GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Henri Wilson on 18 Aug 2007 19:29 On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 08:39:11 -0700, George Dishman <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:21:07 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:k77nb3tqiivi90hjf5oh70nnb3irn560hb(a)4ax.com... >> >> >> >> ... Think about the reflections from each moving mirror. >> > >> >The incident speed is c so the reflected speed is >> >c, it does not explain the difference in arrival >> >times. We covered that in February 2004 from the >> >file date of this! >> >> We werer wrong. At that stage, I had not realised the significance of the >> 'photon axis tilt'. >> My conclusion, Light DOES NOT reflect at the incident speed and angle from a >> moving mirror. >> >> > http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/speed.gif >> >> Yes it is wrong. >. >Then you need to change the equations of ballistic theory >to predict a different reflected speed and angle. It will not be easy because it requires an estimate of the 'length' of a photon, (number of wavelengths) >Those new >equations might mean you need to rework your grating >analysis as well but hopefully you'll get the same answer. It should not affect the grating equation if the incident light is normal to the grating. The grating isn't moving anyway. >Let me know when your new theory is ready but don't worry, >I won't be holding my breath. I think you are interested George...because you know that there is no current explanation that works. >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: George Dishman on 19 Aug 2007 06:17 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:v50fc3tgrn8pc2gsrjgl5rh9oqbivl10vi(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 08:39:11 -0700, George Dishman > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>Henri Wilson wrote: >>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:21:07 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>> >news:k77nb3tqiivi90hjf5oh70nnb3irn560hb(a)4ax.com... >>> >> >>> >> ... Think about the reflections from each moving mirror. >>> > >>> >The incident speed is c so the reflected speed is >>> >c, it does not explain the difference in arrival >>> >times. We covered that in February 2004 from the >>> >file date of this! >>> >>> We werer wrong. At that stage, I had not realised the significance of >>> the >>> 'photon axis tilt'. >>> My conclusion, Light DOES NOT reflect at the incident speed and angle >>> from a >>> moving mirror. >>> >>> > http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/speed.gif >>> >>> Yes it is wrong. >>. > >>Then you need to change the equations of ballistic theory >>to predict a different reflected speed and angle. > > It will not be easy .. Strange then that in another of your posts I replied to a few minutes ago, you told me the result you had obtained. You are a fraud Henry. > ..because it requires an estimate of the 'length' of a > photon, (number of wavelengths) Not a problem, if you are treating it as a particle it has no length. >>Those new >>equations might mean you need to rework your grating >>analysis as well but hopefully you'll get the same answer. > > It should not affect the grating equation if the incident light is normal > to > the grating. The grating isn't moving anyway. Then it won't affect the mirror either. >>Let me know when your new theory is ready but don't worry, >>I won't be holding my breath. > > I think you are interested George...because you know that there is no > current > explanation that works. Don't try to troll Henry, you're not smart enough. SR works perfectly, as you well know. George
From: George Dishman on 19 Aug 2007 06:19 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:vfqec31dbiumolbb3uig9i0l5gmcaf8a3h(a)4ax.com... > 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 I'm not interested in exe files - where do I see your mathematical derivation? George
From: George Dishman on 19 Aug 2007 06:26 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:b6qec3dg4nkf9lses1v3stns1acfrq338c(a)4ax.com... > 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. Your own program told us that and you agreed it. You seem to conveniently forget any result that you derive that proves your handwaving was wrong. >>>>> 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. I'm not a professional astronomer, but they DO know and I can understand the papers. Typically the variation is ~1000K. >>> 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.. You're the one claiming to be able to model the curve Henry, I'll just keep pointing out that you cannot do so without proving that the cause is VDoppler, not ADoppler which is why you always refuse to make the attempt. George
From: Henri Wilson on 19 Aug 2007 17:55
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 11:19:26 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:vfqec31dbiumolbb3uig9i0l5gmcaf8a3h(a)4ax.com... >>>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 > >I'm not interested in exe files - where do I see >your mathematical derivation? This is an animation. The computer does the maths.That's what computers are for George. None of my old programs will run on Windows Vista...it needs msvbvm50.dll...which I will place on he website. http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe does work however. Trust microsoft to deliberately make things obsolete so we have to upgrade. The latest VBasic is useless for my purposes. It's as difficult as Java. >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. |