GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Androcles on 24 Nov 2007 18:00 "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:c39hk3pj3o2aaljgvd6uognrvrlt0r1le5(a)4ax.com... : 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. Since when have you ever agreed with anyone? You can't even agree with Doppler. "It's more 'Wilson Shift' than Doppler... he didn't know anything about this...."
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 24 Nov 2007 20:05 On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 23:00:23 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics_a> wrote: > >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:c39hk3pj3o2aaljgvd6uognrvrlt0r1le5(a)4ax.com... >: On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:57:20 -0800, Bryan Olson <fakeaddress(a)nowhere.org> >: >: If one ever agrees with him, he will immediately reverse his opinion and >start >: arguing the opposite way. > >Since when have you ever agreed with anyone? >You can't even agree with Doppler. > >"It's more 'Wilson Shift' than Doppler... he didn't know anything about >this...." He never even heard of a ring gyro. Try this animation. It explains why Tusselad is completely wrong. http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rayphases.exe Believe it or not, the two rays possess the same frequency in the source frame. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 25 Nov 2007 16:04 On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 12:36:58 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics_a> wrote: > >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:jeihk31lpm4mq1uvvli8is32lq7hrujm0u(a)4ax.com... >: >"It's more 'Wilson Shift' than Doppler... he didn't know anything about >: >this...." >: >: He never even heard of a ring gyro. >: >: Try this animation. >: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/rayphases.exe > >That's just a moving dot, shows no change to the waves. Did it work properly? One never knows with windows Vista. It should show a red and a blue wave moving in opposite directions around a ring. They have different frequencies in the inertial frame. When they arrive at the detector the movement should stop, showing that they are generally out of phase. > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/CoriSag.gif > >: It explains why Tusselad is completely wrong. > >I already know why Tusseladd is completely wrong. >What troll kooks like Schwartz, Poe, McCullough, Roberts, Draper, Lawrence, >Andersen, Nieminen, ewill, Olson et. al. fail to realise is the existence of >isomorphism > (Ref 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 > > >: Believe it or not, the two rays possess the same frequency in the source >frame. > >Believe it or not, the two rays possess the same frequency, the same number >of cycles and different wavelengths, they travel different path lengths, >so Wilson's >"Light doesn't have a 'frequency'. It has a wavelength." --Wilson. A photon has an intrinsic oscillation, the period of which defines an absolute time interval IN ALL FRAMES. Observed 'frequency' is 'wavecrest arrrival rate' and is dependent on the speed of the observer wrt the source. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: John Kennaugh on 25 Nov 2007 16:45 Tom Roberts wrote: >Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: >> 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. I always thought it was confounded cheek of Einstein to rename 'corpuscles' 'photons' but as that is the name used for the particles of light Henri is entitled to use it even if you don't care for what he thinks they are composed of. Maybe you would care to enlighten us as to what you think they are composed of. Maybe you think he should use a different name for 'light' as his ideas as to what it might be differ from yours. -- John Kennaugh
From: Tom Roberts on 26 Nov 2007 10:29
John Kennaugh wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: >> Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: >>> 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. > > I always thought it was confounded cheek of Einstein to rename > 'corpuscles' 'photons' but as that is the name used for the particles of > light Henri is entitled to use it even if you don't care for what he > thinks they are composed of. I think that such PUNs are very confusing, and often completely destroy an argument or discussion. > Maybe you would care to enlighten us as to what you think they are > composed of. This is not "me", this is the common and well-established meaning of "photon": In the standard model, photons are elementary particles with no internal structure. They have no mass or charge, but do interact electromagnetically with charged particles. > Maybe you think he should use a different name for 'light' as his ideas > as to what it might be differ from yours. It is not "me" that matters here, it is the accepted definitions and usages of such words. Tom Roberts |