The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: doug on 14 Sep 2009 23:44 Inertial wrote: > "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. > Ralph just lies when he is cornered. He will never admit that he is just another crank. >>> 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. See above to see how ralph lies when he is cornered. > >>> ...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. Ralph will continue to lie and he thinks no one will notice. > >> Every known experiment supports it. > See, there is the lying again. > > 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'? Ralph has a lot of delusions. > > > Nope > >> Are you blind and well as stupid? > > > You're a liar Of course he is a liar. That is his refuge when he is shown to be an idiot yet again. > >> This is the only known test of Einstein's P2 and it proves it >> indisputedly >> wrong. More lies from ralph. > > > Wrong > >
From: doug on 14 Sep 2009 23:45 Inertial wrote: > "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 > See, when ralph's lies are pointed out, he gets pretty annoyed. He has to realize just how stupid he looks but he does not seem to care. >
From: doug on 14 Sep 2009 23:47 Jonah Thomas wrote: > "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? Wavelengths are measured with a diffraction grating which is only sensitive to wavelength. Look at John Baez's page of experiments related to relativity for experimental references. http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html These are some of the things ralph (henri) lies about.
From: Inertial on 14 Sep 2009 22:47 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090914224237.76d1b609.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "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? see http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-04/2-04.htm see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect#Experimental_verification see http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Tests_of_time_dilation
From: doug on 14 Sep 2009 23:48
Henry Wilson, DSc wrote: > 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. > Ralph considers lying a way to do science. Also he likes hatred and jealousy. > > > Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer.. |