GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Androcles on 23 Nov 2007 16:55 "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:v6eek35j6u1l56ieq2tbm3vjvs3c6bc661(a)4ax.com... : On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 19:48:51 GMT, Bryan Olson <fakeaddress(a)nowhere.org> wrote: : : >Henri Wilson wrote: : >[...] : >> BaTh now fully explains Sagnac, most variable star curves, diffraction and : >> gravitational redshift....as well as any other phenomenon associated with : >> light. : > : >And will probably grow to explain more, as Mr. Wilson notes : >more observations refuting his theory and hacks in special : >cases to adjust. : > : >> It must be pointed out however that BaTh operates 100% effectively only in pure : >> vacuum. : > : >BaTh operates 100% effectively only in Mr. Wilson's own Visual : >Basic programs. : > : >> Surrounding any large mass, there exists a 'sphere of EM control' that : >> may act like a weak 'local aether'. In the case of close binary pairs, the : >> 'spheres' tend to cancel one another out, which is why contact binaries : >> generally show little or no brightness variation. : > : >And we can detect it by noting that if it did not exist, BaTh : >would be wrong. : : Do you have anything intelligent to contribute? You and the idiot Olson make a good match as far as intelligence goes. "There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson news:05rvg3lp9nld0h4a8rnijr2uo870jcd0en(a)4ax.com "Light doesn't have a 'frequency'. It has a wavelength." --Wilson. news:1193906355.448067.162590(a)19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com "SPINNING OBJECTS HAVE A FREQUENCY, NOT A BLOODY WAVELENGTH." -- Wilson news:pllli3puamdqd70qnenjoonfsbjtv1ibmj(a)4ax.com "Light doesn't have a particuar 'frequency' in the normal sense. Frequency is the inferred rate at whichABSOLUTE wavecrests leave the source" -- Wilson. news:3ghfh3h30n795o2vs1sulouge37ve0n17i(a)4ax.com "THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IN GENERAL, THE 'WAVELENGTH' OF AN OSCILLATION IS THE SAME IN ALL FRAMES." -- Wilson news:920ni31ul6rb833qrltro49t3pnv2g5qk5(a)4ax.com "Anyway, this now fits in perfectly with my 'intrinsic oscillation frequency' idea. Thankyou Jerry for helping me develop my theory...." -- Wilson, October 26, 2007 1:03 PM news:iml3i3dh0vmisp6ln34ron41uoljmonvni(a)4ax.com "That's the kind of argument I'd expect from a desperate person....completely out of ideas... ahahahaha!" -- Wilson. "For one ray, ct = 2piR+vt , for the other ct = 2piR-vt. This gives t = 2piR/(c+v) and 2piR/(c-v)" -- Wilson. news:q21vi3lmjhp5s9pkc554egjp1taus1drbt(a)4ax.com... "That's for the nonrotating frame, dopey." -- Wilson. news:cp7vi35bvqvta6o1vcvi4m1v6q8t4ro1la(a)4ax.com. "There is NOT the same number of wavelengths between the STARTPOINT and the detector" -- Wilson news:8no1j39qhu9tk2nqglqkgt00u07se4i63q(a)4ax.com "<plonk>" -- Wilson (faced with his own words) news:gci9j3lf66t9d1j9ia3fdpqe7pfova2kln(a)4ax.com You don't use emission theory and don't know what it is, your crackpot theory is BaTh; you've been whining that for 6 years, you invented it when I was in hospital in Florida with a shattered ankle and I've been in Britain 4.75 years while you've gotten gradually more senile. In all that time you've only learned to write "Dr" in front of your name which nobody believes. You blew it with denying Doppler and your tick fairies, senile old fart.
