GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: George Dishman on 22 Oct 2007 14:56 "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:1193028114.737840.318060(a)v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com... .... > See > > Henri Wilson's Strange Version of Wave Mechanics > http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/toothwheel/toothwheel.htm Lovely :-) However, I think it isn't quite right. If you look at his Sagnac picture, the source actually moves _past_ the static wave pattern. From the point of view of the source, the waves ahead move back towards it while those behind move away so the centre of the concentric circles should move in some direction while the ripples remain of constant diameter, maybe .... Who knows what bizarre idea he is trying to convey, it certainly has nothing to do with the real world. George
From: Androcles on 22 Oct 2007 16:25 "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote in message news:471CEDC3.2000906(a)guesswhathia.no... [..] http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/inphase.gif http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/nophase.gif How many teeth have I drawn on each wheel? Wilson needs help counting them.
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 22 Oct 2007 17:05 On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 20:32:24 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: >In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) ><HW@> > wrote >>>: wavelength is absolute in BaTh. >>> >>>That's ok, nobody cares about your stupid BaTh; it isn't physics, >>> it's as crazy as relativity. >> >> BaTh works. >> > >Does it? > >Androcles: Observed Frequency is constant. >Wilson: Observed Wavelength is constant. >SR: Observed Lightspeed is constant. > >Galilean/nBaT: Observed Wavelength is constant. > >> see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm What could be simpler? Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 22 Oct 2007 17:15 On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:36:51 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: >Androcles skrev: >> >> Look at Tusseladd's sketch (fig 1) at: >> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf >> >> On the right, between the half silvered mirror and the viewing screen, >> are a red ray and a blue ray travelling in the same direction but with >> different speeds, c+v and c-v. > >Same argument, same answer: > >No, but it is an interesting point, so let's have a look at it. >The following is according to Ritz Emission Theory >and Galilean relativity: > >The red ray will go right through the mirror without >changing speed, and it will thus have the speed >c_f ~= c + v/(c*sqrt(2)), measured in the inertial frame. >The blue ray will have the speed c_b ~= c - v/(c*sqrt(2)) >_before_ it is reflected off the half silvered mirror. > >The "law of reflection" is that the ray will be reflected >off the mirror at the same speed as the incident speed >_in the stationary frame of the mirror_. That cannot be assumed... >If we first transform the speed of the incoming ray >to the mirror frame, we will find that the speed of >the incoming ray is c. The speed of the reflected ray will >thus also be c in the mirror frame. >When we transform this back to the inertial frame, the speed >of the blue, reflected ray will be ~= c + v/(c*sqrt(2)), >just like the red ray. > >V ^ > \ / c1 = c - v/(c*sqrt(2)) > \c1 /c2 c2 = c + v/(c*sqrt(2)) > \ / > \ / > \ / > \/ ^ >------------- | v moving mirror > > >If the red and blue ray are in phase at the mirror, >they will according to the emission theory still be >in phase at the screen. > >If you bounce a ball off an approaching wall, >it will come back to you faster than it went in. >According to the emission theory, the same applies for light. http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.jpg tells the full story.... Simple isn't it? Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 22 Oct 2007 17:17
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:56:28 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >news:1193028114.737840.318060(a)v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >... >> See >> >> Henri Wilson's Strange Version of Wave Mechanics >> http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/toothwheel/toothwheel.htm > >Lovely :-) > >However, I think it isn't quite right. If you >look at his Sagnac picture, the source actually >moves _past_ the static wave pattern. From the >point of view of the source, the waves ahead >move back towards it while those behind move >away so the centre of the concentric circles >should move in some direction while the ripples >remain of constant diameter, maybe .... > >Who knows what bizarre idea he is trying to >convey, it certainly has nothing to do with the >real world. Your amusing little games wont save Einstein. >George > > Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |