Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
YOU are treating light as though it is a classical wave that obeys the general
wave equation: A= sin[2pi(t/tor-x/lambda]

Mind your language.
This is not a wave equation, it is a particular solution to
the the wave equation:
@^2A/@t^2 = c^2*nabla^2*A
or in the 1D case:
@^2A/@t^2 = c^2*@^2A/@x^2

This works for waves in a medium and can be literally observed in the case of
water waves.

Jerry's animation shows this....it assumes light is nothing but a 'moving sine
wave'.
My 'cycle chain' idea also describes the classical traveling wave although it
was intended to show the different path lengths.

The plain fact is, George, light does NOT behave like this.

The plain fact is that light does indeed behave like this.

You must be pretty desperate to dispute what has been
experimentally verified by innumerable experiments and
everyday practical applications for centuries.

The originator of the "modern" version (as opposed to Newton's version)
of the emission theory, Ritz, wouldn't dream of disputing that light
behave as a wave. He was no idiot!
The difference between Ritz and Einstein is that Ritz claims
that the wave equation is valid only in the rest frame of the source,
and it transforms to other frames according to the Galilean transform,
while Einstein claim that the wave equation is equally valid in
any inertial frame (from which the Lorentz transform follows).

Nobody but you have since the days of Huygen's been so stupid as to
dispute that light behaves as a wave in the macroscopic realm.
The experimental evidence simply does not allow it.

Sure experiments have shown that light is quantisized.
But any quantum theory of light predicting that light does not
behave as a wave macroscopically, would be falsified before it was born.
That's why no such theory exists.

You have reached the end of the road.
It's a dead end.

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
My approach, WHICH PRODUCES THE RIGHT ANSWER says light PARTICLES do NOT behave
according to classical traveling wave equation A'=Asin[2pi(t/T-x/L)]
..why should they?

You are indeed funny, Henri. :-)

Wasn't your approach to count the number of wavelengths defined
by the equation A'=Asin[2pi(t/T-x/L)] (in a wrong way, but anyway).
If this equation does not apply to light, what are you then counting?

What is the _wave_length of your non wave?

What IS your 'approach'? :-)

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:26:46 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
: On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:48:29 GMT, "Androcles"
: wrote:

:
: The classical equation A'=Asin[2pi(t/T-x/L)] doesn't apply to light.

Your constant wavelength goes the same way as uni****ation
and h-aether. Flushed for the **** it is, dumb plagiarising sheep shagger.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm

MY Emission Fact kicks YOUR BaTh down the toilet.

....well why don't you use it to produce the right result, ie., fringe
displacement = 4Aw/cL

BTW, what happened to old "EFOR" Len Gaasenbeek, his selected
papers (that he selected) and his helical photons?
He dropped off the radar...too much poetry, I expect.
He had point but still wanted to keep c, poor old bugger.
You remind me of him, all ego and no listening to reason.

Len had some good ideas but was too indoctrinated as you say.
My 'rotating +- charge photon model is similar to his helical wave concept.

Have you checked this out:
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/
LIVE from the shuttle... I watched the launch this afternoon.

yeh! good








Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 02:13:45 -0700, Jerry
wrote:

On Oct 24, 3:10 am, George Dishman wrote:
On 23 Oct, 22:32, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote:

Incidentally, this also tends to suggest that the fringe
production in a sagnac interferometer is something to do
with the phase relationship between INCOMING and OUTGOING
rays rather than the rejoining of the two oppositely moving
rays...I know that sounds impossible...but is it?

Yes, for two reasons. The simpler is that if
you look at the arrangement of the beam
splitter, the remaining light goes back to
the lamp but the more robust is that there
would be a path length difference of nearly
a metre (the loop length) between the originated
light and that which has bone round the loop.
That grossly exceeds the coherence length for
a filament source so there is no way to form
fringes with a detectable contrast ratio.

I think that you have gone -way- over Henri's head with
mention of coherence length.

To Henri:

Early experimentalists such as Michelson and Morley, Sagnac
etc. used monochromatic sources only during the alignment
stages while setting up their interferometers. Actual
experimental runs were always performed with white light.
The reason for this is that white light creates a distinctive
pattern of a central bright white fringe surrounded by a
rapidly fading set of colored fringes. The advantage of this
is that the central fringe of equal path length is always
readily identifiable, whereas monochromatic light produces
uniform fringes in which it is virtually impossible to
determine the central fringe of equal path length.

The distinctive pattern of fringes formed by white light
enabled Michelson and Morley, who recorded their observations
visually, not to "get lost" while figuring out how far their
fringes were displaced from their fiducial marks. In the
Michelson and Gale experiment, which was a giant Sagnac
setup, the central fringe, in the absence of rotation, would
appear precisely midway between the two images of the slit.
This enabled them to calibrate their apparatus for zero
rotational velocity; it was thus not necessary for them to
halt the rotation of the Earth to get a zero reading, which
would have been somewhat impractical in the absence of divine
intervention (Joshua 10:12-15).

Note that I stated that the pattern of colored fringes
surrounding the central bright fringe fades rapidly. This is
because the spacing between the red fringes and the blue
fringes is different. Within a few fringe widths from the
central fringe, the colored fringes overlap until the fringe
pattern is no longer perceptible. Since each fringe represents
a half wave difference in path length to the two images of the
source slit, this means that the path lengths must be
precisely matched, otherwise it would be impossible to see any
fringes at all.

This distance to which the path lengths must be matched,
otherwise fringes are invisible, is known as the "coherence
length". The coherence length for white light is no more
than a handful of microns. Your notion that "fringe
production in a sagnac interferometer is something to do with
the phase relationship between INCOMING and OUTGOING rays
rather than the rejoining of the two oppositely moving rays"
is totally ridiculous to anybody who knows anything at all
about optics.

The sensible thing to do is use monochromatic light and tilt the top miror
slightly in order to produce an 'optical wedge' effect. That produces a
straight line fringe pattern rather than circles. Straight lines are easier to
count than circles and in the case of gyros, make the direction of an
acceleration easy to determine.

Jerry



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:10:37 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

On 23 Oct, 22:32, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:23:06 -0700, George Dishman wrote:
On 21 Oct, 21:59, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 12:10:14 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Clueless Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in messagenews:k31lh399msodtdq95b05hn1m8fjsg8r0s7@4ax .com...

I appreciate that....but since light MUST BE ballistic

That's your problem Henry, you lack the knowledge
of geometry to see that there is an alternative
so your religious conviction has no scientific
validity. Theere is absolutely no reason why it
"must" be ballistic, "could be" but not "must be"
and from experiment we know it isn't.

(its source is its only
speed reference) and since my approach produces the right answer, I'm confident
that it is the correct one.

Regardless of you anser, the maths is simply
broken, you divide by the wrong number.

Incidentally, this also tends to suggest that the fringe production in a sagnac
interferometer is something to do with the phase relationship between INCOMING
and OUTGOING rays rather than the rejoining of the two oppositely moving
rays...I know that sounds impossible...but is it?

Yes, for two reasons. The simpler is that if
you look at the arrangement of the beam
splitter, the remaining light goes back to
the lamp but the more robust is that there
would be a path length difference of nearly
a metre (the loop length) between the originated
light and that which has bone round the loop.
That grossly exceeds the coherence length for
a filament source so there is no way to form
fringes with a detectable contrast ratio.

George, let me explain.

Both SR and BaTh accept that each element of the rays is emitted from a point
that is stationary in the non-otating frame. That is legitimate physics.
(neither you nor Paul will acknowledge that this emission point MOVES in the
rotating frame.....because it destroys your 'rotating frame' argument)

SR says the speed of both rays is magically adjusted to be c wrt that static
emission point. SR calculates the travel times of the rays around the ring and
finds those times to be diffferent because of the different path lengths. SR
says that this indicates a phase difference at the detector. (Note, SR ignores
the fact that the elements emitted simutaneously do not arrive simultaneously)

BaTh says that the rays move at c wrt the moving source from the (static)
emission point. They move at c+v and c-v (wrt the no-rotating frame) around the
ring. BaTh says the travel times are the same and elements emitted
simultaneously arrive at the detector simltaneously. BaTh says that the phase
of arrival of each ray is simply [pathlength mod (absolute wavelength)]. If the
phase of one is x degrees, that of the other is 360-x.

Both approaches produce the same answer.

Androcles wants to use frequency instead of wavelength and is yet to come up
with a prediction of fringe shift in spite of all his raving.

So which is more likely.

SR relies on an unproven postulate, ie., MAGIC, to adjust both light speeds to
be 'c'. It requires that the two rays move at c+v and c-v wrt the source. BaTh
uses logical physics, in assuming that wavelength' is constant in all
frames....since ALL lengths are absolute and contant in all frames.


George



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:42:32 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
YOU are treating light as though it is a classical wave that obeys the general
wave equation: A= sin[2pi(t/tor-x/lambda]

Mind your language.
This is not a wave equation, it is a particular solution to
the the wave equation:
@^2A/@t^2 = c^2*nabla^2*A
or in the 1D case:
@^2A/@t^2 = c^2*@^2A/@x^2

....traveling wave in a medium.....

This works for waves in a medium and can be literally observed in the case of
water waves.

Jerry's animation shows this....it assumes light is nothing but a 'moving sine
wave'.
My 'cycle chain' idea also describes the classical traveling wave although it
was intended to show the different path lengths.

The plain fact is, George, light does NOT behave like this.

The plain fact is that light does indeed behave like this.

You must be pretty desperate to dispute what has been
experimentally verified by innumerable experiments and
everyday practical applications for centuries.

The originator of the "modern" version (as opposed to Newton's version)
of the emission theory, Ritz, wouldn't dream of disputing that light
behave as a wave. He was no idiot!
The difference between Ritz and Einstein is that Ritz claims
that the wave equation is valid only in the rest frame of the source,
and it transforms to other frames according to the Galilean transform,
while Einstein claim that the wave equation is equally valid in
any inertial frame (from which the Lorentz transform follows).

Nobody but you have since the days of Huygen's been so stupid as to
dispute that light behaves as a wave in the macroscopic realm.
The experimental evidence simply does not allow it.

Light is still very much a mystery.
Wave theory cannot generally explain the behavior of light.

Sure experiments have shown that light is quantisized.
But any quantum theory of light predicting that light does not
behave as a wave macroscopically, would be falsified before it was born.
That's why no such theory exists.

You have reached the end of the road.
It's a dead end.

See my other post.
SR is a fake....based on magic and fairies



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 04:37:06 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:

On 24 Oct, 10:13, Jerry wrote:
On Oct 24, 3:10 am, George Dishman wrote:
On 23 Oct, 22:32, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote:
Incidentally, this also tends to suggest that the fringe
production in a sagnac interferometer is something to do
with the phase relationship between INCOMING and OUTGOING
rays rather than the rejoining of the two oppositely moving
rays...I know that sounds impossible...but is it?

Yes, for two reasons. The simpler is that if
you look at the arrangement of the beam
splitter, the remaining light goes back to
the lamp but the more robust is that there
would be a path length difference of nearly
a metre (the loop length) between the originated
light and that which has bone round the loop.
That grossly exceeds the coherence length for
a filament source so there is no way to form
fringes with a detectable contrast ratio.

I think that you have gone -way- over Henri's head with
mention of coherence length.

At the moment, he cannot even understand the
difference between the wavelength and the
distance a wave moves in a certain time, any
serious physics at all is over his head.

However, he asked a question beause he has had
an idea and doesn't know why it is ruled out.
While it is obvious to us, it has to be spelled
out for Henry. I gave him the factual answer
ad now he will no doubt spends a few weeks
arguing about it until many people patiently
explaining it finally brings him up to speed
on the topic.

It seems to be the only way he ever learns
anything, and he soon forgets once the subject
moves on, but it's the best we can do.

I always also remember there my be lurkers
around who gain from the answer too even though
it wasn't directed at them.

...It's very amusing listening to one clueless moron talking to another....

George



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:36:44 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
: On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:14:51 GMT, "Androcles"
: wrote:
:

: The problenm is, you, George and Jerry are trying to analyse light in
terms of
: classical waves in a medium.

Me? Don't include me, you are the crackpot with the crazy
wavelength ideas. I've modelled your old bike chain with a rack.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rack.gif

YOU are the crackpot who can't produce a result in spite of all your ranting
and raving....

The tick fairy added a tooth or two but it still has the same speed,
I shortened the wavelength.

: Jerry's program simulates two water waves moving
: at different speeds around the ring.

Androcles:
"The source emits photons, you stupid old fart. Sagnac has a light
bulb, not a radio transmitter." -- October 17, 2007 1:33 AM, SEVEN ****in'
days
ago, thread "GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY"

Wilson to Dishman, October 16, "Light emits photon particles, not squiggly
lines".

The problenm is, sheep shagging Wombat Wilson, Dishpan,
Tusseladd and Jeery are trying to analyse light in terms of classical
waves in a medium, but Androcles KNOWS better and has SAID so;
Wombat Wilson like to keep his head firmly stuck in his arse!

Anyway, boats bob up and down on water waves with a FREQUENCY.

Can YOU answer the questio I puot to George. he could not.

Why is energy transferred in one preferred direction in a water wave, when the
molecules of water move up and down vertically?

: My approach, WHICH PRODUCES THE RIGHT ANSWER says light PARTICLES do NOT
behave
: according to classical traveling wave equation A'=Asin[2pi(t/T-x/L)]
: ..why should they?

You can use
1 Direct proof
2 Proof by induction
3 Proof by transposition
4 Proof by contradiction
5 Proof by construction
6 Proof by exhaustion
but
7 Proof by "everybody knows"
8 Proof by "because I say so"
are not acceptable, EVEN IF YOU SHOUT, you DUMB ****!

It is NOT your approach, it is MY approach WHICH PRODUCES
THE RIGHT ANSWER!

Where is you calculation that shws fringe displacement = 4Aw/cL?






Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:50:27 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
My approach, WHICH PRODUCES THE RIGHT ANSWER says light PARTICLES do NOT behave
according to classical traveling wave equation A'=Asin[2pi(t/T-x/L)]
..why should they?

You are indeed funny, Henri. :-)

I like to make people laugh....It shows they are learning new things from me...

Wasn't your approach to count the number of wavelengths defined
by the equation A'=Asin[2pi(t/T-x/L)] (in a wrong way, but anyway).

Paul, I don't expect you to be able to understand the physical significance of
the traveling wave equation but to put it simply, it describes what happens if
you draw a sqiggly line on a piece of paper and move it sideways.

If you think a photon is just a 'moving squiggly line' then you're welcome to
the idea ...but can you explain how one particular squiggly line and not
another will cause electrons to be released from a metal surface when it hits
is?

If this equation does not apply to light, what are you then counting?

What is the _wave_length of your non wave?

What IS your 'approach'? :-)



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:50:27 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
My approach, WHICH PRODUCES THE RIGHT ANSWER says light PARTICLES do NOT behave
according to classical traveling wave equation A'=Asin[2pi(t/T-x/L)]
..why should they?

You are indeed funny, Henri. :-)

Wasn't your approach to count the number of wavelengths defined
by the equation A'=Asin[2pi(t/T-x/L)] (in a wrong way, but anyway).
If this equation does not apply to light, what are you then counting?

What is the _wave_length of your non wave?

What IS your 'approach'? :-)

Photons are paticles, not waves.

What's your approach to knocking electrons out of metals with squiggly lines?




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm