GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 25 Oct 2007 19:37 On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:04:06 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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. I think you are right. This could explain a lot. An RF signal based on variations in photon DENSITY would behave like a clasical wave. I could possibly go along with that idea. If true, an RF ring gyro shouldn't work. Light consists of single photons ttraveing at c wrt its source and does not behave in this manner. >> 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. Yes we know some people have claimed to have dne this. I have previously disputed these claims. >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. The basic difference between the two theories is illustrated at: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.exe >George > Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 25 Oct 2007 19:47 On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:51:11 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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: >>>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. So 'wrong' it gets the right answer. >Make the waves move at the speed ballistic theory >requires and you will learn how to do the algebra. > they do. > >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. George, the front of your 'moving sinewave' maintains a constant phase. The phase of the front of a BaTh photon oscillates through one cycle every absolute wavelength travelled (source frame). >>>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. George, YOU are actually using my 'sawblade' photon model. You regard the light moving around a gyro as having a fixed spatial pattern...like the teeth of a moving saw. My teeth oscillate like a standing wave as the blade moves. >>>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? This is quite irrelevant. Light does not behave like a water wave. >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. Have you heard of the P.E. effect george? >George > Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: George Dishman on 26 Oct 2007 04:15 On 26 Oct, 00:47, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:51:11 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message > >news:oq4qh35jton797cniokm6so0vmdj3jmtgf(a)4ax.com... > >> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 05:26:22 -0700, George Dishman > >> <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > >> wrote: > >>>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 athttp://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm > > >It is wrong, I have told you why numerous times. > > So 'wrong' it gets the right answer. No, it gets the wrong answer. The correct answer is that there is no predicted fringe displacement and ballistic theory is falsified. > >Make the waves move at the speed ballistic theory > >requires and you will learn how to do the algebra. > > they do. I haven't seen your new version. > >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. > > George, the front of your 'moving sinewave' maintains a constant phase. The definition of "front" can only be a point of constant phase. > The phase of the front of a BaTh photon oscillates through one cycle every > absolute wavelength travelled (source frame). That describes a standing wave which is the sum of two separate propagating waves moving in opposite directions. The "front" of each of those waves is a point of constant phase. > >>>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. > > George, YOU are actually using my 'sawblade' photon model. No, I am using your "bicycle chain" model which copes with arbitrary waveforms but is limited to a table rotating at constant speed. > You regard the light > moving around a gyro as having a fixed spatial pattern...like the teeth of a > moving saw. > My teeth oscillate like a standing wave as the blade moves. Sorry Henry, you just don't have enough grasp of basic maths. A standing wave requires two waves. In fact if you draw the ballistic model correctly as Jerry has but then add the two waves, you will get a standing waves pattern and you will find the nodes rotate with the table because they always occur an integer number of half-wavelengths from the source. > >>>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? > > This is quite irrelevant. Light does not behave like a water wave. Yes it does at levels above quantum effects and the Sagnac experiment is macroscopic. > >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. > > Have you heard of the P.E. effect george? Learn to crawl before you try to run, the P.E. effect also applies to the individual photons that land on a target in a Young's Slits experiment at positions determined by the macroscopic wave model. George
From: George Dishman on 26 Oct 2007 04:24 On 26 Oct, 00:37, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:04:06 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message > >news:9ntsh354bht1majcpmto8tqbqvjco48e0h(a)4ax.com... > >> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:10:40 -0700, George Dishman > >> <geo...(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. > > I think you are right. This could explain a lot. An RF signal based on > variations in photon DENSITY would behave like a clasical wave. Each photon from a monochromatic source carries the same energy. The photon density determines the intensity so variations in photon density would be AM. The point is not whether you can model oscillations that way (you can't), the point is that regardles of your model ballistic theory requires the same speed for propagation. > I could possibly go along with that idea. > > If true, an RF ring gyro shouldn't work. > > Light consists of single photons ttraveing at c wrt its source and does not > behave in this manner. It behaves exactly the same, optical and RF techniques vary only due to the wavelengths involved. > >> 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. > > Yes we know some people have claimed to have dne this. I have previously > disputed these claims. It is a standard technique, not a "claim". > >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. > > The basic difference between the two theories is illustrated at: > http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.exe The dots indicate points of fixed phase, the wiggly line in the centre is meaningless. Make it rotate at the speed of the table and it would show the standing wave pattern produced as the sum of the two counter-rotating waves. Have two rotating instead of the dots and you will get an accurate picture of what ballistic theory requires. George
From: Jerry on 26 Oct 2007 04:57
On Oct 25, 6:37 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:04:06 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >We can heterodyne laser light with a spectral line > >from starlight to produce a microwave product whose > >frequency can be counted. > > Yes we know some people have claimed to have dne this. > I have previously disputed these claims. One can also heterodyne a source of light of unknown frequency with the closely and uniformly spaced sidebands of a mode locked laser standard (a "frequency comb") to get a precise measurement of the frequency of the unknown light source in terms of the standard. The use of frequency combs are now a standard technique, and were a subject of the 2005 Nobel Prize in Physics. If one understands Fourier analysis, the generation of the comb is easily understood as the (in retrospect!) "obvious" result of modulating the laser beam, CONSIDERED AS CONSISTING OF A TRAIN OF CLASSICAL WAVES, into a series of very short (10^-15 s) pulses. Can you apply Fourier analysis to your non-waves, Henri? Can you explain how a frequency comb is generated? No, of course you can't. Jerry Henri Wilson's Lies (1)Fakes Diploma (2)Uses Deceptive Language (3)Fakes Program (4)Intentionally Misquotes (5)Snips (6)Accuses Others of Lying 1 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/diploma.htm 2 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/deception.htm 3 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/rt_aurigae.htm 4 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/history.htm 5 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/snips.htm 6 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/accuses.htm |