GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: George Dishman on 23 Jul 2007 18:34 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:1o8aa3dd13p8lr5k7s98s4q5l0beoh8jfn(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:25:55 -0700, sean <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>On 20 Jul, 22:15, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>> >>> news:0a72a35f3pvsj84q1djbecou3ull85fbso(a)4ax.com... >>> >>> > On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 02:26:47 -0700, Bob Cain >>> > <arc...(a)arcanemethods.com> >>> > wrote: >>> >>Henri Wilson wrote: >>> >>> >>> There has never been a direct measurement of OW light speed from a >>> >>> moving >>> >>> source. >>> >>> >>That's a lie you keep repeating. Repetition does not comprise truth. >>> >>Look at >>> >>the measurement and results described here: >>> ... >>> > We've been through this before. >>> >>> > Nobody has measured the OW speed of light from a moving source ... >>> >>> More lies Henry, you know perfectly well Sagnac's >>> experiment showed that the speed of light from the >>> source when moving is exactly the same as when it >>> is at rest. >>> >>> George >> >>This is fantasy George. What in sagnac proves that the speed of light >>is or is not the same when it is moving or when it is at rest? Plot the amount the fringes shift against the speed of the table and you get a straight line. The slope tells you the speed. Do the experiment and the answer turns out to be exactly the same no matter what speed you rotate the table. > George will never accept the truth no matter how obvious it is... This diagram illustrates "the truth" according to Sean: http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Sean/Sean_Planets.html He claims the speed of light is "c relative to the source" like you, but in his case that means that two flashes of light emitted from Earth and Mars respectively towards Sirius would move through space following cycloid-like paths. Each flash travels at constant speed in a straight line as seen from the source. Believe him if you wish. George
From: Henri Wilson on 24 Jul 2007 04:29 On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:26:45 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:6f8aa3pu62v3bjbei4sc10uou7pkao5j5f(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:03:38 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> >>>Yes Henry, you do, because you cannot translate from >>>one frame to another without a transform and the c+v >>>result only comes from the Galilean version. >> >> George, you tried to confuse the issue by introducing 'a frame that is >> comoving >> with the source' > >You started rambling on about the speed being "c+v" >wrt the source Henry, not me. If you don't know how >to express simple concepts in unambiguous terms, the >rest of us have to clarify it for you. Learn the >basics and you won't need to be corrected. George, have another look atthe standard SR explanation of Sagnac, It relies on the two rays traveling at c+/-v wrt the source. Don't keep denying the fact. It is plainly obvious to anyone and you are only making an even bigger fool of yourself by doing so. >> and then started to rave on about frame transformations. > >That's what you are doing. Until you learn some physics, >it is going to remain a black art to you. George, do you deny that in the inertial non-rotating frame, the rays move at c+/-v wrt the source? Come on! Yes or No! >> Now I expects kids liek eric geese might fall for this kind of tactic but >> I >> wont. >> You 'frame' is no different from the source itself. > >You have been told many times what the difference >is but you insist on using the term to refer to your >aether instead. I warned you it would only confuse >you and here you see the proof. I'm not confused. I realise your aim WAS to confuse but I'm not a sucker like little boy geese and the like. >> In the inertial (nonrotating) frame, the SR Sagnac explanation >> specifically >> requires that the rays move at c+v wrt the source. > >Nope, it is c in both inertial frames. Have another look at it George. >> You can argue no longer. It is an obvious fact. > >Only if you assume a Galilean transform, you >cannot derive that result without it. No transformations are required to see that the rays move at c+/-v wrt the source, according to SR. >> Sagnac proves Einstein wrong. > >Nope, the measured speed of the light ("OWLS" as >you call it) from the moving source is c so it >proves the postulate directly and the rest follows. hahahaha! thanks for the laugh George. >>>> the standard sagnac theory does. >>> >>>There is no "sagnac theory" Henry, there is >>>Sagnac's _experiment_ which you can analyse >>>with any theory you like. >> >> Don't try to wriggle away George. > >Then stop making obvious errors and learn some >basic terminology, that way it won't be so easy >to make a fool of you. George, for how much longer are you going to keep your head firmly stuck in the sand? > >George > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.
From: Henri Wilson on 24 Jul 2007 04:32 On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:34:04 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:1o8aa3dd13p8lr5k7s98s4q5l0beoh8jfn(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:25:55 -0700, sean <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>On 20 Jul, 22:15, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>> "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>>> >>>> More lies Henry, you know perfectly well Sagnac's >>>> experiment showed that the speed of light from the >>>> source when moving is exactly the same as when it >>>> is at rest. >>>> >>>> George >>> >>>This is fantasy George. What in sagnac proves that the speed of light >>>is or is not the same when it is moving or when it is at rest? > >Plot the amount the fringes shift against the speed of >the table and you get a straight line. The slope tells >you the speed. Do the experiment and the answer turns >out to be exactly the same no matter what speed you >rotate the table. > >> George will never accept the truth no matter how obvious it is... > >This diagram illustrates "the truth" according to Sean: > > http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Sean/Sean_Planets.html > >He claims the speed of light is "c relative to the source" >like you, but in his case that means that two flashes of >light emitted from Earth and Mars respectively towards >Sirius would move through space following cycloid-like >paths. Each flash travels at constant speed in a straight >line as seen from the source. Believe him if you wish. George, I appreciate that facing humiliating defeat is very stressful...but you wont escape by resorting to alcohol. > >George > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.
From: sean on 25 Jul 2007 10:06 On 23 Jul, 23:34, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message > > news:1o8aa3dd13p8lr5k7s98s4q5l0beoh8jfn(a)4ax.com... > > > > > > > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:25:55 -0700, sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>On 20 Jul, 22:15, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>> "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message > > >>>news:0a72a35f3pvsj84q1djbecou3ull85fbso(a)4ax.com... > > >>> > On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 02:26:47 -0700, Bob Cain > >>> > <arc...(a)arcanemethods.com> > >>> > wrote: > >>> >>Henri Wilson wrote: > > >>> >>> There has never been a direct measurement of OW light speed from a > >>> >>> moving > >>> >>> source. > > >>> >>That's a lie you keep repeating. Repetition does not comprise truth. > >>> >>Look at > >>> >>the measurement and results described here: > >>> ... > >>> > We've been through this before. > > >>> > Nobody has measured the OW speed of light from a moving source ... > > >>> More lies Henry, you know perfectly well Sagnac's > >>> experiment showed that the speed of light from the > >>> source when moving is exactly the same as when it > >>> is at rest. > > >>> George > > >>This is fantasy George. What in sagnac proves that the speed of light > >>is or is not the same when it is moving or when it is at rest? > > Plot the amount the fringes shift against the speed of > the table and you get a straight line. The slope tells > you the speed. Do the experiment and the answer turns > out to be exactly the same no matter what speed you > rotate the table. So what, in classical theory, the faster the table turns the larger the path difference between the two paths must be. And plot the path difference against the amount the fringe shifts and you get a straight line. Confirming that classical correctly predicts that there will be a fringe shift and correctly predicts the linear relationship between the speed of the tables rotation and the fringe shift observed > > George will never accept the truth no matter how obvious it is... > > This diagram illustrates "the truth" according to Sean: > > http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Sean/Sean_Planets.html > > He claims the speed of light is "c relative to the source" > like you, but in his case that means that two flashes of > light emitted from Earth and Mars respectively towards > Sirius would move through space following cycloid-like > paths. Each flash travels at constant speed in a straight > line as seen from the source. Believe him if you wish. Why shouldnt you believe me? Wheres your proof that the cycloid path as shown in your simulation is incorrect? In fact, you would have us believe light should be in straight lines at c in your simulations frame. Yet the truth is that a straight line in YOUR simulation would be inconsistent with observations. Because if I take a straight line from your simulation and plot it onto the earth source/frame ( the earth/source moves and rotates in your simulations frame) then YOUR so called correct straight path will have a variable speed and a curved path in the source frame. And this isnt observed in MMx. MMx shows us that light is always at c in the source frame. Which means that translated to any other frame,like yours for instance, it will appear curved and variable. Sean www.gammarayburst.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
From: Paul B. Andersen on 26 Jul 2007 15:47
Henri Wilson wrote: > There is another expanation that I have discovered and which expains e fringe > shift. It involves twisting of the individual photon 'axes'. Nobody but Henri knows how an interferometer works. :-) Paul |