OWLS is not equal to c
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus?
Next: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
From: George Dishman on 28 Jun 2005 16:31 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:lc81c1hrmtn54q76h6ub2sr3o2reg2c0vr(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 20:26:32 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: Original context restored: {I wrote:] >>>>>>>>I can only go on what I see. What you wrote >>>>>>>>displays a complete lack of understanding >>>>>>>>of basic SR. [Henri wrote:] >>>>>>> Here we go! YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course I understand SR. >>... Your efforts to convince me >>that you understand SR are not going well. >>I've left your previous attempts quoted >>for your review. > > Please provide YOUR explanation. Don't be silly: >>>>My ability to answer wouldn't prove _you_ >>>>understood SR which is the claim you made: [Henri wrote:] >>>>>>> Here we go! YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course I understand SR. >>> Everybody else in brainwashed into believing that all starlight travel >>> at >>> c wrt >>> little planet Earth. >> >>Trying to divert the conversation to a >>trivial strawman isn't going to cover >>up your inability to demonstrate any >>understanding of SR. In fact if I were >>to imagine you were serious, it would >>just prove my point beyond any shadow >>of doubt. > > George it isn't very hard to understand SR. I know, but so far you have only proved that you have never made the attempt and consequently never have understood it. Only you can convince me otherwise, but later you admit what everyone has been telling you: > I don't want to even consider the SR explanation. Obviously. That's why your criticisms are invariably aimed at nonsensical strawmen. George
From: George Dishman on 28 Jun 2005 16:45 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:em71c11qaa9e6f0j4eu2gv40hack2ee3l6(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 20:47:32 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:csfub19h5q9rhh1b3vm56o6ra72end90ho(a)4ax.com... .... >>> No George, we are talking about the momentum GAINED by the object >>> causing >>> the >>> bending of the light. where does THAT come from? >> >>Energy = force * distance. How far do you >>think a photon displaces a galaxy? If you >>don't do the maths, your suggestions have >>a high risk of being ludicrously wrong. > > Light would not move a galaxy very far but the momentum gained by the > light is > still equal to that gained by the galaxy. Yes but momentum is proportional to speed while energy is proportional to the square hence the energy lost in an interaction with a galaxy is negligible. The temperature of the gas associated with it is more significant, but lay that aside for the time being, because: > Whenever light passes close to an atom, it is deflected and so is the > atom....by a very small amount...but there are lots of atoms in a million > LYs > of 'empty' space. That's a much more sensible suggestion. However, it will suffer from the usual problem that the energy loss must be associated with a momentum change as you said, hence it would cause blurring of the image of distant objects. I've done the sums for Compton scattering but hadn't considered the gravitational equivalent so that might be interesting to research. Thanks for the idea Henri :-) [context replaced again:] >>>>> I doubt if the majority of scientists now supports the BB concept. .... >>>>Novae are observed regularly but since >>>>those are explosions in space, they have >>>>no relevance to Big Bang theory so how >>>>does that justify your bizarre claim >>>>regarding the "majority of scientists"? >>> >>> there will be the occasional super-super-nova >> >>Equally irrelevant, what is your >>justification for your claim about the >>support of the "majority" of scientists? > > I read it somewhere. No Henri, you just made it up. Bullshit as usual. >>The CMBR, its angular power spectrum, elemental >>abundances and a number of other independent >>observations all tell the same story whether >>we like it or not. Personally, I find a >>creation model surprising but I'm not going >>to discard reality out of prejudice. YMMV. > > What do you gain by accepting the BB idea? Nothing. True, the universe isn't there for my gain. The measurements tell me that's the way it is whether I want to accept it or not. George
From: George Dishman on 28 Jun 2005 16:51 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:r781c1hq882kl0tl7p1lj089gi0a24u5k5(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 20:52:00 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:o8gub1df8p1bq7r8mig20dd9210e0q4aeb(a)4ax.com... >>... >>> The BaT stands up to all tests and criticism. >> >>Nope, you cannot derive the equation for >>the Sagnac experiment from BaT. It gives >>a predicted null result so fails that test. >>There's no point continually repeating this >>lie Henri, I'll expose it every time. > > Photons are intrinsically sensitive to rotation. That's my answer. It's technobabble and irrelevant since you are already aware that the behaviour of the interferometer in the Sagnac experiment can be predicted by the classical method. At least your having to resort to a comment like that shows the effort we have put in has demonstrated to you that none of the other "explanations" you came up with worked. Sagnac falsifies Ritz's ballistic theory (BaT) and you don't have an alternative. George
From: Henri Wilson on 28 Jun 2005 21:39 On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:45:58 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:em71c11qaa9e6f0j4eu2gv40hack2ee3l6(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 20:47:32 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>>news:csfub19h5q9rhh1b3vm56o6ra72end90ho(a)4ax.com... >... >>>> No George, we are talking about the momentum GAINED by the object >>>> causing >>>> the >>>> bending of the light. where does THAT come from? >>> >>>Energy = force * distance. How far do you >>>think a photon displaces a galaxy? If you >>>don't do the maths, your suggestions have >>>a high risk of being ludicrously wrong. >> >> Light would not move a galaxy very far but the momentum gained by the >> light is >> still equal to that gained by the galaxy. > >Yes but momentum is proportional to speed >while energy is proportional to the square >hence the energy lost in an interaction >with a galaxy is negligible. Yes. >The temperature >of the gas associated with it is more >significant, but lay that aside for the >time being, because: > >> Whenever light passes close to an atom, it is deflected and so is the >> atom....by a very small amount...but there are lots of atoms in a million >> LYs >> of 'empty' space. > >That's a much more sensible suggestion. >However, it will suffer from the usual >problem that the energy loss must be >associated with a momentum change as >you said, hence it would cause blurring >of the image of distant objects. Not necessarily. Deflection should even out over any significant distacne. I imagine a photon as a long pointed cigar shaped object moving rapidly through space. Every time it passes an atom, that atom is drawn very slightly towards it. The associated energy can only come from the photon. The photon will also be deflected but after passing lots of atoms will end up in the same basic direction. It will travel in a very slight zig-zag path, losing a little energy at every direction change. >I've >done the sums for Compton scattering but >hadn't considered the gravitational >equivalent so that might be interesting >to research. Thanks for the idea Henri :-) Note, if two photons pass an atom simultaneously and equidistant but on opposite sides, the atom will not move...imagine two electrons passing a proton. The electrons are deflected towards each other but the proton does not move sideways. Question, does the proton end up displaced longitudinally? It should not, but..... e- >v P e- >v > >[context replaced again:] >>>>>> I doubt if the majority of scientists now supports the BB concept. >... >>>>>Novae are observed regularly but since >>>>>those are explosions in space, they have >>>>>no relevance to Big Bang theory so how >>>>>does that justify your bizarre claim >>>>>regarding the "majority of scientists"? >>>> >>>> there will be the occasional super-super-nova >>> >>>Equally irrelevant, what is your >>>justification for your claim about the >>>support of the "majority" of scientists? >> >> I read it somewhere. > >No Henri, you just made it up. Bullshit >as usual. I read somewhere authoritative that about half the scientific world does not agree with the BB theory. I don't remember where I read everything I read George. > >>>The CMBR, its angular power spectrum, elemental >>>abundances and a number of other independent >>>observations all tell the same story whether >>>we like it or not. Personally, I find a >>>creation model surprising but I'm not going >>>to discard reality out of prejudice. YMMV. >> >> What do you gain by accepting the BB idea? Nothing. > >True, the universe isn't there for my gain. >The measurements tell me that's the way it >is whether I want to accept it or not. the measurments tell us that light loses energy apparently in proportion to the distance it travels.....although that is by no means certain. > >George > HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Henri Wilson on 28 Jun 2005 21:46
On 27 Jun 2005 18:52:28 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 20:52:00 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > >> >Nope, you cannot derive the equation for >> >the Sagnac experiment from BaT. It gives >> >a predicted null result so fails that test. >> >There's no point continually repeating this >> >lie Henri, I'll expose it every time. >> >> Photons are intrinsically sensitive to rotation. >> That's my answer. The sagnac will work no matter >> what light speed is used in either direction. > >Oh, come on, Henri! What do you mean by "Photons >are intrinsically sensitive to rotation"? Do you >mean that spinning photons speed up? Or slow down? >Or maybe curve? Play hide and seek? Blind man's >bluff? > >Wow. Blind man's bluff. You've argued against >conventional explanations for interference, since >diffraction grating behavior otherwise disproves >BaT. Think of it. Diffraction effects are due >to photons playing Blind Man's Bluff. What a >revolution in science that will be! > >In your dreams, Henri... > >Jerry I suppose you are one of those people who believe that all photons are little, round, perfectly elastic and identical dimensionless points. They are not. If that were true there would be no way they would differ from 'nothing'. They a long, pointed, cigar shaped aggregations of standing EM waves. They have a long axis and an effective cross-section. If you shoot an arrow at a 45 degree wall, moving sideways, how is the arrow rotated/deflected? HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. |