GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Androcles on 22 Oct 2007 19:22 "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:u5bqh3d55cvhndmu5j7ffampmfbcn3l4fs(a)4ax.com... : On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:06:57 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> : wrote: : : > : >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message : >news:k76qh3hiat6sjq9sct3t5jtromov0lno4v(a)4ax.com... : >: On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:44:43 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> : : >: What is that supposed to achieve? : >: The only relevant feature is that the 'wavelength' is absolute and the : >same on : >: all wheels.. : > : >Nope. The teeth are 24,22 and 26 in number, different for each wheel. : >The circumference is the same on all wheels. Pity you never learned to : >count or you wouldn't have spent a week proving you were wrong, idiot. : >Even a 5 yr-old knows wagon wheels go backwards in Western movies. : >You are so easy to fool because you are a fool. : : How can anyone count the teeth on those wheels? Any 5 yr-old could do it. You are so easy to fool because you are a fool. Pity you never learned to count.
From: Jerry on 22 Oct 2007 20:41 On Oct 22, 1:56 pm, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(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. As you point out, I did an animation (NOT a simulation!!!) with a static source only. Quite franky, my imagination totally fails to come up with a viable picture of how Wilsonian waves might behave if emitted from a moving source. There's no math to guide me in putting together a simulation, and as you state, the whole concept of a source with unchanging phase (zero frequency) that emits waves that travel at the speed of c, but which have zero phase velocity and a discrete wavelength, is totally bizarre. So I'll have to pass on this challenge... Jerry
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 23 Oct 2007 01:48 In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:53:07 GMT <7Z8Ti.409200$xp6.99223(a)fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>: > > "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message > news:u14qh3pfnteulb72fn56s60lf5jr8jk1sf(a)4ax.com... >: 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: Frequency is constant, independent of observers. > > I didn't say that. Frequency is constant, independent of observers. > Correction noted. (And yes, I'm editing my own post. :-) ) > > >: >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? > > Dork Van de merde is simpler... the simplest there is. > -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net Useless C++ Programming Idea #8830129: std::set<...> v; for(..:iterator i = v.begin(); i != v.end(); i++) if(*i == thing) {...} -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: George Dishman on 23 Oct 2007 03:07 On 22 Oct, 22:34, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:41:39 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message > >news:brinh3hqfqvicvbptqm13kldp4o2ea6gsq(a)4ax.com... > >> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 13:26:01 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > >> <paul.b.ander...(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: > >... > >>>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! :-) > > >> Paul, let me explain. > >> Photons are particles and not classical waves in a medium. > > >So why did you draw a wave round your diagram > >if they are not waves? Clueless as ever. > > It's not a wave. It's a graph of phase. If that was what it was supposed to be, you obviously have no idea what "phase" means. The phase is a linear function of the angle and increases linearly with time. You really need to learn some basic maths Henry. George
From: George Dishman on 23 Oct 2007 03:10
On 22 Oct, 22:17, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:56:28 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(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. Your clueless gibberish is nothing but a source of amusement. This particular variant is so hare-brained that it can't even be depicted with any sort of consistency. George |