GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Henri Wilson on 27 Jul 2007 18:42 On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:00:20 -0700, Randy Poe <poespam-trap(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. In both, 'c' is the value wrt the medium...air for sound...absolute 'aether' for light.. > - 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 27 Jul 2007 18:46 On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 20:04:44 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: >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 standard Sagnac explanation clearly requires that in the rest frame, the rays move at c+/-v wrt the source. Don't say this is incorrect Paul. >The great seer Henri Wilson cannot be wrong, he has after all >received his knowledge by divine revelation. Well as a matter of fact I think I HAVE discovered the real cause of the Sagnac effect...It is due to the 'twisting' of photon axes in opposite directions in each beam and the subsequent effect on reflection angles and path lengths.. >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: Paul B. Andersen on 28 Jul 2007 15:27 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 20:04:44 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: > >> 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 standard Sagnac explanation clearly requires that in the rest frame, the > rays move at c+/-v wrt the source. > Don't say this is incorrect Paul. I won't. The source move with +/- v, and SR predicts that the light move with c. That's why SR predict that the two contrary moving beams will be out of phase when they meet the source again. To adopt your somewhat awkward wording (which was used by Einstein in 1905, but is now unusual): according to the BaTh both light beams are moving in the stationary frame with the speed c wrt the source. That's why the BaTh predicts that the two contrary moving light beams will be in phase when they meet the source again. Don't say this is incorrect Henri. So you have to insist that an interferometer produce a fringe shift when the two beams are not phase shifted. >> The great seer Henri Wilson cannot be wrong, he has after all >> received his knowledge by divine revelation. > > Well as a matter of fact I think I HAVE discovered the real cause of the Sagnac > effect...It is due to the 'twisting' of photon axes in opposite directions in > each beam and the subsequent effect on reflection angles and path lengths.. Of course you will think whatever it takes to save your faith. Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 28 Jul 2007 18:39 On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 10:20:19 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:0uska3himhqqokf409p2arnbc9cqh1gtbd(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:29:04 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> "What Im saying is that MMx shows us that light >>> appears to leave the source at c in all, >>> directions. And even though that source is known >>> to move relative to other objects that motion of >>> the other objects does not appear to effect the >>> lights propagating out at c . For instance if >>> one had two MMx experiments, one on the moon and >>> one here we can assume that the results would be >>> the same. Which means that two sources in 2 >>> seperate frames can both have light propagating >>> away from each source at c in straight lines. >>> Thats an observable fact as thats what MMX shows >>> us. And you cannot prove otherwise. And if you >>> think about it , you would realize that a MMx >>> on the rotating moon and a MMx on the rotating >>> earth would look exactly like your latest java >>> simulation of my emmission model. Which you say >>> is impossible. So in fact your latest earth -mars >>> -sirius java sim is a correct interpretation of >>> how light leaves two MMx sources in a earth sirius >>> frame. Corrrect because your sim is consistent >>> with MMx observations. If your sim were to be >>> imposssible then you would have to admit that >>> observed MMx data is impossible." >>> >>>Make of that lot what you like. >> >> The MMX merely proves ... > >Don't try to change the subject Henry, do you >now acknowledge that my illustration correctly >represents Sean's model so any "resorting to >alcohol" was on his part. Sean is correct about some things, wrong about others. I have already corrected him wrt the Mosely Sagnac animation. He was certainly right about the fact that the SR sagnac analysis requires the rays to move at c+/-v wrt the source. >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 28 Jul 2007 18:48
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 21:27:46 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 20:04:44 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: >> >>> 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 standard Sagnac explanation clearly requires that in the rest frame, the >> rays move at c+/-v wrt the source. >> Don't say this is incorrect Paul. > >I won't. >The source move with +/- v, and SR predicts that the light move with c. >That's why SR predict that the two contrary moving beams will be >out of phase when they meet the source again. > >To adopt your somewhat awkward wording (which was used by Einstein in 1905, >but is now unusual): according to the BaTh both light beams are moving in >the stationary frame with the speed c wrt the source. >That's why the BaTh predicts that the two contrary moving light beams will >be in phase when they meet the source again. >Don't say this is incorrect Henri. On the surface, that is correct Paul...even though the beams that star out 90 apart end up displaced sideways wrt each other. George and I went right into this last year. However, as I have pointed out, this is not the right BaTh analysis. It ignores many factors. >So you have to insist that an interferometer produce a fringe shift >when the two beams are not phase shifted. No Paul, nobody has ever produced the correct BaTh anaylsis of sagnac....except me of course. >>> The great seer Henri Wilson cannot be wrong, he has after all >>> received his knowledge by divine revelation. >> >> Well as a matter of fact I think I HAVE discovered the real cause of the Sagnac >> effect...It is due to the 'twisting' of photon axes in opposite directions in >> each beam and the subsequent effect on reflection angles and path lengths.. > >Of course you will think whatever it takes to save your faith. I have explained what happens. The photon axes rotate lightly in pposite directions in each beam. This results in the angle of reflection from moving mirrors being <> the angles of incidence and causes a path length difference in the two rays. If you want an illustration, imagine firing an arrow from a fast moving car so it will hit a target 45 degrees to one side. You will see that the arrow shaft is not aligned to the direction of travel. Get it? >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. |