GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Jerry on 22 Oct 2007 07:48 On Oct 21, 6:26 am, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: > Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: > > On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:17:36 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > > <paul.b.ander...(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: > >> What is the phase at the front of each of your rays? > >> Does it vary as the rays move? > > > At any instant, the phase at the front of each moving line > > is indicated by the teeth on the wheel....obviously.... > > > I have included a pause/restart button so you can see. > > So the phase at the front of the ray - which moves with > the phase velocity of the ray - is varying. > > Thanks again. > Your amusing, nonsensical, revealing answer duly noted. > > And what is most hilarious is that Henri Wilson is so > confused that he doesn't even understand why his answer > is amusing, nonsensical and revealing! :-) See Henri Wilson's Strange Version of Wave Mechanics http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/toothwheel/toothwheel.htm Jerry
From: Androcles on 22 Oct 2007 08:06 "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:1193053710.836620.25430(a)e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com... : On Oct 21, 6:26 am, "Paul B. Andersen" : <paul.b.ander...(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: : > Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: : > > On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:17:36 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" : > > <paul.b.ander...(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: : : > >> What is the phase at the front of each of your rays? : > >> Does it vary as the rays move? : > : > > At any instant, the phase at the front of each moving line : > > is indicated by the teeth on the wheel....obviously.... : > : > > I have included a pause/restart button so you can see. : > : > So the phase at the front of the ray - which moves with : > the phase velocity of the ray - is varying. : > : > Thanks again. : > Your amusing, nonsensical, revealing answer duly noted. : > : > And what is most hilarious is that Henri Wilson is so : > confused that he doesn't even understand why his answer : > is amusing, nonsensical and revealing! :-) : : See : : Henri Wilson's Strange Version of Wave Mechanics : http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/toothwheel/toothwheel.htm : See Albert Einstein's Strange Version of Wave Mechanics http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/ship2starX.gif http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/star2shipX.gif "It follows from these results that to an observer approaching a source of light with the velocity c, this source of light must appear of infinite intensity."- A. Einstein, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" And what is hilarious is that Albert Einstein is so confused that he doesn't even understand why his answer is amusing, nonsensical and revealing! :-) And what is MOST hilarious is that Tusseladd, Dishpan and Jeery are so confused that they don't even understand why his answer is amusing, nonsensical and revealing, they just believe the idiot! :-)
From: George Dishman on 22 Oct 2007 08:09 On 22 Oct, 10:43, "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: .... > I wont keep repeating my answer to this monotonous nonsense. > I've PROVED your BaTh is wrong, knee-jerking CRETIN. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/outofphase.gif > Initially the phase of the two beams is necessarily locked but when the > final beam-splitter is reached and the two beams combined, still in phase, Well, well, who would have guessed, a glimmer of enlightenment from Andro! So far you are correct, you are nearly there. > one departs with velocity c+v and the other with velocity c-v. Upon > reaching the detector the two beams are necessarily out of phase. The beam that is transmitted through the final splitter doesn't have its speed changed of course, but calculate the effect of reflecting the other beam from the moving splitter. George
From: George Dishman on 22 Oct 2007 08:26 On 22 Oct, 09:45, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 00:05:10 -0700, George Dishman <geo...(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... I can use my imagination just fine, or I can do the maths, the stuff I posted in November 2005 and you copied for your web page. Jerry already spelt it out for you, you can always copy code if the "kid stuff" is beyond you, she got it right. > >> 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? You get the wrong answer, the correct answer from the maths is that they arrive in phase and ballistic theory is falsified. Androcles just got it as far as the final splitter, he is learning, you aren't. He only has one more calculation to do. > >> >Leaving the wave unmoving and showing a progress > >> >bar gets it wrong. > > >> Sorry George, the theory is fully backed by experiment.... > > >Sorry 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. Sorry Henry, you shouldn't have left school before learning basic maths. > >> 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. You don't get interference in Young's Slits without a periodic function or "cycles", and Young's Slits gives the classical output with single photons. What function do you multiply the diffraction pattern by to get the intensity Henry? > >because the path length is the total distance > >_moved_. > > try: initialphase + (pathlength difference)/(lambda) Nope, wrong. > >> >> 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 Nope, that is the definition, learn basic physics sonny. > >> >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. Nope, the speeds difere for the two beams, the air would need to rotate with the turntable. > >> 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. Vastly more than you apparently. > Do you want to know the answer? > > Hint: the water molecules DO NOT move up and down vertically. > They move in ellipse-like orbits. That is one of the most naive statements I have seen in a long time. You are clueless Henry, you don't have the faintest idea how a simple mirror works, and you probably don't even know why that comment is connected to what you just said. George
From: Paul B. Andersen on 22 Oct 2007 08:29
Jerry wrote: > On Oct 21, 6:26 am, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.ander...(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: >> Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: >>> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:17:36 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>> <paul.b.ander...(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: > >>>> What is the phase at the front of each of your rays? >>>> Does it vary as the rays move? >>> At any instant, the phase at the front of each moving line >>> is indicated by the teeth on the wheel....obviously.... >>> I have included a pause/restart button so you can see. >> So the phase at the front of the ray - which moves with >> the phase velocity of the ray - is varying. >> >> Thanks again. >> Your amusing, nonsensical, revealing answer duly noted. >> >> And what is most hilarious is that Henri Wilson is so >> confused that he doesn't even understand why his answer >> is amusing, nonsensical and revealing! :-) > > See > > Henri Wilson's Strange Version of Wave Mechanics > http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/toothwheel/toothwheel.htm > > Jerry Very good. :-) A source with constant phase (zero frequency) is emitting a wave with zero phase velocity, and the phase at its propagating front is changing all the time. But Henri is so confused that he doesn't even understand why his idea of a wave is amusing, nonsensical and revealing! :-) -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ |