GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Henri Wilson on 23 Aug 2007 20:19 On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 09:48:02 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:keapc39d4c5rnr6i436g0n1bg9vns5hc4a(a)4ax.com... >>>> You don't even understand the role of emission delay time. >>> >>>Yes I do, but you told me you omitted it from your >>>program because it is negligible. >> >> No. I omitted the travel time across the orbit. > >I thought that was what you meant by "emission delay >time". If not, what are you referring to? > >>>> You don't include da/dt... >>> >>>If you understood schoolboy calculus, you would >>>know that da/dt has no effect. >> >> It has a huge effect on the brightness curve shape. > >None at all. I set you a simple algebra problem >in another post. Do that and you will learn why. I didn't see it. ..but I saw other evidence of your 'maths ability'. > >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: sean on 24 Aug 2007 00:45 On 15 Aug, 01:02, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 06:30:28 -0700, sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> 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: > > >> > On 4 Aug, 18:02, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> > > "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in > > >messagenews: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. > >Maybe what you want to talk about is Ritz. But Im not > >and never have. Thats your disinformation at work as usual. > >Ritz was just another failed theorist like Lorentz or > >Einstein so why should I promote his failed concept > >of light being a particle? Like SR it doesnt explain MMx > >or sagnac. > > Now you really ARE talking nonsense. > The MMX null result is obviously a direct result of light moving at c wrt > everything in the apparaus frame. You dont seem to understand what Im suggesting here. Im am suggesting that light *does* move at c wrt to the apparatus dUH! What I was clarifying above was that SR, when it tries to explain sagnac, predicts that light *shouldnt* move at c wrt any rotating source. And what you also seem to fail to understand is that the source in the MMx is doing the same thing as the source in sagnac....Its rotating!! THerefore technically SR cannot explain MMx unless it admits that light in sagnac IS also moving at c wrt the source. And SR doesnt allow light to move at c wrt the source in sagnac. So its a contradiction in SR that it says light can and cannot move at c wrt any rotating source. And any theory is scientifically acceptable only if it makes the same prediction for any frame. Not two contradictory ones like SR. > >What Im talking about is a model of light that is > >based on all the classical *wavelike * observations > >of light... thats wave...not a particle! > > >( I dont know ,Maybe not.) > >> > 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 > >Your obvious interpretation of a flawed theory like Ritzs > >maybe. But Im not suggesting that light should have particle > >like properties arent I? Why dont you try reading my posts > >for a change. 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. > > All evidence points to it being a long narrow particle with an intrinsic > oscillation that moves along with it. A photon is like a self contained > 'package of fields' that oscillates and initially self propagates losslessly at > c wrt its source. All evidence. Not likely . Most if not all evidence points to light being a wave only. Can a photon describe a interference pattern? No. On 15 Aug, 01:48, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 06:34:38 -0700, sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >On 6 Aug, 01:43, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: > >> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 07:58:27 -0700, sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >On 4 Aug, 00:27, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: > >> >When that single infinitely small point > >> >hits > >> >the mirror the corresponding time for this instance is...0 seconds. > >> >Which means that theoretically the only possible way to describe > >> >this on a simulation is to have the mirror at that point in space and > >> >time to be travelling at speed 0. THe reflection is calculated at > >> >that point > >> >and the incident angle has to be the same as the reflected angle. > >> >Anything else would mean that a theoretical infinitely small point in > >> >space has length. Which is a contradiction. An impossibilty > >> >So one has to assume that incident angle=reflected angle > > >> Forget all about it. Photons are long. They have a field structure and > >> intrinsic oscillations. > >You dont have to think of emr as a stream of photons. Classical wave > >model does just as well describing all observed properties of light as > >a wave pattern propagating through space at c relative to any source. > >Without the downsides of having to explain the magic of wave particle > >duality. And classical wave only propagation can also explain sagnac > >and > >MMx as well as my simulations show at... > >http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb > > Not so Sean. Classical wave theory went out with the P.E. effect. Only if you dont study the data. But if you look at statistical data from the classic Grangier coincidence experiment youll see that in fact the P.E effect is better modeled statistically by classical wave only propagation. Then again if you like to fake your data and ignore the evidence then maybe a photon theory is better for your purposes > My model of photons explains everything. Photons are like long cigars with > pointed ends. They consist of the 'stuff that fields require to exist'. They > have a lossless standing wave structure moving along their lengths and > producing a spatial pattern that corresponds to what we know as 'wavelength'. > Photons are normally many wavelengths in length except for VFL. Frequebcy is > the rate at which wavecrests arrive at an observer. > Photons are emitted at c wrt their source because of local Maxwellian > conditions. That speed can change as they traverse space. Any change is > accompanied by a similar change in wavelength. > > In a rotating sagnac, each photon axis is not aligned with its direction of > travel. So each 'end' strikes the mirrors at slightly different points, > resulting in reflection angles and path lengths that are different for hte two > rays. > One day I will illustrate this with a computer simulation. You dont have to. I already have at http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb Notice that the path difference for a wave only simulation is consistent with the observed fringe shift observed in sagnac. In other words you dont need photons henri. Waves at c wrt source do the job just fine. Now the big question is; are you capable of making a mathematically correct simulation of a rotating sagnac experiment? Probably not. Thats why you pretend that youll do it "sometime in the future" Like George you know its difficult to simulate. Sean For mathematically correct simulations showing how wave only classical model can describe sagnac and gammaraybursts see.. http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb www.gammarayburst.com
