The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 14 Sep 2009 22:23 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:jstta55j3hvm0of4j3857t3hl0nignfgo4(a)4ax.com... > 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. If so what's all your nonsense about fixed wavelengths, and frequencies getting Doppler shifted, and phase differences at detectors :):) ??
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 14 Sep 2009 22:21 On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:26:08 +1000, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message >news:29bta55pf1bil28kgmosffm8rqpm2cacpc(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:39:57 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: >>>> Jonah Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: >> >>>> >I don't get it. The classical model has the light travel at the same >>>> >speed so if it goes different distances it will be out of phase. The >>>> >important thing is not the point it started from but the fact that it >>>> >travels different distances at the same speed. >>>> >>>> If the starting point was not important why would the path distances >>>> be different? Sometimes you seem as clueless as inertial. >>> >>>I'll try to think it out. >>> >>>> >> >Agreed. >>>> >> >>>> >> You now see why the stationary points are important. >>>> > >>>> >No, I don't. >>>> >>>> You just used them, above, to determine the different path >>>> differences. How can you now say they aren't important? >>> >>>They are of historical interest. >> >> They are vital for hte determination of the distance vt, a distance that >> is >> used identically in b oth SR and BaTh. > >But once you've got those figures, that we all agree on (though different in >ballistic and SR, hence the difference in results) you no longer need fixed >the points in the inertial frame. > >> I think it's time you read a little more about this. > >I think its time you thought a little more > > >> Because it is the model that works. >> >> You are emulating inertial in trying to explain the behavior of light by >> using >> classical wave thepory....when it has been shown conclusively that light >> is not >> like that. > >It is most definitely not as you propose. it has constant speed relative to >observer and its wavelength and frequency vary via a Doppler shift. > >Yet you still persist with a model for light that contradicts observation. > >And one that is immediately refuted by Sagnac. > >> Let's forget about oscillations and frequencies. They are totally >> undefined and >> you two certainly haven't a clue as to what they might imply. > >Light frequency seems well enough defined. > >> Let's just accept the BaTh 'wavelength' explanation. It works. > >No .. it doesn't. > >> The path lengths >> are different > >Yes > >> therefore each path contains a different number of wavelengths > >Yes .. from the wavefront back toward the point in history where the waves >were emitted > >> and the rays are out of phase when they reunite. > >No .. they aren't as they wavefronts of a moving ray are in sync. The same >part of the wave, that left the source at the same time in opposite >directions, is arriving at the detector at the same time. nothing happened >along the way to change that. > >> End of story. > >End of story Dougie needs you. Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Inertial on 14 Sep 2009 22:24 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:r0uta51p0914mgf4tamdcio1vk3o069hue(a)4ax.com... > 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? They've been pointed out to you before. >>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? They've been pointed out to you before. >>...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. Yes .. it has. > Every known experiment supports it. Nonsense .. you're deluded >>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'? Nope > Are you blind and well as stupid? You're a liar > This is the only known test of Einstein's P2 and it proves it indisputedly > wrong. Wrong
From: Inertial on 14 Sep 2009 22:25 "Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:mbuta5pap168sg9bp7hs750n0ms55k7qs3(a)4ax.com... > 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. Which, of course, is nowhere near the high level of your idiocy, which is way above anything any rational honest human could achieve
From: Jonah Thomas on 14 Sep 2009 22:42
"Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > > 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. That sounds interesting. Do you have a link? |