The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 9 Sep 2009 20:22 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:6p9ga5t7slj9f7ss550i5fnvsf2all9n6r(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 08:29:57 +0100, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >>news:um8ea597kf8vasq0t7v2uho6ur14nvuf31(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 01:11:00 +0100, "Androcles" > > >>> My method uses the maximum orbit speed. It gets that from the observed >>> value >>> WHICH IS THE REAL ONE x COS PITCH. >> >>You are not worth arguing with. >>observed value = orbital value * cos(pitch) as you say, so >> >>Real world: >>orbital value = observed value / cos(pitch) >>Wilson's world: >>orbital value = observed value / magic unifuckation >>End of fuckin' story, you are crazy. > > Ah, I now see your grounds for complaint. Why didn't you explain this > before. > > I have previously stated the answer to this problem. > > When light changes speed, each photon's intrinsic absolute wavelength also > changes accordingly. For instance, if a photon decelerates, its wavecrests > move > closer together, so their flow rate remains the same....like cars on a > highway > in different speed zones. Therefore, after unification, the arrival > frequency > of wavecrests is still a true indication of relative source velocity. That > usually includes cos (pitch) because there is no easy way to determine the > actual pitch angle of a point source. Fuckin' rubbish... There is no easy way to determine distance, eccentricity, major axis or inclination. All have to be estimated from other considerations. Period is measurable, mass can be estimated using Kepler's third law. From that we can estimate the axis. The eccentricity could be estimated from the velocity curve except that the velocity curve is contaminated by cos(inclination). > I see a photon as something like a coiled spring with no elastic > properties. It > expands or shrinks with a speed change. Its intrinsic ABSOLUTE wavelength > is > the distance between coils. (the 'spring' is possibly a standing wave > running > the length of the 'quantum') > In other words your mental model of a photon is dependent on a fixed frame of reference. You are still fuckin' crazy.
From: Androcles on 9 Sep 2009 21:29 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:p3jga59vdpuh6mnhp7soalk0g0lrmnd9hm(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:23:01 +0100, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >>news:6p9ga5t7slj9f7ss550i5fnvsf2all9n6r(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 08:29:57 +0100, "Androcles" >>> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >>>>news:um8ea597kf8vasq0t7v2uho6ur14nvuf31(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 01:11:00 +0100, "Androcles" >>> >>> >>>>> My method uses the maximum orbit speed. It gets that from the observed >>>>> value >>>>> WHICH IS THE REAL ONE x COS PITCH. >>>> >>>>You are not worth arguing with. >>>>observed value = orbital value * cos(pitch) as you say, so >>>> >>>>Real world: >>>>orbital value = observed value / cos(pitch) >>>>Wilson's world: >>>>orbital value = observed value / magic unifuckation >>>>End of fuckin' story, you are crazy. >>> >>> Ah, I now see your grounds for complaint. Why didn't you explain this >>> before. >>> >>> I have previously stated the answer to this problem. >>> >>> When light changes speed, >> >>Light doesn't change speed. You are fuckin' crazy. > > What happens when it enters glass? Light from distant stars hasn't gone through glass since Ptolemy's crystal spheres stopped carrying the planets. Your ancient theory was debunked by Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton.
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 9 Sep 2009 22:23 On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 01:22:16 +0100, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: > >"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >news:6p9ga5t7slj9f7ss550i5fnvsf2all9n6r(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 08:29:57 +0100, "Androcles" >> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> >> >> I have previously stated the answer to this problem. >> >> When light changes speed, each photon's intrinsic absolute wavelength also >> changes accordingly. For instance, if a photon decelerates, its wavecrests >> move >> closer together, so their flow rate remains the same....like cars on a >> highway >> in different speed zones. Therefore, after unification, the arrival >> frequency >> of wavecrests is still a true indication of relative source velocity. That >> usually includes cos (pitch) because there is no easy way to determine the >> actual pitch angle of a point source. > > >Fuckin' rubbish... >There is no easy way to determine distance, eccentricity, major axis or >inclination. Distance can now be measured quite accurately up to about 1000LYs. I can measure eccentricity and yaw by matching a star's brightness curve. >All have to be estimated from other considerations. Period is measurable, Not neccessarily for very distant objects. What is observed might be subject to doppler shift or time compression. >mass can be estimated using Kepler's third law. It cannot. A satellite's orbit is independent of its mass. >From that we can estimate the axis. ....bloody rough estimate... >The eccentricity could be estimated from the velocity curve >except that the velocity curve is contaminated by cos(inclination). If you use MY definition of pitch and YAW angle...the edge on one....ALL radial velocities are multiplied by the same cos factor...and so the ratios of all speeds around the orbit is the same for all inclinations. Of course you don't know how much to rotate yer bloody 'ead...so the best way to do it is via our simulated brightness curves. If astronomers would wake up to the Einstein hoax their lives would be much easier. Will you tell them or will I? >> I see a photon as something like a coiled spring with no elastic >> properties. It >> expands or shrinks with a speed change. Its intrinsic ABSOLUTE wavelength >> is >> the distance between coils. (the 'spring' is possibly a standing wave >> running >> the length of the 'quantum') >> >In other words your mental model of a photon is dependent on a fixed frame >of reference. You are still fuckin' crazy. > > > > > Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 9 Sep 2009 22:26 On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 02:29:45 +0100, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: > >"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >news:p3jga59vdpuh6mnhp7soalk0g0lrmnd9hm(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:23:01 +0100, "Androcles" >> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >>>news:6p9ga5t7slj9f7ss550i5fnvsf2all9n6r(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 08:29:57 +0100, "Androcles" >>>> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >>>>>news:um8ea597kf8vasq0t7v2uho6ur14nvuf31(a)4ax.com... >>>>>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 01:11:00 +0100, "Androcles" >>>> >>>> >>>>>> My method uses the maximum orbit speed. It gets that from the observed >>>>>> value >>>>>> WHICH IS THE REAL ONE x COS PITCH. >>>>> >>>>>You are not worth arguing with. >>>>>observed value = orbital value * cos(pitch) as you say, so >>>>> >>>>>Real world: >>>>>orbital value = observed value / cos(pitch) >>>>>Wilson's world: >>>>>orbital value = observed value / magic unifuckation >>>>>End of fuckin' story, you are crazy. >>>> >>>> Ah, I now see your grounds for complaint. Why didn't you explain this >>>> before. >>>> >>>> I have previously stated the answer to this problem. >>>> >>>> When light changes speed, >>> >>>Light doesn't change speed. You are fuckin' crazy. >> >> What happens when it enters glass? > >Light from distant stars hasn't gone through glass since >Ptolemy's crystal spheres stopped carrying the planets. >Your ancient theory was debunked by Copernicus, Galileo, >Kepler and Newton. Light changes speed when it enters any medium, even a very rare gas. It also changes speed in gravity fields just like anything else. It might even change speed when passing through a prolonged electric or magnetic field. How would we know? Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Inertial on 9 Sep 2009 23:52
"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:0eqga5h9kjh3dfgt026cmoiaj5rv1igu2k(a)4ax.com... > OWLS stands for ONE WAY LIGHT SPEED....as distinct from TWLS. > The difference is very important. Indeed it is Assuming one can measure distances, then one can work out the TWLS using (the equivalent of) a clock at the source, and with a mirror reflecting the light back to the source from a fixed distance, and working out the time taken. Assuming one can measure distances and synchronize clocks, then one can work out the OWLS using (the equivalent of) a pair of clocks, one at the source and one at a fixed distance, and working out the time taken from the clock differences. The issue then is how one ensures that two clocks are in sync. One way is to synchronize them together at the midpoint of the experiment, and then uniformly move them away to their respective positions. Another way is to send a known speed message between them, and synchronize from that, based on the speed of the message and the time it takes to get there. All such experiments on OWLS measurements have shown it to be the same in all directions. SR is based on the speed of light being a definite value, and so the same in all direction in any given inertial frame of reference. > The MMX is a straightforward example of BaTh. There is no argument. Indeed, ballistic theories explain MMX result just as well as SR and LET do. The notion of a simple fixed aether, though, is refuted by it (and subsequent variations) > Nothing > could be simpler. All the components of the apparatus are M.A.R so the > light > from the source moves at c wrt them all no matter how the bloody thing is > orientated. > I have shown how BaTh explains Sagnac perfectly well Except that analysis is flawed. A correct ballistic analysis gives you a zero phase difference, as has been explained many times. eg. see http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm and http://www.mathpages.com/HOME/kmath169/kmath169.htm and http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/FourMirrorSagnac.html and http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf > and at the same time > shown why Sagnac refutes SR. Which, of course, is also incorrect, as Sagnac does not in any way refute SR and never has. It shows that the light speed, in the inertial frame of reference, is not affected by the speed of the source, and so is consistent with both SR and aether theories, but not with ballistic / emission theories. |