GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 22 Oct 2007 04:25 On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 22:37:09 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:4jhnh3pofqsk5fqm68lhfvl6sb3en35tgk(a)4ax.com... >: On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 04:15:42 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >: <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: >: >: >Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: >: >> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:13:27 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" dial 999 Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 22 Oct 2007 04:32 On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 21:41:54 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Oct 18, 6:38 pm, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> "Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in messagenews:08ffh39c9j2ac1pligl8k1vi8fnmd3ba45(a)4ax.com... > >> > Thiis might help. >> > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/toothwheel.exe >> > (It is not complete and doesn't seem to want to run >> > properly on windows Vista...but not many things do). >> >> > The toothed wheel represents a snapshot of BOTH rays >> > when they are in phase at the emission point. >> >> Useless, the whole point is that they move at >> different speeds. Show that and see what happens. >> >> > The teeth represent absolute wavelengths. >> >> That part is correct but just make each part move >> at the right speed and it falls out automatically. >> >> > It is not shown moving because the positions of the >> > teeth at that instant is independent of light speed. >> >> That's your error, the waves have to get from source >> to detector and that takes time. >> >> > The red and blue lines show the rays moving at c+v >> > and c-v. They travel for the same time and meet at >> > the detector together. >> >> You need to show them as moving waves. >> >> > If you vary the ring rotation speed via the combo >> > box, you will see that the phases of the rays when >> > they reunite are not the same. >> >> > If you want to argue against this approach, I remind >> > you that it gives the experimentally verified answer. >> >> Irrelevant, it is wrong. As I said before, it gives >> you the answer you WANT. It isn't the CORRECT answer. >> >> I would also remind you that SR gives the right answer >> if you want to use that argument. > >See > >Henri Wilson's Strange Version of Wave Mechanics >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/toothwheel/toothwheel.htm Crank, you need a new pair of glasses. Your current ones seem to have developed a strange kind of periodic astigmatism. I suggest you patent your sound based ring gyro before someone else grabs it....and don't forget to remove the air.... >Jerry Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 22 Oct 2007 04:45 On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 00:05:10 -0700, George Dishman <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On 21 Oct, 22:56, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote: >> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 11:26:18 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >> >news:j5vkh352fclcpn5foofltrc9aba5n0na6j(a)4ax.com... >> >> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 11:08:45 +0100, "George Dishman" >> >>>Henry, the phase in your program doesn't "arrive" >> >>>anywhere, the wiggly line doesn't move. >> >> >> It isn't supposed to. It merely shows a snapshot of wavecrest positions >> >> FOR >> >> BOTH RAYS at the instant when the two rays are emitted IN PHASE. >> >> >At the instant they are emitted, it is OK. >> >At the instant they are detected it is wrong >> >because the waves have moved between the two >> >snapshots. If you move the wave at the right >> >speed you will find that the waves are in phase >> >at the detector and at the source but not at >> >the marker which is static in the lab frame. >> >> The program moves the waves at c+v and c-v, where v is th ring speed. > >No it doesn't, the _waves_ don't move at all. OK, I accept engineers have no imagination. Everything has to be spelt out in kids language... >> That's >> why their travel times are the same and they meet at the detector at the same >> instant. > >And that is why they must be in phase, the are >emitted in phase, take the same time to get >there so simple addition requires that they >arrive in phase, your diagram is wrong. George, they are moving at different speeds along different pathlengths. They are NOT in phase at the end. >> the equations are at:www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm > >You divide by the wrong number as I have pointed >out repeatedly. ...and get the right answer.....whatever happened to Ockham? >> >Leaving the wave unmoving and showing a progress >> >bar gets it wrong. >> >> Sorry George, the theory is fully backed by experiment.... > >Siorry Henry, the theory predicts no fringe >displacement, your lack of any mathematical >ability means you have the calculations wrong. Sorry George, you simply don't get it. >> We are only interested in the phase difference at the detector. > >At least you have learned that fact. > >> That is given >> by (pathlength difference)/lambda. > >No, it is given by > > initialphase + (pathlength difference)/(distance moved per cycle) There are no 'cycles'. The source emits photn PARTICLES not squiggly lines. >because the path length is the total distance >_moved_. try: initialphase + (pathlength difference)/(lambda) >> >> I am quite aware of what phase is. >> >> >I don't think so. >> >> You are treating light in the same way as you would sound in air. > >The definition of the phase of a sine wave >is not dependent on its application. think again >> >Move the waves at the speed required by ballistic >> >theory as Jerry has correctly shown and they _are_ >> >in phase. >> >> Jerry's program is wrong. > >Jerry's program is right, she moves the waves at the >correct speed while yours don't move at all. Jerry models a ring gyro based on sound in air with the air removed. >> George, tell me this. Why do water waves move in one particular direction, when >> the water molecules themselves move only vertically. > >Because what moves horizontally across the ocean >and determines the speed we assign to the wave is >the location of a particular phase point on the >wave, not any aspect of the molecules of which it >is composed. When ballistic theory says the speed >is c+v, that refers to a point of given phase on >the wave. > >> To put that another way, "What determines the direction of energy transfer?" > >Interference, which is the basis of Huygens Principle. Hahahahahaha! Hohohohhahahahahawhawhaw! You really know very little physics do you, George. Do you want to know the answer? Hint: the water molecules DO NOT move up and down vertically. They move in ellipse-like orbits. >George Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 22 Oct 2007 04:59 On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:02:24 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:p3jnh39r3htk22nq9ce8ka2l0bp6nrnc4m(a)4ax.com... >: On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 09:12:33 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> >: wrote: >: >: 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 >: >: I had a meccano set when I was a kid too. I have also fixed lots of car >: garboxes. > >gar: > http://thedallascowboyreport.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/gar3.jpg yeh! I know. You hang up a sardine then stand well behind it and take aphoto with the iris closed right down... >garbox: > http://www.techgadgetforums.com/files/apple_aquarium.jpg > >Fit that gar in that garbox and it would need fixing. > >So... you are defeated by a kiddy meccano set. Physicists can't >count and don't know what phase is. Better go back to fishing. Did it for years... till I realised fish don't like being dragged out of the water with a bloody big hook in their mouths. Would you? Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Androcles on 22 Oct 2007 05:53
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:linoh39h92v28hlumssc41ai52ajlpt6pt(a)4ax.com... : On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 22:37:09 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> : wrote: : : > : >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message : >news:4jhnh3pofqsk5fqm68lhfvl6sb3en35tgk(a)4ax.com... : >: On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 04:15:42 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" : >: <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: : >: : >: >Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: : >: >> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:13:27 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" : : dial 999 "That's the kind of argument I'd expect from a desperate person....completely out of ideas... ahahahaha!" -- Wilson. |