GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Henri Wilson on 2 Aug 2007 18:49 On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:55:38 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:01:34 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: >> >> >>> 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. >> >> >>> 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. Paul, in Sagnac, there is only one reference for rotation angle, it is the photon axes. Yes Paul, believe it or not, photons have 'axes' of some kind or other....they are like little arrows...and if their shafts are not aligned to their velocity vectors, (which occurs when sagnac is rotating) they reflect from the mirrors at strange speeds and angles... and the two rays end up with different path lengths. Simple eh?..and truly ballistic. >> 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. Yes, you must feel very proud knowing that you have just witnessed a 'world first' scientific announcement? >>> | 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. ....and in doing so SR requires that, in the inertial frame, the two rays move at c+/-v wrt the source. Don't deny it Paul. It is plainly obvious. SR proves its own postulate wrong. Hahahahahohohoha! >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? Paul, why don't write up and publish my 'photon shaft' theory before I get the chance. You will become famous overnight.... >But thanks. >It was fun. :-) Major breakthroughs usually are...... > >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: Henri Wilson on 2 Aug 2007 18:55 On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 23:43:43 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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. .....well he is certainly right abpout one thing...the SR sagnac explanation requires that the two rays initially move at c+/-v wrt the source AND its frame. SR proves its own postulate wrong. Hahahahahhohohoh! >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: Eric Gisse on 2 Aug 2007 19:08 On Aug 2, 2:49 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:55:38 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > > > > <paul.b.ander...(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:01:34 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > >> <paul.b.ander...(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: > > >>> 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. > > >>> 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. > > Paul, in Sagnac, there is only one reference for rotation angle, it is the > photon axes. > Yes Paul, believe it or not, photons have 'axes' of some kind or other....they > are like little arrows...and if their shafts are not aligned to their velocity > vectors, (which occurs when sagnac is rotating) they reflect from the mirrors > at strange speeds and angles... and the two rays end up with different path > lengths. > > Simple eh?..and truly ballistic. > > >> 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. > > Yes, you must feel very proud knowing that you have just witnessed a 'world > first' scientific announcement? > > >>> | 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. > > ...and in doing so SR requires that, in the inertial frame, the two rays move > at c+/-v wrt the source. > But Henri.... inertial frames can not rotate. This has been explained to you before. Many times. [...]
From: Jerry on 3 Aug 2007 07:31 On Aug 2, 4:52 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 04:15:01 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(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. Don't lie, Henri. On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:23:20 GMT, you wrote: "Lab experiments will never detect c+v effects because the lab itself constitutes a local EM control frame. 'FIELDS' as well as AIR determine light speed." http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/a02ae0c2146802ee The above is only one of many instances where you have expressed similar sentiments. The fact is that EVERY experiment designed to detect c+v effects has FAILED to do so. You are in the peculiar situation of maintaining that BaTh must be true despite not having any experimental support whatsoever. Your consistent stance has been that unification effects are responsible for making c+v undetectable in any Earth-bound experiment. This would include the Sagnac experiment. You thus have two INCOMPATIBLE explanations for the Sagnac experiment. Since unification by itself would fully explain the results of the Sagnac experiment, and since experimental measurements of the Sagnac effect are fully consonant with light speed = c to within experimental error, there can be no contribution to the Sagnac effect from "photon twisting". The trouble with lying all the time is that you reach a point where you can't keep your lies straight. > >> 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 3 Aug 2007 15:45
Henri Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:55:38 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: > >> Henri Wilson wrote: >>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:01:34 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>> <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: >>> > >>>> 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. >>> > >>>> 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. > > Paul, in Sagnac, there is only one reference for rotation angle, it is the > photon axes. > Yes Paul, believe it or not, photons have 'axes' of some kind or other....they > are like little arrows...and if their shafts are not aligned to their velocity > vectors, (which occurs when sagnac is rotating) they reflect from the mirrors > at strange speeds and angles... and the two rays end up with different path > lengths. > > Simple eh?..and truly ballistic. Quite. Photons are little dizzy arrows. >>> 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. > > Yes, you must feel very proud knowing that you have just witnessed a 'world > first' scientific announcement? Sure. You are indeed a _great_ scientist. :-) >>>> | 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. > > ...and in doing so SR requires that, in the inertial frame, the two rays move > at c+/-v wrt the source. Quite. According to the second postulate of SR the speed of the ray is c in the inertial frame, hence the speed difference between the source and the ray is c +/- v. > Don't deny it Paul. It is plainly obvious. Of course I won't deny that, it is plainly obvious. It is the very reason why SR predicts fringe shifts as observed. According to the emission theory - to use your awkward wording - in the inertial frame, the two rays move at c wrt the source. The consequence is of course that no fringe shifts are predicted. Don't deny it Henri. It is plainly obvious. > SR proves its own postulate wrong. Come again? :-) SR predicts the speed of light is c in the inertial frame, Sagnac demonstrates that this is correct. Can you please explain why this prove that the speed of light is different from c in the inertial frame? :-) > > Hahahahahohohoha! Indeed. >> 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? > > Paul, why don't write up and publish my 'photon shaft' theory before I get the > chance. You will become famous overnight.... Don't think so. There are so many idiots out there claiming all kind of nonsense that nobody would notice. I would only be put in category "babbling idiot". > >> But thanks. >> It was fun. :-) > > Major breakthroughs usually are...... Quite. :-) Paul |