Curious about the emission theory of light
Uncle Ben
theory of light,
1. Light entering a glass window pane slows down. Why?
2. When light exits from a glass window pane into the air, it speeds
up. Why?
An answer to either of these questions would be appreciated.
Uncle Ben
Androcles
"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:9f57d97e-6d1b-463e...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
| To those anti-relativists who explain the MMX in terms of the emission
| theory of light,
|
| 1. Light entering a glass window pane slows down. Why?
Cars entering a road tunnel slow up. Why?
| 2. When light exits from a glass window pane into the air, it speeds
| up. Why?
Cars leaving a road tunnel speed down. Why?
| An answer to either of these questions would be appreciated.
You still beat your mother. Why?
Hint: First prove it is true.
BTW, light is emitted. That's a fact, not a theory.
I'm standing in the middle of a room. There is a candle in front of me
by the window and a candle behind me by the opposite wall.
As I walk toward the window at speed v, the speed of light from
the candle in front of me increases from c to c+v and the speed of
light from the candle behind slows from c to c-v, in MY frame of
reference. With suitable equipment I can verify this by measuring
Doppler shift. I will get blue shift from the candle in front and red
shift from the candle behind.
If I were a crank relativist I'd say my clock slowed down so that
the speed of light from the candle behind me changed from c-v
to c, but unfortunately my clock would have to speed up for
the same to happen for the candle in front and I've only got
one clock.
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B)
where
A = (0,0,0,t)
A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v))
B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
x' = x-vt
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch
According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.
According to xxein:
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.
According to Lamenting Shubert: Why do you want to know?
Your answer, Mr Curious about the emission theory of light ?
Hint: He was a ranting lunatic.
Pentcho Valev
> To those anti-relativists who explain the MMX in terms of the emission
> theory of light,
The explanation of the Michelson-Morley experiment in terms of the
emission theory of light is by no means a prerogative of anti-
relaivists; rather, all reasonable people, both anti-relativists and
relativists (e.g. Banesh Hoffmann and John Norton), know that this
explanation is the only one that does not presuppose the existence of
miracles such as time dilation and length contraction. Of course,
silly relativists like Stephen Hawking dominate Einstein zombie world
and teach that the Michelson-Morley experiment has proved that the
speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source or
observer and zombies sing "Divine Einstein" and that's it.
> 1. Light entering a glass window pane slows down. Why?
>
> 2. When light exits from a glass window pane into the air, it speeds
> up. Why?
>
> An answer to either of these questions would be appreciated.
>
> Uncle Ben
I have already told you these questions are irrelevant but since you
are so curious...... Let us assume the photon is absorbed for a while
by some glass microstructure and then reemitted at c, then absorbed by
the next microstructure and again reemitted at c etc. This is only a
model of course but it answers your questions.
If you have other questions - e.g. how superluminal signals:
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/APPLETS/20/20.html
can be explained in terms of the emission theory, go ahead: I will try
to answer.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Uncle Ben
snip
Let us assume the photon is absorbed for a while
> by some glass microstructure and then reemitted at c, then absorbed by
> the next microstructure and again reemitted at c etc. This is only a
> model of course but it answers your questions.
>
snip
That is a good answer.
Since you invite me to continue, how does an emission theory explain
refraction, diffraction or interference? One will be enough.
Ben
Spaceman
> To those anti-relativists who explain the MMX in terms of the emission
> theory of light,
>
> 1. Light entering a glass window pane slows down. Why?
The medium allows the path and actually keeps the
light moving at the mediums atomic spin and action-reaction
rates.
> 2. When light exits from a glass window pane into the air, it speeds
> up. Why?
The medium makes it.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Surfer
<pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>The explanation of the Michelson-Morley experiment in terms of the
>emission theory of light is by no means a prerogative of anti-
>relaivists; rather, all reasonable people, both anti-relativists and
>relativists (e.g. Banesh Hoffmann and John Norton), know that this
>explanation is the only one that does not presuppose the existence of
>miracles such as time dilation and length contraction.
>
The following provides a PHYSICAL explanation of time dilation. Here
time dilation is not presupposed, nor is it a miracle.
"Understanding the Retardation of the Returned Astronaut’s Clock and
GPS Clocks Using the Physical Behaviour of Moving Light Clocks"
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/V14N4MCA.pdf
Abstract:
"The prediction of retardation of an astronaut’s clock during a
round trip, compared to the clock of the stay-at-home,
introduced by Einstein in his 1905 paper has been the most
contentious issue for relativity. This resulted in a raging
controversy in journals in the mid to late 1950s. There was no
discussion about the physical nature of clocks. Some current
writers still claim that it is necessary to use general relativity.
We will show that this is not correct. Special relativity makes
correct predictions in accord with experimental data. Here we
examine this question using the physical behaviour of moving
light clocks and gain insight into the returning astronaut
experiment and a deeper understanding of the nature of space
and time.
PD
wrote:
> > 2. When light exits from a glass window pane into the air, it speeds
> > up. Why?
>
> The medium makes it.
> :)
And how does THAT work, Spaceman?
Spaceman
The same reason the light does not go through a brick wall
PD.
The medium is the factor that propagates the waves at all.
PD
wrote:
I'm sorry, Spaceman, I don't see a lot of connection between how a
brick wall stops light and how a glass wall *speeds up the light* when
it leaves the glass. How does the first layer of the glass know to
slow the light down, and the last layer know to speed it up? Are there
labels on the sides of the glass for those atoms in those layers? And
what if light goes the other direction through the glass? Do the
layers get confused and speed up the light that comes in and slow it
down when it leaves?
I asked you to explain how that works. Try a little harder to come up
with a real explanation.
PD
Pentcho Valev
The explanation of refraction given by Newton is quite satisfactory in
my view. As the light particle approaches the surface of water and
reaches close proximity, the watter attracts it and this causes both
deviation from the course (bending) and increase in the speed of the
particle. So the particle enters water with an increased speed but I
do not remember if Newton says this increased speed is then conserved
as the particle crosses the bulk of water. Even if he does say so,
this is an inessential mistake and the fact that the speed of light is
lower in water than in air by no means refutes the emission theory.
As for diffraction, there are aspects of the double slit experiment
inexplicable for the moment in terms of the emission theory. But I
suspect modifications of the experiment that could be useful in this
respect are deliberately avoided.
I have not thought enough about interference.
Again, in view of the enormous and fatal importance of Einstein's 1905
false light postulate, it does not make much sense to discuss anything
else before this postulate is explicitly and officially abandoned by
the physics community.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Uncle Ben
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for the reprise of Newton's refraction theory. I don't know of
any physics that supports the attraction of photons by water, but so
be it.
If we have to wait for the abandonment of the light postulate, we will
have to wait a very long time IMHO.
Uncle Ben
Pentcho Valev
The reason is that physics is unable to deal with the problem for the
moment:
http://media.wildcat.arizona.edu/media/storage/paper997/news/2007/01/23/News/Local.Gravity.Conference.Shows.Off.Weighty.Ideas-2668607.shtml
"Gravity, which is the behavior of space and time, is well-understood
at large distances - when talking about planets, for instance. But
when scientists attempt to apply it at very small distances, the idea
that we can measure space and time breaks down, Burgess
said....Although what actually occurs at small distances remains a
mystery, Burgess conjectures that what will probably be true is that
at very small distances, it will not make sense to talk about space
and time at all."
> If we have to wait for the abandonment of the light postulate, we will
> have to wait a very long time IMHO.
Unfortunately.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Spaceman
> On Jul 14, 12:03 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
>> PD wrote:
>>> On Jul 14, 10:31 am, "Spaceman"
>>> <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
>>
>>>>> 2. When light exits from a glass window pane into the air, it
>>>>> speeds up. Why?
>>
>>>> The medium makes it.
>>>> :)
>>
>>> And how does THAT work, Spaceman?
>>
>> The same reason the light does not go through a brick wall
>> PD.
>> The medium is the factor that propagates the waves at all.
>
> I'm sorry, Spaceman, I don't see a lot of connection between how a
> brick wall stops light and how a glass wall *speeds up the light* when
> it leaves the glass.
The glass does not speed it up PD.
the medium it enters when it leaves the glass does.
Sheesh
You always need to twist something into something I did not
say at all huh?
> How does the first layer of the glass know to
> slow the light down, and the last layer know to speed it up?
Sad diversion tactic PD.
I never said the glass made it speed up.
Tis sad you babble about such at all.
> I asked you to explain how that works. Try a little harder to come up
> with a real explanation.
I explained it, you just don't get it.
The medium the waves are traveling in keeps the speed
constant to the mediums propagation allowance.
Greg Neill
news:w_SdnTeg6OqWmeHV...@comcast.com
> PD wrote:
>> I asked you to explain how that works. Try a little harder to come up
>> with a real explanation.
>
> I explained it, you just don't get it.
> The medium the waves are traveling in keeps the speed
> constant to the mediums propagation allowance.
That's just saying it is because it is. We want a real
physical explanation. Can't do it, huh? Your c + v
brainwashed math is not helping you. I know! It must
be that g-force stuff again!
Weee! It's fun to play Spaceman!!!
PD
And what is the "mediums propagation allowance"? Remember, we're
talking about what the *emission theory of light* says about this.
Spaceman
> "Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
> news:w_SdnTeg6OqWmeHV...@comcast.com
>> PD wrote:
>
>>> I asked you to explain how that works. Try a little harder to come
>>> up with a real explanation.
>>
>> I explained it, you just don't get it.
>> The medium the waves are traveling in keeps the speed
>> constant to the mediums propagation allowance.
>
> That's just saying it is because it is.
No it is not,
It is like saying the carton on the conveyor belt
is moving at 100 ft per minute because the conveyor
belts drive wheel is keeping it moving at that speed.
Too bad you can't get that.
The conveyor belts drive wheel spinning rate (medium) is the cause for that
carton
to move at that speed.
You truly are lost..
LOL
Spaceman
> And what is the "mediums propagation allowance"? Remember, we're
> talking about what the *emission theory of light* says about this.
I am not talking about what "that crap" says about it.
I am talking about what "actually" causes it silly.
Sheesh!
PD
wrote:
> Greg Neill wrote:
> > "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
> >news:w_SdnTeg6OqWmeHV...@comcast.com
> >> PD wrote:
>
> >>> I asked you to explain how that works. Try a little harder to come
> >>> up with a real explanation.
>
> >> I explained it, you just don't get it.
> >> The medium the waves are traveling in keeps the speed
> >> constant to the mediums propagation allowance.
>
> > That's just saying it is because it is.
>
> No it is not,
> It is like saying the carton on the conveyor belt
> is moving at 100 ft per minute because the conveyor
> belts drive wheel is keeping it moving at that speed.
> Too bad you can't get that.
> The conveyor belts drive wheel spinning rate (medium) is the cause for that
> carton
> to move at that speed.
So are there drive wheels in this medium? What are they made of?
PD
wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > And what is the "mediums propagation allowance"? Remember, we're
> > talking about what the *emission theory of light* says about this.
>
> I am not talking about what "that crap" says about it.
> I am talking about what "actually" causes it silly.
> Sheesh!
Ah, OK, so what properties of the medium determine its "propagation
allowance". Or is that something that some government agency sets?
Greg Neill
So, air consists of little conveyor belts that carry
light away from the glass. Amazing. So how is it that
you can pass light in and out of the glass along the
same path at the same time? Should't the belts get
tangled and you'd have stopped light?
How about light that passes along the air-glass
interface, parallel to the glass surface? How do the
little belts and pully's work there?
Speaking of work, what's powering these converyor belts?
I mean, we get light from the sky that's been travelling
for over 13.7 billion years, from all directions at once.
That's a lot of little pulleys going around. What's
powering it all?
Really, James. Propose something workable or don't
bother. Conveyor belts, indeed.
Sue...
> "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message> >> "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
> >>news:w_SdnTeg6OqWmeHV...@comcast.com
> >>> PD wrote:
>
> >>>> I asked you to explain how that works. Try a little harder to come
> >>>> up with a real explanation.
>
> >>> I explained it, you just don't get it.
> >>> The medium the waves are traveling in keeps the speed
> >>> constant to the mediums propagation allowance.
>
> >> That's just saying it is because it is.
>
> > No it is not,
> > It is like saying the carton on the conveyor belt
> > is moving at 100 ft per minute because the conveyor
> > belts drive wheel is keeping it moving at that speed.
> > Too bad you can't get that.
> > The conveyor belts drive wheel spinning rate (medium) is the cause
> > for that carton
> > to move at that speed.
>
> So, air consists of little conveyor belts that carry
> light away from the glass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment
Sue...
Dr. Henri Wilson
The correct diffraction grating equation according to BaTh:
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/bathgrating.jpg
>
>Ben
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible unfortunates. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
Dr. Henri Wilson
Even idiots occasionally raise interesting questions.
If light enters a glass plate at c+v wrt that plate, does it emerge at c+v or
at c wrt that plate.
Unfortunately no experiment has been done to find the truth here. In fact no
OWLS experiment has ever been carried out using a moving source.
When it DOES happen, we can all say goodbye to Einstein.
>> James M Driscoll Jr
>> Spaceman
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
PD
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:07:02 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 14, 11:00 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> >wrote:
> >> PD wrote:
> >> > And what is the "mediums propagation allowance"? Remember, we're
> >> > talking about what the *emission theory of light* says about this.
>
> >> I am not talking about what "that crap" says about it.
> >> I am talking about what "actually" causes it silly.
> >> Sheesh!
>
> >Ah, OK, so what properties of the medium determine its "propagation
> >allowance". Or is that something that some government agency sets?
>
> Even idiots occasionally raise interesting questions.
>
> If light enters a glass plate at c+v wrt that plate, does it emerge at c+v or
> at c wrt that plate.
Which is akin to asking if a ghost leaves a mirror at ten past
midnight, will it reenter the mirror at quarter to four or half past
five.
>
> Unfortunately no experiment has been done to find the truth here. In fact no
> OWLS experiment has ever been carried out using a moving source.
Filipas and Fox. Look it up.
Paul B. Andersen
> The correct diffraction grating equation according to BaTh:
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/bathgrating.jpg
Hilarious, no? :-)
--
Paul
Androcles
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@guesswhatuia.no> wrote in message
news:4880F352...@guesswhatuia.no...
| Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
| > The correct diffraction grating equation according to BaTh:
| > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/bathgrating.jpg
|
| Hilarious, no? :-)
Back again, tusseladd?
Ask the cretin Wilson what the speed of these waves are:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/waves.htm
Hilarious, yes? :-)
Dr. Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>> The correct diffraction grating equation according to BaTh:
>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/bathgrating.jpg
>
>Hilarious, no? :-)
Gord, look who is back.
When one is drunk, nearly everything seems hilarious.
The diffraction equation (for perpendicular light) merely includes a factor
that takes into account the relative arrival speed of the rays.
Note, I pointed out that there currently exists no information as to whether
reflected light moves at c relative to the reflecting surface or at the
incident speed, c+v.
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
The speeds of the two on the left are +/- (lambda/period).
The speed of the RH one is obvious.
>Hilarious, yes? :-)
Everything is hilarious to a drunk...
Dr. Henri Wilson
>On Jul 17, 6:18 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:07:02 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jul 14, 11:00 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
>> >wrote:
>> >Ah, OK, so what properties of the medium determine its "propagation
>> >allowance". Or is that something that some government agency sets?
>>
>> Even idiots occasionally raise interesting questions.
>>
>> If light enters a glass plate at c+v wrt that plate, does it emerge at c+v or
>> at c wrt that plate.
>
>Which is akin to asking if a ghost leaves a mirror at ten past
>midnight, will it reenter the mirror at quarter to four or half past
>five.
Do you see them regularly, Draper?
>> Unfortunately no experiment has been done to find the truth here. In fact no
>> OWLS experiment has ever been carried out using a moving source.
>
>Filipas and Fox. Look it up.
Typical establishment nonsense....
>
>> When it DOES happen, we can all say goodbye to Einstein.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
PD
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:41:48 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 17, 6:18 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
> >> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:07:02 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jul 14, 11:00 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >Ah, OK, so what properties of the medium determine its "propagation
> >> >allowance". Or is that something that some government agency sets?
>
> >> Even idiots occasionally raise interesting questions.
>
> >> If light enters a glass plate at c+v wrt that plate, does it emerge at c+v or
> >> at c wrt that plate.
>
> >Which is akin to asking if a ghost leaves a mirror at ten past
> >midnight, will it reenter the mirror at quarter to four or half past
> >five.
>
> Do you see them regularly, Draper?
>
> >> Unfortunately no experiment has been done to find the truth here. In fact no
> >> OWLS experiment has ever been carried out using a moving source.
>
> >Filipas and Fox. Look it up.
>
> Typical establishment nonsense....
But you said NO MEASUREMENT HAD BEEN DONE. Since you've already been
told about this measurement before, this makes you a persistent liar.
You don't seem to mind being caught in a lie.
Paul B. Andersen
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:47:30 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>
>> Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>>> The correct diffraction grating equation according to BaTh:
>>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/bathgrating.jpg
>> Hilarious, no? :-)
>
> Gord, look who is back.
>
> When one is drunk, nearly everything seems hilarious.
>
> The diffraction equation (for perpendicular light) merely includes a factor
> that takes into account the relative arrival speed of the rays.
>
> Note, I pointed out that there currently exists no information as to whether
> reflected light moves at c relative to the reflecting surface or at the
> incident speed, c+v.
The speed of the incident wave doesn't matter.
The speed of the reflected/transmitted wave doesn't matter.
The angle depends _only_ on the ratio between the wavelength of
the reflected/transmitted wave and the grid spacing.
A diffraction grating spectrometer measures the wavelength of
the reflected/transmitted wave.
In a transmission grating the incident wave is in glass.
The angle doesn't depend on the index of refraction.
It is very simple:
|
* D
| *
d| / *
| / *
* *
| *
*
*
The criterion is that the difference D in the distance
from the slits to the screen must be one wavelength
for constructive interference to take place.
So D = lambda
and theta = sin(lambda/d)
It is remarkable that it is possible to keep reposting something
as stupid at this:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/bathgrating.jpg
Hilarious indeed!
--
Paul
Dr. Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:47:30 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>>
>> Note, I pointed out that there currently exists no information as to whether
>> reflected light moves at c relative to the reflecting surface or at the
>> incident speed, c+v.
>
>The speed of the incident wave doesn't matter.
>The speed of the reflected/transmitted wave doesn't matter.
>The angle depends _only_ on the ratio between the wavelength of
>the reflected/transmitted wave and the grid spacing.
..which would mean that the HST would not detect doppler shift due to its own
orbital movement.
So you are wrong... quite hilarious, YES!
>A diffraction grating spectrometer measures the wavelength of
>the reflected/transmitted wave.
No it doesn't. It is sensitive to the arrival frequency. Wavelength, like all
lengths, is absolute and universal.
>In a transmission grating the incident wave is in glass.
>The angle doesn't depend on the index of refraction.
That's another problem.
>It is very simple:
> |
> * D
> | *
>d| / *
> | / *
> * *
> | *
> *
> *
>
>The criterion is that the difference D in the distance
>from the slits to the screen must be one wavelength
>for constructive interference to take place.
>So D = lambda
>and theta = sin(lambda/d)
>
>It is remarkable that it is possible to keep reposting something
>as stupid at this:
>http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/bathgrating.jpg
>
>Hilarious indeed!
It may seem hilarious to you but it is correct.
Can you prove otherwise?
Dr. Henri Wilson
>On Jul 18, 5:51 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:41:48 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jul 17, 6:18 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> >Which is akin to asking if a ghost leaves a mirror at ten past
>> >midnight, will it reenter the mirror at quarter to four or half past
>> >five.
>>
>> Do you see them regularly, Draper?
>>
>> >> Unfortunately no experiment has been done to find the truth here. In fact no
>> >> OWLS experiment has ever been carried out using a moving source.
>>
>> >Filipas and Fox. Look it up.
>>
>> Typical establishment nonsense....
>
>But you said NO MEASUREMENT HAD BEEN DONE. Since you've already been
>told about this measurement before, this makes you a persistent liar.
>You don't seem to mind being caught in a lie.
If you are refering to fast moving particles that decay into EM, the whole
experimental evidence and setup in these cases is invariably inconclusive and
inadequate. Only brainwashed relativists believe them.
Experiments like this cannot be performed in the lab because, as I have pointed
out many times, local 'aetherlike conditions' are likely to affect the speed of
all EM there. Also, the particles are usually at rest when they decay...or the
decay products continue at the original particle speed. It's all terribly
vague....
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Timo A. Nieminen
> Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:47:30 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>>
>>> Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>> The correct diffraction grating equation according to BaTh:
>>>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/bathgrating.jpg
>>> Hilarious, no? :-)
>>
>> Gord, look who is back.
>>
>> When one is drunk, nearly everything seems hilarious.
>>
>> The diffraction equation (for perpendicular light) merely includes a factor
>> that takes into account the relative arrival speed of the rays.
>> Note, I pointed out that there currently exists no information as to
>> whether
>> reflected light moves at c relative to the reflecting surface or at the
>> incident speed, c+v.
>
> The speed of the incident wave doesn't matter.
> The speed of the reflected/transmitted wave doesn't matter.
> The angle depends _only_ on the ratio between the wavelength of
> the reflected/transmitted wave and the grid spacing.
It does matter, theoretically. What we know is that the grating
periodicity tells us the permitted periodicity of the component of the
wavevector parallel to the surface. In the limit of an infinite period
(planar surface), this means that the parallel components of the incident,
transmitted, and reflected waves are equal. This gives us, in conventional
optics, equality of the angles of incidence and reflection, and Snell's
law.
With a theory that allows the speeds of the incident wave and the
reflected wave to differ, what is wrong with "Dr" "Henri Wilson"'s
"correct" diffraction equation?
Now, what we find experimentally is another matter, and experiments on the
reflection of light from moving sources (and iirc, reflection of light
from moving mirrors) have been done.
Rather than "Dr" "Henri Wilson"'s equation being wrong, surely it's an
appropriate test theory for experimental tests to distinguish between
(some classes) of emission theory and conventional
optics/electromagnetics?
Although why "Dr" "Henri Wilson" would advertise such a theory is unknown
to me, since firstly, such emission theories have already been falsified,
and from past reading of his "work", I have the impression that
he supports a type of extinction-length/interaction-length
speed-equalisation theory, which is one of the classes of emission
theories that said grating equation is irrelevant to (except in very, very
good vacuums), since the speed of the incident and reflected waves are
determined by the speed of the local medium (air, or not-good-enough
vacuum).
At which point one needs to worry about falsification by Sagnac or
Fresnel-Fizeau.
(Why are some people so pin-headed so as to repeatedly claim Sagnac as a
falsification of stationary ether theory, when Sagnac wrote the paper as
an experimental proof of the _existence_ of a stationary ether? Can't
they read French, not even a little?)
--
Timo
martin....@gmx.de
> To those anti-relativists who explain the MMX in terms of the emission
> theory of light,
>
> 1. Light entering a glass window pane slows down. Why?
>
> 2. When light exits from a glass window pane into the air, it speeds
> up. Why?
>
>
> Uncle Ben
If you drive a mountain up, your speed becomes slower. On the other
side, if you drive down, it becomes again larger.
With light is it exactly the same.
Sue...
wrote:
[...]
>
> (Why are some people so pin-headed so as to repeatedly claim Sagnac as a
> falsification of stationary ether theory, when Sagnac wrote the paper as
> an experimental proof of the _existence_ of a stationary ether? Can't
> they read French, not even a little?)
The mythical-twin can't beat father-time without the emission
theory. Add the number of people for whom the twin is
magic or religion, to the number of people who won't crack
a book about not-very-modern electromagnetism and it is too
many people to count. Sadly it is too many to keep out
of teaching positions where they have no business.
Mark Twain on electrodynamics:
"The trouble ain't that there is too many fools,
but that the lightning ain't distributed right."
Sue...
>
> --
> Timo
PD
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:48:18 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 18, 5:51 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
> >> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:41:48 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jul 17, 6:18 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
> >> >Which is akin to asking if a ghost leaves a mirror at ten past
> >> >midnight, will it reenter the mirror at quarter to four or half past
> >> >five.
>
> >> Do you see them regularly, Draper?
>
> >> >> Unfortunately no experiment has been done to find the truth here. In fact no
> >> >> OWLS experiment has ever been carried out using a moving source.
>
> >> >Filipas and Fox. Look it up.
>
> >> Typical establishment nonsense....
>
> >But you said NO MEASUREMENT HAD BEEN DONE. Since you've already been
> >told about this measurement before, this makes you a persistent liar.
> >You don't seem to mind being caught in a lie.
>
> If you are refering to fast moving particles that decay into EM, the whole
> experimental evidence and setup in these cases is invariably inconclusive and
> inadequate. Only brainwashed relativists believe them.
This you say without ever having read a letter of the articles written
by the experimenters.
You also say the experiment has NEVER BEEN DONE. This you do because
you are an incorrigible and helpless liar.
kenseto
> To those anti-relativists who explain the MMX in terms of the emission
> theory of light,
>
> 1. Light entering a glass window pane slows down. Why?
Because light is being transmitted by a stationary and structured
ether called the E-Matrix. The ether (the E-Matrix) inside the glass
is more curved than outside the glass and thus light is transmitted at
a slower speed inside the glass.
>
> 2. When light exits from a glass window pane into the air, it speeds
> up. Why?
The E-Matrix outside the glass is less curved and thus it will
transmit light at a faster speed.
A description of the E-Matrix is available in a paper entitled
"Improved Relativity Theory and Doppler Theory of Gravity" in my
website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Eric Gisse
Why is it you do not have a _mathematical_ description of anything?
PD
> On Jul 14, 1:44 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
>
> > To those anti-relativists who explain the MMX in terms of the emission
> > theory of light,
>
> > 1. Light entering a glass window pane slows down. Why?
>
> Because light is being transmitted by a stationary and structured
> ether called the E-Matrix. The ether (the E-Matrix) inside the glass
> is more curved than outside the glass and thus light is transmitted at
> a slower speed inside the glass.
>
>
>
> > 2. When light exits from a glass window pane into the air, it speeds
> > up. Why?
>
> The E-Matrix outside the glass is less curved and thus it will
> transmit light at a faster speed.
The theory of electromagnetism can *predict* how much slower light
will travel in the glass. Can your theory *predict* this without
measuring the velocity first?
kenseto
> On Jul 20, 8:48 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 1:44 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
>
> > > To those anti-relativists who explain the MMX in terms of the emission
> > > theory of light,
>
> > > 1. Light entering a glass window pane slows down. Why?
>
> > Because light is being transmitted by a stationary and structured
> > ether called the E-Matrix. The ether (the E-Matrix) inside the glass
> > is more curved than outside the glass and thus light is transmitted at
> > a slower speed inside the glass.
>
> > > 2. When light exits from a glass window pane into the air, it speeds
> > > up. Why?
>
> > The E-Matrix outside the glass is less curved and thus it will
> > transmit light at a faster speed.
>
> The theory of electromagnetism can *predict* how much slower light
> will travel in the glass. Can your theory *predict* this without
> measuring the velocity first?
Sure the velocity of light v_m in the medium is:
v_m=c/n
where n is the reflective index of the medium and the reflective index
is a function of the density of the medium.
Ken Seto
>
>
>
>
>
> > A description of the E-Matrix is available in a paper entitled
> > "Improved Relativity Theory and Doppler Theory of Gravity" in my
> > website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> > > An answer to either of these questions would be appreciated.
>
> > > Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Paul B. Andersen
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:03:10 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>
>> Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
>>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:47:30 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>> <paul.b....@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>>>
>
>>> Note, I pointed out that there currently exists no information as to whether
>>> reflected light moves at c relative to the reflecting surface or at the
>>> incident speed, c+v.
>> The speed of the incident wave doesn't matter.
>> The speed of the reflected/transmitted wave doesn't matter.
>> The angle depends _only_ on the ratio between the wavelength of
>> the reflected/transmitted wave and the grid spacing.
>
> ..which would mean that the HST would not detect doppler shift due to its own
> orbital movement.
Quite right.
According to the BaTh, the HST should not detect a Doppler shift
due to its own movement because wavelength is invariant.
> So you are wrong... quite hilarious, YES!
Since HST factually does detect Doppler shift due to its own movement,
isn't it rather the BaTh that is proven wrong? :-)
Done.
--
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
I think you should look up 'diffraction grating spectrometer'.
You obviously don't know what it is.
> With a theory that allows the speeds of the incident wave and the
> reflected wave to differ, what is wrong with "Dr" "Henri Wilson"'s
> "correct" diffraction equation?
Read the part you snipped.
After having learned what a diffraction grating spectrometer is, that is.
> Now, what we find experimentally is another matter, and experiments on
> the reflection of light from moving sources (and iirc, reflection of
> light from moving mirrors) have been done.
>
> Rather than "Dr" "Henri Wilson"'s equation being wrong, surely it's an
> appropriate test theory for experimental tests to distinguish between
> (some classes) of emission theory and conventional optics/electromagnetics?
>
> Although why "Dr" "Henri Wilson" would advertise such a theory is
> unknown to me, since firstly, such emission theories have already been
> falsified, and from past reading of his "work", I have the impression
> that he supports a type of extinction-length/interaction-length
> speed-equalisation theory, which is one of the classes of emission
> theories that said grating equation is irrelevant to (except in very,
> very good vacuums), since the speed of the incident and reflected waves
> are determined by the speed of the local medium (air, or not-good-enough
> vacuum).
>
> At which point one needs to worry about falsification by Sagnac or
> Fresnel-Fizeau.
>
> (Why are some people so pin-headed so as to repeatedly claim Sagnac as a
> falsification of stationary ether theory, when Sagnac wrote the paper as
> an experimental proof of the _existence_ of a stationary ether? Can't
> they read French, not even a little?)
Nobody has ever claimed that Sagnac falsifies 'stationary ether'.
It falsifies the emission theory, though.
--
Paul
Eric Gisse
> On Jul 20, 12:37 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 8:48 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 14, 1:44 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
>
> > > > To those anti-relativists who explain the MMX in terms of the emission
> > > > theory of light,
>
> > > > 1. Light entering a glass window pane slows down. Why?
>
> > > Because light is being transmitted by a stationary and structured
> > > ether called the E-Matrix. The ether (the E-Matrix) inside the glass
> > > is more curved than outside the glass and thus light is transmitted at
> > > a slower speed inside the glass.
>
> > > > 2. When light exits from a glass window pane into the air, it speeds
> > > > up. Why?
>
> > > The E-Matrix outside the glass is less curved and thus it will
> > > transmit light at a faster speed.
>
> > The theory of electromagnetism can *predict* how much slower light
> > will travel in the glass. Can your theory *predict* this without
> > measuring the velocity first?
>
> Sure the velocity of light v_m in the medium is:
> v_m=c/n
> where n is the reflective index of the medium and the reflective index
> is a function of the density of the medium.
Show us the derivation using your E-matrix.
[snip]
PD
> On Jul 20, 12:37 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 8:48 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 14, 1:44 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
>
> > > > To those anti-relativists who explain the MMX in terms of the emission
> > > > theory of light,
>
> > > > 1. Light entering a glass window pane slows down. Why?
>
> > > Because light is being transmitted by a stationary and structured
> > > ether called the E-Matrix. The ether (the E-Matrix) inside the glass
> > > is more curved than outside the glass and thus light is transmitted at
> > > a slower speed inside the glass.
>
> > > > 2. When light exits from a glass window pane into the air, it speeds
> > > > up. Why?
>
> > > The E-Matrix outside the glass is less curved and thus it will
> > > transmit light at a faster speed.
>
> > The theory of electromagnetism can *predict* how much slower light
> > will travel in the glass. Can your theory *predict* this without
> > measuring the velocity first?
>
> Sure the velocity of light v_m in the medium is:
> v_m=c/n
> where n is the reflective index of the medium and the reflective index
> is a function of the density of the medium.
You don't get it. Electromagnetic theory lets you CALCULATE n. It
gives a number for n, without requiring a measurement of n. What is
the NUMBER that your E-matrix theory gives for n? Please show your
calculations.
Jerry
<paul.b.ander...@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
> Timo A. Nieminen skrev:
> > On Sat, 19 Jul 2008, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> >> The speed of the incident wave doesn't matter.
> >> The speed of the reflected/transmitted wave doesn't matter.
> >> The angle depends _only_ on the ratio between the wavelength of
> >> the reflected/transmitted wave and the grid spacing.
>
> > It does matter, theoretically. What we know is that the grating
> > periodicity tells us the permitted periodicity of the component of the
> > wavevector parallel to the surface. In the limit of an infinite period
> > (planar surface), this means that the parallel components of the
> > incident, transmitted, and reflected waves are equal. This gives us, in
> > conventional optics, equality of the angles of incidence and reflection,
> > and Snell's law.
>
> I think you should look up 'diffraction grating spectrometer'.
> You obviously don't know what it is.
There's no need to be snooty towards Timo, whom I count among my
favorite posters, along with you and a half-dozen others.
Your statement, "The speed of the reflected/transmitted wave
doesn't matter," is both true and not true. It is true because,
as you stated, "The angle depends _only_ on the ratio between
the wavelength of the reflected/transmitted wave and the grid
spacing." It is not true because the wavelength of the reflected/
transmitted wave is a function of its speed and frequency, and
in H.W.'s theory, the speed of the reflected/transmitted wave
is a free parameter to be determined. To date, H.W. has not
decided whether the speed of the reflected/transmitted wave
should be c or c+v.
Jerry
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Move toward light and it is blueshifted.
Timo A. Nieminen
Fuck you. I was a spectroscopist half a life ago.
Think first, before declaring ignorance on the part of others. Especially
when you are wrong. (Even if the converse is normal usenet procedure.)
Consider the simple case of a plane mirror at rest.
If the speed, and hence the wavenumber, of the incident and reflected
waves are different, as predicted by 2 out of the 3 major classes of
emission theories when the incident light is from a moving source, is the
angle of reflection equal to the angle of incidence?
Basically, if you want to crap on "Wilson", go ahead, but you should do it
properly and _correctly_.
Btw, Panofsky and Phillips has a very nice chapter on experimental
evidence for SR, which discusses the experiments which rule out the 3 main
classes of emission theories.
(And if you don't think people claim Sagnac refutes stationary ether, you
don't read all the posts here. Not that I would fault you for this. I
don't know of any reputable claims of such, just usenet crap. But given
that this is on usenet ...)
--
Timo
Androcles
"Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0...@serene.st...
Yippee! kook fight!
Dr. Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:03:10 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>>
>>>> Note, I pointed out that there currently exists no information as to whether
>>>> reflected light moves at c relative to the reflecting surface or at the
>>>> incident speed, c+v.
>>> The speed of the incident wave doesn't matter.
>>> The speed of the reflected/transmitted wave doesn't matter.
>>> The angle depends _only_ on the ratio between the wavelength of
>>> the reflected/transmitted wave and the grid spacing.
>>
>> ..which would mean that the HST would not detect doppler shift due to its own
>> orbital movement.
>
>Quite right.
>According to the BaTh, the HST should not detect a Doppler shift
>due to its own movement because wavelength is invariant.
You obviously did not study my grating equation. You are resorting to untruths
again.
>
>> So you are wrong... quite hilarious, YES!
You obviously did not study my grating equation.
>Since HST factually does detect Doppler shift due to its own movement,
>isn't it rather the BaTh that is proven wrong? :-)
You are resorting to untruths again.
You obviously didn't even understand my equation. You are resorting to untruths
again.
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
:)
Norwegians remain drunk 24-7 in summer, remember.
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Jul 2008, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>> Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
>>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:47:30 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>
>> The speed of the incident wave doesn't matter.
>> The speed of the reflected/transmitted wave doesn't matter.
>> The angle depends _only_ on the ratio between the wavelength of
>> the reflected/transmitted wave and the grid spacing.
>
>It does matter, theoretically. What we know is that the grating
>periodicity tells us the permitted periodicity of the component of the
>wavevector parallel to the surface. In the limit of an infinite period
>(planar surface), this means that the parallel components of the incident,
>transmitted, and reflected waves are equal. This gives us, in conventional
>optics, equality of the angles of incidence and reflection, and Snell's
>law.
>
>With a theory that allows the speeds of the incident wave and the
>reflected wave to differ, what is wrong with "Dr" "Henri Wilson"'s
>"correct" diffraction equation?
>
>Now, what we find experimentally is another matter, and experiments on the
>reflection of light from moving sources (and iirc, reflection of light
>from moving mirrors) have been done.
Name one..
>Rather than "Dr" "Henri Wilson"'s equation being wrong, surely it's an
>appropriate test theory for experimental tests to distinguish between
>(some classes) of emission theory and conventional
>optics/electromagnetics?
It is...and the HST, by detecting its own orbital speeds, proves it is correct.
>Although why "Dr" "Henri Wilson" would advertise such a theory is unknown
>to me, since firstly, such emission theories have already been falsified,
All so called refutations of BaTh have now been themselves refuted.
Sagnac, Fizeau, Variable stars, diffraction, etc.,... are all explainable by
BaTh.
>and from past reading of his "work", I have the impression that
>he supports a type of extinction-length/interaction-length
>speed-equalisation theory, which is one of the classes of emission
>theories that said grating equation is irrelevant to (except in very, very
>good vacuums), since the speed of the incident and reflected waves are
>determined by the speed of the local medium (air, or not-good-enough
>vacuum).
>
>At which point one needs to worry about falsification by Sagnac or
>Fresnel-Fizeau.
If you had been following my posts you will have noticed that BaTh explains
both perfectly well.
Fizeau:
Quote:
""""""
Wilson's derivation:
S----->--water moving at v-->------|mirror
<------------------L--------------->
Speed of light in moving water = (c/n)+v wrt S.
Travel time to reach mirror = Ln/(c+nv)
Travel time if water at rest = Ln/c
Difference = Ln(c+nv) - Ln/c
= Ln^2v/c^2
Double that to include reverse path. = 2Ln^v/c^2
Fringe displacement = c/lambda * 2Ln^v/c^2 = 2Dn^2v/clambda.
Note: the standard Galilean and SR equations include the factor '4(1-1/n2)' and
and 4(1-1/n3) instead of my simple '2'.
(1-1/n^2.6) is approximately = 2. This is midway between the Galilean and SR
figure AND about what Michelson found.
>> Michelson's data fully supports BaTh..
Michelson's fizeau experiment data.
I thought you knew all about his experiment.
>
>Sure, the MMX confirmes the emission theory.
Who said anything about the MMX
>But Sagnac and Fizeau and a lot of other experiments
>falsifies it.
You obviously don't know anything about this.
Michelson repeated Fizeau's experiment with considerable accuracy.
His result fit my above equation.
You are full of bullshit Andersen. Androcles was right.
"""""""
end of quote.
SAGNAC:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm
The standard relativist argument against BaTh - that viewing a sagnac
interferometer in the rotating frame results in no fringe shift - is bogus.
Rotating frames are deceptive. Rotation is absolute. An object that is NOT
rotating in a ROTATING frame is NOT identical to an object that is not rotating
ABSOLUTELY.
>(Why are some people so pin-headed so as to repeatedly claim Sagnac as a
>falsification of stationary ether theory, when Sagnac wrote the paper as
>an experimental proof of the _existence_ of a stationary ether? Can't
>they read French, not even a little?)
There is no universal absolute aether.
There are local but weak aether-like regions of space, particularly around
large masses.
Dr. Henri Wilson
<Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Jul 20, 1:49 pm, "Paul B. Andersen"
><paul.b.ander...@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>> Timo A. Nieminen skrev:
>> > On Sat, 19 Jul 2008, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> >> The speed of the incident wave doesn't matter.
>> >> The speed of the reflected/transmitted wave doesn't matter.
>> >> The angle depends _only_ on the ratio between the wavelength of
>> >> the reflected/transmitted wave and the grid spacing.
>>
>> > It does matter, theoretically. What we know is that the grating
>> > periodicity tells us the permitted periodicity of the component of the
>> > wavevector parallel to the surface. In the limit of an infinite period
>> > (planar surface), this means that the parallel components of the
>> > incident, transmitted, and reflected waves are equal. This gives us, in
>> > conventional optics, equality of the angles of incidence and reflection,
>> > and Snell's law.
>>
>> I think you should look up 'diffraction grating spectrometer'.
>> You obviously don't know what it is.
>
>There's no need to be snooty towards Timo, whom I count among my
>favorite posters, along with you and a half-dozen others.
I'll be extremely upset if I'm not one of those...
>Your statement, "The speed of the reflected/transmitted wave
>doesn't matter," is both true and not true. It is true because,
>as you stated, "The angle depends _only_ on the ratio between
>the wavelength of the reflected/transmitted wave and the grid
>spacing." It is not true because the wavelength of the reflected/
>transmitted wave is a function of its speed and frequency, and
>in H.W.'s theory, the speed of the reflected/transmitted wave
>is a free parameter to be determined. To date, H.W. has not
>decided whether the speed of the reflected/transmitted wave
>should be c or c+v.
My equation takes into account either possibility.
The perfectly legitimate question is, "does light reflect from a mirror at its
incident speed (c+v) or at c wrt the mirror.
There is no experimental evidence available.
My view is that there would normally be a weak 'EM control zone' in any lab on
Earth and light speed would tend towards c wrt that zone...so any experiment
would be complicated.
An isolated mirror in empty space would not have such a zone and might provide
information.
Maybe this could be tested by bouncing radar off a large mirror mounted on a
retreating space probe.
>Jerry
Dr. Henri Wilson
>On Jul 19, 6:25 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:48:18 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jul 18, 5:51 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>>
>> If you are refering to fast moving particles that decay into EM, the whole
>> experimental evidence and setup in these cases is invariably inconclusive and
>> inadequate. Only brainwashed relativists believe them.
>
>This you say without ever having read a letter of the articles written
>by the experimenters.
>You also say the experiment has NEVER BEEN DONE. This you do because
>you are an incorrigible and helpless liar.
This kind of statement you keep repeating because you are an incorrigible and
helpless deluded fool.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Timo Nieminen
> Timo A. Nieminen wrote:
>
> >Now, what we find experimentally is another matter, and experiments on the
> >reflection of light from moving sources (and iirc, reflection of light
> >from moving mirrors) have been done.
>
> Name one..
What, you don't know the literature on the topic you've been "studying"
and posting about for years?
For starters, Q. Majorana, Phys Rev 11, 411 (1918).
There are others.
--
Timo
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
Not sufficiently accurate. Must be done in space anyway.
>There are others.
Timo Nieminen
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:00:56 +1000, Timo Nieminen <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, it was written:
> >
> >> Timo A. Nieminen wrote:
> >>
> >> >Now, what we find experimentally is another matter, and experiments on the
> >> >reflection of light from moving sources (and iirc, reflection of light
> >> >from moving mirrors) have been done.
> >>
> >> Name one..
> >
> >What, you don't know the literature on the topic you've been "studying"
> >and posting about for years?
> >
> >For starters, Q. Majorana, Phys Rev 11, 411 (1918).
>
> Not sufficiently accurate.
Why not? Be specific.
> Must be done in space anyway.
It wasn't done to test between _your_ hybrid emission/ether theory and
classical electrodynamics, but to test between certain other emission
theories and classical electrodynamics.
It was an experiment on reflection from moving mirrors. You asked, with
no further conditions specified, I provided. That you don't like the
experiment is irrelevant.
Anyway, it doesn't matter if it was done in space or not, you'd still
weasel out of it if it was done in space.
But while you're at it, why don't you explain Fizeau's result for his
ether-drag experiment with moving air? Then explain why Majorana's
experiment would need to be done in space.
--
Timo
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, it was written:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:00:56 +1000, Timo Nieminen <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, it was written:
>> >
>> >> Timo A. Nieminen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Now, what we find experimentally is another matter, and experiments on the
>> >> >reflection of light from moving sources (and iirc, reflection of light
>> >> >from moving mirrors) have been done.
>> >>
>> >> Name one..
>> >
>> >What, you don't know the literature on the topic you've been "studying"
>> >and posting about for years?
>> >
>> >For starters, Q. Majorana, Phys Rev 11, 411 (1918).
>>
>> Not sufficiently accurate.
>
>Why not? Be specific.
It is impossible to perform an Earthly experiment in which a mirror is moved
rapidly enough to enable the difference between D/(c+v) and D/c to be
detectable. Do the sums and you will soon see why.
The only decent tests for c+v must involve very distant objects like orbiting
stars. These clearly show that light speed across empty space is source
dependent.
>> Must be done in space anyway.
>
>It wasn't done to test between _your_ hybrid emission/ether theory and
>classical electrodynamics, but to test between certain other emission
>theories and classical electrodynamics.
>
>It was an experiment on reflection from moving mirrors. You asked, with
>no further conditions specified, I provided. That you don't like the
>experiment is irrelevant.
>
>Anyway, it doesn't matter if it was done in space or not, you'd still
>weasel out of it if it was done in space.
It is done in space regularly in the form of brightness curves of variable
stars.
>But while you're at it, why don't you explain Fizeau's result for his
>ether-drag experiment with moving air? Then explain why Majorana's
>experiment would need to be done in space.
I wasn't aware that Fizeau's experiment was peformed with moving air.
The negligible refractive index would make it impossible.
My view is that around any significant mass there exists an EM control sphere
that influences the speed of all EM in that region. It is due to the presence
of fields as well as of matter.
Moving source experiments must be carries out in space. I have suggested a
possible one using the moon:
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/moonrelay.jpg
Pmb
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
news:mjpc84dnhkto8ktsn...@4ax.com...
"Moving" relative to what? The Michelson-Morely Experiment (MMX) was done to
measure the speed of light relative to the ether. The mirrors were at rest
on the Earth as was the light source. If the speed of light moved relative
to an ether and the Earth was moving relative to the ether (regarless of
whether the ether being at rest with respect to the Sun, Galaxy, cosmic
microwave background etc.) then that motion would have resulted in
interference in the MMX experiment. No interference was detected.
So what frame of reference are you refering to when you say "moving"? I.e.
moving with respect to what?
Pete
Timo Nieminen
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:57:11 +1000, Timo Nieminen <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, it was written:
> >
> >> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:00:56 +1000, Timo Nieminen <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, it was written:
> >> >
> >> >> Timo A. Nieminen wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Now, what we find experimentally is another matter, and experiments on the
> >> >> >reflection of light from moving sources (and iirc, reflection of light
> >> >> >from moving mirrors) have been done.
> >> >>
> >> >> Name one..
> >> >
> >> >What, you don't know the literature on the topic you've been "studying"
> >> >and posting about for years?
> >> >
> >> >For starters, Q. Majorana, Phys Rev 11, 411 (1918).
> >>
> >> Not sufficiently accurate.
> >
> >Why not? Be specific.
>
> It is impossible to perform an Earthly experiment in which a mirror is moved
> rapidly enough to enable the difference between D/(c+v) and D/c to be
> detectable. Do the sums and you will soon see why.
So, you refuse to say why, and you refuse to be specific. Did you even
_read_ Majorana's paper?
Experiment's to detect the difference between light travelling at (c+v)
and light travelling at c, for v achievable in the laboratory, were being
done more than 150 years ago. Experiments capable of detecting effects 2nd
order in v/c were being done more than 100 years ago.
So much for "impossible".
> >But while you're at it, why don't you explain Fizeau's result for his
> >ether-drag experiment with moving air? Then explain why Majorana's
> >experiment would need to be done in space.
>
> I wasn't aware that Fizeau's experiment was peformed with moving air.
> The negligible refractive index would make it impossible.
You mean you don't even know what Fizeau did in his experiment? Perhaps
you should read his paper (the 1851 papers just give a sumamry, the
details are in his 1859 paper).
Of the three hypotheses he was investigating, note that one is thoroughly
falsified by his moving air experiment. The moving water experiment is to
distinguish between the other two.
Why do you think that the refractive index of air being close to 1 would
make the experiment impossible? Be specific! Don't just say "impossible"
without even knowing the details of the experiment if you want to have any
scientific credibility at all.
--
Timo
PD
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:57:11 +1000, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, it was written:
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, it was written:
>
> >> >> Timo A. Nieminen wrote:
>
> >> >> >Now, what we find experimentally is another matter, and experiments on the
> >> >> >reflection of light from moving sources (and iirc, reflection of light
> >> >> >from moving mirrors) have been done.
>
> >> >> Name one..
>
> >> >What, you don't know the literature on the topic you've been "studying"
> >> >and posting about for years?
>
> >> >For starters, Q. Majorana, Phys Rev 11, 411 (1918).
>
> >> Not sufficiently accurate.
>
> >Why not? Be specific.
>
> It is impossible to perform an Earthly experiment in which a mirror is moved
> rapidly enough to enable the difference between D/(c+v) and D/c to be
> detectable. Do the sums and you will soon see why.
Y'see, Henri thinks that all the things he proposes are outside of
experimental reach and so it's all academic and he can say what he
wants and it's all on a level playing field. Of course, he has no idea
what the experimental reach is, and he doesn't really care, because he
picks and chooses from those results to suit himself -- a little like
a creationist who picks and chooses evidence to support a 6000-year-
old earth proposition.
PD
Dr. Henri Wilson
Moving WRT the meauring apparatus of course.
>The Michelson-Morely Experiment (MMX) was done to
>measure the speed of light relative to the ether. The mirrors were at rest
>on the Earth as was the light source. If the speed of light moved relative
>to an ether and the Earth was moving relative to the ether (regarless of
>whether the ether being at rest with respect to the Sun, Galaxy, cosmic
>microwave background etc.) then that motion would have resulted in
>interference in the MMX experiment. No interference was detected.
Naturally....that was because light moves ballistically. There is no absolute
aether.
>
>So what frame of reference are you refering to when you say "moving"? I.e.
>moving with respect to what?
what a silly question....
>Pete
>
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
No they were not.
Even run over 30000 metres one would need clocks accurate to 1 in about 10^15.
I don't think they were available 150 years ago.
>So much for "impossible".
It has been impossible..and probably still is. That's why nobody has done it.
>> >But while you're at it, why don't you explain Fizeau's result for his
>> >ether-drag experiment with moving air? Then explain why Majorana's
>> >experiment would need to be done in space.
>>
>> I wasn't aware that Fizeau's experiment was peformed with moving air.
>> The negligible refractive index would make it impossible.
>
>You mean you don't even know what Fizeau did in his experiment? Perhaps
>you should read his paper (the 1851 papers just give a sumamry, the
>details are in his 1859 paper).
>
>Of the three hypotheses he was investigating, note that one is thoroughly
>falsified by his moving air experiment. The moving water experiment is to
>distinguish between the other two.
The experiment of Fizeau is called an optical interferometer and was devised to
measure very small differences in time or distance. The drag coefficient of
Fresnel, f = 4Ln^2v/(lambda.c).(1-1/n^2), implies in the experiment of Fizeau a
drag of interference lines.
(l the wavelength of the light, v the flow speed of the water and L the
length). Fizeau registered during his experiment a shift of d=0.23 interference
lines; which implicates a drag factor f=0.48; the empirical value. The
theoretical value of the drag factor is calculated from and is f=0.43. So
within an error of approx. 10%, the experiment of Fizeau confirmed Fresnel’s
drag factor.
The Ballistic equation is simply f = 2Ln^2v/(lambda.c). ...which, for water, is
closer to the experimental values than Fresnel's equation.
The Relativity equation is f = 4Ln^2v/(lambda.c).(1-1/n^3) and does not closely
match the experimental values. Fizeau's experiment refutes SR.
>
>Why do you think that the refractive index of air being close to 1 would
>make the experiment impossible? Be specific! Don't just say "impossible"
>without even knowing the details of the experiment if you want to have any
>scientific credibility at all.
f is proportional to n^2. Also 1-(1.00000000001/1.0000000001^2) is pretty
small.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
Dr. Henri Wilson
This is a physics group, Draper. I expect answers from people who know
something about the subject, not would-if-could-be's like you.
>PD
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
Timo Nieminen
So, no answers to the specific questions. Again, did you even read
Majorana's paper before declaring it impossible?
Should we simply take your word that Fizeau's, Michelson's, Majorana's,
etc., experiments were wrong?
Yes, your f _is_ proportional to n^2. For n=1, this means that f is
proportional to v. For Fresnel drag, with n=1, f=0, which means f is
_not_ proportional to v. Are these the same? So, why would Fizeau have
performed his experiment with moving air as the medium?
Have you read Fizeau's (1859, or any of the others) paper?
--
Timo
PD
Answers to what? You haven't asked any questions in the above. Do you
hope for answers by making ridiculous and unsupportable assertions and
waiting for someone to attempt you to convince you otherwise? Do you
even read what you write, after a moment's thought, and question
whether you have made a fool of yourself? Does it EVER cross your mind
that you're not accomplishing anything by doing what you do except
make yourself a general laughingstock? Has it crossed your notice that
EVERYONE you talk to on this group has noted that you are a liar? How
is it that this reputation has been acquired, do you suppose, Henri?
And once you confront the answer to that question, go on to ask
yourself why you continue the same behavior. Is it treatable?
>
> >PD
>
> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Pmb
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
The question is far from silly since you appeared to be talking about the
speed of light not being invariant. I..e. you wrote
It is impossible to perform an Earthly experiment in which a mirror is
>>> moved
>>> rapidly enough to enable the difference between D/(c+v) and D/c to be
>>> detectable. Do the sums and you will soon see why.
If the speed of l;ight is invariant then then D/(c+v) has no meaning.
Pete
Uncle Ben
has been disproved to a high degree of precision by that following
experiment:
---------
K. Brecher, "Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the
Source?", Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 1051-1054, 1236(E) (1977).
Uses observations of binary pulsars to put a limit on the source-
velocity dependence of the speed of light. k < 2×10-9. Optical
Extinction is not a problem here, because the high-energy X-rays used
have an extinction length considerably longer than the distance to the
sources.
-------
The symbol k is the multiplier of the source velocity which indicates
the maxium fraction of the source velocity that contribute to the
velocity of light without being detected in the experiment. The
emission theory has k=1. The experiment says that k is less than
0.000000002.
That pretty well satisfies my curiosity as the original poster.
Uncle Ben
Dr. Henri Wilson
Whatever would make anyone think the speed of light was invariant?
Dr. Henri Wilson
>On Jul 22, 11:06 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:10:32 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jul 22, 6:15 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:57:11 +1000, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au>
ee why.
>>
>> >Y'see, Henri thinks that all the things he proposes are outside of
>> >experimental reach and so it's all academic and he can say what he
>> >wants and it's all on a level playing field. Of course, he has no idea
>> >what the experimental reach is, and he doesn't really care, because he
>> >picks and chooses from those results to suit himself -- a little like
>> >a creationist who picks and chooses evidence to support a 6000-year-
>> >old earth proposition.
>>
>> This is a physics group, Draper. I expect answers from people who know
>> something about the subject, not would-if-could-be's like you.
>
>Answers to what? You haven't asked any questions in the above. Do you
>hope for answers by making ridiculous and unsupportable assertions and
>waiting for someone to attempt you to convince you otherwise? Do you
>even read what you write, after a moment's thought, and question
>whether you have made a fool of yourself? Does it EVER cross your mind
>that you're not accomplishing anything by doing what you do except
>make yourself a general laughingstock? Has it crossed your notice that
>EVERYONE you talk to on this group has noted that you are a liar? How
>is it that this reputation has been acquired, do you suppose, Henri?
>And once you confront the answer to that question, go on to ask
>yourself why you continue the same behavior. Is it treatable?
Until you talk physics Draper.....<PLONK>
>> >PD
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
Uncle Ben
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 05:11:33 -0400, "Pmb" <some...@someplace.com> wrote:
>
> >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
> >news:8f9d84978vhboa3q0...@4ax.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Maxwell's electromagnetic theory being Lorentz invariant is a good
clue.
Uncle Ben
Dr. Henri Wilson
Sorry, pulsar doppler and brightness curves have been shown to be fully in
accordance with BaTh.
I discussed this matter very comprehensively with George Dishman last year. Ask
me anything about it if you like.
I don't know what happened to George. He seems to have disappeared completely.
>Uncle Ben
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Uncle Ben
> The perfectly legitimate question is, "does light reflect from a mirror at its
> incident speed (c+v) or at c wrt the mirror.
>
> There is no experimental evidence available.
>
>
> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Maybe there is. The general theory for c+v is the emission theory of
light. This has been refuted in several ways. See for example:
-----
K. Brecher, "Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the
Source?", Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 1051-1054, 1236(E) (1977).
Uses observations of binary pulsars to put a limit on the source-
velocity dependence of the speed of light. k < 2×10-9. Optical
Extinction is not a problem here, because the high-energy X-rays used
have an extinction length considerably longer than the distance to the
sources.
--------
The upper bound is c + 0.000000002*v .
Uncle Ben
Pmb
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
Its a postulate which has been verified by many many many experiments.
Pete
Dr. Henri Wilson
It has never been verified by anyone. It belong solely in fairyland.
Dr. Henri Wilson
Maxwell's equations apply to light speed in a dielectric medium which itself
provides a reference frame for that speed.
However it is impossible to measure values for e and mu in truly empty space
where they actually have no meaning at all.
All one produces is those values for the measuring apparatus itself, the fields
of which destroy the vacuum. One derives a value for EMITTED light speed wrt
the apparatus FOR, supporting the view that light initially moves at c wrt its
source.
A Maxwellian derivation of c on Earth says nothing about the speed of light
relative to earth, coming from Andromeda or in any other part of the universe.
>Uncle Ben
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
Uncle Ben
If you have an older TV set and if you know how the tube works, you
will realize that one can create electric and magnetic fields in a
vacuum. And if you believe Maxwell, the existence of electric and
magnetic fields in a vacuum insure that his theory supports the
existence of light waves in a vacuum.
And the speed of those waves is c, derived from the ratio of the old
fashioned units of electrostatics and magnetics, whose ratio was
discovered to be the speed of light. This implies that the speed of
light in a vacuum is always c.
PD
Henri was beaten as a child and so in his mind, getting beaten up in
any manner is a form of attention. This is why being humiliated does
not deter him. In fact, if you use the word "bitch" when you address
your comments to him, it might add to his satisfaction.
PD
PD
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:03:01 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 23, 6:36 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 05:11:33 -0400, "Pmb" <some...@someplace.com> wrote:
>
> >Maxwell's electromagnetic theory being Lorentz invariant is a good
> >clue.
>
> Maxwell's equations apply to light speed in a dielectric medium which itself
> provides a reference frame for that speed.
They seem to apply outside a dielectric medium as well. A dielectric
is one whose dielectric constant differs from one, not one whose
permittivity differs from zero. It might help if you learned some
basic terminology before shooting your mouth off yet again.
>
> However it is impossible to measure values for e and mu in truly empty space
> where they actually have no meaning at all.
Is that right? So where do you suppose the *measured* constant in
Coulomb's law comes from?
I realize you just like saying things and don't really care whether
you look like an idiot in saying them. It's just a miracle that
someone like you with no mental capacity whatsoever can find more than
four letters on the keyboard.
> All one produces is those values for the measuring apparatus itself, the fields
> of which destroy the vacuum. One derives a value for EMITTED light speed wrt
> the apparatus FOR, supporting the view that light initially moves at c wrt its
> source.
>
> A Maxwellian derivation of c on Earth says nothing about the speed of light
> relative to earth, coming from Andromeda or in any other part of the universe.
Aha. And so Maxwell's equations apply only to Earth and do not apply
in general. Is that the claim now? What other stuff do you want to
make up off the top of your head and toss out there for the hell of
it?
>
> >Uncle Ben
>
> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>
PD
And there's yet ANOTHER lie. Do you NEVER get tired of it?
And if you plonk me, how are you going to know when I start talking
physics, Henri? Shameless twerp, Rabbidge.
>
> >> >PD
>
> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Jerry
> The emission theory of light (that light moves at c w.r.t. the
> source) has been disproved to a high degree of precision by
> that following experiment:
> ---------
> K. Brecher, "Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity
> of the Source?", Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 1051-1054, 1236(E) (1977).
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Brecher_1977.pdf
Jerry
Uncle Ben
>
> - Show quoted text -
Let's use a different refutation for discussion, one that is simpler
to think about: the explosion of a supernova. That explosion throws
stuff out with speeds up to 10 km/sec according to the observed
doppler shift of spectral lines.
The emission theory would have the light from the stuff coming towards
us arrive much sooner than the light from stuff going in the opposite
direction. The light pulse would be extended in time and the doppler
shift in the early light would be different from the doppler shift in
the late light.
This does not seem to be the case. If you doubt the results, I'll
look up the reference. I'm busy today, so it might take some time.
Uncle Ben
Dr. Henri Wilson
The existence of fields destroys the vacuum.
>And the speed of those waves is c, derived from the ratio of the old
>fashioned units of electrostatics and magnetics, whose ratio was
>discovered to be the speed of light. This implies that the speed of
>light in a vacuum is always c.
c wrt what?
Light will be move at the value of c given by the measuring instruments inside
those instruments when in they are switched on. Of course this is pretty
meaningless because the two constants cannot be measured simultaneously at the
same point.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
When we observe stellar phenomena, we must be aware that what we see is the
willusion (images that are distorted in time by the c+v effect). We cannot be
sure what is the early and the late light.
According to BaTh, the whole region surrounding a SN constitutes a local EM
reference sphere which tends to control all light emerging from within. When
light changes speed, as it would in the case you mention, individual photons
change length and so does their intrinsic wavelength. The observed doppler
shift is still a true indicator of their source speed wrt for instance an Earth
observer.
>This does not seem to be the case. If you doubt the results, I'll
>look up the reference. I'm busy today, so it might take some time.
The as yet unrecognized problem facing astronomers is how to interpret the
truth when one has only a willusion to work from.
>Uncle Ben
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
Dr. Henri Wilson
As you should be already aware, all this stuff has been already refuted in my
discussions here.
>Jerry
Jerry
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:47:17 -0700 (PDT), Jerry
>
> >On Jul 23, 4:32 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
> >> The emission theory of light (that light moves at c w.r.t. the
> >> source) has been disproved to a high degree of precision by
> >> that following experiment:
> >> ---------
> >> K. Brecher, "Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity
> >> of the Source?", Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 1051-1054, 1236(E) (1977).
>
> >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Brecher_1977.pdf
>
> As you should be already aware, all this stuff has been already refuted in my
> discussions here.
Uncle Ben is probably unfamiliar with the following short list.
Henri Wilson's Lies
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/diploma.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/deception.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/rt_aurigae.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/history.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/snips.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/accuses.htm
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/oh_dear.htm
Cheers!
Jerry
Uncle Ben
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:01:45 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
> >If you have an older TV set and if you know how the tube works, you
> >will realize that one can create electric and magnetic fields in a
> >vacuum. And if you believe Maxwell, the existence of electric and
> >magnetic fields in a vacuum insure that his theory supports the
> >existence of light waves in a vacuum.
>
> The existence of fields destroys the vacuum.
If that were true, your TV wouldn't work.
>
> c wrt what?
Any inertial frame you choose.
Uncle Ben
On the contrary, we can be sure that the early light is from debris
that was ejected in our direction, according, that is, to the emission
theory. SN's blow up pretty quickly.
Observation shows that we get all the light at about the same short
time. So the emission theory is bogus.
Uncle Ben
Oh! Thank you, Jerry!
UB
Dr. Henri Wilson
>On Jul 24, 7:33 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:01:45 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
>
>> >If you have an older TV set and if you know how the tube works, you
>> >will realize that one can create electric and magnetic fields in a
>> >vacuum. And if you believe Maxwell, the existence of electric and
>> >magnetic fields in a vacuum insure that his theory supports the
>> >existence of light waves in a vacuum.
>>
>> The existence of fields destroys the vacuum.
>
>If that were true, your TV wouldn't work.
There is nothing like a pure vacuum in a TV tube.
>> c wrt what?
>
>Any inertial frame you choose.
Where, In fairyland?
>> - Show quoted text -
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
<Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Jul 24, 7:14 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:47:17 -0700 (PDT), Jerry
>>
>> <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >On Jul 23, 4:32 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
>> >> The emission theory of light (that light moves at c w.r.t. the
>> >> source) has been disproved to a high degree of precision by
>> >> that following experiment:
>> >> ---------
>> >> K. Brecher, "Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity
>> >> of the Source?", Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 1051-1054, 1236(E) (1977).
>>
>> >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Brecher_1977.pdf
>>
>> As you should be already aware, all this stuff has been already refuted in my
>> discussions here.
>
>Uncle Ben is probably unfamiliar with the following short list.
Uncle Ben is just another relativist troll who has recently changed his posting
name.
> Henri Wilson's Lies
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/diploma.htm
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/deception.htm
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/rt_aurigae.htm
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/history.htm
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/snips.htm
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/accuses.htm
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/oh_dear.htm
>
>Cheers!
>
>Jerry
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
Like I said, we see the willusion. The problem remains to deduce the real
facts.
Relativists don't understand that what they see in distant is not necessarily
just as it happened.
>So the emission theory is bogus.
Not so. There is overwhelming evidence supporting it. All arguments against are
now known to be flawed.
>> - Show quoted text -
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Uncle Ben
>
> - Show quoted text -
It has been "Uncle Ben" on usenet for as long as I can remember. What
do you think was my earlier posting name, if any, "Doctor Henri"?
PD
Dr. Henri, ASTC, BSc, DSc(T) thinks that because some users come here
with pseudonym is tacit license for the broad-scale, habitual and
shameless lying that he does.
PD