GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 29 Sep 2007 18:43 On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 14:23:51 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:5amdf3tiaiqgth380f9kmevr70ce8a62ss(a)4ax.com... >> The concept of 'field strength' in space is a rather nebulous thing. An >> electric field is a mathematical construct that describes how unit charge >> would >> ACCELERATE if placed in that field at a certain point. > >The definition of a field is not nebulous in any sense >at all. I already gave you the definition which you >essentially just repeated. > >> ...but in what direction would the charge accelerate? Would it move >> towards the >> origin or towards the point of maximum opposite field. > >The field at any point is a vector, the charge >accelerates in the direction specified by the value >of the field. As you said, the value is how the >charge would accelerate which is a vector divided >by the charge which is scalar giving a vector >result. George, a field exists whether or not it accelerates a charge. As a physicist, it is my business to investigate what makes a field, not just how it interacts with a charge. >> Would it move towards the >> origin or towards the point of maximum opposite field. >> The graph we normally see drawn with Maxwell's concept of EM is pretty >> useless >> if you think about it. > >For a philosopher perhaps, but if you understand the >principles of physics, the value of the field tells >you everything you need to know. Typical relativist...think he has all the answers. >>>If not there would be a beat and you would get a >>>sine wave envelope. What I have described so far >>>matches your "moving oboe" analogy. >> >> Except that the oboe will change length during an acceleration. > >Your diagram illustrates constant velocity and I was >discussing that. Once you analyse that, you could >apply an acceleration and it would make predictions. Just assume it shrinks during an acceleration...but the movement between ends quickly dampens out. >> ...but the velocity of the intrinsic wave wrt the 'package' isn't >> ncesssarily >> related to the speed of the package itself...wrt anything... > >Right, it is most probable the speed of the underlying >waves would need to be much higher and the observed >speed is the smaller fractional difference between >the speeds of the left and right propagating parts. > >> ...or maybe there IS some kind of not very obvious connection that needs >> explaining.... > >It is close to a beat but more complex. That could be true. >>>No, in the frame in which it is drawn >> >> I'm not sure what you re getting at. > >I was agreeing. In the frame of the photon, the >envelope doesn't propagate, it essentially _is_ >the photon, however what I said is true in the >frame from which you drew the illustration. > >> In the photon frame there are two waves traveling in oposite directions. > >That is also true in the frame of the illustration >but there is an anisotropy, probably in the speeds, >which results in the motion of the envelope. THis is indeedpossible.. A photon is capable of self-propagation...without losing energy ...or not much anyway. ....or maybe the photon just starts out at c wrt its source and would stay around that speed except for extinction effects. >>>>>Once you do the maths for all that, you will find you >>>>>don't have an intrinsic frequency but two broadband >>>>>signals with continuous frequencies, not discrete and >>>>>anisotropic dispersion. >>>> >>>> No, you're way off beam George. >>> >>>If you look it up on the web, you should be able to >>>find the Fourier Transform of your envelope. You might >>>have some luck if you look up "windowing functions" in >>>the DSP (digital signal processing) field as they are >>>crucial in handling non-repetitive waveforms. >>> >>>> ....think of a photon as something like a pulsting water >>>> droplet...distorted >>>> into a pointed cigar shape. >>> >>>Sure, but then you Fourier transform it to find the >>>components. >> >> ...but that has nothing to do with he speed of the waves relative to >> anything >> external. > >No, it has to do with frequencies. Your illustration >doesn't have a single "absolute" frequency or wavelength >as you described in other posts, it is a continuum of >frequencies. It has 'wavelength'...the absolute distance between the wave peaks. Frequency, as we know it, is the rate at which those peaks arrive. >>> >>>It is the mirror that moves at c+v, the pretty pattern >>>behind it is irrelevant, and without another mirror >>>following behind, you need continuous power from the >>>source. The whole thing is nuts, but you could learn >>>a lot about Fourier analysis by ignoring that flaw and >>>working through the maths. Most of it you can find done >>>for you on the web. >> >> I don't know what you are talking about. >> >> What mirror? 'c+v' wrt what? > >Your pattern needs waves moving in both directions. >The "mirror" is whatever you propose reflects the >the wave going away from the source back towards it. >You haven't said anything about that yet. The intention was to illustrate Maxwell's model. I still have a pretty open mind about the nature of photons. I still reckon they might just be a spinning pair of charges....in which case the field strength tapers off with distance away. After all, there are lots of charges around. >"c+v" is the normal sense of the phrase in ballistic >theory, the speed at which the measurable energy >conveyed by the packet travels. The envelope that >you have drawn is what moves at c+v in ballistic >theory, not the underlying sine waves from which >it is constructed. Sure. I say there is no connection between the intrinsic wave and say, an RF signal. Mind you, it would really matter if there was a connection. It would throw some light on the problem. >George > Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 29 Sep 2007 18:44 On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 09:45:53 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:hb2rf3hpkqi1ml3heo5jb25uggoso2v904(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:13:55 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >[regarding ESO's measurement of the radius of L Car:] > >>>.. the fact that the area changes by 26% and >>>the luminosity by 35% (IIRC) tells me that is >>>the dominant effect in K band. >> >> pure speculation...it doesn't happen. > >Pure measurement, and ballistic theory says the >method is valid. I told you of this several >weeks ago so you have had ample time to look >for a flaw and you have found none. Stop whining >and deal with it. George, you were wrong about Sagnac. Why should I believe anything you say? >George > Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: George Dishman on 1 Oct 2007 16:41 "Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:59ltf39pjhitk2rbpegdsvaiiq0dgb0iei(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 09:45:53 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>news:hb2rf3hpkqi1ml3heo5jb25uggoso2v904(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:13:55 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >>[regarding ESO's measurement of the radius of L Car:] >> >>>>.. the fact that the area changes by 26% and >>>>the luminosity by 35% (IIRC) tells me that is >>>>the dominant effect in K band. >>> >>> pure speculation...it doesn't happen. >> >>Pure measurement, and ballistic theory says the >>method is valid. I told you of this several >>weeks ago so you have had ample time to look >>for a flaw and you have found none. Stop whining >>and deal with it. > > George, you were wrong about Sagnac. Your page was plagiarised from my post of November 2005 and you state on your page that the times are equal as that post proved while your own minor addition to that is wrong. > Why should I believe anything you say? Because you can apply ballistic theory to the method as easily as I, and confirm for yourself that I am right as I was about the travel time in the Sagnac experiment. George
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 1 Oct 2007 16:57 On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 21:41:16 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >news:59ltf39pjhitk2rbpegdsvaiiq0dgb0iei(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 09:45:53 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >>>news:hb2rf3hpkqi1ml3heo5jb25uggoso2v904(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:13:55 +0100, "George Dishman" >>>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>[regarding ESO's measurement of the radius of L Car:] >>> >>>>>.. the fact that the area changes by 26% and >>>>>the luminosity by 35% (IIRC) tells me that is >>>>>the dominant effect in K band. >>>> >>>> pure speculation...it doesn't happen. >>> >>>Pure measurement, and ballistic theory says the >>>method is valid. I told you of this several >>>weeks ago so you have had ample time to look >>>for a flaw and you have found none. Stop whining >>>and deal with it. >> >> George, you were wrong about Sagnac. > >Your page was plagiarised from my post of November 2005 and you state on >your >page that the times are equal as that post >proved while your own minor addition to that >is wrong. > >> Why should I believe anything you say? > >Because you can apply ballistic theory to the >method as easily as I, and confirm for yourself >that I am right as I was about the travel time >in the Sagnac experiment. George, Have a look at: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro1.jpg It shows what a farce SR really is. The Sagnac effect has nothing whatsoever to do with Einstein''s relativity. >George > Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: George Dishman on 2 Oct 2007 05:57
On 1 Oct, 21:57, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 21:41:16 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message > >news:59ltf39pjhitk2rbpegdsvaiiq0dgb0iei(a)4ax.com... > >> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 09:45:53 +0100, "George Dishman" > >> <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>>"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message > >>>news:hb2rf3hpkqi1ml3heo5jb25uggoso2v904(a)4ax.com... > >>>> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:13:55 +0100, "George Dishman" > >>>> <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > >>>[regarding ESO's measurement of the radius of L Car:] > > >>>>>.. the fact that the area changes by 26% and > >>>>>the luminosity by 35% (IIRC) tells me that is > >>>>>the dominant effect in K band. > > >>>> pure speculation...it doesn't happen. > > >>>Pure measurement, and ballistic theory says the > >>>method is valid. I told you of this several > >>>weeks ago so you have had ample time to look > >>>for a flaw and you have found none. Stop whining > >>>and deal with it. > > >> George, you were wrong about Sagnac. > > >Your page was plagiarised from my post of November 2005 and you state on > >your > >page that the times are equal as that post > >proved while your own minor addition to that > >is wrong. > > >> Why should I believe anything you say? > > >Because you can apply ballistic theory to the > >method as easily as I, and confirm for yourself > >that I am right as I was about the travel time > >in the Sagnac experiment. > > George, Have a look at:www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro1.jpg It is OK as far as the calculation of time difference, below that it is wrong because you used the wavelength instead of the distance moved by the wave in a period. > It shows what a farce SR really is. It shows that you cannot do schoolboy algebra. George |