GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: George Dishman on 25 Oct 2007 12:54 "Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:grtsh3h9rcq3jnfsclvcbr1ans094kpnoi(a)4ax.com... > 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. Ballistic theory says any EM disturbance moves at c+v. If light isn't what Jerry has drawn, you are saying ballistic theory is wrong. Fine by me. George
From: George Dishman on 25 Oct 2007 13:04 "Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:9ntsh354bht1majcpmto8tqbqvjco48e0h(a)4ax.com... > 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. Ballistic theory says any EM disturbance moves at c+v. If I want to know how a classical wave composed of many photons behaves, ballistic theory requires it to move at c+v. If I want to know how some other waveform moves, ballistic theory still says the same, it moves at c+v. If you want to model it as variations in photon density, go ahead, but ballistic theory requires those variations to move at c+v so they arrive simultaneously at the detector. > You are regarding light as a moving sinewave. > Water waves are like this.......light isn't We can heterodyne laser light with a spectral line from starlight to produce a microwave product whose frequency can be counted. Monochromatic light is a moving sine wave. Ballistic theory says that sine wave moves at c+v so you are saying ballistic theory is wrong. Fine by me, I already knew that. Your bicycle chain model would be valid, your static squiggly line photon is not, it doesn't move at the speed required by ballistic theory. George
From: Randy Poe on 25 Oct 2007 15:57 On Oct 24, 6:15 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:05:07 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > >What is the speed of a surface wave on water, Henri? > > As you should know, it's quite complicated. Not all that complicated. Depends on depth and wavelength. > > Why is energy tansmitted one way and not the other in a water wave Paul? After > all, the molecules only move up and down..... Actually, they move in circles. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/watwav2.html - Randy
From: Androcles on 25 Oct 2007 16:21 "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1193342267.806718.36300(a)o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... : On Oct 24, 6:15 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: : > On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:05:07 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" : > >What is the speed of a surface wave on water, Henri? : > : > As you should know, it's quite complicated. : : Not all that complicated. Depends on depth and wavelength. : : > : > Why is energy tansmitted one way and not the other in a water wave Paul? After : > all, the molecules only move up and down..... : : Actually, they move in circles. : : http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/watwav2.html Interesting to note the circle diameter is a function of depth and that leads to the wave "breaking" as it reaches the shore. Henri's premise is wrong, ripples and tsunamis are omnidirectional. He might as well ask why circles have centres. Henri needs to go to a soccer match and join a crowd "doing the wave". http://ask.yahoo.com/20050414.html No circular motion there, but there can be both longitudinal and transverse waves.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 25 Oct 2007 16:39
Randy Poe skrev: > On Oct 24, 6:15 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: >> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:05:07 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>> What is the speed of a surface wave on water, Henri? >> As you should know, it's quite complicated. > > Not all that complicated. Depends on depth and wavelength. Indeed. If it is deep, speed ~= const*sqrt(wavelength) > >> Why is energy tansmitted one way and not the other in a water wave Paul? After >> all, the molecules only move up and down..... > > Actually, they move in circles. > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/watwav2.html > > - Randy > -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/ |