GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Henri Wilson on 2 Aug 2007 05:27 On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:52:25 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Jul 21, 2:06 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: > >> Sagnac proves SR wrong. The light rays are assumed to >> initially move at c+v wrt the source. >> Don't argue about that George, it is obviously true. > >Sorry for coming in on this discussion rather late. Gord, that's all we need...Crank getting involved with Sagnac. >The last I bothered checking your views on Sagnac (some time >last year), you had NO quantitative expression for the fringe >displacement versus rotational velocity that was anywhere >close to the experimental values. Among MANY issues that you >had not resolved, was the simple question of whether light >elastically "bounced" off mirrors at the same speed as the >speed of the incident light, or alternatively, was re-radiated >at c regardless of the speed of the incident rays. > >As I recall, the VB model that you developed assumed elastic >bouncing, but elsewhere you seemed to adopt the viewpoint >that light was emitted from mirrors, gratings, etc. at c >relative to the mirrors, gratings, etc. > >Or was it vice-versa? You've never been clear on this. > >Regardless, what is your equation predicting the fringe >displacement, and how do you justify your equation in >terms of BaTh? I don't have an equation. the current question centres on whether or not the rays travel at c wrt the source, according to the standard SR explanation. They obviously do not...but George is the most stubborn person in the world and insists that they do. .. > >Jerry ........the cross dresser 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: Jerry on 2 Aug 2007 07:15 On Aug 2, 4:27 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:52:25 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > > >On Jul 21, 2:06 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: > > >> Sagnac proves SR wrong. The light rays are assumed to > >> initially move at c+v wrt the source. > >> Don't argue about that George, it is obviously true. > > >Sorry for coming in on this discussion rather late. > > Gord, that's all we need...Crank getting involved with Sagnac. > > >The last I bothered checking your views on Sagnac (some time > >last year), you had NO quantitative expression for the fringe > >displacement versus rotational velocity that was anywhere > >close to the experimental values. Among MANY issues that you > >had not resolved, was the simple question of whether light > >elastically "bounced" off mirrors at the same speed as the > >speed of the incident light, or alternatively, was re-radiated > >at c regardless of the speed of the incident rays. > > >As I recall, the VB model that you developed assumed elastic > >bouncing, but elsewhere you seemed to adopt the viewpoint > >that light was emitted from mirrors, gratings, etc. at c > >relative to the mirrors, gratings, etc. > > >Or was it vice-versa? You've never been clear on this. > > >Regardless, what is your equation predicting the fringe > >displacement, and how do you justify your equation in > >terms of BaTh? > > I don't have an equation. Didn't think so. If you don't have an equation, how can you possibly tell whether your BaTh explanation of Sagnac correlates with reality. Here you state that the standard explanation of Sagnac is false. Well, what do you say is true? Handwaving doesn't cut it. > the current question centres on whether or not the rays > travel at c wrt the source, according to the standard SR > explanation. I'm quite aware of your misunderstandings concerning that. But I have my own set of questions. 1) Does light "bounce" elastically off mirrors, so that, viewed from the frame of the mirror, the speed of the reflected light equals the speed of the incident light? 2) Alternatively, since reflection represents the coherent re-emission of light, does reflected light always initially travel at c with respect to the mirror regardless of the speed of the incident light? Given your previously expressed view that the Wilson Density Threshold might possibly be in the 10^-22 Torr range, and the your views concerning Wilson Speed Control Frames, a third possibility comes to mind: 3) In a Sagnac experiment conducted in atmosphere, is the unification distance so short, microns or less, that the speed of light measured by the non-rotating observer is always effectively c? You have repeatedly expressed the view that no Earth-bound experiment can possibly detect c+v effects, because the vacuums achievable on Earth are vastly above the WDT, and also because "fields" generated by lab experiment constrain light to travel at c with respect to the experimental apparatus. For these reasons, you summarily reject all experimental evidence. > They obviously do not...but George is the most stubborn > person in the world and insists that they do. So which do you choose? 1, 2, or 3? Jerry Henri Wilson's Mendacity (1)Fakes Diploma (2)Uses Deceptive Language (3)Fakes Program (4)Intentionally Misquotes (5)Snips (6)Accuses Others of Lying 1 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/diploma.htm 2 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/deception.htm 3 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/rt_aurigae.htm 4 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/history.htm 5 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/snips.htm 6 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/accuses.htm
From: Paul B. Andersen on 2 Aug 2007 15:55 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:01:34 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: > >> Henri Wilson wrote: >>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 21:27:46 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>> <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: >>> > > >> I don't care about what "you and George" went through last year. >> This nonsense about "displaced beams" can only be uttered by someone who >> doesn't know how an interferometer works. >> >> I wrote the following September 20. 2005 (which is before "last year"), >> it is still valid: >> >> You seem to be completely ignorant of how an >> interference pattern is formed, and why fringes shifts. > > :) > >> Please take the time to read the following properly, >> I am using time to write it. >> >> To get an interference pattern with fringes, >> the beams must be diverging and overlapping. >> >> Consider this simple figure: >> >> 1 2 >> * * Two correlated (in phase) point sources >> emitting monochromatic, coherent light. >> (Laser and a beam splitter) >> >> >> >> --|--|--|---- screen >> A B C >> >> The point B is equidistant to source 1 and 2. >> We get a bright fringe through B. The fringe >> will be a straight line. >> The distance from the point A to point 2 is >> half a wavelength longer than the distance >> to point 1. We get a dark fringe through A. >> This fringe will be a bit curved. >> Likewise for point C, a dark fringe. >> >> Note that the reason why there are fringes >> at all is that the beams are diverging, so >> the distance from the source to the screen >> is different on different parts of the screen. > > If the beam is perfectly parallel, the screen will be alternate between dark > and light if the path length is progressively changed, > >> The angle of the beams when they unite >> has obviously nothing whatsoever with >> the matter to do. > > I didn't say it was. > >> The only thing that matters >> is the difference in the light path lengths >> to the two sources measured in wavelengths. > >> The only way to make the fringes move, >> is to change the distance to one of the sources. >> If we move source 1 a bit upwards, the fringes >> will move to the left, and vice versa. >> >> So when fringes move, the difference between >> the two path lengths measured in wavelengths >> changes. > > Nice to know they DO teach SOME physics in Norway. > >> Now let this "interferometer" rotate. >> Observed in the interferometer frame, >> the light paths will be slightly curved, >> so the angle with which the light hits >> the screen is slightly altered. >> But the fringes will not move, because >> the slightly curved light paths from >> point 1 to B and point 2 to B will still >> be equally long. The angle at which the beams >> hit the screen is utterly irrelevant. > > Don't use rotating frames Paul...they can lead to errors. > ...and like I said, George and I went right into this last year. > >> And please don't say something like >> "the beam will no longer hit point B, >> because it is deflected." >> That is irrelevant. The beams are diverging >> and overlapping, and what happens in point B >> depend only on the lengths of the paths of >> the light that hit point B, obviously. > > That's what I pointed out to Sean. Two rays that leave the source at the same > point but at 90 apart will be parallel but displaced sideways on arrival. This > is not enough to cause a fringe shift because of the wavefront geometry. > > See, you have learnt something... > >> The same applies for the four mirror set up. >> It is stupid to say something like "the two >> contra going beams will no longer combine >> at the same point on the mirror." > > It is a fact...so how can it be stupid? > >> Some light will always hit at "the midpoint" >> of the combining mirror, and what happens in >> that point is only determined by the phase >> difference of the two light paths that >> actually hit that point. If the fringes shifts, >> it means that the phase difference changes, >> which only can mean that the length difference >> of the light paths have changed. >> >> The ballistic theory predicts no length difference >> of the light paths (measured in wavelengths) >> and thus no fringe shifts when the Sagnac ring rotates. > > NO IT DOES NOT. MY THEORY EXPLAINS WHY. > >> But the fringes do shift when the Sagnac ring rotates. >> >> Sagnac falsifies the ballistic theory. >> >> No other conclusion is possible. > > Paul, the standard Sagnac argument against BaTh does not take into account all > the relevant factors. > I have explained previously what happens. When the apparatus rotates, the > photon axes become misaligned with their velocity vectors...IN OPPOSITE SENSES. Of course. The photons get dizzy. Another of your world shattering discoveries. > When they arrive at each mirror, the 'front end' hits the mirror at a different > point from the 'back end'. Assuming pahots are many wavelengths long, this > results in a small but significant path length difference as well as a > reflection angle that is not the same as the incident angle. > > PS: You wont find this in a text book. It is MY discovery and you should feel > very priviledges for being one of the first to read about it. Quite. I feel very privileged of reading about your hallucinations. >>> 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. >> Here is the correct BaTh analysis: >> >> Paul B. Andersen wrote January 2005: >> | To a first order approximation, (that is, ignoring >> | terms containing higher than first order of >> | the tangential mirror speed v) the light will use >> | the same time in both directions. >> | The math isn't very hard, but it isn't trivial either. >> | I won't bother to go through all the math in this awkward >> | medium, but I will write the first order terms: >> | The length of one chord of the light path will be: >> | d = srt(2)*r + v*t/sqrt(2) >> | where r is the radius of the circle tangenting the mirrors, >> | and t is the time the light uses to traverse the chord. >> | The speed of the light will be: >> | c' = c + v/sqrt(2) >> | Note that these equations are valid for both direction, >> | v being negative for the beam going in the opposite direction. >> | So we have: >> | c'*t = d >> | c*t + v*t/sqrt(2) = sqrt(2)*r + v*t/sqrt(2) >> | t = sqrt(2)*r/c >> | The ballistic theory predicts