GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 22 Oct 2007 17:32 On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 05:26:22 -0700, George Dishman <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >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: >> >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. The simple math is shown at http://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. How could they possibly arrive in phase when their path lengths are different and their wavelengths are the same? You really should try to understand BaTh George. There' no point in trying to discuss something that way over your head. >> > 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? Many of the unanswered questions surrounding the double slit experiment could be answered by considering the BaTh explanation of sagnac. >> >because the path length is the total distance >> >_moved_. >> >> try: initialphase + (pathlength difference)/(lambda) > >Nope, wrong. .....so 'wrong' it gives the rigth answer. hahahahhaahha! Very amusing George.... >> >> >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. Photons are particles, boy, not squiggly lines. >> >> 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. That's what Jerry has simulated. To make it simulate BaTh you have to remove the air....hahahaha! >> >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. I was talking about water waves remember. Have you ever seen a water wave george? >George Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 23 Oct 2007 18:36 On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:10:40 -0700, George Dishman <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >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. You are using the classical wave equation to model light. You are regarding light as a moving sinewave. Water waves are like this.......light isn't > >George Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 23 Oct 2007 18:37 On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:07:42 -0700, George Dishman <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >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. Light is not a classical wave in a medium. It is not just a 'moving sinewave' like the one Jerry has illustrated. >George Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Paul B. Andersen on 24 Oct 2007 15:05 Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: > On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:10:40 -0700, George Dishman <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> 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. > > You are using the classical wave equation to model light. > You are regarding light as a moving sinewave. We have centuries of experimental evidence that EM-radiation in general and light in particular behave according to Maxwell's classical wave equation. No exception is ever seen in the macroscopic realm. If you claim that according to your 'BaTh' theory, light behave in a different way, then it was falsified by innumerable experiments long before you were born. You have lost, Henri. You have now tried to explain with classical wave mechanics in a Galilean context why the phase of the two rays are different. When you realize that this approach fails miserably, you flee by stating that light doesn't behave like waves at all. Yet you insist that by counting the _wave_lengths of these non waves in a very special way, you can prove that the _phase_ of these non waves are different when the non waves meet at the detector. One can but wonder why somebody will waste their time on an inconsistent idiot like this. > Water waves are like this.......light isn't Wrong again. Surface waves on water do not behave according to the classical wave equation. EM-waves in vacuum do. What is the speed of a surface wave on water, Henri? -- Paul, wondering why he waste his time http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: George Dishman on 25 Oct 2007 12:51
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:oq4qh35jton797cniokm6so0vmdj3jmtgf(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 05:26:22 -0700, George Dishman > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >>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: > >>> >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. > > The simple math is shown at http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm It is wrong, I have told you why numerous times. Make the waves move at the speed ballistic theory requires and you will learn how to do the algebra. >>> >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. > > How could they possibly arrive in phase when their path lengths are > different > and their wavelengths are the same? As I told you before, at the moment they hit the detector, if you take a snapshot, you will find the waves are _NOT_ in phase at the point where they emitted, they are in phase at the SOURCE as of course they must be. When are you going to learn how to use the pause button? > You really should try to understand BaTh > George. I do. You really should try to understand how to use a "pause" button clueless. > There' no point in trying to discuss something that way over your head. > >>> > 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? > > Many of the unanswered questions surrounding the double slit experiment > could > be answered by considering the BaTh explanation of sagnac. There are no unanswered questions, only your ignorance of 20th century physics. >>> >because the path length is the total distance >>> >_moved_. >>> >>> try: initialphase + (pathlength difference)/(lambda) >> >>Nope, wrong. > > ....so 'wrong' it gives the rigth answer. It doesn'tm, the correct answer is that the waves arrive in sync as Androcles knows. > hahahahhaahha! > Very amusing George.... No, your incompetence is becoming boring. >>> >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. > > Photons are particles, boy, not squiggly lines. Sure they are, but you can't even cope with squiggly lines yet, don't try to run before you can crawl. >>> >> 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. > > That's what Jerry has simulated. Correct, that is what ballistic theory requires. > To make it simulate BaTh you have to remove the air....hahahaha! You are an idiot, if you want to use sound in air as an analogy for light, then obviously you require air. >>> >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. > > I was talking about water waves remember. I was right then. > Have you ever seen a water wave george? Have you ever seen the wave pattern produced by raising and lowering a piston of circular cross section in water? The waves are concentric rings that move outwards. Have you ever seen the pattern produced by a straight line of such pistons separated by a distance less than the wavelength and moving in sync? What is it like at a distance greater than the wavelength but less than the length of the line? Why does it have that shape? Work through those questions and then see if you can work how it could apply to a mirror. You might not be quite so clueless at the end. George |