GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Henri Wilson on 6 Sep 2007 19:13 On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 00:52:49 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tms(a)nj.net> wrote: >T.M. Sommers wrote: >> Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>> ADoppler DOES exist. George merely wants it to go quietly away so his >>> faith > >>> be of the same order as the observed brightness variations. >>> My theory says that photons DO contract and extend due to this source >>> acceleration and these effects are roughly in phase with the macroscopic >>> bunching...... BUT the changes are reduced markedly by a factor 'K', >>> which may >>> be of the order 10^-5. >> >> That sounds like a fudge factor to me. What is the theoretical >> justification for K? >> >>> This appears logical because, whilst there appears to be >>> NO restriction on the way aligned photons might move wrt each other, >>> photons >>> are likely to resist 'compression ' and extension like an conventional >>> elastic >>> material. >> >> Are you saying that photons are not points but have extent and some >> internal structure, or are you just talking about wavelength? If photons were nothing but 'points' they wouldn't be photons... >Are you going to answer these questions, Henri? No, they're too stupid... 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 7 Sep 2007 04:32 On 24 Aug, 16:34, Randy Poe <poespam-t...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 24, 12:45 am, sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > All evidence. Not likely . Most if not all evidence points > > to light being a wave only. > > You mean all those photon detectors aren't real? Did I say they werent real? No. You did Look at the thread `what evidence photons` from a few years ago. In it I show that one can mechanically explain the apparent particle like effects in a pmt and I can statistically describe to a better accuracy the observed results of incident `photons` than even QT can. > > Can a photon describe a interference > > pattern? > > No. > > Yes. I was reffering to the photon as a particle but.. If you think about it a particle cannot describe a interference pattern can it? Try getting one from a stream of billiard balls. In fact the only way a photon can describe a interference pattern is to pretend it is a wave at times. In other words a photons particle properties cannot describe interference . Its wave properties do. Which means that in fact wave theory describes interference patterns. Not photons or particles Sean www.gammarayburst.com
From: T.M. Sommers on 7 Sep 2007 14:21 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 00:52:49 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <tms(a)nj.net> wrote: >>T.M. Sommers wrote: >>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>> >>>>ADoppler DOES exist. George merely wants it to go quietly away so his >>>>faith >>> >>>>be of the same order as the observed brightness variations. >>>>My theory says that photons DO contract and extend due to this source >>>>acceleration and these effects are roughly in phase with the macroscopic >>>>bunching...... BUT the changes are reduced markedly by a factor 'K', >>>>which may >>>>be of the order 10^-5. >>> >>>That sounds like a fudge factor to me. What is the theoretical >>>justification for K? >>> >>>>This appears logical because, whilst there appears to be >>>>NO restriction on the way aligned photons might move wrt each other, >>>>photons >>>>are likely to resist 'compression ' and extension like an conventional >>>>elastic >>>>material. >>> >>>Are you saying that photons are not points but have extent and some >>>internal structure, or are you just talking about wavelength? > > If photons were nothing but 'points' they wouldn't be photons... What does that mean? >>Are you going to answer these questions, Henri? > > No, they're too stupid... No, they aren't stupid. They are the kind of questions anyone should be able to answer about a proposed theory. I can only conclude that you are unwilling to answer the questions because the answers will reveal that your theory is plain wrong. > The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell. Since you clearly have nothing to "sell", you must be a preacher. -- Thomas M. Sommers -- tms(a)nj.net -- AB2SB
From: Randy Poe on 7 Sep 2007 15:00 On Sep 6, 7:13 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 00:52:49 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <t...(a)nj.net> wrote: > >T.M. Sommers wrote: > >> Are you saying that photons are not points but have extent and some > >> internal structure, or are you just talking about wavelength? > > If photons were nothing but 'points' they wouldn't be photons... This sounds like a theorem or postulate you've added to standard physics. Can you point to something in the definition of photon that says such a thing? - Randy
From: Androcles on 7 Sep 2007 15:26
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1189191636.801964.202210(a)d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... : On Sep 6, 7:13 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: : > On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 00:52:49 -0400, "T.M. Sommers" <t...(a)nj.net> wrote: : > >T.M. Sommers wrote: : > >> Are you saying that photons are not points but have extent and some : > >> internal structure, or are you just talking about wavelength? : > : > If photons were nothing but 'points' they wouldn't be photons... : : This sounds like a theorem or postulate you've added to : standard physics. Can you point to something in the definition : of photon that says such a thing? : : - Randy Sure. How far part must the two slits of Young's double slit experiment be so that the photon only goes through one slit? determine that and you've determined the size of a photon. |