The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jonah Thomas on 14 Sep 2009 21:33 doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: > Henry Wilson, DSc wrote: > > Wavelength is absolute and invariant. The path lengths are different > > therefore the rays are out of phase when they meet. End of story. > > Wrong by experiment ralph. End of story. I can't say I understand what he's saying yet, but didn't the experiment show the rays were out of phase? Did the experiment show the wavelength was different?
From: Inertial on 14 Sep 2009 21:35 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090914213306.6e4ba768.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: >> Henry Wilson, DSc wrote: > >> > Wavelength is absolute and invariant. The path lengths are different >> > therefore the rays are out of phase when they meet. End of story. >> >> Wrong by experiment ralph. End of story. > > I can't say I understand what he's saying yet, but didn't the experiment > show the rays were out of phase? > > Did the experiment show the wavelength was different? I think he means wrong by experiment that wavelength is invariant. Experiment shows wavelength and frequency vary in accord with relativistic Doppler. There is just so much experimental evidence out there that support SR predictions, how crackpots can make absurd claims that it doesn't work and try to revive old theories that were refuted decades ago .. and expect to be treated seriously, is beyond me. If they have something new to bring to the table that is also consistent with the experimental evidence, that's fine. Otherwise it is a waste of everyone's time considering theories that are known not to match with experimental and observational evidence.
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 14 Sep 2009 22:11 On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:17:48 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >news:2rata51qq4f3k5vocakneqeeaud8ugbda3(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:25:53 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >> wrote: >>>> This isn't about sound, dear lady. >>> >>>I didn't say it was. And it isn't we can say that Doppler shift doesn't >>>change the light wave itself, it is an effect on what a particular >>>observer >>>measures about the wave. >> >> Your main problem is that you have preconceptions about the wave nature of >> light and its 'frequency'. In reality you have no model and are just >> raving. > >Doppler shift cannot change the light itself, as it is observer dependant. >Multiple observers of the same light will record different frequencies. The >wave itself doesn't (and can't) change to make that happen, it is an >aretfact of the relative movement of the observer to the wave while >measuring it. What 'wave'? Light is particulate. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 14 Sep 2009 22:18 On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:35:06 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >news:20090914213306.6e4ba768.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... >> I can't say I understand what he's saying yet, but didn't the experiment >> show the rays were out of phase? >> >> Did the experiment show the wavelength was different? > >I think he means wrong by experiment that wavelength is invariant. >Experiment shows wavelength and frequency vary in accord with relativistic >Doppler. What experiments might those be? > >There is just so much experimental evidence out there that support SR >predictions, What, like Sagnac, Fizeau and the Eddington's joke about the bending of light by the sun? >...how crackpots can make absurd claims that it doesn't work and >try to revive old theories that were refuted decades ago .. and expect to be >treated seriously, is beyond me. BaTh has never been refuted. Every known experiment supports it. >If they have something new to bring to the table that is also consistent >with the experimental evidence, that's fine. Otherwise it is a waste of >everyone's time considering theories that are known not to match with >experimental and observational evidence. .....and you don't call the matching of so many star brightness curves entirely with fn(c+v) 'EVIDENCE'? Are you blind and well as stupid? This is the only known test of Einstein's P2 and it proves it indisputedly wrong. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 14 Sep 2009 22:19
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:32:30 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >news:offta511lmcjmo5p347mqdos4u9oqd88nl(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:16:00 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >> wrote: >> >> implies) is invariant in BaTh. > >yes >> Therefore the rays are out of phse when they >> reunite. > >wrong, as you measure wavelength from the leading edge (or wavefront) .. the >part of the ray that left the source simultaneously and travelled for the >same time in opposite directions. There is no way it could have gotten out >of phase in that time. > >> End of STORY. > >end of story Why don't you go off somewhere with demented dougie. You and he are about on the same idiocy level. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |