GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 26 Nov 2007 16:12 On 26 Nov 2007 16:18:57 GMT, marcusdenning(a)hotmail.com(Marcus Denning) wrote: >HW@....... wrote: > >> >> You're a lost cause... >> >> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) > >You just figured that out? ......but he's no worse than most of the relativists here. At least we only have ONE village idiot. Your side has dozens. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 26 Nov 2007 16:27 On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:29:56 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >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. If a particle has no internal structure, it cannot possibly posssess properties that would make it any different from 'empty space'. >> 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. When one wakes up to the fact that Einstein's theory is complete nonsense and that Maxwell's equations require an aether-like medium as a speed reference, one can start thinking seriously about the nature of light, particularly about what is is doing when not being observed. Almost all light in the universe is in transit. Evidence suggests that a 'photon' (a package of EM energy...an individual 'light quantum') behaves like an intrinsic oscillator which initially moves at c wt its source. The nature of that oscillation is not known ...but a number of possible theories have been put forward here. > > > >Tom Roberts Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Tom Roberts on 28 Nov 2007 18:46 Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:50:21 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> > wrote: >> if there were >> actual indications that a ballistic approach was needed, physicists >> would respond to them. > > There is no indication that any approach OTHER THAN the ballistic one is > needed. That is HOPELESSLY naive. How does your "ballistic theory" of light explain the need for relativistic kinematics in particle interactions that do not involve light at all? Tom Roberts
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 28 Nov 2007 19:16 On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:46:57 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:50:21 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> >> wrote: >>> if there were >>> actual indications that a ballistic approach was needed, physicists >>> would respond to them. >> >> There is no indication that any approach OTHER THAN the ballistic one is >> needed. > >That is HOPELESSLY naive. > >How does your "ballistic theory" of light explain the need for >relativistic kinematics in particle interactions that do not involve >light at all? As far as I can tell, there is always a plausible alternative explanation to any so-called 'relativistic phenomenon'. For instance the Sagnac effect is fully xplained in purely ballistic terms. I have also put forward an alternative to the 'relativistic mass increase'. The only situations where the LTs might have any relevance might be when local fields exist in such a way that they contitute a virtual 'rest medium'. One thing is certain. Light travels across EMPTY space purely ballistically. >Tom Roberts Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Tom Roberts on 28 Nov 2007 21:20
Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:46:57 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> > wrote: >> How does your "ballistic theory" of light explain the need for >> relativistic kinematics in particle interactions that do not involve >> light at all? > > As far as I can tell, there is always a plausible alternative explanation to > any so-called 'relativistic phenomenon'. Why don't you tell, then? -- to date, NOBODY has proposed "a plausible alternative explanation" for for relativistic kinematics that is in agreement with the experiments. For starters: please explain how it is that elementary particles never travel faster than c, no matter how much kinetic energy they have. That, of course, is just a start on the rich topic of relativistic kinematics.... > For instance the Sagnac effect is fully xplained in purely ballistic terms. There's no need for relativistic kinematics in discussing the Sagnac effect. > I > have also put forward an alternative to the 'relativistic mass increase'. Why is it that particles never travel faster than c, no matter how much kinetic energy they have? > The only situations where the LTs might have any relevance might be when local > fields exist in such a way that they contitute a virtual 'rest medium'. You quite clearly don't have a clue. > One thing is certain. Light travels across EMPTY space purely ballistically. So you claim. But many experiments refute that claim. <shrug> Tom Roberts |