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 29 Jun 2005 14:46 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:mdv3c1h990hfjemuohqq53uibqhm9f6nag(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:51:18 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"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. > > Nah. Too many unknowns. What unknowns? We know how the experimental apparatus is constructed and Ritz tells us exactly how light behaves so all we have to do is apply the rules of the theory to the setup. The prediction from Ritz is a null result which we know is wrong therefore the theory is false. QED as they say. If what you call "BaT" doesn't make a prediction, it isn't a theory. George
From: Henri Wilson on 29 Jun 2005 20:12 On 28 Jun 2005 20:21:27 -0700, "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 27 Jun 2005 18:52:28 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >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. > > >You are bullshitting, H. Sorry to have to say that, but you have no >evidence >and lose credibility when you make such assertions. Do you have a better model , A? Does anyone? > >>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? > >If you aim a row boat at the opposite bank of a river, it still drifts >downstream with the current. Ah, but its axis remains normally aligned to the banks, no matter how fast the current flows. It takes the same time to get across irrespective of where it ends up. >You have to aim it partly upstream to go >directly across. Not if the banks move along with the river. >If the rowboat is a round corracle, that doesn't >change the vector addition of velocities. >If the rowboat is spinning like a propellor or a paddle wheel, that >changes nothing either. But as you know A, the boat moves diagonally wrt the river bed at sqrt(v^2+u^2) not v. In other words, if an 'aether wind' suddenly blew along the MMX, the cross beam photons wouldn't rotate just to get to the same point on the top mirror. They would strike it at another point. The time to get there would be the same no matter how fast the aether blew. The boat analogy is not correct one. I repeat, photons cannot be 'infinitesimal round balls'....if they exist at all. > >AD. 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: Jerry on 30 Jun 2005 05:20 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 28 Jun 2005 20:21:27 -0700, "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> > wrote: > > > > > > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On 27 Jun 2005 18:52:28 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> > > >> >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. > > > > > >You are bullshitting, H. Sorry to have to say that, but you have no > >evidence > >and lose credibility when you make such assertions. > > Do you have a better model , A? > Does anyone? Sure. Sagnac fits perfectly well within the context of SR. Jerry
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 30 Jun 2005 10:00 In sci.physics, Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote on 30 Jun 2005 02:20:12 -0700 <1120123212.664910.186690(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>: > Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 28 Jun 2005 20:21:27 -0700, "Arthur Dent" <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >> > >> > >> >Henri Wilson wrote: >> >> On 27 Jun 2005 18:52:28 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >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. >> > >> > >> >You are bullshitting, H. Sorry to have to say that, but you have no >> >evidence >> >and lose credibility when you make such assertions. >> >> Do you have a better model , A? >> Does anyone? > > Sure. Sagnac fits perfectly well within the context of SR. > > Jerry > I could see Sagnac fitting into *GR*, but a rotating disc is not an inertial reference frame. One could, however, say that it approximates an inertial reference frame for a sufficiently large disc. -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: bz on 30 Jun 2005 10:06
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in news:uh8dp2-fc.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net: > In sci.physics, Jerry > <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> > wrote > on 30 Jun 2005 02:20:12 -0700 > <1120123212.664910.186690(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>: >> Henri Wilson wrote: >>> On 28 Jun 2005 20:21:27 -0700, "Arthur Dent" >>> <jp006t2227(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> > >>> >Henri Wilson wrote: >>> >> On 27 Jun 2005 18:52:28 -0700, "Jerry" >>> >> <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> >> >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. >>> > >>> > >>> >You are bullshitting, H. Sorry to have to say that, but you have no >>> >evidence >>> >and lose credibility when you make such assertions. >>> >>> Do you have a better model , A? >>> Does anyone? >> >> Sure. Sagnac fits perfectly well within the context of SR. >> >> Jerry >> > > I could see Sagnac fitting into *GR*, but a rotating disc is not > an inertial reference frame. One could, however, say that it > approximates an inertial reference frame for a sufficiently large disc. That is putting a favorable 'spin' on things. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap |