GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: bz on 26 Oct 2007 14:50 sean <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> wrote in news:1193418191.334440.283970@ 50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com: > wrong. You are ignoring the fact that the beam(s) in fact have > width and that any point in either can overlap any > other point in the other and as long as they are coherent > they will produce interference. > If your irrational claim above were true then in a simple > interferometer you would have to line up two coherent split beams > from the same source to *exactly* the same point in space at the > detector to get interference fringes. > This is a ridiculous claim you make. > It is theoretically impossible to split a beam and recombine > it exactly overlapping at the detector. Yet we always get > interference fringes. Even in crude setups where the overlap > is far from perfect. > In case the meaning of this eludes you. THis means that > your claim that two split beamns can only interfere if they > are recombined exactly on top of each other is.... > incorrect! And inconsistent with observations in all > interferometers > Sean, you even get interference fringes in experiments where single photons are used. No beams. No beam width. Still interference fringes UNLESS you set up a device to report WHEN a photon goes through one of the slits. If you do THAT, then you get NO fringes. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: George Dishman on 29 Oct 2007 08:53 On 26 Oct, 11:16, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 01:15:10 -0700, George Dishman <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >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. > > ......sheer desperation now....mumbling absolute nonsense..... Don't start mumbling to yourself Henry, I can wait for you to find something sensible to say. > >> >> 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. > > What's the front of a car then? The profile of a car is not a sine wave clueless. > >> 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. > > George,at present I have no firm view as to what constitutes 'intrinsic photon > oscillation'. I don't care what your view is, a standing wave is the combination of two counter-moving propagating waves whether you understand that or not. > >> >>>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. > > The cycle chain model is te same as the sawblade model....and the water wave > model.....and the classical wave model that was dropped from light 100 years > ago. Whatever, they all have enough similarity to the promary equation of ballistic theory to be valid analogies. > >> 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. > > George, you might need some time to absorb the significance of my definition of > wavelength so I will not bother trying to explain until you have come down to > earth. Code the picture Henry, your imagination is not up to the job. > >> 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. > > bull... Statement of fact Henry, there are no quantum effects in the Sagnac experiment, it is purly classical. > George's latest motto...."if all else fails, mention the word 'quantum'..." You are the one trying to say light doesn't behave classically clueless, not me. > >> >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. > > Why should SOME moving wiggley lines and not others cause electrons to be > released from metal surfaces? Why worry about something your theory does not address? Ballistic theory is purely classical, a singel equation that says how macroscopic EM disturbances move and nothing else. George
From: George Dishman on 29 Oct 2007 09:05 On 26 Oct, 11:01, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 01:24:33 -0700, George Dishman <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >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 > > >> >> 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. > > There is no conflict there. All the photons move at c wrt the source. OK, but see below. > >> 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. > > bull. > Moving towards an RF transmitter at 0.990c will not bombard you with gamma > rays. You really are hopeless with numbers Henry. Gamma rays are of the order of 10^20 to 10^30 Hz while RF is up to around 10^10 Hz (microwave). Moving a microwave transmitter towards you at 0.999999999999999c WILL bombard you with gamma rays. > >> 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". > > It is completely misinterpreted. Clueless, it works. > >> >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. > > George, it is a graph of the 'intrinsic phase' of the leading edge of a BaTh > photon as it moves around the ring. Clueless, the definition of "leading edge" is a point of given phase. > Do you know what a 'graph' is, George? Yes Henry, your "graph" should be a flat line, one of constant radius in your polar coordinate scheme. > >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. > > Sorry George, it doesn't move, It is a graph of phase. Sorry Henry, you don't know what phase is. George
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 29 Oct 2007 17:09 On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 06:05:39 -0700, George Dishman <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On 26 Oct, 11:01, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote: >> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 01:24:33 -0700, George Dishman <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >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 >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> There is no conflict there. All the photons move at c wrt the source. > >OK, but see below. > >> >> 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. >> >> bull. >> Moving towards an RF transmitter at 0.990c will not bombard you with gamma >> rays. > >You really are hopeless with numbers Henry. Gamma rays are >of the order of 10^20 to 10^30 Hz while RF is up to around >10^10 Hz (microwave). Moving a microwave transmitter towards >you at 0.999999999999999c WILL bombard you with gamma rays. > >> >> 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". >> >> It is completely misinterpreted. > >Clueless, it works. > >> >> >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. >> >> George, it is a graph of the 'intrinsic phase' of the leading edge of a BaTh >> photon as it moves around the ring. > >Clueless, the definition of "leading edge" is a >point of given phase. > >> Do you know what a 'graph' is, George? > >Yes Henry, your "graph" should be a flat line, one >of constant radius in your polar coordinate scheme. > >> >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. >> >> Sorry George, it doesn't move, It is a graph of phase. > >Sorry Henry, you don't know what phase is. > >George See my reply to Paul, in new thread "Sagnac threads united". Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 29 Oct 2007 17:10
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 05:53:27 -0700, George Dishman <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On 26 Oct, 11:16, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote: >> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 01:15:10 -0700, George Dishman <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >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. >> >> ......sheer desperation now....mumbling absolute nonsense..... > >Don't start mumbling to yourself Henry, I can wait >for you to find something sensible to say. > >> >> >> 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. >> >> What's the front of a car then? > >The profile of a car is not a sine wave clueless. > >> >> 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. >> >> George,at present I have no firm view as to what constitutes 'intrinsic photon >> oscillation'. > >I don't care what your view is, a standing wave is >the combination of two counter-moving propagating >waves whether you understand that or not. > >> >> >>>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. >> >> The cycle chain model is te same as the sawblade model....and the water wave >> model.....and the classical wave model that was dropped from light 100 years >> ago. > >Whatever, they all have enough similarity to the >promary equation of ballistic theory to be valid >analogies. > >> >> 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. >> >> George, you might need some time to absorb the significance of my definition of >> wavelength so I will not bother trying to explain until you have come down to >> earth. > >Code the picture Henry, your imagination is not >up to the job. > >> >> 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. >> >> bull... > >Statement of fact Henry, there are no quantum effects >in the Sagnac experiment, it is purly classical. > >> George's latest motto...."if all else fails, mention the word 'quantum'..." > >You are the one trying to say light doesn't behave >classically clueless, not me. > >> >> >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. >> >> Why should SOME moving wiggley lines and not others cause electrons to be >> released from metal surfaces? > >Why worry about something your theory does not >address? Ballistic theory is purely classical, >a singel equation that says how macroscopic EM >disturbances move and nothing else. > >George see new thread. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |