cares about your stupid BaTh; it isn't physics, >: > it's as crazy as relativity. >: >: BaTh works. > >Emission Fact works, BaTh has no Doppler shift. I wont keep repeating my answer to this monotonous nonsense. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |