RITZ'S THEORY AND EINSTEIN'S THEORY

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/origins_pathway/index.html
John Norton: "We know from later recollections what one of Einstein's
modified versions of electrodynamics looked like. In that version, the
velocity of light is a constant, not with respect to the ether, but
with respect to the source that emits the light. Such a theory is
called an "emission" theory of light and, if the other parts of the
theory are well behaved, will satisfy the principle of relativity.
Einstein later recalled that the theory he developed was essentially
that developed later by Walther Ritz in 1908. In Ritz's theory - and
thus probably also in Einstein's theory - all electrodynamic action,
not just light, propagated in a vacuum at c with respect to the
actions source. (...) It was a lovely theory. But it didn't work. We
can only guess what the problems were. But we know he found many."

So Ritz's theory doesn't work? Because Divine Albert somehow found
many problems with it? And Divine Albert's Divine Theory does work?
Because Einsteinians find no problems with it? Let us see. According
to the emission theory, the speed of light relative to an observer
moving away from the source with speed v is c-v. According to
Einstein's special relativity, the speed of light relative to an
observer moving away from the source with speed v is c. The following
video clearly shows that the emission theory is correct (it works!)
while special relativity is simply wrong:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EVzUyE2oD1w
"Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, discusses the Doppler effect
and gravitational lensing in respect to Einstein's Theory of General
Relativity"

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

"It suddenly dawned on Einstein" how he could convert physics into a
silly fairytale:

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming
contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two
principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that
there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light
is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's
version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that,
if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all
inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that
the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or
decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam?
Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy
period of time, to the point of despair. We have no details of this
struggle, unfortunately. Finally, after a day spent wrestling once
more with the problem in the company of his friend and patent office
colleague Michele Besso, the only person thanked in the 1905 SRT
paper, there came a moment of crucial insight. In all of his struggles
with the emission theory as well as with Lorentz's theory, he had been
assuming that the ordinary Newtonian law of addition of velocities was
unproblematic. It is this law of addition of velocities that allows
one to "prove" that, if the velocity of light is constant with respect
to one inertial frame, it cannot be constant with respect to any other
inertial frame moving with respect to the first. It suddenly dawned on
Einstein that this "obvious" law was based on certain assumptions
about the nature of time..."

Then everything went smoothly (space and time did obey Divine Albert's
orders) except the blasphemous wavelength refused (and is still
refusing) to vary with the speed of the observer so that the speed of
light (relative to the observer) could gloriously remain constant and
Einsteiniana's zombies could have the courage to destroy any opponent.
Of course, Divine Albert did not go as far as to care about the
wavelength and neither did zombies - they destroyed all opponents:

http://game2gether.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/wall1-1280x1024-1024x819.jpg

Nowadays innocent people (similar to the innocent child from "The
Emperor's New Clothes") discover, from time to time, that the
wavelength simply cannot vary with the speed of the observer but the
rest of the world couldn't care less - theoretical physics does not
exist anymore and even the silly fairytale created by Divine Albert is
dying very quickly:

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This
velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the
velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion
of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in
frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in
a given time."

http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedentes/Expo/Ondes/fichiers%20son/Effet%20Doppler.pdf
"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif
entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6.
Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les
crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des
crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
"Emission theory (also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of
light) was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity,
explaining the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Emission
theories obey the principle of relativity by having no preferred frame
for light transmission, but say that light is emitted at speed "c"
relative to its source instead of applying the invariance postulate.
Thus, emitter theory combines electrodynamics and mechanics with a
simple Newtonian theory. Although there are still proponents of this
theory outside the scientific mainstream, this theory is considered to
be conclusively discredited by most scientists. The name most often
associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his Corpuscular
theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot
bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object,
and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect
light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed
of the distant emitter (c ± v). (...) Albert Einstein is supposed to
have worked on his own emission theory before abandoning it in favor
of his special theory of relativity. Many years later R.S. Shankland
reports Einstein as saying that Ritz' theory had been "very bad" in
places and that he himself had eventually discarded emission theory
because he could think of no form of differential equations that
described it, since it leads to the waves of light becoming "all mixed
up"."

Conclusion: Any theory for which Divine Albert, the Divine
Mathematician, could think of no form of differential equations that
described it, is very bad. In other words, such a theory is
conclusively discredited by most scientists. If the initial dicredit
brought on such a theory proves fraudulent, the final dicredit brought
on it is absolutely honest and conclusive:

https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1/m/Relativity.html
Alberto Martinez: "Does the speed of light depend on the speed of its
source? Before formulating his theory of special relativity, Albert
Einstein spent a few years trying to formulate a theory in which the
speed of light depends on its source, just like all material
projectiles. Likewise, Walter Ritz outlined such a theory, where none
of the peculiar effects of Einstein's relativity would hold. By 1913
most physicists abandoned such efforts, accepting the postulate of the
constancy of the speed of light. Yet five decades later all the
evidence that had been said to prove that the speed of light is
independent of its source had been found to be defective."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

Concentrated lie taught in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/susskind/special-relativity/lecture-1/principles-of-special-relativity/
Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is
that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always
measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it
is measured. (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=c-v and the
speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in the
stationary frame, directly contradicting Maxwell. Scientists before
Einstein thought that Galilean relativity was correct and so supposed
that there had to exist a special, universal frame (called the aether)
in which Maxwell's equations would be correct. However, over time and
many experiments (including Michelson-Morley) it was shown that the
speed of light did not depend on the velocity of the observer
measuring it, so that c'=c."

The truth:

One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is that the velocity of
electromagnetic waves, or light, is always measured to have the same
value in the stationary frame of the ether. In a frame moving with
speed v relative to the ether the speed of light is c±v (according to
Maxwell's theory). (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=c-v
and the speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in
the stationary frame, in accordance with Maxwell. The Michelson-Morley
experiment showed that the speed of light (relative to the observer)
varies not only with the speed of the observer (as predicted by
Maxwell's theory) but also with the speed of the light source, in
accordance with Newton's emission theory of light:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the
importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even
though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the
experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation,
has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with
Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late
19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light
predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised
the greatest theoretician of the day."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers
in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues
that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of
light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the
Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of
relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support
for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point
needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible
with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light
consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper
submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle
seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more
damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle
is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we
take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles
obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus
automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley
experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or
Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the
temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of
light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his
second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought
of in terms of waves in an ether."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

Zombie education: Why exactly can nothing go faster than the speed of
light? Because four-velocity vectors only rotate and never stretch or
shrink, which has to do with the invariance of the speed of light but
we'll save that for another time thank you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sIA0fepnKA
"Why exactly can nothing go faster than the speed of light? (...)
That's why nothing in our universe can go faster than light. Because
the phrase "faster than light," in our universe, is exactly equivalent
to the phrase "straighter than straight," or "more horizontal than
horizontal." It doesn't mean anything. Now, there are some mysteries
here. Why can four-velocity vectors only rotate, and never stretch or
shrink? There is an answer to that question, and it has to do with the
invariance of the speed of light. But I've rambled on quite enough
here, and so I think we'll save that for another time. For right now,
if you just believe that four-velocities can never stretch or shrink
because that's just the way it is, then you'll only be slightly less
informed on the subject than the most brilliant physicists who've ever
lived. Thank you."

Zombies clap and applaud and go looking for antirelativists to
destroy:

http://images.yume.vn/blog/20101026/halloween-31.JPG

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

[Tom Roberts]

On 2/11/12 2/11/12 2:18 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Zombie education: Why exactly can nothing go faster than the speed of
> light? Because four-velocity vectors only rotate and never stretch or
> shrink, which has to do with the invariance of the speed of light but
> we'll save that for another time thank you:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sIA0fepnKA

> "...if you just believe that four-velocities can never stretch or shrink

> because that's just the way it is, then you'll only be slightly less
> informed on the subject than the most brilliant physicists who've ever
> lived.

And the 4-velocity of a timelike object must never "stretch or shrink", because
a clock traveling with the object must always tick at its usual rate (1 second
per second). This requires the norm of the 4-velocity to remain constant (= 1).


Tom Roberts

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 08.02.2012 10:16, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
> "Emission theory (also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of
> light) was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity,
> explaining the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Emission
> theories obey the principle of relativity by having no preferred frame
> for light transmission, but say that light is emitted at speed "c"
> relative to its source instead of applying the invariance postulate.
> Thus, emitter theory combines electrodynamics and mechanics with a
> simple Newtonian theory. Although there are still proponents of this
> theory outside the scientific mainstream, this theory is considered to
> be conclusively discredited by most scientists. The name most often
> associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his Corpuscular
> theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot
> bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object,
> and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect
> light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed

> of the distant emitter (c ą v). (...) Albert Einstein is supposed to

> have worked on his own emission theory before abandoning it in favor
> of his special theory of relativity. Many years later R.S. Shankland
> reports Einstein as saying that Ritz' theory had been "very bad" in
> places and that he himself had eventually discarded emission theory
> because he could think of no form of differential equations that
> described it, since it leads to the waves of light becoming "all mixed
> up"."
>
> Conclusion: Any theory for which Divine Albert, the Divine
> Mathematician, could think of no form of differential equations that
> described it, is very bad. In other words, such a theory is
> conclusively discredited by most scientists.

Ritz's emission theory is "very bad" by one and only one reason:
It's predictions are not in accordance with experimental evidence.
Among many experiments falsifying the emission theory is Sagnac's
experiment.

You can see why here:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/FourMirrorSagnac.html

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[Androcles]

"Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somwhere.no> wrote in message
news:jhh5qd$f3o$1...@news.albasani.net...

| On 08.02.2012 10:16, Pentcho Valev wrote:
| > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
| > "Emission theory (also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of
| > light) was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity,
| > explaining the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Emission
| > theories obey the principle of relativity by having no preferred frame
| > for light transmission, but say that light is emitted at speed "c"
| > relative to its source instead of applying the invariance postulate.
| > Thus, emitter theory combines electrodynamics and mechanics with a
| > simple Newtonian theory. Although there are still proponents of this
| > theory outside the scientific mainstream, this theory is considered to
| > be conclusively discredited by most scientists. The name most often
| > associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his Corpuscular
| > theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot
| > bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object,
| > and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect
| > light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed

| > of the distant emitter (c 1 v). (...) Albert Einstein is supposed to

| > have worked on his own emission theory before abandoning it in favor
| > of his special theory of relativity. Many years later R.S. Shankland
| > reports Einstein as saying that Ritz' theory had been "very bad" in
| > places and that he himself had eventually discarded emission theory
| > because he could think of no form of differential equations that
| > described it, since it leads to the waves of light becoming "all mixed
| > up"."
| >
| > Conclusion: Any theory for which Divine Albert, the Divine
| > Mathematician, could think of no form of differential equations that
| > described it, is very bad. In other words, such a theory is
| > conclusively discredited by most scientists.
|
| Ritz's emission theory is "very bad" by one and only one reason:
| It's predictions are not in accordance with experimental evidence.
| Among many experiments falsifying the emission theory is Sagnac's
| experiment.
|
| You can see why here:
| http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
| http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf
| http://www.gethome.no/paulba/FourMirrorSagnac.html
|

One rocket leaves Grimstad and travels eastward in orbit going
around the Earth once, landing in Kristiansand, having travelled
slightly less than one Earth circumference.
Another rocket leaves Grimstad at the same instant, travels
west and lands in Kristiansand, arriving at the same instant
as the first rocket, having travelled slightly more than one
Earth diameter. The displacement from Grimstad to
Kristiansand is caused by the Earth rotating beneath the two
rockets in orbit.
Some Norweg idiot calculates the time it takes for the west-
going rocket to travel from Grimstad to Kristiansand and calls
it 'delta t' as if anyone gave a shit!

You can see why here:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf

Hilarious!

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:50:20 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somwhere.no>
wrote:

Paul's principal mistake is to assume that a photon can be treated in the
same way as a spinning wheel or a crystal oscillator, in which case he might
be correct. Unfortunately for him, light doesn't work like that. A photon is
long and thin and posesses regular spatial features that define absolute
wavelengths. Like all lengths, this 'wavelength' is absolute and frame
independent.

As I have shown before, Wilson's upgraded ballistic theory produces the same
result as Einstein's upgraded aether theory. According to both theories, the
path lengths differ by 2vt. SR says frequency is constant and the travel
times are different, resulting in a phase difference. BaTh says the path
lengths are different and therefore contain different numbers of
wavelengths.

The analysis is illustrated here: www.scisite.info/ringgyro.htm
As you can see, the final equation the same for both theories.

Paul's other mistake results from his misuse of rotating frames to analyse
the sagnac effect. Like many of his kind, he believes that every aspect of a
rotating system when viewed in its rotating frame is identical to a
nonrotating system viewed in the inertial frame. He hasn't heard of
imaginary effects associated with rotating frames.

If he correctly transformed the inertial frame sagnac diagram to the
rotating frame, he would observe that the apparent coincidence between the
emission point and detection point is one such imaginary effect. In reality,
the inertial emission point should be shown moving backwards in the rotating
frame, making the path lengths different just as they were in the inertial
frame.

>http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf
>http://www.gethome.no/paulba/FourMirrorSagnac.html

Paul makes the same mistakes in both these.

....but he will never admit to being wrong....

[PD]

On Feb 21, 2:50 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
> A photon is
> long and thin and posesses regular spatial features that define absolute
> wavelengths.

And how would you test this hypothesis that the photon is long and
thin?
Science is about coming up with *testable* models.
It's not about making assertions about the color of jackets that
pixies wear, or whether ectoplasm requires glass or steel containers
to hold it.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 13:01:55 -0800 (PST), PD <thedrap...@gmail.com>
wrote:

.......another irrelevant rant from a rabid relativist.

[PD]

On Feb 21, 5:38 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 13:01:55 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com>

So, what science is about, you consider irrelevant?

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 2/21/2012 6:38 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 13:01:55 -0800 (PST), PD<thedrap...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 21, 2:50 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>>> A photon is
>>> long and thin and posesses regular spatial features that define absolute
>>> wavelengths.

and PD Spewed:

>> And how would you test this hypothesis that the photon is long and
>> thin?
>> Science is about coming up with *testable* models.
>> It's not about making assertions about the color of jackets that
>> pixies wear, or whether ectoplasm requires glass or steel containers
>> to hold it.

and Henry Wilson wrote:
> .......another irrelevant rant from a rabid relativist.

Of course I do agree that PD is totally irrelevant, but your supposition
of "long thin" photons is sort of standard. Physics texts like to talk
about "wave packets" to "explain" photons and the "wave-particle
duality" in particular. Except that it's probably the least reasonable
"explanation" out there. For example it would take a VERY long wave
packet to properly define the photon wavelength. But experiment shows
energy transfer in far too sort a time for that to be true. And that
then means that a theory must be generated whereby the "long photon" is
somehow "cancelled" along it's entire length at once to eject an
electron. The whole approach does not seem particularly promising. Not
to say that there is a zero possibility that it could be the correct
explanation. I just don't find it likely.

And if PD had done any research at all, he'd know that pixies wear
whatever color jackets please them at the moment (just as you and I do)
and ectoplasm doesn't store well in either glass or steel containers.
Which only shows that PD knows a lot about the physics religion, but
nothing about experimental physics.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

Well, think about it. There are estimates for the time taken for a photon to
be created/emitted. One popular figure is that it is around 10^-7 seconds.
If the whole photon is emitted at c, that would mean it would be thirty
metres long. I reckon a photon is like a tapered cylinder of 'aether' that
has some kind of intrinsic oscillation running through it, giving it both
wave and particle properties. The difference between a gamma photon and an
infra red one lies in its volume and intrinsic oscillation energy.

>And if PD had done any research at all, he'd know that pixies wear
>whatever color jackets please them at the moment (just as you and I do)
>and ectoplasm doesn't store well in either glass or steel containers.
>Which only shows that PD knows a lot about the physics religion, but
>nothing about experimental physics.

PD gets a kick out of wasting the time of real scientists. It makes him feel
important when in fact he knows absolutely nothing about the subject..

>

[Androcles]

"BJA...@teranews.com" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:e8%0r.6854$zD5....@newsfe12.iad...

