GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: George Dishman on 6 Aug 2007 03:44 On 5 Aug, 13:45, sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 4 Aug, 18:02, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:0jd7b31i2ov9ql32vjg4e9c73mr57r30vr(a)4ax.com... .... > > > George, Sean clearly understands that the rays are shown moving at c+/-v > > > wrt the source. > > > No, like you Sean thinks the light is launched at c > > relative to the cource, not c+v, but he then thinks > > that, as the source moves in a circle, the photons > > move as if sliding along a rod locked to the source > > so their path through space becomes something between > > a cycloid and a sine wave like this: > > Your too thick for words here. If classical theory > has light leaving any source always at c then any simulation of this > would look exactly like your simulation . A minor point Sean, "classical theory" should probably be considered to be Maxwell's Equations, what we are talking about here is a theory suggested by Ritz about 50 years after Maxwell. > So its not me speculating > this rod effect > you pretend exists. Its the obvious interpretation of > classical. No, the obvious interpretation is light being launched as you say but therefter obeying the basic laws of mechanics. What Ritz suggested was that light left the source at c but after Newton's First Law applied, the light would travel in a straight line at constant speed, the speed and direction having been determined by the conditions at the time of emission. Your version does away with that and has the light moving in a curved path so that it _looks_ straight from the source, even if the source changes its motion - the light also has to change to match the motion of the source. > ... So your soi called incorrect sim you took 3 weeks to > understand is actually correct. What it took you 3 weeks to realize > that sirius doesnt move in the universe just because it doesnt move in > your imaginary sim? No, I just couldn't believe that you were abandoning Newton's First Law, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed I was misunderstanding your posts. It turned out I wasn't, you really did mean what you were saying, at which point there was no way to continue the conversation scientifically since you have discarded the basis of all mechanics. Henry understands Ritz's basic theory, although he has some trouble with the concept of a 'frame' so I'll leave it to him to try to explain how light moves thereafter, you and he should be on the same side so he should have more successs than I could. George
From: Henri Wilson on 6 Aug 2007 04:24 On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 22:39:59 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Aug 5, 7:12 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: >> On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 03:01:36 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> >> wrote: >> >> >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. >> >> So the Earth's atmosphere constitutes a very 'strong' local >> EM control frame. > >...and hence "twisting" is not only completely unnecessary for >Sagnac to work, it forces the observed value to deviate from the >theoretical prediction that is based solely on lightspeed = c. > >Your "photon twisting" hypothesis is hence falsified. Nice to see you are at least starting to actually think, now. >> >> Crank, control frames don't just rely on the 'matter' WE know. >> The plain fact is, space containing a 'field' is not the same >> as space completely devoid of fields. > >Believe in your fairies, Henri. What makes space containing a field different from space completely devoid of fields Crank? I'll bet you've never even considerd such a question. >> Whatever is responsible for the difference, also contributes >> to the 'EM control sphere'. > >Your fairies impose light-speed control when you want them >to, and they hold back when you don't need them. All the fairies on this NG belong to the relativists. >How wonderful. > >> >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/d032fc3a07d... >> >> It is unimportant. The plain fact is, light speed unification >> clearly exists and light multiple imagery never occurs.. > >...and you -need- to explain how and why there should be such >a relationship between extinction distance and period. there isn't one...never was... >WIthout such an explanation, any reasonable person would >conclude that it is an ad hoc adjustment thrown in to force >an inviable theory to match observation. Your BaTh theory >incorporates epicycles upon epicycles. Keep raving.... >> >Go ahead and believe in your fairies, Henri. Isn't it fun to >> >have Fairly OddParents so infinitely malleable to your will? >> >> I don't need fairies Crank. I'm producing amazing results that >> show all known astronomy to be highly suspect at best. > >How can you be so confident in your lies? > >Jerry .....Crank is a cross-dresser who like to use female names. 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 6 Aug 2007 21:16 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:49:10 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: > >> 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? > > That's all right. We know Rotaton IS absolute...but we can still talk about > nonrotating frames that ARE MOVING RELATIVE TO OTHERS. > >>>>> 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?) > > I can't draw it properly her but will try to (fixed pitch): > > This is NOT what happens when the apparatus rotates. > > S________M > | > | > | > | > M > > This IS what happens to the photon axes: > > S///////////////////M^ > \ > \ > \ > \ > \ > \ > \ > \ > \ > \ > \ > \ > M-> > > Get it now? They tilt slightly. Quite. It's not easy to walk strait when you are dizzy. This is stupid nonsense, Henri. An interferometer measures phase differences. They have been understood and used for centuries. Thousands are in daily use in a multitude of different instruments. We know how they work. >>>> 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? > > The standard Sagnac diagram shows the rays to be moving at c+/-v wrt the > source, AS VIEWED IN THE LAB FRAME. Ambiguous mumbo jumbo talk cannot change the fact that the standard Sagnac diagram shows the ray to be moving at c in the inertial frame. > Do you not agree that the diagram itself IS drawn at rest in the LAB FRAME. It's drawn in an inertial frame. The LAB FRAME can in many cases be considered inertial, and will often be used as a synonym for inertial frame. But not for precision Sagnac rings which can detect Earth rotation, then the LAB FRAME is rotating. >>>>> 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. :-) > > Well, you can't answer it can you.... The question: "Why does light pick the one defined by the ring?" is indeed very revealing. It demonstrates that you don't understand that the speed of one particular light beam is c in _all_ inertial frames, including the one in which the centre of the ring is stationary. The light doesn't 'pick' a frame in which it moves at c. One particular light beam moves at c in _all_ inertial frames at the same time! Or: the speed of light is invariant. So _we_ are free to pick the frame that gives the simplest calculation in each case. I know. You will _never_ accept it or understand it, despite the fact that it is experimentally verified. > >> 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? :-) You didn't get it, did you? The point is spelled out below. > Paul, let's perform a thought experiment. > Let two ring gyros move past eachother at speed. When adjacent, a source emits > a pulse of light that is directed around the two. > > Please now describe the two separate diagrams that demonstrate the sagnac > principle in each relatively moving ring. You can draw one and duplicate it. You simply don't get it, do you? The Sagnac experiment _prove_ that the speed of light is c in the inertial frame in which the centre of the ring is stationary, that's the _only_ way the speed difference source - light can be c+/-v, which it _must_ be to produce the observed phase shift. It proves that the speed of light in the inertial frame is NOT c+/-v as the emission theory demands, and which would produce no phase shift. The fact that linear motion don't affect the Sagnac ring in any way, prove that the speed of light is c in _any_ inertial frame. >>>> 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? > > The diagram shows light moving at c+/-v wrt the source, AS MEASURED IN THE LAB > FRAME. > > Are you still denying this? Why the hell do you keep repeating this awkward way of saying: The diagram shows that the speed of light is c and the speed of the source is v as measured in the inertial frame. NO I AM NOT DENYING THIS! THE QUESTION WAS: Can you please explain why Sagnac prove that the speed of light is different from c in the inertial frame? Of bloody course you can't. You will keep talking mumbo jumbo like above. Paul
From: Jerry on 6 Aug 2007 23:18 On Aug 6, 3:24 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 22:39:59 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > >On Aug 5, 7:12 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: > >> On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 03:01:36 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> > >> wrote: > >> >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 > > >> It is unimportant. The plain fact is, light speed unification > >> clearly exists and light multiple imagery never occurs.. > > >...and you -need- to explain how and why there should be such > >a relationship between extinction distance and period. > > there isn't one...never was... Henri, take another look at this quotation: "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." YOU wrote those words!!! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d032fc3a07d85476 Jerry Henri Wilson's Lies (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 7 Aug 2007 05:46
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:18:39 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Aug 6, 3:24 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: >> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 22:39:59 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> >> wrote: >> >...and you -need- to explain how and why there should be such >> >a relationship between extinction distance and period. >> >> there isn't one...never was... > >Henri, take another look at this quotation: >"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." > >YOU wrote those words!!! Don't quote me out of context Crank. You left out the important bits. I was merely pointing out that distance and period are complemetary in the program. So are distance and velocity. If both the period and distance are multipied by the same factor, the same curve results. If the maximum velocity is increased, reducing the distance by the same factor gives the original result....well, almost at short distances.. > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d032fc3a07d85476 > >Jerry When somebody has to snip in order to change the meaning, it is obvious they are beaten. 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. |