GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Jeckyl on 15 Aug 2007 20:48 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:1vv6c31gk05nngr0c1p5eo0ad2uo6lgt46(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:35:11 -0700, George Dishman > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>sean wrote: >> >>> On 6 Aug, 08:44, George Dishman <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> > On 5 Aug, 13:45, sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> >>> ... How many times have I said that all the >>> observations of light point to it being wave like and >>> as having a propoagation speed always at c relative to the >>> source? >>> I never said its particle like . None of the evidence >>> points to it having mass or particle like properties. Thats >>> your delusion. >> >>No, that's the black-body curve, the photoelectric effect >>and many modern experiments where individual photons >>are manipulated. All the evidence points that way, but >>note that all particles have wave-like properties. Reality >>is somewhere between the two that has no counterpart >>in our macroscopic view of the world. > > What about MY photon model? It bridges the gap perfectly. More crackpot theories
From: George Dishman on 17 Aug 2007 09:19 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:1vv6c31gk05nngr0c1p5eo0ad2uo6lgt46(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:35:11 -0700, George Dishman > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>sean wrote: >>> On 6 Aug, 08:44, George Dishman <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> > On 5 Aug, 13:45, sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: .... >>> ... How many times have I said that all the >>> observations of light point to it being wave like and >>> as having a propoagation speed always at c relative to the >>> source? >>> I never said its particle like . None of the evidence >>> points to it having mass or particle like properties. Thats >>> your delusion. >> >>No, that's the black-body curve, the photoelectric effect >>and many modern experiments where individual photons >>are manipulated. All the evidence points that way, but >>note that all particles have wave-like properties. Reality >>is somewhere between the two that has no counterpart >>in our macroscopic view of the world. > > What about MY photon model? You don't have a photon model, all you have ever posted is a single equation which I could write as v=u+c where v is the inital velocity of the light and u is the velocity of the source. All three are vectors. I added to that dv/ds=(c/n-v)/R where n is the refractive index and R is a characteristic distance for your hand-waving "speed equalisation" idea because you couldn't express it scientifically. Both relate to the speed of classical waves. You have never posted any equations that are particle based so you have no such theory. In fact I have been allowing you to infer a wave-like nature for the signal but pedantically your equations don't even describe that so technically you don't have a model that can even explain simple interference. One day you should try that, you'll find it harder than you expect. George
From: George Dishman on 18 Aug 2007 06:01 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:66fsb3p7sehlcrlfohmmf7obl1nll6ei27(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:33:32 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>news:gu6nb35pmkh8hje75gu65hil4e9hc4ed4t(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 08:30:15 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>> Yes for very close distances that is correct....but for nearly all >>> distant >>> stars with periods greater than a few days, the VDoppler term is >>> negligible. >> >>No, VDoppler is dominant in every case we have examined. > > George, I can teach you physics but I cannot force you to learn. You don't know any physics to start with, all of your work is badly flawed. The conclusion above is one we derived using your own program and which you agreed for two out of three cases (pulsars and contact binaries) and is also true of Cepheids if you model them correctly. >>> I thought I made it clear that the VDoppler contribution will determine >>> the phase shift between velocity and brightnes curves. >> >>No, you have been saying that velocity and luminosity >>(not brightness) should be almost the same shape and >>in phase. In fact the ratio of the two components >>determines the phase but ADoppler is always negligible >>in the real systems we have examined. > > You haven't examined many at all George. I've looked at hundreds... You have looked at hundreds - and always modelled the temperature variation wrongly thinking it was that caused by ballistic effects. > and they are > mainly ADoppler derived. Model the velocity curve then compare with the radius curve and you will find every one is VDoppler only. You have been producing worthless matches to the wrong parameter for all these years. George
From: Henri Wilson on 18 Aug 2007 19:28 On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:01:01 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:66fsb3p7sehlcrlfohmmf7obl1nll6ei27(a)4ax.com... >>>> Yes for very close distances that is correct....but for nearly all >>>> distant >>>> stars with periods greater than a few days, the VDoppler term is >>>> negligible. >>> >>>No, VDoppler is dominant in every case we have examined. >> >> George, I can teach you physics but I cannot force you to learn. > >You don't know any physics to start with, all >of your work is badly flawed. The conclusion >above is one we derived using your own program >and which you agreed for two out of three cases >(pulsars and contact binaries) and is also true >of Cepheids if you model them correctly. see...you cannot learn anything. >>>> I thought I made it clear that the VDoppler contribution will determine >>>> the phase shift between velocity and brightnes curves. >>> >>>No, you have been saying that velocity and luminosity >>>(not brightness) should be almost the same shape and >>>in phase. In fact the ratio of the two components >>>determines the phase but ADoppler is always negligible >>>in the real systems we have examined. >> >> You haven't examined many at all George. I've looked at hundreds... > >You have looked at hundreds - and always modelled >the temperature variation wrongly thinking it was >that caused by ballistic effects. YOU certainly do not know the true temperature variation. >> and they are >> mainly ADoppler derived. > >Model the velocity curve then compare with the >radius curve and you will find every one is VDoppler >only. You have been producing worthless matches to >the wrong parameter for all these years. Keep whining and whingeing George. I'll just keep on with the discoveries.. >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: Henri Wilson on 18 Aug 2007 19:28
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:19:38 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:1vv6c31gk05nngr0c1p5eo0ad2uo6lgt46(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:35:11 -0700, George Dishman >>>No, that's the black-body curve, the photoelectric effect >>>and many modern experiments where individual photons >>>are manipulated. All the evidence points that way, but >>>note that all particles have wave-like properties. Reality >>>is somewhere between the two that has no counterpart >>>in our macroscopic view of the world. >> >> What about MY photon model? > >You don't have a photon model, all you have ever >posted is a single equation which I could write as >v=u+c where v is the inital velocity of the light >and u is the velocity of the source. All three are >vectors. I added to that dv/ds=(c/n-v)/R where n is >the refractive index and R is a characteristic >distance for your hand-waving "speed equalisation" >idea because you couldn't express it scientifically. >Both relate to the speed of classical waves. You have >never posted any equations that are particle based so >you have no such theory. > >In fact I have been allowing you to infer a wave-like >nature for the signal but pedantically your equations >don't even describe that so technically you don't have >a model that can even explain simple interference. One >day you should try that, you'll find it harder than >you expect. see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/e-field.exe > >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. |