From: George Dishman on 24 Aug 2007 05:07 "sean" <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1187930747.005985.181660(a)i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com... .... > What I was clarifying above was that SR, when it tries to explain > sagnac, predicts that light *shouldnt* move at c wrt any rotating > source. Bear in mind it says it is _emitted_ at c in an inertial frame momentarily co-moving with the source. > THerefore technically SR cannot explain MMx unless it admits that light > in sagnac IS also moving at c wrt the source. And SR doesnt allow light to > move at c wrt the source in sagnac. Not true, you are making the mistake of over-simplifying as Henry does. You need to learn what SR really says before you will be in a position to criticise it. George
From: George Dishman on 24 Aug 2007 05:19 "Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:7e8sc353mr8ebrv6bfoarfi9k3b9mh51fg(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 09:44:42 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>news:l6apc3lqj6vq6po55v5p7nh33apjf4a34u(a)4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 23:59:27 -0700, George Dishman >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 00:42:44 -0700, George Dishman >>>>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> >Henri Wilson wrote: >>... >>>>> >> 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. >>>>> >>>>> I meant what I said. ...a 1000 mhz AC .. >>>> >>>>Then your question is meaningless, there is no unit >>>>spelt "hz". >>> >>> stop quibbling. >> >>If you meant 1000 MHz, that is right order >>of magnitude for a microwave oven, they are >>around 2 GHz. If you meant 1000 mHz, that >>is only 1Hz. A difference of 10^9 is hardly >>a quibble, and if you knew any physics you >>would have understood the importance and >>been careful to write either 1Hz or 1GHz. > > You know what I meant. Even eric geese wouldn't be stupid enough to write > '1000 > millihertz'.....on second thoughts he would be..... He wouldn't be stupid enough to write 1000 MHz if he meant 1 GHz either and if he mad a typo and wrote "hz" instead of "Hz" making the case of the "m" ambiguous, I am sure he would clarify it when asked and definitely wouldn't say "I meant what I said. ...a 1000 mhz AC ..". >>However, whether you meant 1Hz or 1GHz, the >>energy is in packets of E = h.nu, you just >>get 10^9 more packets for your joule at 1Hz. > > George, we have electric fields in the GHz range. Photons are emitted. Photons constitute those fields, yes. > Where is the connection between the field 'frequency' and the photon > 'wavelength'? wavelength = speed / frequency > You dont even have a model that can define 'frequency of a photon'. Q.E.D. Q.E.D. >>>>> .. EM signal between two electrrodes. >>>> >>>>> I'm asking what role 'photons' play in this. >>>> >>>>All EM signals consist of photons regardless of >>>>frequency and they "play the same role" in every >>>>case. >>> >>> How? >> >>The energy is delivered in discrete amounts, >>not continuously. There is a steady flow of >>these in such large numbers that it appears >>continuous even though it isn't. We call that >>_apparent_ mean effect of that flow a "field", >>but it is only a statistical average in reality. > > See neother you nor anyone else really knows anything about the > relationship > between photons and generated electric 'waves'.. The electric field is defined by the force on a particle compared to its charge. Force is rate of change of momentum so the field strength is a measure of the rate at which momentum is transferred to a particle by the photons. > At leat I have a model that seems to work. Not really, it fails all the experimental tests. >>A difference >>given by c+v in the third frame from which you >>describe the two stars is consistent with SR, it >>is nothing more than simple algebra. > > ....and the same algebra used by BaTh to simulate brightness curves. No ballistic theory says the difference between the source speed and that of the light emitted from the source is "c in the third frame". > Now do you see why I'm right George? Yes, you imagine "c+v in the third frame" is the same as "c in the third frame". In your fantasy world I guess anything is possible. George
From: bz on 24 Aug 2007 04:55
HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:4u7sc3hvse14n4tvil7nh1kvb3chcandeq(a)4ax.com: > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:55:25 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:j1apc3lg5apq7korvk22n38lme7u12pvuc(a)4ax.com: ..... > >>The electrons transfer energy into the cavities, like air blowing over >>the hole in a flute. Those cavities 'ring' at 1000 MHz. >>One of the cavities has a probe that couples energy into the wave guide. >>The 1000 MHz photons don't really exist until they are launched from the >>'transmitting antenna' end of the wave guide. Before that, you just have >>electric and magnetic fields traveling along together. > > So what is a 'field' made of bob? Energy. >>Each photons carries 6.625e-25 Joules of energy so you create 1.5E25 >>photons per second when you are nuking your hardboiled eggs. Each photon >>has a wavelength of 11.8 inches. > > That still doesn't really tell us much about how the photons actually > originate or what they are doing whilst still inside the cavity. > What makes a 1GHz photon different from a gamma particle? Wavelength. Energy. Frequency. Generating processes. Or relative velocity of the source; a 1 GHz Microwave source moving toward us at a sufficient velocity would be Doppler shifted so as to appear to be a gamma source. -- 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 |