Sagnac Threads United
Dr. Henri Wilson
thread. I will not use the others in future.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:17:32 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
wrote:
>
>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:gua3i31plubfu8ptq...@4ax.com...
>: On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 04:41:34 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
>: wrote:
>: >No v, no fringe shift.
>:
>: v=wR.
>
>"Negligible" -- Wilson.
>
Yes negligible....
>: >What's the wavelength of this sine wave?
>: > http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/tracking/
>:
>: I don't know and don't care.
>
>A real physicist would have no trouble answering that.
>A pouting petulant crackpot who wants his own theory
>desperately has an attack of the sour grapes over it.
>
>What's the wavelength of this sine wave, "Dr." Wilson?
> http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/tracking/
>
>Let me give you a hint. It's a bit less than Earth's diameter
>because the Earth is turning in the Newtonian absolute and
>stationary frame of reference.
I don't know and don't care.
>: The wavelength of a photon is the distance it travels in the source frame
>: during one cycle of its intrinsic oscillation.
>
>Oh... you mean c = wavelength/wavetime... yeah, I can live with that.
>Brilliant, Wilson, you've just defined speed = distance/time.
>Congratulations on getting down the fuckin' basics.
>
>The wavelength of a photon is the distance it travels in the observer's
>frame
>during one cycle of its intrinsic oscillation also, and is therefore
>velocity
>dependent. It was only a trace anyway and of no physical significance.
>
>: It move at c wrt its source so
>: lambda=c/nu.
>
>NO!!!! Ken Seto would say that!! (knee-jerk, knee-jerk)
>
>It moves at c+v wrt the observer so
>lambda1 = (c+v)/nu
...and I thought you supported emission theory....
>lambda2 = (v-c)/nu
>
You're a bloody aetherist
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:46:35 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
wrote:
>
>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:04h3i3tc667mgh39s...@4ax.com...
>: On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 04:43:48 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
>: >it's due to the slope.
>:
>: So waves approach the shore because water likes to flow uphill...is that
>what
>: you're saying?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siphon
>"the up-slope flow being driven only by hydrostatic pressure"
>
>Water is level on the top, then it falls, then it slides down the slope on
>the bottom. You don't think.
>The question isn't whether you do or not, but whether you can or not.
...so water is heavier under water than in air, eh? .so water falls downhill
when it is water?
Very good for a pommie aetherist....
>: >It's as wrong as the cuckoo malformations no matter how long
>: >its been discussed, it has no v in it. You didn't think.
>:
>: w is angular velocity.....= v/r
>: Any decent engineer should know that......but apparently not you or
>Dishman.
>
>
>Ok... 4Aw/c.lambda = 4Ar/lambda.(v/c)
>
>It's as wrong as Einstein's cuckoo malformations no matter how long
>its been discussed, it has no MINUS v in it, or lambda1 or lambda2.
>You didn't think.
The standard SR sagnac explanation doesn't even use SR.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:21:13 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
wrote:
>
>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:b6m3i356i9rtiqvug...@4ax.com...
>: On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:30:41 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
>: My theory is just about complete. It may even agree with yours...but I
>doubt
>: it..
>
>I don't have a theory.
Maybe you don't have a brain either.
>The vector addition of velocities is an axiom,
>that's why I refer to "Emission Fact".
>
>: Consider a photon as resembling a rotating 'wheel' that moves at c wrt its
>: source.
>
>Correct. Modelled here:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/Photon.gif
>Also modelled here:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/photon.gif
>
>
>: Its 'phase' is its current angle from zero.
>
>I'll live with it. Where is zero? You need a reference for that.
predefined
>: One wavelength is defined as the distance the wheel moves (from the
>source)
>: during one rotation.
>
>That's the problem, you haven't defined that well. Normally
>a wheel's "wavelength" would be the circumference, but when the
>wheel slips on the ice it isn't the circumference any more. c+v
>and v-c are slipping on the ice, but there is no change in frequency.
>Wavelength (for what it's worth as a trace) is velocity dependent.
>Two wheels can have the same frequency but different speeds
>and hence different wavelengths. They are not then "in phase"
>at the detector, even though they are "in phase" in time.
I'll look into this
>
>: Both length and time are absolute so this defined
>: 'wavelength' is the same in all frames.
>
>That's silly. The wheels on your car have a fixed phase
>difference while it runs straight, but when the car turns
>the phase difference changes unless you locked the
>differential, in which case the wheel slips on the road.
>The differential permits a change in frequency by changing
>the phase, it can even be the tick fairy, taking whole turns away
>from one wheel and giving them the other.
>By your own definition "One wavelength is defined as the distance
>the wheel moves (from the source) during one rotation." and is
>different when the car turns a corner.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Differential.gif
>
>: In a rotating ring gyro, the number of wavelengths in each path is
>different.
>
>That's silly too, you have tick fairies. In a rotating ring gyro,
>the number of wavelengths is constant, the lengths are different.
>lambda1 = (v+c)/nu
>lambda2 = (v-c)/nu
>
>There is no differential in ring gyro, you can't change tick count,
> you have to let the wheels slip. The "wavelength" is a trace in TIME,
>you can't change ticks without a tick fairy or differential.
The path lengths of the two rays are different, the travel times are the same.
>: Therefore the phases are also different when the 'wheels' reunite.
>
>The wheels remain in phase until they leave the final beam splitter
>at different speeds.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/outofphase.gif
>
>
>: Tusselad went to a lot of trouble arguing that the phases of the two
>'wheels'
>: must always be the same since their travel times are the same and the
>period is
>: absolute. ..It is NOT.
>
>He's right and that's what Jeery showed. What Jeery failed to show
>was the different wavelengths in the non-rotating frame, like this:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dualwave.gif
>Different speeds, different distances, different wavelengths,
>SAME frequency, SAME ticks.
>
>lambda1 = (v+c)/nu
>lambda2 = (v-c)/nu
>distance = ticks * lambda
You have yet to derive the equation for fringe displacement with YOUR theory.
Mine produces it. D=4wR/cL
>: The detector MOVES wrt the start point of the wheel and the period appears
>: doppler shifted.
>
>No!!! That's what Wilson would say!!
>The detector MOVES wrt the emission point and the waves are
>doppler shifted.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/RLG.gif
>
>Wilson's BaTh has no Doppler shift and absolute wavelengths, unifuckation,
>h-aether, wedge-on worbits and is a load of crap which has been for crap
>for six years because you are such a stubborn, thick bastard.
Of course doppler shift occurs in BaTh.
>
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:54:31 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>> Light is not a classical wave in a medium. It is not just a 'moving
>> sinewave'
>> like the one Jerry has illustrated.
>
>Ballistic theory says any EM disturbance moves at
>c+v.
George you don't have to remind us that you don't know any physics.
Speed must always be specified relative to something.
>If light isn't what Jerry has drawn, you are
>saying ballistic theory is wrong. Fine by me.
>
>George
>
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Jerry
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 01:57:28 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Oct 25, 6:37 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
> >> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:04:06 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk>
> >> wrote:
> >> >We can heterodyne laser light with a spectral line
> >> >from starlight to produce a microwave product whose
> >> >frequency can be counted.
> >> Yes we know some people have claimed to have dne this.
> >> I have previously disputed these claims.
> >One can also heterodyne a source of light of unknown
> >frequency with the closely and uniformly spaced sidebands
> >of a mode locked laser standard (a "frequency comb") to get
> >a precise measurement of the frequency of the unknown light
> >source in terms of the standard. The use of frequency combs
> >are now a standard technique, and were a subject of the
> >2005 Nobel Prize in Physics.
> >If one understands Fourier analysis, the generation of the
> >comb is easily understood as the (in retrospect!) "obvious"
> >result of modulating the laser beam, CONSIDERED AS CONSISTING
> >OF A TRAIN OF CLASSICAL WAVES, into a series of very short
> >(10^-15 s) pulses.
> >Can you apply Fourier analysis to your non-waves, Henri?
> >Can you explain how a frequency comb is generated?
> Fourier isn't required. you're talking about a beat frquency.
As I suspected, you haven't the foggiest idea how Fourier
analysis applies...
> Anyway, this now fits in perfectly with my 'intrinsic oscillation
> frequency' idea.
> Thankyou Jerry for helping me develop my theory....
> >No, of course you can't.
Jerry
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
New!
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/oh_dear.htm
Jerry
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 02:13:45 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >Early experimentalists such as Michelson and Morley, Sagnac
> >etc. used monochromatic sources only during the alignment
> >stages while setting up their interferometers. Actual
> >experimental runs were always performed with white light.
> >The reason for this is that white light creates a distinctive
> >pattern of a central bright white fringe surrounded by a
> >rapidly fading set of colored fringes. The advantage of this
> >is that the central fringe of equal path length is always
> >readily identifiable, whereas monochromatic light produces
> >uniform fringes in which it is virtually impossible to
> >determine the central fringe of equal path length.
> I know. I once made a michelson interferometer. I was quite
> easy to adjust.
Using a monochromatic light source, yes. A white light
Michelson interferometer is rather finicky because of the
short coherence length.
> >The distinctive pattern of fringes formed by white light
> >enabled Michelson and Morley, who recorded their observations
> >visually, not to "get lost" while figuring out how far their
> >fringes were displaced from their fiducial marks.
> The deliberate tilting of the top mirror to create an optical
> wedge was a later innovation that produced almost straight line
> fringes.
Nope. See my next comments.
> It is obviously easier to measure the sideways
> displacement of a line than to estimate the shade of
> fairly uniform image.
Tilting doesn't work with a white light interferometer.
The interference pattern doesn't extend far enough out to get
"straight" fringes, and the fringes would be colored. The early
experimentalists used SLIT sources of light.
Obviously you are accustomed to monochromatic light and lasers.
> Maybe circles are still preferred in metrology.
> get it yet?
Sure. But YOU sure haven't.
> >In the
> >Michelson and Gale experiment, which was a giant Sagnac
> >setup, the central fringe, in the absence of rotation, would
> >appear precisely midway between the two images of the slit.
> >This enabled them to calibrate their apparatus for zero
> >rotational velocity; it was thus not necessary for them to
> >halt the rotation of the Earth to get a zero reading, which
> >would have been somewhat impractical in the absence of divine
> >intervention (Joshua 10:12-15).
> >Note that I stated that the pattern of colored fringes
> >surrounding the central bright fringe fades rapidly. This is
> >because the spacing between the red fringes and the blue
> >fringes is different. Within a few fringe widths from the
> >central fringe, the colored fringes overlap until the fringe
> >pattern is no longer perceptible. Since each fringe represents
> >a half wave difference in path length to the two images of the
> >source slit, this means that the path lengths must be
> >precisely matched, otherwise it would be impossible to see any
> >fringes at all.
> >This distance to which the path lengths must be matched,
> >otherwise fringes are invisible, is known as the "coherence
> >length". The coherence length for white light is no more
> >than a handful of microns. Your notion that "fringe
> >production in a sagnac interferometer is something to do with
> >the phase relationship between INCOMING and OUTGOING rays
> >rather than the rejoining of the two oppositely moving rays"
> >is totally ridiculous to anybody who knows anything at all
> >about optics.
> It's all irelevant anyway since light moves at c wrt its source
> and everything at rest wrt the source.
Anything you don't understand is "irrelevant"?
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:59:30 GMT, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
:
: On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:54:31 +0100, "George Dishman"
<geo...@briar.demon.co.uk>
: wrote:
:
:
: >> Light is not a classical wave in a medium. It is not just a 'moving
: >> sinewave'
: >> like the one Jerry has illustrated.
: >
: >Ballistic theory says any EM disturbance moves at
: >c+v.
:
: George you don't have to remind us that you don't know any physics.
: Speed must always be specified relative to something.
You don't know, you don't think and you don't care.
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:06:16 GMT, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
:
: On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:46:35 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
: wrote:
:
: >
: >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: >news:04h3i3tc667mgh39s...@4ax.com...
: >: On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 04:43:48 GMT, "Androcles"
<Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
:
: >: >it's due to the slope.
: >:
: >: So waves approach the shore because water likes to flow uphill...is
that
: >what
: >: you're saying?
: >
: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siphon
: >"the up-slope flow being driven only by hydrostatic pressure"
: >
: >Water is level on the top, then it falls, then it slides down the slope
on
: >the bottom. You don't think.
: >The question isn't whether you do or not, but whether you can or not.
:
:
: ...so water is heavier under water than in air, eh? .so water falls
downhill
: when it is water?
:
: Very good for a pommie aetherist....
:
:
: >: >It's as wrong as the cuckoo malformations no matter how long
: >: >its been discussed, it has no v in it. You didn't think.
: >:
: >: w is angular velocity.....= v/r
: >: Any decent engineer should know that......but apparently not you or
: >Dishman.
: >
: >
: >Ok... 4Aw/c.lambda = 4Ar/lambda.(v/c)
: >
: >It's as wrong as Einstein's cuckoo malformations no matter how long
: >its been discussed, it has no MINUS v in it, or lambda1 or lambda2.
: >You didn't think.
:
: The standard SR sagnac explanation doesn't even use SR.
You don't know and you don't care.
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:59:30 GMT, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
:
: On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:21:13 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
: wrote:
:
: >
: >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: >news:b6m3i356i9rtiqvug...@4ax.com...
: >: On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:30:41 GMT, "Androcles"
<Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
:
: >: My theory is just about complete. It may even agree with yours...but I
: >doubt
: >: it..
: >
: >I don't have a theory.
:
: Maybe you don't have a brain either.
You don't know and you don't care.
:
: >The vector addition of velocities is an axiom,
: >that's why I refer to "Emission Fact".
: >
: >: Consider a photon as resembling a rotating 'wheel' that moves at c wrt
its
: >: source.
: >
: >Correct. Modelled here:
: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/Photon.gif
: >Also modelled here:
: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/photon.gif
: >
: >
: >: Its 'phase' is its current angle from zero.
: >
: >I'll live with it. Where is zero? You need a reference for that.
:
: predefined
You don't know and you don't care.
:
: >: One wavelength is defined as the distance the wheel moves (from the
: >source)
: >: during one rotation.
: >
: >That's the problem, you haven't defined that well. Normally
: >a wheel's "wavelength" would be the circumference, but when the
: >wheel slips on the ice it isn't the circumference any more. c+v
: >and v-c are slipping on the ice, but there is no change in frequency.
