GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Androcles on 24 Nov 2007 16:31 "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:6o3hk3hmtnkbf3vjqhubqb28s0a1rde7em(a)4ax.com... : 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.... Not being able to spell is the first indication of a low intelligence. If you mean cont-R-ibutions I'm sure you are aware of them, they are quite good, aren't they? Anything you'd like to redact and admit you were drunk or shagging sheep when you wrote these idiocies? "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
From: Bryan Olson on 24 Nov 2007 16:57 "Dr." Henri Wilson wrote: > Androcles wrote: >> You and the idiot Olson make a good match as far as intelligence goes. > > We are all aware of YOUR intelligent contibutions.... When I hear you relativity-deniers going at it with each other, I often think, "these guys should get a room." But then I realize sci.physics.relativity is that room. Have fun, cuz ya sure ain't doin' physics. -- --Bryan
From: Androcles on 24 Nov 2007 17:01 "Bryan Olson" <fakeaddress(a)nowhere.org> wrote in message news:6712j.1672$C24.100(a)newssvr17.news.prodigy.net... : "Dr." Henri Wilson wrote: : > Androcles wrote: : >> You and the idiot Olson make a good match as far as intelligence goes. : > : > We are all aware of YOUR intelligent contibutions.... : : When I hear you relativity-deniers going at it with each : other, I often think, "these guys should get a room." But : then I realize sci.physics.relativity is that room. : : Have fun, cuz ya sure ain't doin' physics. Hey fuckhead! Catch 22: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. "Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. "Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to." In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't use c+v. What troll kooks like Schwartz, Poe, McCullough, Roberts, Draper, Lawrence, Andersen, Nieminen, ewill, Olson et. al. fail to realise is the existence of isomorphism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment, shown here: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TwoSpeedRack.gif Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack moving at velocity v in his pipe dream. Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real. If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the part where Einstein screws up is: 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif Here are some mathematical proofs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof Not included are Proof by "because I say so", Proof by "everybody knows", Proof by "it is written", the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity. You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations" but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their indoctrination like lemmings. Catch 22: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif Prediction: The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a proof. RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY. RULE I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes. -- Sir Isaac Newton
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 24 Nov 2007 17:00 On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 17:24:56 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >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. Apparently your knowledge of physics is so limited that you believe 'kinetic' is the only form of energy that appears in Newtonian mechanics. Have you never heard of 'wave energy' or rotational energy? Are you not aware that energy is associated with any wave motion or vibration? A( photon has an intrinsic oscillation of some kind. It possesses an amount of INTRINSIC energy that it carries along with it. The equation for it is probably smething like E = h.c/lambda, in the source frame. Lambda is the 'absolute wavelength', defined as the distance moved in the source frame during one period. Note, 'h' must contain (c) for dimensional reasons. Whether or not a photon has conventional mass and a KE of 1/2m(c+v)^2 is a moot point. If so, its total energy would be mc^2 = 1/2 mc^2 + h.c/lambda, giving a photon a mass of 2h/(c.lambda) >> 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. ....so you can define precisely what the word 'photon' means, can you Tom? >> 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". See!!!! You don't get it. A moving violin string has both vibrational and kinetic energy. A connection between the two, if any, is not obvious. >>> 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. ....theories, theories..... A photon might be a pair of spinning quarks then. >> 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.... correct.... In fact any object that has particle-like properties must consist of smaller 'particles'....so in reality, the 'particles concept' cannot be the ultimate one. >>>> 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. First things first Tom. One must get concepts and models right before delving into maths. ...this is a complex subject. I have already upgraded BaTh to cover variable stars and sagnac. >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). How do YOU explain it? Maxwell's method for the derivation of 'c' makes no reference to absorption/re-emission of photons in a dense medium such as glass. I doubt if the connection between refractive index and dielectric constant or permeabiltiy has ever been fully understood. The only real difference is that BaTh 'probably' says that light crosses a medium at (c+v)/n rather than c/n, where c+v is the arrival speed. >Tom Roberts Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 24 Nov 2007 17:31
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:57:20 -0800, Bryan Olson <fakeaddress(a)nowhere.org> wrote: >"Dr." Henri Wilson wrote: >> Androcles wrote: >>> You and the idiot Olson make a good match as far as intelligence goes. >> >> We are all aware of YOUR intelligent contibutions.... > >When I hear you relativity-deniers going at it with each >other, I often think, "these guys should get a room." But >then I realize sci.physics.relativity is that room Androcles suffers from a rare psycholgical impairment known as 'denialmania'. If one ever agrees with him, he will immediately reverse his opinion and start arguing the opposite way. > >Have fun, cuz ya sure ain't doin' physics ......look who's talking now.... Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |