GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Henri Wilson on 7 Aug 2007 06:04 On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:16:26 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:49:10 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: >> >>> 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. Particularly drunk Eskimos on ice. >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. Do we? We certainly know how a Michelson interferometer works...light moves at c throughout. ....but I am the only person in the whole world who knows how and why a sagnac works. >>>>> 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. Why did it select THAT particular one? >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. Yes..because the photon axes are 'tilted'....They behave like gyros. >> >> 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. That's what LET says. Do you still believe an aetehr exists? >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. Oh, the fairies again, I suppose.... > >I know. >You will _never_ accept it or understand it, >despite the fact that it is experimentally verified. No it isn't.... >>> 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. Why? Because Einstein said so? Any other reason, based on physics and logic? >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. Paul, like George, you say one thing then refer to a diagram that clearly shows the opposite. >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. THen why are the rays shown to be moving at c+/-v wrt the source, AS SEEN IN THE LAB FRAME, in the diagram. >> >> 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, there is a small problem with this standard argument against BaTh. It cannot be assumed that light reflects from a moving mirror at both the incident angle and incoming relative velocity. My 'photon axis twist' theory explains what really happens in Sagnac. The front and back 'ends' of each photon hit the mirror at different points, causing both a reflection angle that is NOT equal to the incident one and an effective path length difference in the two rays. >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 7 Aug 2007 08:49 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:16:26 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: > >> 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. > > Do we? > We certainly know how a Michelson interferometer works...light moves at c > throughout. > > ...but I am the only person in the whole world who knows how and why a sagnac > works. !!!!!!!! Why the hell do I vaste my time on you? Paul
From: Jerry on 7 Aug 2007 14:48 On Aug 7, 4:46 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:18:39 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(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. Well, well, now. ANOTHER prime example of your mendacity. I provide a precise quote and a precise link to the exact newsgroup message in which you made your statement, so as to make it easy for everybody to look up the the quote and the context in which it was made, and you accuse me of attempting to distort your words? Naturally, of course, you selectively deleted the link so as to attempt to hide the fact that I provided one. > I was merely pointing out that distance and period are complemetary > in the program. Henri, if you haven't noticed, your program is your only definitive expression of your theory. All else is handwaving. Extinction distance and period are indeed tightly coupled in your program/theory for no known reason other than that is what you need in order to make your curve fits work. > So are distance and velocity. > If both the period and distance are multipied by the same > factor, the same curve results. Exactly. A short period REQUIRES a short extinction distance, otherwise multiple images result. A long period REQUIRES a long extinction distance, otherwise you can't match the curves. If you will look once more at your earlier post, you -delighted- in pointing out this fact to George, as if it were some sort of wonderful discovery of yours, and you challenged George to come up with an explanation. "Well I can telll you one thing. 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....always independent of peripheral velocity. How can you explain THAT?" http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d032fc3a07d85476 Far from being a wonderful discovery, this relationship is merely one of -many- Achilles' Heels that your theory suffers from. What conceivable physical mechanism do you propose to explain this strong coupling between period and extinction distance? Does the orbiting of stars alter the very properties of space out to a distance of several light-days? > 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 > When somebody has to snip in order to change the meaning, it > is obvious they are beaten. In that case, you have repeatedly lost. 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 8 Aug 2007 18:20 On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:48:58 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Aug 7, 4:46 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: >> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:18:39 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> >> wrote: > >> >YOU wrote those words!!! >> >> Don't quote me out of context Crank. You left out the important >> bits. > >Well, well, now. ANOTHER prime example of your mendacity. I provide >a precise quote and a precise link to the exact newsgroup message >in which you made your statement, so as to make it easy for >everybody to look up the the quote and the context in which it >was made, and you accuse me of attempting to distort your words? > >Naturally, of course, you selectively deleted the link so as >to attempt to hide the fact that I provided one. > >> I was merely pointing out that distance and period are complemetary >> in the program. > >Henri, if you haven't noticed, your program is your only >definitive expression of your theory. All else is handwaving. >Extinction distance and period are indeed tightly coupled in >your program/theory for no known reason other than that is what >you need in order to make your curve fits work. Sorry Crank, it is a plain mathematical fact. You might resort to deviousness and lies but I don't have to. >> So are distance and velocity. > >> If both the period and distance are multipied by the same >> factor, the same curve results. > >Exactly. A short period REQUIRES a short extinction distance, >otherwise multiple images result. A long period REQUIRES a long >extinction distance, otherwise you can't match the curves. I will try to explain Crank. Say I produce a certain brightness curve with a magnitude change of 1, using maximum velocity 0.0001c, a distance 120LY and a period 0.4 years. Doubling the distance or velocity or halving the period will produce the same result... an increase in magnitude change to about 4. There seems to be a problem here because it suggests that extinction distance must vary with period. This is explained below. The process of extinction (light speed unification) occurs in two separate stages, which we will call 'local' and 'cosmic'. Around every mass, there exists an 'EM control sphere' that in some way affects the speed of EM in its region. This should not be likened to a gaseous atmosphere although that might make up part of it. There are probably many factors involved, eg., gravity fields and things we currently know nothing about. Local extinction is much stronger than cosmic. As roughly shown in my demo http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/emspheres.exe the local sphere around a star will move with that star if the star's orbit or pulsation period is sufficiently long. All light emitted by that star will end up traveling at about c relative to the sphere, which is itself experiencing similar orbiting or pulsating. For shorter orbit periods, the sphere's movement lags that of the star and is reduced in size. A very small period or the presence of a close companion will cause the movement of the sphere (or common spheres) to almost cease. All light leaving the vicinity will move at c plus the proper speed of the star or barycentre. A separate process causes the wavelength of accelerated light to change according to the normal doppler equation...so light emerging from a steady sphere will STILL contain the VDoppler shifts of its sources. Hence, for contact binaries, fast cepheids and probably pulsars, the observed spectral shift DO contain fairly true information about radial source speeds and thermal line broadening. For longer period cepheids, ADoppler will prevail. A distant observer will see similar brightness and velocity curves. The latter may lag in phase due to both the physical movement of the sphere and a small VDoppler contribution. The velocity variation will be considerably less than that of the luminosity due to my 'K' factor. Get it now? __________--- >If you will look once more at your earlier post, you -delighted- >in pointing out this fact to George, as if it were some sort of >wonderful discovery of yours, and you challenged George to come >up with an explanation. > >"Well I can telll you one thing. 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....always independent of peripheral velocity. >How can you explain THAT?" >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d032fc3a07d85476 > >Far from being a wonderful discovery, this relationship is >merely one of -many- Achilles' Heels that your theory suffers >from. > >What conceivable physical mechanism do you propose to explain this >strong coupling between period and extinction distance? Does >the orbiting of stars alter the very properties of space out to >a distance of several light-days? > >> 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 > >> When somebody has to snip in order to change the meaning, it >> is obvious they are beaten. > >In that case, you have repeatedly lost. I hope this shut you up for a while Crank...but I doubt if you will be able to understand what I wrote. > >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: Henri Wilson on 8 Aug 2007 18:21
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:49:29 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:16:26 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)guesswhathia.no> wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> Do we? >> We certainly know how a Michelson interferometer works...light moves at c >> throughout. >> >> ...but I am the only person in the whole world who knows how and why a sagnac >> works. > >!!!!!!!! > >Why the hell do I vaste my time on you? Vhy indeed? Maybe you like having your brain cleansed. >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. |