that the time >> | has no first order dependency on the speed! >> | >> | The sagnac effect IS a first order effect! >> | >> | You are proven wrong. > > The SR sagnac analysis requires that an absolute frame exists and that the rays > move at c+/-v wrt the source at hte point of emission. > > SR proves its own postulate wrong.!!!! The idiot hits again. SR predicts that that the speed of light is c in the inertial (non rotating) frame, and since the source is moving with the speed v in this frame, SR predicts that the two contrary moving beams will be out of phase when they meet the source again. Since the Sagnac experiment prove this prediction correct, SR will according to Wilsonian logic be proven wrong. Thanks for the demonstration. :-) But it wasn't necessary, I knew you are a babbling idiot, who nobody takes seriously. It is however quite fun to see all the idiotic "explanations" you come up with to save your blind faith in the impossible. > What a wonderful theory......!!!!! Hahahahahohjohohohawhawhaw!!! Quite. That hysterical laughter becomes you. Are you dribbling as well? But thanks. It was fun. :-) Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 2 Aug 2007 17:52 On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 04:15:01 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Aug 2, 4:27 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: >> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:52:25 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> >> wrote: >> >> >On Jul 21, 2:06 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: >> >> >> Sagnac proves SR wrong. The light rays are assumed to >> >> initially move at c+v wrt the source. >> >> Don't argue about that George, it is obviously true. >> >> >Sorry for coming in on this discussion rather late. >> >> Gord, that's all we need...Crank getting involved with Sagnac. >> >> >The last I bothered checking your views on Sagnac (some time >> >last year), you had NO quantitative expression for the fringe >> >displacement versus rotational velocity that was anywhere >> >close to the experimental values. Among MANY issues that you >> >had not resolved, was the simple question of whether light >> >elastically "bounced" off mirrors at the same speed as the >> >speed of the incident light, or alternatively, was re-radiated >> >at c regardless of the speed of the incident rays. >> >> >As I recall, the VB model that you developed assumed elastic >> >bouncing, but elsewhere you seemed to adopt the viewpoint >> >that light was emitted from mirrors, gratings, etc. at c >> >relative to the mirrors, gratings, etc. >> >> >Or was it vice-versa? You've never been clear on this. >> >> >Regardless, what is your equation predicting the fringe >> >displacement, and how do you justify your equation in >> >terms of BaTh? >> >> I don't have an equation. > >Didn't think so. > >If you don't have an equation, how can you possibly tell >whether your BaTh explanation of Sagnac correlates with >reality. Here you state that the standard explanation of >Sagnac is false. Well, what do you say is true? I have made my views on this quite clear. The effect is due to a twisting of photon axes. >Handwaving doesn't cut it. Relativists should know. >> the current question centres on whether or not the rays >> travel at c wrt the source, according to the standard SR >> explanation. > >I'm quite aware of your misunderstandings concerning that. > >But I have my own set of questions. > >1) Does light "bounce" elastically off mirrors, so that, viewed >from the frame of the mirror, the speed of the reflected light >equals the speed of the incident light? Probably not. >2) Alternatively, since reflection represents the coherent >re-emission of light, does reflected light always initially >travel at c with respect to the mirror regardless of the >speed of the incident light? Not known... >Given your previously expressed view that the Wilson Density >Threshold might possibly be in the 10^-22 Torr range, and the >your views concerning Wilson Speed Control Frames, a third >possibility comes to mind: > >3) In a Sagnac experiment conducted in atmosphere, is the >unification distance so short, microns or less, that the >speed of light measured by the non-rotating observer is >always effectively c? This has to be considered. It could make the standard aether (SR) explanation plausible. >You have repeatedly expressed the view that no Earth-bound >experiment can possibly detect c+v effects, because the >vacuums achievable on Earth are vastly above the WDT, and >also because "fields" generated by lab experiment constrain >light to travel at c with respect to the experimental >apparatus. For these reasons, you summarily reject all >experimental evidence. I don't know how you came to that conclusion. >> They obviously do not...but George is the most stubborn >> person in the world and insists that they do. > >So which do you choose? 1, 2, or 3? > >Jerry > 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: George Dishman on 2 Aug 2007 18:43
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:9h22b3pcovmdgjgbi80prev1llkv0jk84g(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 00:31:13 -0700, George Dishman > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ .... > > As far as I recall I ws replying to sean. As you can see from the attribution in your post, you were replying to me, but it doesn't matter, I didn't write the nonsense you attributed to me, it was Sean's. >>> Sean is correct about some things, wrong about others. I have already >>> corrected >>> him wrt the Mosely Sagnac animation. >> >>Really? So has he agreed with and corrected his animations? > > I don't think they are his. I have never seen anyone else make that particular error so I have no reason to think they aren't his. It's hard to believe anybody could, even Sean. In fact it is so bizarre it took me several weeks to take it at face value and realise he really meant what he was saying. George |