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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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.

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

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