GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Henri Wilson on 19 Aug 2007 18:08 On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 11:17:31 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:v50fc3tgrn8pc2gsrjgl5rh9oqbivl10vi(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 08:39:11 -0700, George Dishman >> >>>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. Insults wont help your cause George. >> ..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. George, to change the subject slightly, I was thinking yesterday as I was fixing a microwave oven, "what role do photons play in a 1000mhz 10KV AC field between two electrodes?" There seems little similarity between a single photon arriving on Earth from a very distant star and the wave nature of any AC field. I think this highlights how little we really know about the physical nature of EM and 'fields' in general. There is no doubt in my mind that the really BIG questions of physics are as unanswered as they were 150 years ago. Certainy nothg Einstein did was of any assistance whatsoever. >>>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. It never worked. ......but until OWLS from a moving source is directly measured, Einstein shall probably remain a hero rather than the villian he is. >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 19 Aug 2007 18:13 On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 11:26:21 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >"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: >>>> 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. :) Calculated from brightness changes and Planck curve mode shift. >>>> 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, if I thought it would be of any use, I would try to explain ADoppler to you..... but I see you mind is closed. >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: bz on 20 Aug 2007 00:20 HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:a3fhc3l76g5b3vvi8pqgd11ruc28it495u(a)4ax.com: > > George, to change the subject slightly, I was thinking yesterday as I > was fixing a microwave oven, "what role do photons play in a 1000mhz > 10KV AC field between two electrodes?" There seems little similarity > between a single photon arriving on Earth from a very distant star and > the wave nature of any AC field. Although the 60 Hz AC driving the magnetron may peak in the KV, the 'photons' at 1 GHz have only 4.136E-6 eV of energy. The magnetron does not depend on the field being AC. The microwave just uses the magnetron as both a rectifier and a microwave oscillator. The magnetron just depends on a high voltage to drive the electrons along the spiral path from the cathode to the anode and the motion of the electron along that path excites oscillatory currents in the ring of cavities around the outside of the magnetron. Output is tapped off from one of those cavities. Semi conductors can generate the same wavelength while using a very low voltage. By the way, the path the electron takes, the fact that microwaves are generated by the motion of the electrons, and the length of time it takes for the electrons to spiral out from cathode to anode are all inconsistent with BaTH. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: George Dishman on 20 Aug 2007 03:42 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 11:17:31 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:v50fc3tgrn8pc2gsrjgl5rh9oqbivl10vi(a)4ax.com... > >> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 08:39:11 -0700, George Dishman .... > >> ..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. > > George, to change the subject slightly, I was thinking yesterday as I was > fixing a microwave oven, "what role do photons play in a 1000mhz .. Did you really mean 1Hz ? Capitals are important in specifying units so I'll gues you really meant MHz. > .. 10KV AC field > between two electrodes?" There seems little similarity between a single photon > arriving on Earth from a very distant star and the wave nature of any AC field. Indeed, but every photon from a distant star will by reflected by a grating with lines ruled on it and a microwave beam will be reflected off a grid of wires and the equation relating the angle to the spacing is identical, Maxwell's Equations apply equally well to both, both have electric and magnetic components that can be detected individually and the absoption of microwaves by molecules to heat the food obeys the rules of quantum mechanics, so whatever their nature, we know they are the same thing. QED merges the wave and particle views and predicts all of the above effects and every other known behaviour of photons perfectly. > I think this highlights how little we really know about the physical nature of > EM and 'fields' in general. It highlights how little you know perhaps, but all of the above are completely understood using QED. Henry, I have gone through all your other replies in this thread and there is no real physics in any of them, just more of your silly trolling so I'm only going to reply to this one. This is typical of what I mean: > >> 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. > > It never worked. > .....but until OWLS from a moving source is directly measured, Einstein shall > probably remain a hero rather than the villian he is. Sagnac did that measurement and the result was that the speed is the same whather the source is moving or not. Denying it is pointless Henry, everyone who looks at the experiment and applies your equation to it will get a null shift perdiction while applying SR gives the formula we discussed which is empirivcally verified. Until you change the equations of your theory, nothing you can say will alter that outcome, it is just pure maths. George
From: George Dishman on 20 Aug 2007 03:50
Henri Wilson wrote: > 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. The computer can only calulate the equation you type in. I repeat, there is nothing that describes a wave in your equation so writing a program that draws a sine wave proves nothing. Solving Maxwell's equations would give you a sine wave but as you know they do not apply in ballistic theory, and in QED you have the wave equation but in ballistic theory you have no equivalent so my point stands. > None of my old programs will run on Windows Vista...it needs > msvbvm50.dll...which I will place on he website. I will continue to use XP for some time, at least until they fix the networking problems or I buy a new router for other reasons. George |