|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#861
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:30:30 GMT, Tom Roberts wrote: As the implicit goal of ballistic theories is to relate light to Newtonian mechanics, it is not clear how a light packet could have an energy independent of its speed, in which case such "magic" is indeed required. This is plain nonsense. No, it is not; it is historical fact. In Newtonian mechanics the energy of an object is a function of its speed, and the original ballistic theories of light shared this property. A photon may be regarded as an 'intrinsic oscillator' of some as yet unknown kind....maybe a rotating pair of charges... You may have a theory that you CALL a "ballistic theory", but based on your descriptions it not actually ballistic in the sense of Newton or the common usage of the word (you have so many exceptions to ballistic motion). The electron dipole moment of a photon is measured to be inconsistent with there being "rotating charges" inside it, if the charge is comparable to that on an electron. Ditto for the magnetic moment of the photon. So you must assume charges vastly smaller than that on an electron. It's not clear that makes much sense.... An intrinsic oscillator such as a spinning pair of charges will have a 'natural' or equilibrium speed of propagation in any dielectric medium. How? Why? Please demonstrate this claim using any accepted theory of electrodynamics. Tom Roberts |
#862
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
Tom Roberts wrote:
John Kennaugh wrote: Ballistic theory has to give the same result as SR. Say, rather, that ANY valid theory MUST give "the same result as SR" for the experiments being discussed, as SR "gives the same results" as the experiments. The actual requirement, of course, is that valid theories predict results consistent with the results of the experiments -- your use of SR is a red herring here. The specific quote - quoted without the context [why?] related specifically to Sagnac where SR and ballistic theory predict the same results. Ballistic theory must give the same results as SR because SR only works for inertial FoR and the only inertial FoR you can chose to do the analysis is the inertial frame of reference in which the light was emitted. When predicting outcomes from that specific FoR the two theories do not differ so must produce the same maths. Both say that in the inertial FoR in which the light was emitted light travels at c. Look Roberts will you actually READ a post before you respond to it. Just above the footnote: Kantor's own experiment apparently disproved SR and Ballistic theory. Was the statement "He [Waldron] lists the following experiments as being consistent with his theory:" within that list was James-Sternburg repetition of Kantor's experiment*, Babcock-Bergman repetition of Kantor's experiment, Beckmen-Mandics repetition of Kantor's experiment, In the table he produced the above were all stated as being consistent with both SR and ballistic theory and Kantor's listed as disagreeing with both hence my footnote Another red herring -- Kantor's experiment has been repeated, and thoroughly discredited: Which is what I said. [shrug] Kantor, J. O. S. A. 52 (1962),978. Criticized in: Burcev, Phys. Lett. 5 no. 1 (1963), pg 44. Repeated by: Babcock and Bergman, J.O.S.A. 54 (1964), pg 147. Repeated by: Rotz, Phys. Lett. 7 no. 4 (1963), pg 252. Repeated by: Waddoups et al., JOSA 55, pg 142 (1965). The consensus is now that Kantor’s non-null result was due to his rotating mirrors dragging the air; repetitions in vacuum yield a null result consistent with SR. Tom Roberts -- John Kennaugh |
#863
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:26:46 GMT, Tom Roberts
wrote: Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:30:30 GMT, Tom Roberts wrote: As the implicit goal of ballistic theories is to relate light to Newtonian mechanics, it is not clear how a light packet could have an energy independent of its speed, in which case such "magic" is indeed required. This is plain nonsense. No, it is not; it is historical fact. In Newtonian mechanics the energy of an object is a function of its speed, and the original ballistic theories of light shared this property. Tom, is the total energy of a lump of red hot steel proportional to its relative speed? I don't think you understand Newtonian Physics at all.... A photon may be regarded as an 'intrinsic oscillator' of some as yet unknown kind....maybe a rotating pair of charges... You may have a theory that you CALL a "ballistic theory", but based on your descriptions it not actually ballistic in the sense of Newton or the common usage of the word (you have so many exceptions to ballistic motion). My version of BaTh says that light consists of discreet particle-like objects called photons, which possess structure and intrinsic properties that allow for some kind of internal oscillation. Their total energy is partly 'observer speed' dependent because the 'nu' in 'h.nu' is Doppler dependent. There is nothing strange about this. Just consider the energy of a violin being played in a moving train...or the energy coming out of your car's alternator. The electron dipole moment of a photon is measured to be inconsistent with there being "rotating charges" inside it, if the charge is comparable to that on an electron. Ditto for the magnetic moment of the photon. So you must assume charges vastly smaller than that on an electron. It's not clear that makes much sense.... I was under the impression that this is indeed the latest theory about 'charge'. It is smaller than the electron, which merely carries it. Particle physics is still very much in its infancy. An intrinsic oscillator such as a spinning pair of charges will have a 'natural' or equilibrium speed of propagation in any dielectric medium. How? Why? Please demonstrate this claim using any accepted theory of electrodynamics. Not unlike Maxwell's equations and theory....except there is rotation instead of wave motion. Tom Roberts Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |
#864
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote in
: My version of BaTh says that light consists of discreet particle-like objects called photons, which possess structure and intrinsic properties Henri, I suggest that, to avoid confusion, you call yours pheaux-tons. That way, no one is likely to think they have the properties that photons have. that allow for some kind of internal oscillation. Their total energy is partly 'observer speed' dependent because the 'nu' in 'h.nu' is Doppler dependent. There is nothing strange about this. You can then define a variable called gnu to use instead of the normal nu. Then your theory will be both gnu and strange. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap |
#865
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 21:43:51 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote: HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote in : My version of BaTh says that light consists of discreet particle-like objects called photons, which possess structure and intrinsic properties Henri, I suggest that, to avoid confusion, you call yours pheaux-tons. That way, no one is likely to think they have the properties that photons have. that allow for some kind of internal oscillation. Their total energy is partly 'observer speed' dependent because the 'nu' in 'h.nu' is Doppler dependent. There is nothing strange about this. You can then define a variable called gnu to use instead of the normal nu. Then your theory will be both gnu and strange. My theory works. Yours doesn't exist... Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |
#866
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote in news:vr3ck3hl8d19q607b3cp2hcmcm6f6l7lou@
4ax.com: ..... My theory works. Yours doesn't exist... "Delusions are often functional. A mother's opinions about her children's beauty, intelligence, goodness, et cetera ad nauseam, keep her from drowning them at birth." Robert A. Heinlein -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap |
#867
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 23:38:49 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote: My theory works. Give it up Bob...you're backing a loser in Einstein... His theory is absolute crap from start to finish.... Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |
#868
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ... : On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 23:38:49 +0000 (UTC), bz : wrote: : : : My theory works. : : Give it up Bob...you're backing a loser in Einstein... : His theory is absolute crap from start to finish.... Give it up Wilson...you're backing a loser in Wilson... His BaTh is absolute crap from start to finish.... "There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson "Light doesn't have a 'frequency'. It has a wavelength." --Wilson. ups.com "SPINNING OBJECTS HAVE A FREQUENCY, NOT A BLOODY WAVELENGTH." -- Wilson news "Light doesn't have a particuar 'frequency' in the normal sense. Frequency is the inferred rate at whichABSOLUTE wavecrests leave the source" -- Wilson. "THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IN GENERAL, THE 'WAVELENGTH' OF AN OSCILLATION IS THE SAME IN ALL FRAMES." -- Wilson "Anyway, this now fits in perfectly with my 'intrinsic oscillation frequency' idea. Thankyou Jerry for helping me develop my theory...." -- Wilson, October 26, 2007 1:03 PM "That's the kind of argument I'd expect from a desperate person....completely out of ideas... ahahahaha!" -- Wilson. "For one ray, ct = 2piR+vt , for the other ct = 2piR-vt. This gives t = 2piR/(c+v) and 2piR/(c-v)" -- Wilson. ... "That's for the nonrotating frame, dopey." -- Wilson. . "There is NOT the same number of wavelengths between the STARTPOINT and the detector" -- Wilson "plonk" -- Wilson (faced with his own words) You don't use emission theory and don't know what it is, your crackpot theory is BaTh; you've been whining that for 6 years, you invented it when I was in hospital in Florida with a shattered ankle and I've been in Britain 4.75 years while you've gotten gradually more senile. In all that time you've only learned to write "Dr" in front of your name which nobody believes. You blew it with denying Doppler and your tick fairies, senile old fart. |
#869
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
Henri Wilson wrote:
[...] BaTh now fully explains Sagnac, most variable star curves, diffraction and gravitational redshift....as well as any other phenomenon associated with light. And will probably grow to explain more, as Mr. Wilson notes more observations refuting his theory and hacks in special cases to adjust. It must be pointed out however that BaTh operates 100% effectively only in pure vacuum. BaTh operates 100% effectively only in Mr. Wilson's own Visual Basic programs. Surrounding any large mass, there exists a 'sphere of EM control' that may act like a weak 'local aether'. In the case of close binary pairs, the 'spheres' tend to cancel one another out, which is why contact binaries generally show little or no brightness variation. And we can detect it by noting that if it did not exist, BaTh would be wrong. -- --Bryan |
#870
|
|||
|
|||
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 19:48:51 GMT, Bryan Olson wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote: [...] BaTh now fully explains Sagnac, most variable star curves, diffraction and gravitational redshift....as well as any other phenomenon associated with light. And will probably grow to explain more, as Mr. Wilson notes more observations refuting his theory and hacks in special cases to adjust. It must be pointed out however that BaTh operates 100% effectively only in pure vacuum. BaTh operates 100% effectively only in Mr. Wilson's own Visual Basic programs. Surrounding any large mass, there exists a 'sphere of EM control' that may act like a weak 'local aether'. In the case of close binary pairs, the 'spheres' tend to cancel one another out, which is why contact binaries generally show little or no brightness variation. And we can detect it by noting that if it did not exist, BaTh would be wrong. Do you have anything intelligent to contribute? Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
EINSTEIN RELATIVITY: THE UNAMBIGUOUS AMBIGUITY | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | May 22nd 07 08:11 AM |
LARSON -IAN Relativity, Einstein Was WRONG | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | January 30th 07 04:55 PM |
Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity | physicsajay | Astronomy Misc | 38 | November 8th 06 08:19 PM |
Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity | AJAY SHARMA | Policy | 11 | November 7th 06 01:46 AM |
Einstein "Theory of Relativity" | Lester Solnin | Solar | 7 | April 13th 05 08:17 AM |