From: Tom Roberts on 24 Nov 2007 12:24 Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:26:46 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> > wrote: >> In Newtonian mechanics the energy >> of an object is a function of its speed, and the original ballistic >> theories of light shared this property. > > Tom, is the total energy of a lump of red hot steel proportional to its > relative speed? IN NEWTONIAN MECHANICS, its energy is proportional to the square of its speed (relative to an inertial frame). As you mention "red hot", I'll point out that this has no relevance IN NEWTONIAN MECHANICS, but in RELATIVITY the mass OF THE LUMP is a very weak function of its temperature, and that affects its energy IN RELATIVITY; in practice this effect is too small to be observable. You, too, keep confusing theoretical contexts and obtaining nonsense. Hence my emphasis above. > I don't think you understand Newtonian Physics at all.... You are not competent to judge. >>> A photon may be regarded as an 'intrinsic oscillator' of some as yet unknown >>> kind....maybe a rotating pair of charges... >> You may have a theory that you CALL a "ballistic theory", but based on >> your descriptions it not actually ballistic in the sense of Newton or >> the common usage of the word (you have so many exceptions to ballistic >> motion). > > My version of BaTh says that light consists of discreet particle-like objects > called photons, Use a different word -- that one is already taken, and has a VERY different meaning. > which possess structure and intrinsic properties that allow for > some kind of internal oscillation. Their total energy is partly 'observer > speed' dependent because the 'nu' in 'h.nu' is Doppler dependent. > There is nothing strange about this. Just consider the energy of a violin being > played in a moving train...or the energy coming out of your car's alternator. This is indeed not overly strange -- the energy of an object is ALWAYS observer dependent. But note that NONE of the objects you make analogy with could possibly be considered to be "ballistic". >> The electron dipole moment of a photon is measured to be inconsistent >> with there being "rotating charges" inside it, if the charge is >> comparable to that on an electron. Ditto for the magnetic moment of the >> photon. So you must assume charges vastly smaller than that on an >> electron. It's not clear that makes much sense.... > > I was under the impression that this is indeed the latest theory about > 'charge'. No. Some elementary particles (quarks) carry 1/3 of the charge on an electron, but the limits for a photon are vastly smaller than that. > Particle > physics is still very much in its infancy. Hmmm. At the energies currently accessible, the standard model is quite mature. But certainly there are many things we do not yet know about particle physics.... >>> An intrinsic oscillator such as a spinning pair of charges will have a >>> 'natural' or equilibrium speed of propagation in any dielectric medium. >> How? Why? Please demonstrate this claim using any accepted theory of >> electrodynamics. > > Not unlike Maxwell's equations and theory....except there is rotation instead > of wave motion. If you actually had a theory with a sensible justification, you would already have demonstrated this. Apparently you haven't -- hand-waving and analogies are woefully inadequate as the foundation of a theory. Nothing you say makes any sense or has any justification until you can show this (and also justify your other assumptions). And as has been pointed out, you need to show how this mechanism can speed light up, when it transitions from vacuum to a dielectric medium, having been emitted ballistically in vacuum with c-v being smaller than c/n (both relative to the rest frame of the medium). Tom Roberts
From: bz on 24 Nov 2007 12:48 Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:I7Z1j.19379$4V6.7309 @newssvr14.news.prodigy.net: > Use a different word -- that one is already taken, and has a VERY > different meaning. I suggested pheaux-tons :). -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: John Kennaugh on 24 Nov 2007 11:53 Tom Roberts wrote: >bz wrote: >> Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in >> news:TFE%i.22137$lD6.20414(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net: bz wrote: >>>> As I have pointed out to Henri many times, (and perhaps to you), >>>> 'extinction' requires a suspension of the laws of thermodynamics >>> This is simply not true. Optical extinction is what makes eyeglasses >>>and >>> other lenses work. >> I am afraid that my understanding of optical extinction is different >>from >> yours. [quote >> http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/epjd/abs/1999/06/d8252/d8252.html] The >> optical extinction rate of the particle embedded in an absorbing host is >> defined as a rate of local energy losses caused by the particle >> (absorption in the particle volume and scattering by the particle-matrix >> interface) referenced to the matrix background. [unquote] >> There is nothing about energy gain from the medium. > >The difficulty is that there are two different theoretical contexts >being discussed, with no clear demarcation between them. They are: > A) the modern theory of classical electrodynamics, including SR > B) some generic emission or ballistic theory involving c+v > >Your quote is using (A) but most of my statements were related to (B). >Some of my statements, like the one above about eyeglasses, apply to >both (A) and (B). > > >> The light leaving the medium has LESS energy (some is absorbed and >> scattered) than the light that entered. > >One must carefully distinguish the energy of individual photons from >the energy (intensity) of the entire light beam. > >For theoretical context (A): > >The energy of individual photons is proportional to their frequency. As >photons propagate between mediums their frequency does not change >(continuity of fields at the boundary), so neither does their energy. > >The total energy of a light beam is related to its intensity, and as a >light beam propagates between mediums some is reflected at the >boundary, and some is absorbed in the medium, so the total energy of >the beam decreases. > > >For theoretical context (B): > >It's not clear that photons are appropriate; certainly (B) does not >include QED (which is the theory that defines photons). So I'll say >"light packet" in context (B) where I would say "photon" in context (A). The most up to date ballistic theory (if you discount henri :o) is that of Waldron. i.e. this is consistent with all known experimental evidence up to 1979. His theory involves photons. Why are you commenting on a theory you haven't bothered to study? >If individual packets of light have energy related to their speed, then >as light propagates from a more dense medium to a less dense medium, >the speed of the packets must increase, so some "magic" method must be >invented to provide such an increase in the energy of the light >packets. If packets of light have energy proportional to their >frequency and independent of their speed, then no "magic" is required >and the situation is the same as for context (A). > >In any case the intensity and total energy of the beam is reduced by >the medium, as in (A). > >As the implicit goal of ballistic theories is to relate light to >Newtonian mechanics, it is not clear how a light packet could have an >energy independent of its speed, in which case such "magic" is indeed >required. In Waldron's theory a photon has mass calculated from its momentum. Its total energy from a stationary source is made up of two *equal* parts - its internal energy and its kinetic energy. It is only its kinetic energy which is affected by the non zero speed of the source. You would of course have to actually study the theory in order to discover how this explains various experimental results. e.g. Ives-Stilwell, Radiation pressure on a transparent surface etc. >> Even in a laser, neither speed nor energy is gained by the light passing >> through, only intensity. > >Again that is context (A), not (B). And the total energy of the beam is >most definitely increased, as it is related to intensity; but the >energy of individual photons is unchanged as you said. > >You must be more careful in stating "energy of what", and also what >theoretical context you are using. > > >> light enters a medium from a vacuum and slows down. This has been >>observed. It does NOT speed up. > >When light enters a less dense medium from a more dense medium, it does >indeed speed up. The inner face of eyeglasses refracts the light, too. > >But yes, advocates of c+v need to discuss a mechanism for light to >speed up when transitioning from a less dense to a more dense medium >(for the case when c-v from the source is less than c/n of the medium). >This does indeed require some sort of "magic".... _I_ do not advocate >such a theory, and the burden is on such advocates, not me. > > Context (A): In QED this occurs naturally, due to the > difference in the phase interferences of the two mediums. > In classical electrodynamics it also occurs naturally, due > to the different indexes of refraction of the two mediums. > > Context (B): It's not clear how to do this at all, > especially if the energy of a light packet depends on its > speed. I have not seen a good explanation anywhere. Suppose ballistic theory were the correct approach then what possible chance is there that the wrinkles will get ironed out? It was worked on by ONE man, Ritz, in 1909. By ONE man, Waldron, 60 years later and 30 years after you have ... Henri! Today no single man knows enough about modern physics to develop an entirely different and coherent way of looking at things. It should worry you that that despite the almost total neglect of what is undoubtedly the most significant alternative to relativity Fox still had to admit that ...."Ritz theory, so different in structure from that of Maxwell, Lorentz and Einstein, came so close to describing correctly the vast quantity of phenomena described today by relativistic electromagnetic theory." I might point out that most relativists believed *wrongly* that that "vast quantity of phenomena described today by relativistic electromagnetic theory" can *only* be described by relativistic theory and that every one therefore disproves ballistic theory. Fox