GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Pmb on 5 Dec 2007 19:41 "John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:oB6IY4bp4wVHFwKt(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk... > Tom Roberts 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. > > If I may say so you are the one who takes everything you read as being > correct. I disagree. Tom only accepts what he reads if it conforms to what he currently accepts to be the case. At least that's the way his actions appear to tell us. Pete
From: Cosmik de Bris on 5 Dec 2007 19:51 Pmb wrote: > "John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message > news:oB6IY4bp4wVHFwKt(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk... >> Tom Roberts 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. >> If I may say so you are the one who takes everything you read as being >> correct. > > I disagree. Tom only accepts what he reads if it conforms to what he > currently accepts to be the case. At least that's the way his actions appear > to tell us. > > Pete > > Not us Pete, you. You seem to have a very limited view of Tom, who I believe to be one of the most informed people in this group. You may find some people who agree with you but they will be the "usual suspects". -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 6 Dec 2007 02:58 On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:53:38 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer(a)hogwarts.physics_a> wrote: > >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:ai6el3t853kau7vkbc8g556q8nino24o70(a)4ax.com... >: >Surely one works out what its structure needs to be in order that it can >: >do what it does. Then and only then can you claim to know (or think you >: >know) what its structure is. Physics hasn't done that and therefore can >: >make no claims as to the structure of a photon. >: >: It is becoming increasingly more obvious to me that a photon can be >considered >: as a 'moving oscillator' of some kind. > >Wow! After nearly nine years the dingbat Wilson is finally catching on >to the obvious!\ Since it is early morning in England and you seem to be trying to act in a sober manner I will temporarily unplonk you....but you are on a good behavior bond... >: This fits in with the BaTh explanation >: of Sagnac and diffraction, amongst other phenomena. >: The nature of that oscillation is not known > > >Bullshit, of course it is known, it is just not known by Wilson. >E = -dB/dt. >Hanson caught on right away once it was explained to him. That equation does not, in itself, produce an oscillating system. >> [hanson] >> Another way to look at photon representation via a sinusoidal EM >> parameter display would be by citing/using the **fundamental** >> observation that/of >> >> "A collapsing E-field generates an expanding M-field & visa >> versa and these first principles / conservation laws say that >> >> 1) If there is no field of neither M nor E: Nothing happens >> 2) If there is a field present but no change: Nothing happens. >> 3) If there is a Magnetic Field that starts to collapse, an E field >> arises. >> 4) If M becomes zero, the E will be max+ at pi/2, then >> 5) E starts to collapse at p/2 down to 0 at pi while >> M rises from 0 at pi/2 to max at pi... ...etc & analog to/till 2pi > > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm#hanson We know what Maxwell's equations mean...they don't explain 'photons'. >: but I suspect it could be a >: rotating +/- charge pair or something like a standing wave running along >the >: length of the photon 'envelope'. > >Rubbish, too complicated. Life is complicated...get used to it......or just remain so drunk you wont know or care. >: Photons also have effective 'cross section and length', which explains the >: double slit experiment. >: Two questions arise. Is there a relationship between photon oscillation >: frequency and the fact that it initially travels at c wrt its >: source? > >Of course, idiot. >w = c/f. :) ...but you haven't established what w is yet... >....and....is the oscillation perfectly lossless > >Yes, it is. How do you know that? >: or does it slowly lose >: energy with time? (which would explain the galactic redshift). > >It doesn't lose any energy at all, what it does is gradually increase >its cross-sectional area and spreads the energy over a greater area. I will agree with the idea that it increases cross section. >That's what explains galactic red shift. .....now wait a minute. There is no direct link. You have to establish whether the redshift is due to an increase in wavelength or a decrease in frequency.....or both? >: I am also of the opinion that generated EM signals like RF, are just >variations >: in photon density. > > >No, you are guessing. Radio is a truly coherent wave. you don't know that. >If you want to create a low frequency photon you first >need a parabolic dish to give it direction and stop it >broadcasting in all directions or the energy will quickly >dissipate over a large area. Then you need a low frequency >source such as a radio transmitter, then you need to interrupt >the wave after a single cycle and voila! you have a photon. I would say that the accelerating electric charges in the antenna radiate a whole range of photons. Their density follows the voltage of the applied signal. The 'radio wave' is just the density distribution. >A TRAIN of photons all synchronized is a wave on a beam. You don't know that. >A mishmash of traffic unsynchronized is a just a beam, but >each photon has the same frequency as in a laser, out of phase >with the others. Lasers are different. Presumably the emitted photons ARE all roughly the same. >(Or a beam may be a mixture of frequencies >as in a beam of white light.) I say a radio wave is just modulated 'photon density'...the photons themselves being all different and not related to the actual radio wave frequency. >: The frequency of the 'signal' is probably not directly >: related to the broad range of intrinsic oscillations of the photons >themselves. > >I'm not sure what you mean by that. Signals carry information by >modulation and one can modulate waves or photons beams equally >easily. Yes. The density distribution can have a 'carrier frequency' and still be modulated. >: >Tom is the ideal believer. If he reads it in a text book he will believe >: >it and defend it. >: >: It seems all supporters of relativity fit into that category. > >Well, that's what you expect from non-engineers. I'm trying to be nice to you ...so I wont say it... Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 6 Dec 2007 03:02 On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:51:11 +1300, Cosmik de Bris <cosmik.debris(a)elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: >Pmb wrote: >> "John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >>>>> There is no indication that any approach OTHER THAN the ballistic one >>>>> is >>>>> needed. >>>> That is HOPELESSLY naive. >>> If I may say so you are the one who takes everything you read as being >>> correct. >> >> I disagree. Tom only accepts what he reads if it conforms to what he >> currently accepts to be the case. At least that's the way his actions appear >> to tell us. >> >> Pete >> >> > >Not us Pete, you. You seem to have a very limited view of Tom, who I >believe to be one of the most informed people in this group. You may >find some people who agree with you but they will be the "usual suspects". Tom is indeed one of the most devout members of the Einsteinian reigion...he can recite every word of its gospel most acurately. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Pmb on 6 Dec 2007 09:28
"Cosmik de Bris" <cosmik.debris(a)elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message news:47573bb5$0$26122$88260bb3(a)free.teranews.com... > Pmb wrote: >> "John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:oB6IY4bp4wVHFwKt(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk... >>> Tom Roberts 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. >>> If I may say so you are the one who takes everything you read as being >>> correct. >> >> I disagree. Tom only accepts what he reads if it conforms to what he >> currently accepts to be the case. At least that's the way his actions >> appear to tell us. >> >> Pete > > Not us Pete, you. You seem to have a very limited view of Tom, who I > believe to be one of the most informed people in this group. You may find > some people who agree with you but they will be the "usual suspects". So you claim. I've experienced Tom's posting habits for the last 7 years. I fully understand what he does. I'm not interested in taking a vote on who agrees with me or not. |