Jokaby, magnetic fields are force fields outside the metal
and between the poles. That's an observable fact.
Electric fields are force fields outside the metal
and between the poles. That too is an observable fact.
A changing electric field produces a magnetic field and
a changing magnetic field produces an electric field.
That's Faraday's discovery and is another observable fact.

Those three facts can be verified by experiment or observation
of electric motors or TV vacuum tubes.

Now imagine that you have a changing magnetic field remote
from the poles of the magnet, a point in space where this
change is taking place. Forget the poles, forget speed=c,
forget aether, forget anything except the observable facts,
and concentrate on the point in space. Apply Faraday's law.
An electric field is at the point in space because there is
a changing magnetic field there. An electric field without
any anode or cathode.
The magnetic field stops changing, the electric field
collapses. By collapsing, it changes. A changing electric
field produces a magnetic field. A magnetic field without
any north or south poles. Where are the poles? There
never were any poles, the magnetic field is circular.

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
news:t3a9k7p18uigv7b8s...@4ax.com...

--
"A pulse is not DC electricity. Idiot. Bloody-faced idiot. Self-flagellating
bloody-faced idiot" -- Phuckwit Duck.
c = 1 and unitless in natural units." -- Phuckwit Duck
"(x1-x2)^2 + (y1-y2)^2 + (z1-z2)^2 - (t1-t2)^2 is invariant" -- Mallard.
"It turns out that you can verify curvature of a space without
ever stepping away from the space to see it embedded in a
higher dimension." - Mallard.
Mal-lard = rancid fat.

[Zinnic]

On Feb 22, 5:47 am, "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Feb.2012> wrote:
> "BJAC...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message

>
> news:e8%0r.6854$zD5....@newsfe12.iad...
> | On 2/21/2012 6:38 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

Who would have imagined that?

[PD]

On Feb 21, 11:35 pm, "BJAC...@teranews.com" <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

>
> And if PD had done any research at all, he'd know that pixies wear
> whatever color jackets please them at the moment (just as you and I do)
> and ectoplasm doesn't store well in either glass or steel containers.
> Which only shows that PD knows a lot about the physics religion, but
> nothing about experimental physics.

Thanks, Ben, that was a nice underscoring of my point.

[PD]

On Feb 22, 2:46 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 00:35:17 -0500, "BJAC...@teranews.com"

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> >On 2/21/2012 6:38 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

> >> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 13:01:55 -0800 (PST), PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com>

Cite. A tenth of a microsecond is an *eternity* in photonics.
Researchers these days routinely use *femtosecond* light pulses. In
case you don't know what that prefix means, it is something one
hundred million times shorter than the "popular figure" that you just
mentioned. And in fact the 1999 (that's a dozen years ago) Nobel in
chemistry was awarded for work using femtosecond light pulses. Do
catch up.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:41:07 -0800 (PST), PD <thedrap...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Feb 22, 2:46 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 00:35:17 -0500, "BJAC...@teranews.com"
>>

>> >Of course I do agree that PD is totally irrelevant, but your supposition
>> >of "long thin" photons is sort of standard. Physics texts like to talk
>> >about "wave packets" to "explain" photons and the "wave-particle
>> >duality" in particular. Except that it's probably the least reasonable
>> >"explanation" out there. For example it would take a VERY long wave
>> >packet to properly define the photon wavelength. But experiment shows
>> >energy transfer in far too sort a time for that to be true. And that
>> >then means that a theory must be generated whereby the "long photon" is
>> >somehow "cancelled" along it's entire length at once to eject an
>> >electron. The whole approach does not seem particularly promising. Not
>> >to say that there is a zero possibility that it could be the correct
>> >explanation. I just don't find it likely.
>>
>> Well, think about it. There are estimates for the time taken for a photon to
>> be created/emitted. One popular figure is that it is around 10^-7 seconds.
>
>Cite. A tenth of a microsecond is an *eternity* in photonics.

Don't you know how to do a search?