was talking about a theory untouched for 60 years he wasn't even taking into account Waldron's contribution to the subject published a couple of years after he wrote that letter. So if you can pick holes in Henri's ballistic theory it may give you a smug feeling that your beliefs have not been disproved but it is a totally hollow victory. Unless that is you believe Henri is a super genius capable of coming up with the best possible ballistic theory all on his own. The fact you can find fault with his version can hardly be a surprise considering you are able to call upon a century of physics based upon relativity. I do not claim to be an expert on ballistic theory. I do not claim to know enough physics or enough maths to make much difference but I do know the difference between belief and objectivity. If you were being objective then you would see that if ballistic theory *could* be made to work it could simplify the whole of physics because it is essentially a much simpler concept. If you were objective you would therefore want it to succeed, even if you thought it unlikely - but you don't. It would destroy your beliefs. You haven't even studied the basics. That brings you down to the level of a football supporter who thinks his team can do no wrong. Who feels virtuous supporting his team and takes pleasure in booing the opposition. You do not even possess the basic scientific curiosity which says 'what if....' >>> One can easily construct a model in which the light interacts with >>>the medium, transferring energy and momentum to the medium as >>>required. This is just a minor variation on how classical >>>electrodynamics models this process (without c+v of >>> course). >> One might. I have yet to see any one do so. > >Right. This is Henri Wilson's failure (as well as other advocates of >ballistic theories, or people like John Kennaugh who advocate c+v). As >I said above, this depends on how the energy of individual light >packets behaves; Maybe you can tell us what orthodox physics says the structure of a photon is? > I can imagine it is possible, but the devil is in the details, and it >seems likely to me that no such "magic" can be self consistent.... But >advocates of theories involving c+v do not seem to understand the need >for this theoretical justification for such theories. Oh and what was the 'theoretical justification' of Einstein's second postulate? I will tell you. He ignored the fact that Maxwell was compromised by the discovery of the particulate nature of light. He assume the authority of Maxwell and therefore the MMX result must be interpreted in terms of Maxwell and in those terms it showed that the observer is stationary w.r.t the aether. Lorentz came up with an explanation. Einstein didn't like the asymmetry in the theoretical structure so he accepted the Maxwell interpretation of the MMX at face value and came up with a 'theory' which avoided the asymmetry by having no theoretical structure. His second postulate simply describes what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would observe. He justified his first postulate which he thought controversial, but not his second because that the generally accepted interpretation of the MMX. The idea that light might not be a propagated wave but something entirely different did not enter into the thinking despite the photo-electric effect. Quite simply: 1/ Ignore the fact that light is particulate and assume light is a wave propagated by the aether [Maxwell] 2/ The observer always appears stationary w.r.t the aether [MMX if 1 is true] 3/ Lorentz tried to explain it in terms of a conventional aether [LET] 4/ Einstein simply accepted the truth of 2 without trying to explain it other than to suggest the possibility of a different sort of aether. If you believe it was more complicated or sophisticated than that you are guilty of self deception or have been taken in by the spin used by modern text books because the truth is too embarrassing. Take away the aether and the theoretical justification disappears. You then get: 1/ If there is no aether the speed of light is not a property of the aether. 2/ If there is no aether a source is surrounded by nothing physical which could take part in a physical process so no physical change can happen to light once it leaves the source. 3/ The only physical process which can determine the speed of light is that taking place in the source. With no aether logic points to the ballistic approach. -- John Kennaugh
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 24 Nov 2007 15:53
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 21:55:38 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics_a> wrote: > >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >: >> 'spheres' tend to cancel one another out, which is why contact binaries >: >> generally show little or no brightness variation. >: > >: >And we can detect it by noting that if it did not exist, BaTh >: >would be wrong. >: >: Do you have anything intelligent to contribute? > >You and the idiot Olson make a good match as far as intelligence goes. We are all aware of YOUR intelligent contibutions.... Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |