|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#2351
|
|||
|
|||
Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:47:32 -0700, Jerry
wrote: On Oct 24, 4:14 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: 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. You have COMPLETELY lost the point. Earlier, you made the stupid and asinine speculation that "fringe production in a sagnac interferometer [has] something to do with the phase relationship between INCOMING and OUTGOING rays rather than the rejoining of the two oppositely moving rays." George's point was that since white light Sagnac interferometers are perfectly functional, your speculation is dead in the water. You didn't read properly. I SAID IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE. Hasn't it dawned on you yet that you are pontificating on matters of which you are both ignorant and incompetent? You are a joke.... see: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.exe (It doesn't work too well on Vista....will fix) This shows the difference between your 'moving squiggly line' theory and mine. The dots represent 'wavelengths'. The two rays meet together at the detector in both theories...but for different reasons. You say the phases are the same. I say the phases are indicated by the 'circle of white teeth'....The arrival phase for each is (pathlength mod lambda) . If the phase of one ray is x degrees, then that of the other is 360-x Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |
#2352
|
|||
|
|||
Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:43:29 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote: HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote in : 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. Henri, the image is a vertical line surrounded by fainter vertical lines. The fringes are vertical lines because they are images of the slit. Crap. We were talking about the MMx and four mirror sagnac. Lines rather than circles appear if the top mirror is angled slightly to form an optical wedge. This was a popular version of the MM interferometer. Why would you think they are circles? No wonder you are so confused about Sagnac. Your mind keeps running around in circles. Don't try to discuss things you know nothing about, bob. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |
#2353
|
|||
|
|||
Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:31:52 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote: bz wrote: HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote in : 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. Henri, the image is a vertical line surrounded by fainter vertical lines. The fringes are vertical lines because they are images of the slit. Why would you think they are circles? Actually Henri has a point in this case. Thank you Paul.. If a slit is used, you will obviously get a line-pattern. But nowadays it is more common to use a laser as a source, which can be considered a point source rather than a slit. In an interferometer the light from the source is split, and the light is going along different paths to the screen. This is equivalent to having two correlated point sources at some distance from the screen. If these sources are on the same optical axis, but the effective distances to them are different, then you will get a "bulls eye" pattern on the screen. This is often used in modern Michelson interferometers. http://www.hartnell.cc.ca.us/physics...rferometer.pdf Note however that the lengths of the two arms have to be slightly different for a bulls eye pattern to form. In a Sagnac interferometer, the two paths will be equal (when not rotating), so this is probably not practical. But if you skew one of the mirrors a slightly, it will have the same effect as two point sources which are NOT on the same optical axis. You will then get bright fringes where the distance to the sources differ by N*lambda. These will be hyperbolas. The central line (N=0) is straight, N=1 will be slightly curved, N=2 more curved, etc. http://tinyurl.com/33p3at Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |
#2354
|
|||
|
|||
Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?
"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ... : On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:38:44 GMT, "Androcles" : wrote: : : : "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message : .. . : : 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 : : 1) You have the wrong equation, no c+v included. : 2) see 1) above. : : v is negligible. Ok, fringe shift is neglible. I see you are back in ****head mode. : 'c' is a universal constant. : : : 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. : : It could fly, actually. I have no strong objection to it, I quite like it. : I modelled it a long time ago, the difference is the +ve and -ve are : replaced by N and S. : http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../AC/Photon.gif : Just because there is only one shown travelling doesn't mean there are : not two poles, as shown in the "stationary" photon in the gif. : : This is very possible. It could use poles, charges or both. Still have to conserve energy, AC still works, electric motors still work, generators still work, there is no "very possible", it ****in' IS. I see you are back in argumentative ****head mode. Radio is not your theory, Wilson. It was all thought of long before you or Einstein or Tusseladd or Dishpan or Jeery, even if none of you understand it. http://www.om3rkp.cq.sk/articles.php?lng=en&pg=91 : I don't know why this kind of model has been rejected. Faraday didn't reject it. Tesla didn't reject it. Marconi didn't reject it. Only dorks and tusselader reject it. : I know that a photon cannot be a spinning electron/positron pair because of an : imbalance in 'the equation' the but it COULD be just the spinning charges...or : magnetic poles. No it ****ing can't. AC still works, electric motors still work, generators still work, radio still works, there is no "could be", it's ****in' known and energy is conserved. I see you are back in argumentative ****head mode. Do you start your drinking with breakfast, Wilson? BTW, What's this wavelength? http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/tracking/ What would it be if the Earth turned in 12 hours instead of 24? : : : Have you checked this out: : : http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/ : : LIVE from the shuttle... I watched the launch this afternoon. : : : : yeh! good : : I watched the docking today. |
#2355
|
|||
|
|||
Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:30:45 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote: "Clueless Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message .. . 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. No it ismn't Henry, it just shows how clueless you are about all this. Let me explain. A "point" is nothing more than a set of spatial coordinates in some coordinate system. If you define a fixed set of values for those coordinates, the point is at rest in that system. If you define it in the inertial system then it doesn't move in that system and if you define a point in the rotating system it doesn't move in that system. The two points might be co-located at the instant the light is emitted but thereafter they move apart. George, if you are going to continueto be this dumb I will find it hard not to start calling you names....in the style of Androcles. see, for instance: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm That is your SR explanation of a ring gyro. The start point DOES NOT MOVE. However, none of that needs to worry you. Consider a single wavecrest or phase front. You can say it is emitted at a point in the inertial frame and moves away from it at speed c+v in that frame, or you can say it is emitted from a point in the rotating frame and say it moves away at speed c, and you will find that both calculations give the same place where you will find the phase front at some later time. George, that is the classical theory....applicable to 'moving sine waves' like water waves. (neither you nor Paul will acknowledge that this emission point MOVES in the rotating frame.....because it destroys your 'rotating frame' argument) Henry, you are an idiot. Just a couple of days ago I warned you I would keep on reminding you that the proof I showed you was in the inertial frame. All you are doing is showing everyone you can't even work out which frame you are working in if the speed is "c+v". George, you don't understand frames. You still can't see that the start point is static in the inertial frame but moving backward in the rotating frame. Not only that, every previously emitted 'wavecrest' moves backward in proportion. SR says the speed of both rays is magically adjusted to be c wrt that static emission point. Wrong, that is ballistic theory. The "speed equalisation" equations says that light is emitted at c+v but then magically gets reduced to c. SR says the light is emitted at c in any inertial frame and never gets adjusted. I am ignoring refractive index for simplicity of course, your errors are so groos, such details can be left until later. George my server finally fixed the problem and I was abl to upload this: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.exe (It doesn't work too well on Vista....will fix) This shows the difference between your 'moving squiggly line' theory and mine. The dots represent 'wavelengths'. The two rays meet together at the detector in both theories...but for different reasons. You say the phases are the same. I say the phases are indicated by the 'circle of white teeth'....The arrival phase for each is (pathlength mod lambda) . If the phase of one ray is x degrees, then that of the other is 360-x 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) ROFL, Henry that's a classic: "the fact that the elements emitted simutaneously do not arrive simultaneously" is just another way of saying there is a phase difference at the detector! Again you miss the point. SR says that the elements of the rays that reunite were NOT emitted simultaneously. The ones that DO meet at the detector were emitted with different phases. However, since the travel times are DIFFERENT in SR, this phase difference cancels to some extent. I suspect this is only a second order error so you get away with it. BaTh says they were emitted simultaneously but differ in phase when they arrive....due to an intrinsic effect. 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. Correct, and since they were emitted in phase that means they arrive in phase. no George, that's only according to your classical wave theory. it doesn't apply 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. Wrong, the phase difference is pathlength / distance_per_cycle, your algebra is plucked out of thin air and is not correct. George, in BaTh the 'distance per cycle' is absolute and the same in all frames. Both approaches produce the same answer. No Henry, they don't, your algebra is broken. the equations and answer is given at: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm 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. The correct approach is to form a set of simultaneous equations for the motion of a phase front of the light based on the motion of the source (beam splitter) and for the motion the detector. Solving that gives the arival time of the phase front at the detector and the approach allows for arbitrary variations of source speed. the equations and answer is given at: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm A simplification of that is suitable for constant speed where the travel time is also constant hence detection time can be found simply as emission time plus travel time. What you find is that the arrivial time for both beams is the same hence the detector sees the source waveform simply delayed by the same travel time through both paths and is always "in phase" even for completely arbitrary waveforms. If you want to use wavelength or whatever as an alternative, by all means do so, but there can only be one answer to the question "what is the phase differnce at the detector" and all valid approaches must give that single answer. So which is more likely. SR relies on an unproven postulate, Wrong as usual, the postulate is derived from Maxwell's Equations each of which is experimentally confirmed, and the one-way speed is confirmed as c experimentally by the Sagnac experiment. You don't have the ability to understand the maths involved. Maxwell's equations use the absolute aether as a speed reference. They don't apply to photon particles. ie., MAGIC, to adjust both light speeds to be 'c'. There is no adjustment clueless, the light is EMITTED moving at c in the inertial frame. It requires that the two rays move at c+v and c-v wrt the source. Nope, they move at c relative to the source. It states that..... but uses c+/-v in the equations. BaTh uses logical physics, ... No, it is purely philosophical and proven to be wrong by every experiment we have discussed other than the MMx. Don't waste your time repeating your dogma, physics is about calculation and it proves you wrong every time. BaTh has never been proven wrong. Every know exxperiment supports the concept. Einstein was a hoaxer....and his followers are no better... George Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |
#2356
|
|||
|
|||
Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:15:08 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote: Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: 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] 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. No, it isn't. QED - the theory of light and its interaction with matter - is the best tested theory ever. There is no aspect of light which this theory doesn't correctly model. (Correctly = in accordance with experimental evidence) Paul, don't pretend to be a smartarse. Light in the universe spends virtually all its time in transit...going from A to B. Nothing in QED or any theory other than mine reveals anything about the nature of photons in flight. Wave theory cannot generally explain the behavior of light. If you mean Maxwell's theory, that's obviously correct. Maxwell's theory explains nothing about the quantum aspects of light. It doesn't explain how light sources work. It doesn't explain how detectors work. It doesn't explain how light multipliers and lasers work. Maxwell's equations give a speed relative to the light carrying medium he believed in. But when it comes to optics, _which is what we now are discussing_, and generally the transmission of EM-radiation of all wavelengths in all kinds of media, then Maxwell's equations and Maxwell's wave equation describe the behaviour of that radiation extremely well, and I repeat: No exception is ever detected _in the macroscopic realm_. No exception has been detected for the simple reason that this would require a OW measurement using a moving source....virtually impossible before now. The fact that optical instruments, optical transmission systems, and radio transmission systems work as designed prove that EM-radiation behave as the designers assumed - that is according to Maxwell's equations. Paul, there is absolutely NO proof that light entering glass at c+v changes speed to c/n and not c+v/n. How many devices designed on the basis of Maxwell's equations do you think are in operation to allow you to read this posting? From Norway to Australia - how many satellite jumps? How many kilometres of optical and electrical cable? How many antennae? Oh yes, Henri. EM-radiation behave according to Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations have nothing to do with it. And if you think quantum effects falsifies any of that, you are wrong. The complete and exact theory of light - QED - predicts exactly the same as Maxwell's equations + SR in the macroscopic limit. If it didn't, it would be falsified and wouldn't exist. I repeat: Nobody but you have since the days of Huygens' been so stupid as to dispute that light behaves as a wave in the macroscopic realm. The experimental evidence simply does not allow it. then explain how one 'moving squiggly line' but not another can drive electrons from a metal surface. So you are contributing with something new after all. Your stupidity of historical proportions is hardly world shattering, though. Very few will notice. For which you should be glad, Mr. Ralph Rabbidge the late..... Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |
#2357
|
|||
|
|||
Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:41:40 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote: "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message .. . : On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:36:53 GMT, "Androcles" : wrote: : : : "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message : .. . : : On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:36:44 GMT, "Androcles" : : wrote: : : Wilson to Dishman, October 16, "Light emits photon particles, not squiggly : lines". : : "Lying faux Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message : .. . : : On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:38:59 +0100, "George Dishman" : "They are photons not sqiggly lines." : : You couldn't spell "squiggly"; you are a lying about the date; : it was on the 20th, 3 days after you read it on the 17th. : The facts are there in writing, recorded by Google, sheep shagger, : you plagiarised MY approach. : : : 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? : : If the boat rises it gains potential energy. The preferred direction is up. : Ripples on water are omni-directional. : : the energy moves in one direction...WWWWHHHHYYYY???? It wouldn't be energy if it didn't. shrug Are you asking why things move? : : What's so strange about that? : : Nothing. You again cannot answer th question... What's to answer? The ****ing boats move up and gain energy... What's your problem? Are you not aware that enegy is transmitted longitudinally by a water wave? I'm asking you why it goes one way and not the other since the water molecules themselves only move up and down. Why does a water wave appear to be moving towards the shore? There is another wave going the opposite way. : Read up on Christian Huyghens, so-called "physicist". : : You'd do best to start here, and so would Tusseladd. Maybe you : can teach him. : http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/SHO/damp.html : : When the spring is stretched or compressed it contains potential : energy (PE). When it is relaxed it has no energy, BUT... the mass : has maximum kinetic energy (KE). The total energy is constant and : conserved. It is EXCHANGED between the KE of the mass and : the PE of the spring. When the mass is not moving it has no KE, : but the spring has PE. This is a PHASE shift of 90 degrees. : : A magnetic field is like the spring. It exchanges its field for an : electric field. The E-field and the B-field are NEVER "in phase", : that would mean both would be zero at the same instant in time. : That's what Maxwell's equations are saying. : : It is claimed that maxwell's equation have the E and B fiels in phase. It is claimed that time dilation is real. So what? It is claimed that God exists. So what? It is claimed that haha-h-aether is real. So what? It is claimed that uni****ation is real. So what? It is claimed that Doppler shift doesn't exist. So what? It is claimed that Wilson is a ****head. That claim is prove correct. How's the ram this mornng? : http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...outofphase.gif : You can see the phase shift quite easily, the red (+ve) and blue (-ve) : are present at the same instant in time, almost canceling each other. : Move the detector further away and they will cancel completely, they : have different "wavelengths". They are in phase right up to the beam : splitter, Wilson, and past that they get out of phase. : : equation please.....you do know what an 'equation' is, I presume... You would not understand it, Wilson, you don't know the basics. First learn to count, then learn what direction is. lambda1 = c/nu lambda2 = -c/nu Just look at the pretty pictures instead: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...outofphase.gif You can see the phase shift quite easily, the red (+ve) and blue (-ve) are present at the same instant in time, almost canceling each other. can you produce Fringe Displacement = 4Aw/c.lambda with your theory? If not why not... Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |
#2358
|
|||
|
|||
Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:46:54 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote: "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message .. . : 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. STILL cannot spell "squiggly" on the 20th. Squiggley, sqigley, squigley, skwiglie are all wrong. : If you think a photon is just a 'moving squiggly line' then you're welcome to : the idea ... No, Wilson, it is 'stationary squiggly line', a trace in TIME. Whatever...but the G.J.P. brigade think light is just a moving sinewave. : 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? The wiggly line is a trace in time showing where the field WAS. The photon is an electric field. When the electric field gets to the metal surface it pulls the electron. ...so no squiggly lines are involved?? That's settled then. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |
#2359
|
|||
|
|||
Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?
"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ... : On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:41:40 GMT, "Androcles" : wrote: : : : "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message : .. . : : On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:36:53 GMT, "Androcles" : : wrote: : : : : : : "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message : : .. . : : : On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:36:44 GMT, "Androcles" : : : : wrote: : : : : Wilson to Dishman, October 16, "Light emits photon particles, not squiggly : : lines". : : : : "Lying faux Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message : : .. . : : : On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:38:59 +0100, "George Dishman" : : "They are photons not sqiggly lines." : : : : You couldn't spell "squiggly"; you are a lying about the date; : : it was on the 20th, 3 days after you read it on the 17th. : : The facts are there in writing, recorded by Google, sheep shagger, : : you plagiarised MY approach. : : : : : 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? : : : : If the boat rises it gains potential energy. The preferred direction is : up. : : Ripples on water are omni-directional. : : : : the energy moves in one direction...WWWWHHHHYYYY???? : : It wouldn't be energy if it didn't. shrug : Are you asking why things move? : : : : : : What's so strange about that? : : : : Nothing. You again cannot answer th question... : : What's to answer? The ****ing boats move up and gain : energy... What's your problem? : : Are you not aware that enegy is transmitted longitudinally by a water wave? Omnidirectionally, sure, all the way to the shore and the opposite shore. Ripples make concentric circles. : I'm asking you why it goes one way and not the other It does go the other way. You are nuts, Wilson. : since the water molecules : themselves only move up and down. Down as far as the bottom, then they have to move sideways. They can go up as far as they like. : Why does a water wave appear to be moving : towards the shore? The bottom is sloped there. Water runs downhill. You are only looking at the top. If you looked at the bottom you'd see it go away from the shore. : There is another wave going the opposite way. Some of us already know that. It goes the opposite way on the American shore to its direction on the Ozzie shore. : : Read up on Christian Huyghens, so-called "physicist". : : : : You'd do best to start here, and so would Tusseladd. Maybe you : : can teach him. : : http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/SHO/damp.html : : : : When the spring is stretched or compressed it contains potential : : energy (PE). When it is relaxed it has no energy, BUT... the mass : : has maximum kinetic energy (KE). The total energy is constant and : : conserved. It is EXCHANGED between the KE of the mass and : : the PE of the spring. When the mass is not moving it has no KE, : : but the spring has PE. This is a PHASE shift of 90 degrees. : : : : A magnetic field is like the spring. It exchanges its field for an : : electric field. The E-field and the B-field are NEVER "in phase", : : that would mean both would be zero at the same instant in time. : : That's what Maxwell's equations are saying. : : : : It is claimed that maxwell's equation have the E and B fiels in phase. : : It is claimed that time dilation is real. So what? : It is claimed that God exists. So what? : It is claimed that haha-h-aether is real. So what? : It is claimed that uni****ation is real. So what? : It is claimed that Doppler shift doesn't exist. So what? : It is claimed that Wilson is a ****head. That claim is prove correct. : : How's the ram this mornng? Has he been ****ing ewe? Is that why ewe asked? : : : http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...outofphase.gif : : You can see the phase shift quite easily, the red (+ve) and blue (-ve) : : are present at the same instant in time, almost canceling each other. : : Move the detector further away and they will cancel completely, they : : have different "wavelengths". They are in phase right up to the beam : : splitter, Wilson, and past that they get out of phase. : : : : equation please.....you do know what an 'equation' is, I presume... : : You would not understand it, Wilson, you don't know the basics. : First learn to count, then learn what direction is. : lambda1 = c/nu : lambda2 = -c/nu : : Just look at the pretty pictures instead: : http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...outofphase.gif : You can see the phase shift quite easily, the red (+ve) and blue (-ve) : are present at the same instant in time, almost canceling each other. : : can you produce Fringe Displacement = 4Aw/c.lambda with your theory? : : If not why not... Fringe Displacement is as negligible as v. What's the Fringe Displacement of this sine wave, Wilson? http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/tracking/ I say its about 45 minutes, what do you hallucinate AND how do you get 4Aw/c.lambda with your theory? |
#2360
|
|||
|
|||
Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:24:22 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote: Dr. Henri Wilson skrev: 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? So your approach is NOT to count the number of wavelengths defined by the equation sin(wt - kx). But as you can see below by my question below, I had understood that much. 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'? :-) No answer, Henri?' What IS your approach which produce 'the right answer'? And how do you define the wavelengths you are counting? A photon has an intrinsic oscillation of an unknown nature. During the absolute time interval defined by one period of that oscillation, an identifiable point in the photon body moves through a 'spatial interval' at c wrt the source. The absolute distance it moves in the source frame is its 'wavelength'. Like ALL lengths, that wavelength is the same in all frames. Unlike your 'fixed squiggly line' theory, the phase at the 'front' of a BaTh photon changes as it moves. 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 |
Fixed for a price? | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 5 | May 18th 05 06:33 PM |
Spirit Fixed! | Greg Crinklaw | UK Astronomy | 1 | January 25th 04 03:56 AM |
Spirit Fixed! | Greg Crinklaw | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | January 24th 04 09:09 PM |
I think I got it fixed now. | Terrence Daniels | Space Shuttle | 0 | July 2nd 03 07:53 PM |
I think I got it fixed now. | Terrence Daniels | Policy | 0 | July 2nd 03 07:53 PM |