[PD]

On Feb 22, 10:46 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:41:07 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 22, 2:46 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
> >> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 00:35:17 -0500, "BJAC...@teranews.com"
>
> >> >Of course I do agree that PD is totally irrelevant, but your supposition
> >> >of "long thin" photons is sort of standard. Physics texts like to talk
> >> >about "wave packets" to "explain" photons and the "wave-particle
> >> >duality" in particular. Except that it's probably the least reasonable
> >> >"explanation" out there. For example it would take a VERY long wave
> >> >packet to properly define the photon wavelength. But experiment shows
> >> >energy transfer in far too sort a time for that to be true. And that
> >> >then means that a theory must be generated whereby the "long photon" is
> >> >somehow "cancelled" along it's entire length at once to eject an
> >> >electron. The whole approach does not seem particularly promising. Not
> >> >to say that there is a zero possibility that it could be the correct
> >> >explanation. I just don't find it likely.
>
> >> Well, think about it. There are estimates for the time taken for a photon to
> >> be created/emitted. One popular figure is that it is around 10^-7 seconds.
>
> >Cite. A tenth of a microsecond is an *eternity* in photonics.
>
> Don't you know how to do a search?

Yes, and I just gave you a reference that is in direct conflict with
your number, by 8 orders of magnitude.

If you have something to back up your statement, then provide it.
If you don't, then say so.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 06:05:06 -0800 (PST), PD <thedrap...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Feb 22, 10:46 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:41:07 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 22, 2:46 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 00:35:17 -0500, "BJAC...@teranews.com"
>>
>> >> >Of course I do agree that PD is totally irrelevant, but your supposition
>> >> >of "long thin" photons is sort of standard. Physics texts like to talk
>> >> >about "wave packets" to "explain" photons and the "wave-particle
>> >> >duality" in particular. Except that it's probably the least reasonable
>> >> >"explanation" out there. For example it would take a VERY long wave
>> >> >packet to properly define the photon wavelength. But experiment shows
>> >> >energy transfer in far too sort a time for that to be true. And that
>> >> >then means that a theory must be generated whereby the "long photon" is
>> >> >somehow "cancelled" along it's entire length at once to eject an
>> >> >electron. The whole approach does not seem particularly promising. Not
>> >> >to say that there is a zero possibility that it could be the correct
>> >> >explanation. I just don't find it likely.
>>
>> >> Well, think about it. There are estimates for the time taken for a photon to
>> >> be created/emitted. One popular figure is that it is around 10^-7 seconds.
>>
>> >Cite. A tenth of a microsecond is an *eternity* in photonics.
>>
>> Don't you know how to do a search?
>
>Yes, and I just gave you a reference that is in direct conflict with
>your number, by 8 orders of magnitude.

You will find a wide range of figures.
Do another search.

>If you have something to back up your statement, then provide it.
>If you don't, then say so.

If the emission time is finite then the photon has length.
...but that's far too hard for you....

[PD]

On Feb 23, 2:35 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 06:05:06 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com>

You do one. Show me a cited result from it.
I've done one and produced. Now you produce.

>
> >If you have something to back up your statement, then provide it.
> >If you don't, then say so.
>
> If the emission time is finite then the photon has length.
> ...but that's far too hard for you....

And what makes you think the emission time is finite?

[Paul B. Andersen]

I stand corrected!

It should be obvious to all that when you have a continuous
wave around a Sagnac ring, you can't count the wave lengths
in this wave by counting the number of wavelengths in
an instant image of the wave, like I was stupid enough to
do here:
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/SagnacWaves.pdf
I have ignored the imaginary effects associated with rotating frames!
I should obviously have counted the number of waves
along the path, like Doctor Ralph Rabbidge points out
in his world shattering article:
http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro.htm
The path length is obviously shorter than the length
of the wave going with the rotation, so it must be a lower
number of wavelengths in the imaginary wave that isn't and
never was along the path, than it is in the real wave that
is going around the ring!

Obvious, no?

>
> If he correctly transformed the inertial frame sagnac diagram to the
> rotating frame, he would observe that the apparent coincidence between the
> emission point and detection point is one such imaginary effect. In reality,
> the inertial emission point should be shown moving backwards in the rotating
> frame, making the path lengths different just as they were in the inertial
> frame.
>
>> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf
>> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/FourMirrorSagnac.html
>
> Paul makes the same mistakes in both these.
>
> ....but he will never admit to being wrong....

In the very unlikely case that anybody should get the idea
that the guy calling himself Henry Wilson is a retarded crank
who doesn't know what he is talking about, you should be aware
that he is the fully qualified experimental physicist
Doctor of Science Ralph Rabbidge, who according to his own words:
<<
I have a full degree in physics and maths, including QM,
relativity, thermodynamics, optics, nuclear, partial differential
equations, laplace transforms, etc. I also have a completely
separate science degree majoring in psych and genetics
with a few other biological and physics subjects included.
I spent eleven years at two of the best universities,
overall. I was an experimental officer, in physics research
in Australia's CSIRO and other institutions for over twenty
years.
>>

So we should all bow in humble admiration for the wise words
of this great physicist.

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[PD]

On Feb 23, 3:22 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" <some...@somwhere.no> wrote:
> he is the fully qualified experimental physicist
> Doctor of Science Ralph Rabbidge, who according to his own words:
> <<
>    I have a full degree in physics and maths, including QM,
>    relativity, thermodynamics, optics, nuclear, partial differential
>    equations, laplace transforms, etc. I also have a completely
>    separate science degree majoring in psych and genetics
>    with a few other biological and physics subjects included.
>    I spent eleven years at two of the best universities,
>    overall. I was an experimental officer, in physics research
>    in Australia's CSIRO and other institutions for over twenty
>    years.

What is a physics researcher in CSIRO doing publishing papers about
measuring the moisture content of soil?

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:58:04 -0800 (PST), PD <thedrap...@gmail.com>
wrote:

do a search, idiot.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:32:17 -0800 (PST), PD <thedrap...@gmail.com>
wrote:

That was before he died.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:22:10 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somwhere.no>

I'm glad you finally admit it.

>It should be obvious to all that when you have a continuous
>wave around a Sagnac ring, you can't count the wave lengths
>in this wave by counting the number of wavelengths in
>an instant image of the wave, like I was stupid enough to
>do here:
>http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/SagnacWaves.pdf

You were indeed very stupid enough.
You have merely drawn a nonrotating interferometer.

You have wrongly transformed the inertial sagnac diagram into the rotating
frame and made a terrible blunder.

>I have ignored the imaginary effects associated with rotating frames!
>I should obviously have counted the number of waves

>along the path, like Doctor Henry Wilson points out

>in his world shattering article:
>http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro.htm
>The path length is obviously shorter than the length
>of the wave going with the rotation, so it must be a lower
>number of wavelengths in the imaginary wave that isn't and
>never was along the path, than it is in the real wave that
>is going around the ring!
>
>Obvious, no?

Paul, you must first analyse the problem in the inertial frame.
Even Andro's pet chimp can see that the path lengths are different in that
frame. ...but you apparently cannot.

Since the path lengths are different and wavelength is absolute, there are
more wavelenths in one path than the other. The subsequent BaTh equation for
fringe displacement is the same as the Einstein's aether one...so how can
you say it is wrong?

You error, (which I have described so many times I am becoming quite bored)
is in your conversion of this analysis to the rotating frame equivalent. You
haven't 'moved' the emission point. You have used its imaginary position.

If you are riding a carousel, what happens to a point on the ground?

Maybe if you acquire a DSc you will be able to understand your mistake.

>> If he correctly transformed the inertial frame sagnac diagram to the
>> rotating frame, he would observe that the apparent coincidence between the
>> emission point and detection point is one such imaginary effect. In reality,
>> the inertial emission point should be shown moving backwards in the rotating
>> frame, making the path lengths different just as they were in the inertial
>> frame.
>>
>>> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf
>>> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/FourMirrorSagnac.html
>>
>> Paul makes the same mistakes in both these.
>>
>> ....but he will never admit to being wrong....
>
>In the very unlikely case that anybody should get the idea
>that the guy calling himself Henry Wilson is a retarded crank
>who doesn't know what he is talking about, you should be aware
>that he is the fully qualified experimental physicist

>Doctor of Science Henry Wilson, who according to his own words:

><<
> I have a full degree in physics and maths, including QM,
> relativity, thermodynamics, optics, nuclear, partial differential
> equations, laplace transforms, etc. I also have a completely
> separate science degree majoring in psych and genetics
> with a few other biological and physics subjects included.
> I spent eleven years at two of the best universities,
> overall. I was an experimental officer, in physics research
> in Australia's CSIRO and other institutions for over twenty
> years.
> >>
>
>So we should all bow in humble admiration for the wise words
>of this great physicist.

...and so you should...it take real talent to bring down the god Einstein.

[PD]

On 2/24/2012 3:29 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

>
> do a search, idiot.

I have. You do one. Produce results. I did.

[PD]

You have spent so much of your life bullshitting and making stuff up,
that you no longer know whether what comes out of your mouth is the
truth or a lie.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Here is your carousel:
http://home.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Carousel.pdf
As you can see, the emission point stays stationary on the ground.
Since the point on the ground isn't moving, it must be imaginary.

Can you count the number of wavelengths in the imaginary
wave along the path of the wave front?

Since I am ignoring the imaginary effects associated with
rotating frames, I can't see your imaginary wave.

>
> Maybe if you acquire a DSc you will be able to understand your mistake.

Quite.
If I had acquired a DSc of the same kind as yours, I would probably
understand why the number of wavelengths in the continuous wave
between the mirrors are not equal to the number of wavelengths in
the real continuous wave between the mirrors, but rather is equal to
the number of wavelengths in the imaginary wave that doesn't move
along the path of the wave front.

Indeed.
I am bowing in humble admiration.

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

Your diagram represents the nonrotating frame POV. The E point is not
imaginary in that frame. Why should it be?

Surprisingly, you got the diagram partly right. You actually showed how the
angles increase above 90 deg at each mirror. For the opposite ray, that
angle is less than 90. So the rays do not line up when they reunite...an
effect that seemingly should not create a fringe displacement.

But you still didn't get the path length right. Your 'waves' should follow
the straight lines so that they are different lengths for each opposite ray.

>Can you count the number of wavelengths in the imaginary
>wave along the path of the wave front?

You have drawn the wave pattern for a nonrotating apparatus.

>Since I am ignoring the imaginary effects associated with
>rotating frames, I can't see your imaginary wave.

You haven't used the rotating frame at all. You have used the inertial
frame.

>> Maybe if you acquire a DSc you will be able to understand your mistake.
>
>Quite.
>If I had acquired a DSc of the same kind as yours, I would probably
>understand why the number of wavelengths in the continuous wave
>between the mirrors are not equal to the number of wavelengths in
>the real continuous wave between the mirrors, but rather is equal to
>the number of wavelengths in the imaginary wave that doesn't move
>along the path of the wave front.

Paul, you diagram is probably the most amusing thing you have posted here.
You obviously don't even know what the term 'rotating frame' signifies.

Then how about converting the features of your funny little diagram into the
rotating frame of the apparatus.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Mission accomplished! :-)

I rest my case.

Goodbye.

--
Paul, who has had his fun for now

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:47:37 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"

<some...@somewhere.no> wrote:

>On 27.02.2012 23:04, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:06:37 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"

>>>> ...and so you should...it take real talent to bring down the god Einstein.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>> I am bowing in humble admiration.
>>
>> Then how about converting the features of your funny little diagram into the
>> rotating frame of the apparatus.
>>
>
>Mission accomplished! :-)
>
>I rest my case.

What case might that be?

Do you carry your rotating frames around in a case?

HAHAHAHHAHHHAHHAHHA!

Paul, you are just as clueless as the rest of the dingeberries here. You
don't even know what a rotating frame is..

>Goodbye.

Oh please don't go. I'm running out of laughs already....

[PD]

On Feb 28, 2:38 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:

>
> Paul, you are just as clueless as the rest of the dingeberries here. You
> don't even know what a rotating frame is..
>
>

> Oh please don't go. I'm running out of laughs already....

This puts the whole thing together, doesn't it?
"Please don't go. I get lonely. I want you as company to attempt to
abuse. Here, let me see if I can bait you to more sparring so that you
won't go."
There's a reason Ralph lives alone. Some people just don't get along
with others.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Provoking the great Doctor to demonstrate his genius.

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 23:39:25 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somwhere.no>
wrote:

Come on Paul, You fucked up completely. Admit it like a man.