GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Henri Wilson on 26 Jul 2007 19:19 On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:50:56 -0700, Randy Poe <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Jul 25, 6:16 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: >> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 07:59:45 -0700, Randy Poe <poespam-t...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >On Jul 25, 7:32 am, sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >The analogy is limited because sound has a medium. >> >> LIMITED????? >> >> ...hardly the right word BP. >> >> there is no analogy between sound and light..unless an absolute aether >> exists..... > >Identical wave equations, which say that the propagation >speed is independent of the source speed. That's an unporoven postulate. >Other than that, no, no similarity. No similarity at all....unless one is an aetherist like you and Seto, BP. > - Randy 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 26 Jul 2007 19:21 On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:47:17 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: >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. :-) Well I should know. Actually the sagnac effect turns out to be more complicated than anyone has realised. Since the 'SR explanation' is a direct contradiction of SR itself, there is NO known explanation..except mine. >Paul 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: Randy Poe on 27 Jul 2007 13:00 On Jul 26, 7:19 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:50:56 -0700, Randy Poe <poespam-t...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On Jul 25, 6:16 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: > >> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 07:59:45 -0700, Randy Poe <poespam-t...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >On Jul 25, 7:32 am, sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >The analogy is limited because sound has a medium. > > >> LIMITED????? > > >> ...hardly the right word BP. > > >> there is no analogy between sound and light..unless an absolute aether > >> exists..... > > >Identical wave equations, which say that the propagation > >speed is independent of the source speed. > > That's an unporoven postulate. Which is, that this equation: d^y/dt^2 = c^2*(d^2y/dx^2) (y = electric or magnetic field, x = direction propagation, c = speed of light) is identical to this one? d^y/dt^2 = c^2*(d^2y/dx^2) (y = sound pressure, x = direction propagation, c = speed of sound) Or that neither of those equations involves source speed? Those are the equations. Prove me wrong about either assertion. - Randy
From: Paul B. Andersen on 27 Jul 2007 14:04 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:47:17 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: > >> 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. :-) > > Well I should know. > > Actually the sagnac effect turns out to be more complicated than anyone has > realised. > Since the 'SR explanation' is a direct contradiction of SR itself, there is NO > known explanation..except mine. Quite. :-) Of course an interferometer must work entirely different from how the rest of the world think it does. Otherwise the Sagnac experiment would confirm SR and falsify the emission theory, and that is obviously not possible. The great seer Henri Wilson cannot be wrong, he has after all received his knowledge by divine revelation. Paul
From: Eric Gisse on 27 Jul 2007 17:14
On Jul 27, 9:00 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 26, 7:19 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:50:56 -0700, Randy Poe <poespam-t...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >On Jul 25, 6:16 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: > > >> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 07:59:45 -0700, Randy Poe <poespam-t...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> >On Jul 25, 7:32 am, sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> >The analogy is limited because sound has a medium. > > > >> LIMITED????? > > > >> ...hardly the right word BP. > > > >> there is no analogy between sound and light..unless an absolute aether > > >> exists..... > > > >Identical wave equations, which say that the propagation > > >speed is independent of the source speed. > > > That's an unporoven postulate. > > Which is, that this equation: > > d^y/dt^2 = c^2*(d^2y/dx^2) > > (y = electric or magnetic field, x = direction propagation, c = speed > of light) > is identical to this one? > > d^y/dt^2 = c^2*(d^2y/dx^2) > > (y = sound pressure, x = direction propagation, c = speed of sound) > > Or that neither of those equations involves source speed? > > Those are the equations. Prove me wrong about either assertion. > > - Randy http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/0117cc9cf1588418?dmode=source I have brought the issue to Henri's attention before. He accepts Maxwell's equations until I point out that amusing little property. Do you think he will still whine about "aether theory" 2 years later, especially after all aether crutches he has used to try to prop his theory up? |