GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Henri Wilson on 3 Aug 2007 19:09 On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:31:07 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >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. Crank, there has never been such an experiment. It has hitherto been almost impossible to perform. The only known way to do it is to simulate variable star curves with BaTh principles. >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". On the contrary. Twisting would occur anyway. The 'arrows' still have to be aimed to one side of the target. However I don't claim light speed is rigidly determined, in a vacuum, by my 'EM control spheres'. It may take quite a distance to reach some kind of stable speed. The Earth's atmosphere acts like a local aether. IIRC, Roberts once reckoned that the extinction distance in air was around 3cms. >The trouble with lying all the time is that you reach a point >where you can't keep your lies straight. You are becoming quite desperate and incoherent. While you keep on sprouting inanities, I'm doing the work and making the discoveries. >> >> 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? Do you really think I care about your ravings Crank? >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: Jerry on 4 Aug 2007 06:01 On Aug 3, 6:09 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:31:07 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > > >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/a02ae0c2146... > > >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. > > Crank, there has never been such an experiment. It has hitherto > been almost impossible to perform. The only known way to do it > is to simulate variable star curves with BaTh principles. > > >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". > > On the contrary. Twisting would occur anyway. The 'arrows' still > have to be aimed to one side of the target. > However I don't > claim light speed is rigidly determined, in a vacuum, by my 'EM > control spheres'. It may take quite a distance to reach some > kind of stable speed. > The Earth's atmosphere acts like a local aether. IIRC, Roberts > once reckoned that the extinction distance in air was around 3cms. You miscite Roberts. At optical frequencies, Tom stated that the extinction distance in air is about a millimeter. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/7536538a3965b8da According to classical theory, extinction distance = lambda/(n-1) Plugging in numbers, 5e-4/(1.0003-1) = 1.6 mm for 500 nm light in air, in rough agreement with Robert's statement. Since when do you believe in classical extinction calculations? If you did, then you would be forced to agree that an experiment such as Beckmann and Mandics (1965), conducted in a vacuum of 1e-6 Torr, had a long enough extinction distance (nearly 200 km) such that c+v effects, if present, should have been detected. http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Beckmann_Mandics_1965.pdf No, Henri. For you, extinction/unification is a magical fairy parameter that you vary freely to suit your needs. When you need it to be short, it is short. When you need to be long, it is long. For variable stars, "The extinction distance is directly proportional to period. The 0.0007 value is for a period of 0.0042 years. It becomes 0.007 for 0.042 years, 0.07 for 0.042 years..etc." http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d032fc3a07d85476 When theory insists that the extinction distance must be short, you insist that it must be long. When theory insists it must be long, you insist that it must be short. Millions of kilometers beneath the surface of a variable star, the extinction distance must be short. But you insist that this distance must be very long, otherwise you cannot explain the difference in phasing and variability between V-band and K-band emissions. When theory insists that the extinction distance is long, you insist that it must be very short. Otherwise experiments such as Beckmann and Mandics (1965), Filipas and Fox (1964), Babcock and Bergman (1964), Alvager (1964), and the observations of Brecher (1977) should long ago have convinced you that BaTh is a dead theory. http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Beckmann_Mandics_1965.pdf http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Filippas_Fox_1964.pdf http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Babcock_Bergman_1964.pdf http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Alvager_et_al_1964.pdf http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Brecher_1977.pdf Go ahead and believe in your fairies, Henri. Isn't it fun to have Fairly OddParents so infinitely malleable to your will? ** Cultural reference: The Fairly OddParents is a cartoon show on Nickelodeon about a boy, Timmy, who has two massively overindulgent fairy godparents. With all good intentions, they grant Timmy's wishes, which unfortunately tend to go awry. However, a warning. Cartoon shows, even computer animated ones, do not provide valid expositions of physical principles. That includes YOUR computer animations. > >The trouble with lying all the time is that you reach a point > >where you can't keep your lies straight. > > You are becoming quite desperate and incoherent. While you keep > on sprouting inanities, I'm doing the work and making the > discoveries. 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: Henri Wilson on 4 Aug 2007 18:45 On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:45:12 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:55:38 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: >> >> >> 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. I thought this would be too hard for you. >>>> 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. If you have good look, you will soon realise that the standard Sagnac analysis has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with SR. For one thing, it shows the rays moving at c+/-v wrt the source. For another, it assumes some kind of absolutely nonrotating frame. In fact, the standard explanatin is completely wrong. >> 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. To the untrained eye, that would appear correct. On closer examination by the better informed, it is immediately clear that the assumptions made are not justified and are incorrect. >Don't deny it Henri. It is plainly obvious. It is indeed obvious that Sagnac makes a mockery of SR's second postulate. > >> 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. Which inertial frame might that be. There is an infinite number of inertial frames at the source. Why does light pick the one defined by the ring? Are the fairies involved again? >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 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 5 Aug 2007 11:03 On 5 Jul, 14:31, "Jeckyl" <no...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > "sean" <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1183642059.293730.318000(a)n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > On 3 Jul, 16:54, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >> "sean" <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> > If you dont agree then show me where any model of classical > >> > emmision theory stipulates that light travels away from a source > >> > at variable speeds > > >> The point is .. different observers will see it as having different > >> speeds > >> to c in classical models. We dont' have evidence of light travelling at > >> less or more than c. > > Neither do you have evidence that light always travels at c when the > > observor is moving relative to the source. Cite this evidence. It > > doesnt exist. > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#... > > >> > and in curved paths as you would incorrectly > >> > have us believe classical theory predicts. > >> > The fact is that you have no proof that your above illustration > >> > of classical is incorrect. If you think you have,.. then cite > >> > the observations that prove that light does not travel away from > >> > any source at c in straight lines. > > >> That is not the point of contention .. it is the speed observers moving > >> relative to the source will measure the light as travelling at. > > > Youve misuderstood both myself and george. > > george was claiming that the usual classical emmision theory did not > > have light always at c in straight lines from the source and that it > > was my `unusual` interpretation of classical that claimed that it > > alwasy had to be. > > George O'Barr? he's an idiot > > > All I was saying was that he was wrong... Classical emmision theory > > always stipulates that light must be at c relative to the source. Even > > you concur above with your quote.. > > (jeckyl)..."Classical model says the speed of light is not always c .. > > it is observer /source dependant " > > Yeup > > > Thats what I always argue , but george was trying to say that this was > > an unusual version of the classical emmision model. > > Obviously he`s wrong. As Both you and I agree that classical emmision > > model always is observor /source dependent.(ie at c relative to the > > source) > > Yes . .that is what all emission theories I ahve seen say .. light is > emitted from a source at c relative to the iFoR of the source. > > SR says further that it is c for ALL iFoR .. not just the source Well Im glad your sticking to the points here. But you dont need to model it at c in all frames.All observations of light can be explained by light travelling at c in the source frame only. Sean
From: Paul B. Andersen on 5 Aug 2007 13:49
Henri Wilson wrote: > On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 21:45:12 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: > >> 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: >>>>> 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. > > If you have good look, you will soon realise that the standard Sagnac analysis > has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with SR. For one thing, it shows the > rays moving at c+/-v wrt the source. For another, it assumes some kind of > absolutely nonrotating frame. In fact, the standard explanatin is completely > wrong. "some kind of absolutely nonrotating frame" :-) Henri, what do you think the rotation detected by a Sagnac ring is relative to? >>> 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. > > To the untrained eye, that would appear correct. > > On closer examination by the better informed, it is immediately clear that the > assumptions made are not justified and are incorrect. Quite. To the trained eye, it is immediately clear that the fringes shift because the photons get dizzy when the ring rotates relative to - eh - what? (we cannot assume some kind of absolutely nonrotating frame, can we?) > >> Don't deny it Henri. It is plainly obvious. > > It is indeed obvious that Sagnac makes a mockery of SR's second postulate. Of course it is clear to Henri Wilson that since the Sagnac experiment prove the speed of light to be c in the inertial frame, then it falsifies the second postulate which says that the speed of light is c in an inertial frame. That is after all Henri Wilson's way of thinking, isn't it? >>> 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. > > Which inertial frame might that be. There is an infinite number of inertial > frames at the source. Why does light pick the one defined by the ring? Are the > fairies involved again? Beautiful, Henri. :-) Thanks for the demonstration yet again. :-) The Sagnac ring works fine in an aeroplane at high speed which show that the light picks the plane-frame as reference. Don't you think that this prove that the speed of light relative to the Earth is different from c? :-) >> Can you please explain why this prove that the speed of light >> is different from c in the inertial frame? :-) No answer, Henri? Can you please explain why the Sagnac experiment prove the speed of light to be different from c in an inertial frame? Paul |