: >Wavelength (for what it's worth as a trace) is velocity dependent.
: >Two wheels can have the same frequency but different speeds
: >and hence different wavelengths. They are not then "in phase"
: >at the detector, even though they are "in phase" in time.
:
: I'll look into this
:
You don't know and you don't care.
: >
: >: Both length and time are absolute so this defined
: >: 'wavelength' is the same in all frames.
: >
: >That's silly. The wheels on your car have a fixed phase
: >difference while it runs straight, but when the car turns
: >the phase difference changes unless you locked the
: >differential, in which case the wheel slips on the road.
: >The differential permits a change in frequency by changing
: >the phase, it can even be the tick fairy, taking whole turns away
: >from one wheel and giving them the other.
: >By your own definition "One wavelength is defined as the distance
: >the wheel moves (from the source) during one rotation." and is
: >different when the car turns a corner.
: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Differential.gif
: >
: >: In a rotating ring gyro, the number of wavelengths in each path is
: >different.
: >
: >That's silly too, you have tick fairies. In a rotating ring gyro,
: >the number of wavelengths is constant, the lengths are different.
: >lambda1 = (v+c)/nu
: >lambda2 = (v-c)/nu
: >
: >There is no differential in ring gyro, you can't change tick count,
: > you have to let the wheels slip. The "wavelength" is a trace in TIME,
: >you can't change ticks without a tick fairy or differential.
:
: The path lengths of the two rays are different, the travel times are the
same.
:
You don't know and you don't care.
: >: Therefore the phases are also different when the 'wheels' reunite.
: >
: >The wheels remain in phase until they leave the final beam splitter
: >at different speeds.
: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/outofphase.gif
: >
: >
: >: Tusselad went to a lot of trouble arguing that the phases of the two
: >'wheels'
: >: must always be the same since their travel times are the same and the
: >period is
: >: absolute. ..It is NOT.
: >
: >He's right and that's what Jeery showed. What Jeery failed to show
: >was the different wavelengths in the non-rotating frame, like this:
: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dualwave.gif
: >Different speeds, different distances, different wavelengths,
: >SAME frequency, SAME ticks.
: >
: >lambda1 = (v+c)/nu
: >lambda2 = (v-c)/nu
: >distance = ticks * lambda
:
: You have yet to derive the equation for fringe displacement with YOUR
theory.
: Mine produces it. D=4wR/cL
You don't know and you don't care.
:
: >: The detector MOVES wrt the start point of the wheel and the period
appears
: >: doppler shifted.
: >
: >No!!! That's what Wilson would say!!
: >The detector MOVES wrt the emission point and the waves are
: >doppler shifted.
: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/RLG.gif
: >
: >Wilson's BaTh has no Doppler shift and absolute wavelengths,
unifuckation,
: >h-aether, wedge-on worbits and is a load of crap which has been for crap
: >for six years because you are such a stubborn, thick bastard.
:
: Of course doppler shift occurs in BaTh.
You don't know, you don't think, and you don't care.
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:59:30 GMT, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
:
: On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:17:32 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
: wrote:
:
: >
: >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: >news:gua3i31plubfu8ptq...@4ax.com...
: >: On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 04:41:34 GMT, "Androcles"
<Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
: >: wrote:
:
: >: >No v, no fringe shift.
: >:
: >: v=wR.
: >
: >"Negligible" -- Wilson.
: >
: Yes negligible....
You don't know and you don't care.
: >: >What's the wavelength of this sine wave?
You don't know and you don't care.
:
: >lambda2 = (v-c)/nu
: >
:
: You're a bloody aetherist
You don't know and you don't care.
Dr. Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
> > I appreciate your efforts but it doesn't work as you say. You have ignored the
> > movement of the start point in the source frame. You are also ignoring the fact
> > that the 'intrinsic frequency' appears Doppler shifted at the detector because
> > the latter is moving wrt the startpoint. Even though the travel time of the
> > rays is the same, the number of cycles arriving at the detector differs for
> > each ray.
> > In short, you are confusing the start point frame with the source/detector
> > frame.
> > The fact is, the photon experiences one INTRINSIC cycle every wavelength
> > traveled.
> >
> > The path lengths of the two rays are different, therefore the photons generally
> > end up out of phase.
> >
> > Thankyou for helping me develop my model. It is all coming together nicely now.
>
>So let's take one step at the time. So far, we have only stated what
>the equation for the phase of your BaTh photon must be in the source frame.
>
>Your talk about Doppler shift and motion relative some point in
>another frame is thus utterly irrelevant.
>
>Let's first agree on the equation describing the phase of your
>BaTh photon in the source frame.
>We can then take it from there later.
>
>So read again, carefully this time:
>
>You said:
>1. A photon has an intrinsic oscillation of an unknown nature. During the absolute
> time interval defined by one period of that oscillation, an identifiable point
> in the photon body moves through a 'spatial interval' at c wrt the source.
> The absolute distance it moves in the source frame is its 'wavelength'.
> Like ALL lengths, that wavelength is the same in all frames.
> The front of a BaTh photon oscillates once every absolute wavelength traveled.
>
>This is YOUR oral description of your 'approach'.
>All I do below is to express this description mathematically.
>If you find an error in my math, please point out exactly what
>it is, and show what the correct math should be.
>Otherwise I will assume it is correct.
>
> From your description, it follows that he phase at the front of any photon
>must in the source frame fulfill the equation:
> phi(t+T, x+cT) - phi(t,x) = 2pi
>where T is the 'absolute time interval of one oscillation'
>and cT = l is "the absolute distance it moves during T", that is the wavelength
> T = l/c
>
>If we assume that phi(t,x) is a linear function of x and t,
> phi(t,x) = at + bx
>we get:
> (at + aT + bx + bcT)-(at + bx) = 2pi
> aT+bcT = 2pi
> b = (2pi+acT)/T = 2p/T + ac
>Inserting T = l/c, we find:
>phi(t,x) = at + (a/c + 2pi/l)x
>
>Since the phase of any photon in a ray of photons must fulfill
>this equation, it gives us the phase of the photon found at x at
>the time t.
>
>We know that the phase of the photon emitted from the source at x = x1
>at the time t+T must be 2pi more than the photon emtted at the time t.
>So:
> phi(t+T,x1)-phi(t,x1) = 2pi
> aT = 2pi
> a = 2pi/T = 2pi.c/l (usually called the angular frequency w, of course)
>
>So the equation becomes:
>phi(t,x) = (2pi.c/l)t +((2pi.c/l)/c - 2pi/l)x = (2pi.c/l)t
>
>=========================================================
># So according to your BaTh:
>#
># phi(t,x) = (2pi.c/l)t (in the source frame)
>#
># The phase doesn't depend on x, all the photons in
># the ray have at any time the same phase.
>=========================================================
>
>It's your model, Henri. You have now seen it expressed mathematically.
>If your oral description of your 'approach' at the top is wrong,
>please correct it, and I will express your changed description mathematically.
>
>I understand that you are unable to do it, so I will have to help you.
Paul, I will go right back to basics..
Have you ever seen a snake trying to cross a bitumen road?
...probably not because you don't have snakes in Norway.....
Well, what happens is, the snake cannot get a grip on the smooth surface so it
head moves frantically from side to side and a series of sinelike waves moves
down the length of its body. In grass the snakes head remains pretty still and
only the body wriggles.
If a snake tries to cross a road in Norway, it is immediately frozen stiff. It
then slides down hill on the ice whilst remaining in that frozen sinewave
state.
The frozen snake represents your classical wave model of light. A live snake in
the warm Australian climate is somethng like the BaTh photon model.... the head
moves from side to side in cyclic fashion..ie., its phase continually changes
with a fixed period.
I have recently put forwards a rough model of a photon using a rotating wheel
instead of a snake's head to define the phase of the leading edge. The model is
by no means complete or definite.
Now, we know that in a ring gyro, the two path lengths are different if v > 0.
According to BaTh, one path is 2piR(c+v)/c and the other 2piR(c-v)/c. The
travel times are both 2piR/c. A photon in one ray travels a distance equal to
2piR(c+v)/cL absolute wavelengths (L=wavelength). The other travels
2piR(c-v)/cL wavelengths.
The question arises as to how one photon can move through more wavelengths
than the other in the same time interval. The answer is that they move at
different speeds....and this adds up correctly. Furthermore, if wavelength is
defined as I have suggested, then the arrival phases of the two rays should be
different.
THIS APPROACH IS JUSTIFIED BY THE FACT THAT IT PRODUCES THE RIGHT EQUATION FOR
FRINGE DISPLACEMENT.
However if we try to relate this to an intrinsic oscillation period WHICH
SHOULD BE ABSOLUTE AND THE SAME IN ALL FRAMES, we find that any two photons
that leave the startpoint in phase should also reunite in phase. You math above
analyses that situation and reaches that conclusion.
Before introducing doppler and pursuing this line of thought any further, I
would like to present the following for consideration.
There seems to be a very simple answer to this apparent paradox. The ray that
is reflected from the 45 mirror experiences a 180 degree phase shift. This
means that what you claim as the condition for reinforcement is actually that
of total annihilation. Your two moving wiggly lines are 180 out of phase.
Before you start to rant and rave over that suggestion I will point out that
consideration of my rotating wheel model further complicates the issue. I also
suggest that the 'wheel' may change its direction of rotation at the
reflection. Reinforcement actually occurs when one ray has moved through N +
1/4 and the other M-1/4 wavelengths. This completely vindicates my theory as
illustrates in the animation: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.exe.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
Paul, I will go right back to basics..
Wilson can't count.
:
: Have you ever seen a snake trying to cross a bitumen road?
Yes, and I've seen a plagiaristic snake say
"Anyway, this now fits in perfectly with my 'intrinsic oscillation
frequency' idea.
Thankyou Jerry for helping me develop my theory...." -- Wilson,
October 26, 2007 1:03 PM
news:iml3i3dh0vmisp6ln...@4ax.com
The only thing to do with snakes is roll right over them.
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
There's NO aether...give it up
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
This whole post is irrelevant.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
..the best thing about snakes is that they keep frightened pommies out of OZ.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 21:36:56 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
"That's the kind of argument I'd expect from a desperate
person....completely out of ideas... ahahahaha!" -- Wilson.
"Anyway, this now fits in perfectly with my 'intrinsic oscillation
frequency' idea.
Thankyou Jerry for helping me develop my theory...." -- Wilson,
October 26, 2007 1:03 PM
news:iml3i3dh0vmisp6ln...@4ax.com
YOU FUCKIN' FORKED TONGUED SNAKE!
You don't know, you don't think and you don't care.
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 08:31:42 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
"That's the kind of argument I'd expect from a desperate
person....completely out of ideas... ahahahaha!" -- Wilson.
"Anyway, this now fits in perfectly with my 'intrinsic oscillation
frequency' idea.
Thankyou Jerry for helping me develop my theory...." -- Wilson,
October 26, 2007 1:03 PM
news:iml3i3dh0vmisp6ln...@4ax.com
YOU FUCKIN' FORKED TONGUED SNAKE!
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:31:19 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobu...@comcast.net>
"That's the kind of argument I'd expect from a desperate
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
<Plonk>
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:31:46 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
Fully expected.
"That's the kind of argument I'd expect from a desperate
person....completely out of ideas... ahahahaha!" -- Wilson.
"If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen." -- Harry Truman.
ahahahahahaha!
ahahahahahaha!
ahahahahahaha!
ahahahahahaha!
ahahahahahaha!
ahahahahahaha!
ahahahahahaha!
ahahahahahaha!
ahahahahahaha!
ahahahahahaha!
ahahahahahaha!
ahahahahahaha!
ahahahahahaha!
ahahahahahaha!
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
<plonk>
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 23:31:41 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
You have no idea how to plonk, do you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk
Androcles, still teaching the fuckhead "Dr." Wilson.
"Plonk" was Wilson's idea, he thought of it first,
its part of his crazy BaTh.
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:vqj7i31p3v0qgkun9...@4ax.com...
>: On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 23:31:41 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
>: wrote:
>:
>: <plonk>
>
>You have no idea how to plonk, do you?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk
>
>Androcles, still teaching the fuckhead "Dr." Wilson.
>"Plonk" was Wilson's idea, he thought of it first,
>its part of his crazy BaTh.
>
>ahahahahahaha!
>
>ahahahahahaha!
>
>ahahahahahaha!
>
>ahahahahahaha!
>
>ahahahahahaha!
>
>ahahahahahaha!
>
>ahahahahahaha!
>
Thank christ Australia has snakes.
We'd be overrun by whinging poms otherwise.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 00:03:38 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
You are the First Whinging Snake.
"Light doesn't have a particuar 'frequency' in the normal sense.
: Frequency is the inferred rate at whichABSOLUTE wavecrests leave the
source" -- Wilson.
news:3ghfh3h30n795o2vs...@4ax.com
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
The intrinsic oscillation may not be directly related to the inferred
'wavecrest arrival rate'.
Anyway, I reckon the 180 deg phase shift that one ray expereince at the 45
mirror stuffs the relativist argument about Sagnac.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 00:33:10 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
: wrote:
:
: >
: >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: >news:luk7i3daffhfca6vs...@4ax.com...
: >: On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 00:03:38 GMT, "Androcles"
<Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
: >: wrote:
:
: >: Thank christ Australia has snakes.
: >: We'd be overrun by whinging poms otherwise.
: >
: >You are the First Whinging Snake.
: >
: >
: >"Light doesn't have a particuar 'frequency' in the normal sense.
: >: Frequency is the inferred rate at whichABSOLUTE wavecrests leave the
: >source" -- Wilson.
: > news:3ghfh3h30n795o2vs...@4ax.com
: >
: >
: >"Anyway, this now fits in perfectly with my 'intrinsic oscillation
: >frequency' idea.
: >Thankyou Jerry for helping me develop my theory...." -- Wilson,
: > October 26, 2007 1:03 PM
: > news:iml3i3dh0vmisp6ln...@4ax.com
:
: The intrinsic oscillation may not be directly related to the inferred
: 'wavecrest arrival rate'.
"Anyway, this now fits in perfectly with Wilson's 'frequency' idea. Thankyou
Christian Andreas Doppler for helping me develop your..
oops... Wilson's shift...." -- Wilson P.I.S.S. (plagiarist, ignorant stupid
shit)
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
Androcles' (I don't have a theory) 'theory' was invented by Lorentz 110 years
ago.
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 05:12:37 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
Jerry
I've added a visualization of this equation to my applet as
"Wilsonian Wave Equation - Version 2"
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/toothwheel/toothwheel.htm
Jerry
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>> >
Yes. You're improving Crank.
Version 2 is probably something like the truth although I still have to find
the exact model that matches the maths in:
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm
The fact that it gives the right answer must concern you terribly.
Now, what do you think of my latest revelation that the 180 phase shift of ONE
ray at the 45 mirror PLUS the fact that the 'wheel' is rotating (probably
backwards), accounts for Paul's futile exercise in 'frozen snake' theory....and
fully supports BaTh..
The image one sees in an interferometer is that of the fringe pattern right on
the 45 mirror. The 180 phase shift is NOT cancelled by the second reflection.
The phases of the two rays are never in synch. What are claimed to be
conditions for reinforcement are not that at all.
>Jerry
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 00:56:50 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobu...@comcast.net>
Bollocks.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/CoriSag.gif
"Light doesn't have a particuar 'frequency' in the normal sense.
: Frequency is the inferred rate at whichABSOLUTE wavecrests leave the
source" -- Wilson.
news:3ghfh3h30n795o2vs...@4ax.com
"Anyway, this now fits in perfectly with my 'intrinsic oscillation
frequency' idea.
Thankyou Jerry for helping me develop my theory...." -- Wilson,
October 26, 2007 1:03 PM
news:iml3i3dh0vmisp6ln...@4ax.com
"That's the kind of argument I'd expect from a desperate
person....completely out of ideas... ahahahaha!" -- Wilson.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/tickfairy.gif
How many teeth on each wheel have I drawn?
Is it
A) 20
B) 21
C) 22
D) 23
E) 24
F) 25
G) 26
H) 27
I) 28
J) 29
K) 30
L) Other ......................... (specify)
You don't use emission theory and don't know what it is, your
crackpot theory is BaTh; you've been whining that for 6 years, you
invented it when I was in hospital in Florida with a shattered ankle
and I've been in Britain 4.5 years while you've gotten gradually more
senile. In all that time you've only learned to write "Dr" in front of
your name which nobody believes.
You blew it with denying Doppler and your tick fairies, senile old fart.
Jerry
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 00:56:50 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 26, 7:58 am, "Paul B. Andersen"
> ><paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
> >> Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>
> >> It's your model, Henri. You have now seen it expressed
> >> mathematically.
> >> If your oral description of your 'approach' at the top is wrong,
> >> please correct it, and I will express your changed description
> >> mathematically.
>
> >> I understand that you are unable to do it, so I will have to
> >> help you.
>
> >I've added a visualization of this equation to my applet as
> > "Wilsonian Wave Equation - Version 2"
> >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/toothwheel/toothwheel.htm
>
> Yes. You're improving Crank.
>
> Version 2 is probably something like the truth although I still
> have to find the exact model that matches the maths in
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm
Amazing. I supposed you don't realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE to
get an interference pattern from waves following Version 2
which are at all in accordance with observed patterns?
> The fact that it gives the right answer must concern you terribly.
Not at all. Because it doesn't yield anything sensible.
> Now, what do you think of my latest revelation that the 180 phase
> shift of ONE ray at the 45 mirror PLUS the fact that the 'wheel'
> is rotating (probably backwards), accounts for Paul's futile exercise
> in 'frozen snake' theory....and fully supports BaTh..
All is shows is your tendency towards fantasy.
> The image one sees in an interferometer is that of the fringe
> pattern right on the 45 mirror. The 180 phase shift is NOT cancelled
> by the second reflection.
>
> The phases of the two rays are never in synch. What are claimed to be
> conditions for reinforcement are not that at all.
You are obviously beyond hope.
Jerry
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
New!
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/oh_dear.htm
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:dqp9i3t51tmnlttlf...@4ax.com...
>
>"That's the kind of argument I'd expect from a desperate
>person....completely out of ideas... ahahahaha!" -- Wilson.
>
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/tickfairy.gif
>How many teeth on each wheel have I drawn?
> Is it
>A) 20
>B) 21
>C) 22
>D) 23
>E) 24
>F) 25
>G) 26
>H) 27
>I) 28
>J) 29
>K) 30
>L) Other ......................... (specify)
>
>
>You don't use emission theory and don't know what it is, your
>crackpot theory is BaTh; you've been whining that for 6 years, you
>invented it when I was in hospital in Florida with a shattered ankle
>and I've been in Britain 4.5 years while you've gotten gradually more
>senile. In all that time you've only learned to write "Dr" in front of
>your name which nobody believes.
>You blew it with denying Doppler and your tick fairies, senile old fart.
...............silly old bugger....Don't you ever sleep?
Now, seriously, I have found the answer to the problem. (Both the problem and
the answer are probably too hard for YOU.)
The 'wheels'...representing the phases of the photons as they travel....are
rotating in opposite directions due to the fact that one ray is reflected off
the 45 mirror and the other is not. ..or alternatively, they rotate in the same
sense but one is shifted by 180 degrees....
Therefore their phases differ as they travel. The phase relationship
progressively changes, as can be seen from the graph....the the 'white circle
of teeth'..... in my animation: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.exe
The path lengths are different. The travel times are the same but the phases at
the detector are not.
This model completely crushes the J.A.D. 'frozen snake' theory.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>On Oct 28, 3:02 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 00:56:50 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Yes. You're improving Crank.
>>
>> Version 2 is probably something like the truth although I still
>> have to find the exact model that matches the maths in
>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm
>
>Amazing. I supposed you don't realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE to
>get an interference pattern from waves following Version 2
>which are at all in accordance with observed patterns?
>
>> The fact that it gives the right answer must concern you terribly.
>
>Not at all. Because it doesn't yield anything sensible.
>
>> Now, what do you think of my latest revelation that the 180 phase
>> shift of ONE ray at the 45 mirror PLUS the fact that the 'wheel'
>> is rotating (probably backwards), accounts for Paul's futile exercise
>> in 'frozen snake' theory....and fully supports BaTh..
>
>All is shows is your tendency towards fantasy
It is known that one ray shifts 180 at the 45 mirror.
>> The image one sees in an interferometer is that of the fringe
>> pattern right on the 45 mirror. The 180 phase shift is NOT cancelled
>> by the second reflection.
>>
>> The phases of the two rays are never in synch. What are claimed to be
>> conditions for reinforcement are not that at all.
>
>You are obviously beyond hope.
read my reply to Androcles.
The phase of the 'front of the photon' is represented by a 'wheel' moving at
c+v.
Your argument is DEAD....
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:37:07 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
You stupid sod, I set you the problem, I already have the answers.
:
: The 'wheels'...representing the phases of the photons as they travel...
Yes, the photon is a wheel. A beam is lots of wheels.
.are
: rotating in opposite directions due to the fact that one ray is reflected
off
: the 45 mirror and the other is not. ..or alternatively, they rotate in the
same
: sense but one is shifted by 180 degrees....
Forget the 45 mirror, when the water wave hits the tank wall
the water molecules keep on going up or down as they were.
A standing wave is the result.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/standw.html
Phase difference is simply angle difference, Wilson. It isn't magic.
: Therefore their phases differ as they travel.
If two identical wheels are side by side and rolling in the same
direction the phase angle between them remains constant.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Differential.gif
The phase difference changes if
1) the wheels are turning a corner (Sagnac).
2) the wheels are different sizes (Quantum Mechanics).
A differential is a tick fairy. It can make one wheel stop
if the other wheel turns twice. We do not have tick fairies,
so one wheel get larger than the other.
QM says each wheel is an integer multiple of the preceeding size
for any given element, wheel sizes can 1,2,3... and so on. BUT
THAT IS FOR EMISSION ONLY. After that all bets are off.
That's what the great physicist Rydberg found... you've never
heard of him, though, you are too fucking thick.
: The phase relationship
: progressively changes, as can be seen from the graph....the the 'white
circle
: of teeth'..... in my animation: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.exe
What's that? A squiggly snake?
:
: The path lengths are different.
Of course the path lengths are different, but the frequency isn't.
No tick fairy, so the wheel diameter gets bigger. Bigger wheel
diameter, longer wavelength.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/CoriSag.gif
That's Emission Fact, Wilson, NOT your stupid BaTh with your crank
single wavelengths and tick fairies to make up the difference in path
lengths.
: The travel times are the same but the phases at
: the detector are not.
The travel times are the same up to the beam splitter,
then the bigger wheel rolls onward to the detector with speed c+v
and gets ahead of the smaller wheel, hence it gets out of phase.
: This model completely crushes the J.A.D. 'frozen snake' theory.
The snake is the TRACE in TIME of where a mark on the wheel
of the photon was.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/gifs/cycloid.gif
http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/SHO/damp.html
I said right at the start, Jeery has a good model -- of a radio
transmitter. What she failed to show was the change in wavelength,
and you, stupid, kept on ranting about fixed wavelengths.
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:5ku9i31ipeq607dp7...@4ax.com...
>: On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:37:07 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
>: >"That's the kind of argument I'd expect from a desperate
See!! I knew you wouldn't understand the problem.
Put a spot on both wheels to represent their phases. LET ONE WHEEL LAG THE
OTHER BY 180.
As the wheels roll DOES THEIR PHASE RELATIONSHIP STAY THE SAME OR VARY. .
When does reinforcement occur?
>
>
>: Therefore their phases differ as they travel.
>
>If two identical wheels are side by side and rolling in the same
>direction the phase angle between them remains constant.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Differential.gif
Not if one lags the other by 180. Alternatively, not if they both roll in
different directions around a circle.
>The phase difference changes if
>1) the wheels are turning a corner (Sagnac).
>2) the wheels are different sizes (Quantum Mechanics).
>
>A differential is a tick fairy. It can make one wheel stop
>if the other wheel turns twice. We do not have tick fairies,
>so one wheel get larger than the other.
this is obviously too hard for you.... you don't even read what has been said.
>
>
>QM says each wheel is an integer multiple of the preceeding size
>for any given element, wheel sizes can 1,2,3... and so on. BUT
>THAT IS FOR EMISSION ONLY. After that all bets are off.
>That's what the great physicist Rydberg found... you've never
>heard of him, though, you are too fucking thick.
...silly old bugger.....
>: The phase relationship
>: progressively changes, as can be seen from the graph....the the 'white
>circle
>: of teeth'..... in my animation: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.exe
>
>What's that? A squiggly snake?
A frozen one....
>:
>: The path lengths are different.
>
>Of course the path lengths are different, but the frequency isn't.
>No tick fairy, so the wheel diameter gets bigger. Bigger wheel
>diameter, longer wavelength.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/CoriSag.gif
>
>That's Emission Fact, Wilson, NOT your stupid BaTh with your crank
>single wavelengths and tick fairies to make up the difference in path
>lengths.
This is verging on PLONK material...
>: The travel times are the same but the phases at
>: the detector are not.
>
>The travel times are the same up to the beam splitter,
>then the bigger wheel rolls onward to the detector with speed c+v
>and gets ahead of the smaller wheel, hence it gets out of phase.
The two rays end up at the detector at the same instant.. Even the JAD brigade
knows that.
>: This model completely crushes the J.A.D. 'frozen snake' theory.
>
>The snake is the TRACE in TIME of where a mark on the wheel
>of the photon was.
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/gifs/cycloid.gif
> http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/SHO/damp.html
each wheel rolls around the ring in a different direction. The phases are
generally NOT the same.
>
>I said right at the start, Jeery has a good model -- of a radio
>transmitter. What she failed to show was the change in wavelength,
>and you, stupid, kept on ranting about fixed wavelengths.
All lengths are absolute in BaTh.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 01:09:55 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
Yeah, so what are you shouting for?
:
: As the wheels roll DOES THEIR PHASE RELATIONSHIP STAY THE SAME OR VARY. .
Depends on their relative diameters, direction and RPM (frequency).
See!! I knew you wouldn't understand the problem (knee-jerk, knee-jerk).
Your trite comments are so stupid and unnecessary.
Same sized wheels, same direction, same frequency, it remains constant.
Reverse direction of one wheel, the electric field is doubled and the
magnetic field cancels.
Different sized wheels or different frequency, it varies.
: When does reinforcement occur?
If you mean superposition, it cancels.
:
: >
: >
: >: Therefore their phases differ as they travel.
: >
: >If two identical wheels are side by side and rolling in the same
: >direction the phase angle between them remains constant.
: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Differential.gif
:
: Not if one lags the other by 180.
(knee-jerk, knee-jerk).
Just run your car through a paint spill, jack it up and turn the wheels
to 180 apart, drop it down and drive it.
If two identical wheels are side by side and rolling in the same
direction the phase angle between them remains constant.
: Alternatively, not if they both roll in
: different directions around a circle.
Then it varies. You can do that without the drive shaft turning.
:
: >The phase difference changes if
: >1) the wheels are turning a corner (Sagnac).
: >2) the wheels are different sizes (Quantum Mechanics).
: >
: >A differential is a tick fairy. It can make one wheel stop
: >if the other wheel turns twice. We do not have tick fairies,
: >so one wheel get larger than the other.
:
: this is obviously too hard for you.... you don't even read what has been
said.
See!! I knew you wouldn't understand the problem (knee-jerk, knee-jerk).
Your trite comments are so stupid and unnecessary. This is obviously too
hard for you.... you don't even read what has been said. Dishpan calls you
clueless because you are.
: >
: >QM says each wheel is an integer multiple of the preceeding size
: >for any given element, wheel sizes can 1,2,3... and so on. BUT
: >THAT IS FOR EMISSION ONLY. After that all bets are off.
: >That's what the great physicist Rydberg found... you've never
: >heard of him, though, you are too fucking thick.
:
: ...silly old bugger.....
See!! I knew you wouldn't understand the problem (knee-jerk, knee-jerk).
Your trite comments are so stupid and unnecessary. This is obviously too
hard for you.... you don't even read what has been said. Dishpan calls you
clueless because you are.
"Light doesn't have a particuar 'frequency' in the normal sense.
: Frequency is the inferred rate at whichABSOLUTE wavecrests leave the
source" -- Wilson.
news:3ghfh3h30n795o2vs...@4ax.com
"Anyway, this now fits in perfectly with my 'intrinsic oscillation
frequency' idea.
Thankyou Jerry for helping me develop my theory...." -- Wilson,
October 26, 2007 1:03 PM
news:iml3i3dh0vmisp6ln...@4ax.com
"That's the kind of argument I'd expect from a desperate
person....completely out of ideas... ahahahaha!" -- Wilson.
:
: >: The phase relationship
: >: progressively changes, as can be seen from the graph....the the 'white
: >circle
: >: of teeth'..... in my animation: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.exe
: >
: >What's that? A squiggly snake?
:
: A frozen one....
See!! I knew you wouldn't understand the problem (knee-jerk, knee-jerk).
Your trite comments are so stupid and unnecessary. This is obviously too
hard for you.... you don't even read what has been said. Dishpan calls you
clueless because you are.
:
: >:
: >: The path lengths are different.
: >
: >Of course the path lengths are different, but the frequency isn't.
: >No tick fairy, so the wheel diameter gets bigger. Bigger wheel
: >diameter, longer wavelength.
: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/CoriSag.gif
: >
: >That's Emission Fact, Wilson, NOT your stupid BaTh with your crank
: >single wavelengths and tick fairies to make up the difference in path
: >lengths.
:
: This is verging on PLONK material...
Then FUCK OFF, MORON.
Jerry
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:15:10 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 28, 3:02 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
> >> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 00:56:50 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> Yes. You're improving Crank.
>
> >> Version 2 is probably something like the truth although I still
> >> have to find the exact model that matches the maths in
> >>www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm
>
> >Amazing. I supposed you don't realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE to
> >get an interference pattern from waves following Version 2
> >which are at all in accordance with observed patterns?
No response?
Please demonstrate how overlapping Wilsonian Wave Theory
Version 2 waves produce interference fringes.
You won't be able to.
Wilsonian Wave Theory is disproven.
BaTh is disproven.
Androcles
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1193653910.9...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
: On Oct 28, 4:27 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
: > On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:15:10 -0700, Jerry
<Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net>
: > wrote:
: >
: > >On Oct 28, 3:02 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
: > >> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 00:56:50 -0700, Jerry
<Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net>
: > >> wrote:
: >
: > >> Yes. You're improving Crank.
: >
: > >> Version 2 is probably something like the truth although I still
: > >> have to find the exact model that matches the maths in
: > >>www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm
: >
: > >Amazing. I supposed you don't realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE to
: > >get an interference pattern from waves following Version 2
: > >which are at all in accordance with observed patterns?
:
: No response?
:
: Please demonstrate how overlapping Wilsonian Wave Theory
: Version 2 waves produce interference fringes.
:
: You won't be able to.
:
: Wilsonian Wave Theory is disproven.
: BaTh is disproven.
Good thing to aren't claiming Emission Fact is disproven.
You won't be able to.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/CoriSag.gif
Jeery-Dishpan-Tusselad Wave Theory is disproven.
Einsteinian Relativity is disproven.
Paul B. Andersen
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:58:36 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>
>> Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>> If your oral description of your 'approach' at the top is wrong,
>> please correct it, and I will express your changed description mathematically.
>>
>> I understand that you are unable to do it, so I will have to help you.
>
>
> Well, what happens is, the snake cannot get a grip on the smooth surface so it
> head moves frantically from side to side and a series of sinelike waves moves
> down the length of its body. In grass the snakes head remains pretty still and
> only the body wriggles.
>
> If a snake tries to cross a road in Norway, it is immediately frozen stiff. It
> then slides down hill on the ice whilst remaining in that frozen sinewave
> state.
>
> The frozen snake represents your classical wave model of light. A live snake in
> the warm Australian climate is somethng like the BaTh photon model.... the head
> moves from side to side in cyclic fashion..ie., its phase continually changes
> with a fixed period.
>
> I have recently put forwards a rough model of a photon using a rotating wheel
> instead of a snake's head to define the phase of the leading edge. The model is
> by no means complete or definite.
>
> Now, we know that in a ring gyro, the two path lengths are different if v > 0.
> According to BaTh, one path is 2piR(c+v)/c and the other 2piR(c-v)/c. The
> travel times are both 2piR/c. A photon in one ray travels a distance equal to
> 2piR(c+v)/cL absolute wavelengths (L=wavelength). The other travels
> 2piR(c-v)/cL wavelengths.
>
> The question arises as to how one photon can move through more wavelengths
> than the other in the same time interval. The answer is that they move at
> different speeds....and this adds up correctly. Furthermore, if wavelength is
> defined as I have suggested, then the arrival phases of the two rays should be
> different.
> THIS APPROACH IS JUSTIFIED BY THE FACT THAT IT PRODUCES THE RIGHT EQUATION FOR
> FRINGE DISPLACEMENT.
> However if we try to relate this to an intrinsic oscillation period WHICH
> SHOULD BE ABSOLUTE AND THE SAME IN ALL FRAMES, we find that any two photons
> that leave the startpoint in phase should also reunite in phase. You math above
> analyses that situation and reaches that conclusion.
>
> Before introducing doppler and pursuing this line of thought any further, I
> would like to present the following for consideration.
>
> There seems to be a very simple answer to this apparent paradox. The ray that
> is reflected from the 45 mirror experiences a 180 degree phase shift. This
> means that what you claim as the condition for reinforcement is actually that
> of total annihilation. Your two moving wiggly lines are 180 out of phase.
>
> Before you start to rant and rave over that suggestion I will point out that
> consideration of my rotating wheel model further complicates the issue. I also
> suggest that the 'wheel' may change its direction of rotation at the
> reflection. Reinforcement actually occurs when one ray has moved through N +
> 1/4 and the other M-1/4 wavelengths. This completely vindicates my theory as
> illustrates in the animation: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.exe.
Henri, you didn't address my question at all.
Will you please do so?
It's your model, Henri. You have now seen it expressed mathematically.
If your oral description of your 'approach' at the top is wrong,
please correct it, and I will express your changed description mathematically.
In case you haven't understood it yet, the model described above
does indeed explain Sagnac.
Because:
The 'forward beam' will be Doppler shifted in the inertial frame,
phi_f = (2pi.(c+v)/l)t
and the other beam:
phi_b = (2pi.(c-v)/l)t
Since t = 2pi.rc in both cases, we get:
delta_phi = phi_f - phi_b
celta_pi = = (2pi.(c+v)/l)2pi.r/c - (2pi.(c-v)/l).2pi.r/c = 8pi^2.v/lc
Inserting A = pi*r^2, w = v/r :
delta_phi = 8pi.Aw/lc
This is in accordance with experimental evidence.
I am asking you yet again, Henri:
Is this a correct formulation of your model?
=========================================================
# So according to your BaTh:
#
# phi(t,x) = (2pi.c/l)t (in the source frame)
#
# The phase doesn't depend on x, all the photons in
# the ray have at any time the same phase.
=========================================================
Yes or no, please.
If no, give the correct one.
No ambiguous talk.
Mathematics: '
phi(x,t) = what?
--
Paul
Dr. Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
No Paul, my model has been slightly altered...so you will have to repeat your
exercise with the new feature included.
There is either a 180 phase shift at the 4 mirror OR there is no phase shift
but the phasing is reversed at he 45 mirror. Both will agree with the BaTh
result as per www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm.
I will have to animate the model but meanwhile, here is a simple way to
visualise what happens.
Replace the front of a photon with a 'phase wheel'. Mark a spot on the rim.
At the start point, the two rays are represented by two overlying wheels, with
both marks lined up, sitting on the edge of the ring.
The movement of the rays is simulated by rolling the two wheels in opposite
directions arond the ring. The circumference is the wavelength...same in both
rays.
It is obvious that the two wheel are generally NOT in phase when they meet at
the detector, the position of which is determined as previosuly outlined.
Alternatively, the wheels can rotate in the same sense but with an initial
phase difference of 180. (the marks are opposite each other at the start point)
Again, the phase the detector will not generally be the same.
Get it?
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:gdqai3tnjk1nt5k56...@4ax.com...
>: On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 01:09:55 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
>: >same
>: >: sense but one is shifted by 180 degrees....
>: >
>: >Forget the 45 mirror, when the water wave hits the tank wall
>: >the water molecules keep on going up or down as they were.
>: >A standing wave is the result.
>: > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/standw.html
>: >
>: >Phase difference is simply angle difference, Wilson. It isn't magic.
>:
>: See!! I knew you wouldn't understand the problem.
>:
>: Put a spot on both wheels to represent their phases. LET ONE WHEEL LAG THE
>: OTHER BY 180.
>
>Yeah, so what are you shouting for?
>
>:
>: As the wheels roll DOES THEIR PHASE RELATIONSHIP STAY THE SAME OR VARY. .
>
>Depends on their relative diameters, direction and RPM (frequency).
The diameters are the same, representing absolute wavelength.
>See!! I knew you wouldn't understand the problem (knee-jerk, knee-jerk).
>Your trite comments are so stupid and unnecessary.
Who's talking?
>Same sized wheels, same direction, same frequency, it remains constant.
>Reverse direction of one wheel, the electric field is doubled and the
>magnetic field cancels.
>Different sized wheels or different frequency, it varies.
Same sized wheels. Just roll them aroun the ring in opposite directions.
>: When does reinforcement occur?
>
>If you mean superposition, it cancels.
No it doesn't.
>: >
>: >: Therefore their phases differ as they travel.
>: >
>: >If two identical wheels are side by side and rolling in the same
>: >direction the phase angle between them remains constant.
>: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Differential.gif
>:
>: Not if one lags the other by 180.
> (knee-jerk, knee-jerk).
>
>Just run your car through a paint spill, jack it up and turn the wheels
>to 180 apart, drop it down and drive it.
>If two identical wheels are side by side and rolling in the same
>direction the phase angle between them remains constant.
Yeh! but if you add the amplitudes, you get a sinewave.
>: Alternatively, not if they both roll in
>: different directions around a circle.
>
>Then it varies. You can do that without the drive shaft turning.
>
>
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>On Oct 28, 4:27 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:15:10 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Amazing. I supposed you don't realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE to
>> >get an interference pattern from waves following Version 2
>> >which are at all in accordance with observed patterns?
>
>No response?
>
>Please demonstrate how overlapping Wilsonian Wave Theory
>Version 2 waves produce interference fringes.
>
>You won't be able to.
>
>Wilsonian Wave Theory is disproven.
>BaTh is disproven.
My model has been slightly altered. See my rely to Paul.
I can feel another animation coming on.
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>On 26 Oct, 10:41, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote:
>>
>> >> You still can't see that the start point
>> >> is static in the inertial frame but moving backward in the rotating frame.
>>
>> >Thank you for proving the point.
>>
>> wHAT?..THAT YOU ARE ACTING DUMB?
>
>Paul, I and many others have repeatedly told you
>that you don't understand what a frame is but
>instead of listening to the explanations you just
>shout abuse. This is just another case where your
>ignorance is catching you out.
I feel very sorry for you George. You are trying hard but just don't
understand.
>> >> Not
>> >> only that, every previously emitted 'wavecrest' moves backward in proportion.
>>
>> >That is the physics that matters. If that happened
>> >the speed would not be c relative to the source in
>> >the rotating frame, it woud be c relative to your
>> >hypothetical point, which of course is what SR says,
>> >that's why you get the "right answer".
>>
>> Gord, your not acting at all.....
>> The point is moving in the rotating frame, the light moves at c+v wrt that
>> point in the rotating frame....because the source is moving at v in the
>> nonrotating frame even though the emission point is not..
>
>It is moving at that speed relative to the LAB,
>not a POINT in the frame.
George, the start point is at rest in the LAB. The SOURCE is moving at v
respect to the LAB. The ray moves at c+v wrt the start point and c wrt the
source.
>Learn the difference
>between coordinates and the physical objects
>to which they relate.
Now consider the rotating frame. the Start point, which is at rest in the
non-rotating frame, IS OBVIOUSLY MOVING in the rotating frame..
>>
>> Indeed they do!!!!
>> And their 'intrinsic oscillation' is out of phase because it goes through 1
>> cycle every wavelength traveled.
>> Simple isn't it.
>
>Very. The distance travelled is the distance
>moved by a surface of given phase, so the
>'intrinsic oscillation' appears when you measure
>at a fixed point and is of constant phase at
>a point moving at the speed of the photon.
>
>However, even if you try to do what you want, it
>isn't "every wavelength traveled", it should be
>the distance travelled by a wave in the duration
>of a source cycle, that is the error I have been
>pointing out consistently throughout. When you
>decide to listen, you will be able to correct
>your maths error.
There has been a modifiaction to my model. One ray is shifted 180 at the 45
mirror AND/OR its phase changes drection.
See my reply to paul.
>> >> >Correct, and since they were emitted in phase that
>> >> >means they arrive in phase.
>>
>> >> no George, that's only according to your classical wave theory. it doesn't
>> >> apply
>>
>> >Arrival time = emission time plus travel time
>> >in all theories.
>>
>> George, the leading edge - and indeed the whole waveform - of your 'moving
>> wiggles' does not change.
>> The leading edge of a BaTh photon goes trough a cycle for every wavelength
>> moved.
>
>Sorry Henry, you are talking nonsense. As I have
>pointed out several times, a standing wave is the
>combination of two travelling waves and the speed
>of each is that of a point of fixed phase.
This is now called 'the frozen snake theory'. See previous posts.
my theory involves a live snake.
>> I have defined wavelength in this context.
>
>Rubbish, the wavelength is defined as the distance
>between repetitions of the periodic waveform at a
>given instant.
The leading edge of a particular photon that moves in both rays can be
represented by two 'phase wheel'.
The wheels roll around the circumference of the ring in oposite directions. A
mark on the wheel that was aligned at the start ppoint wil generally NOT BE
aligned at the detector.
>
>> The absolute wavelength of light is the distance moved in the source frame
>> during one cycle of its 'intrinsic oscillation'. Since it moves at c relative
>> to the source (in the source frame), lambda = c/nu. Lambda is an absolute
>> length and the same in all frames.
>
>Yes but the distance moved in that time in any other
>frame is not the same as the wavelength. Your web
>page mistake is that you use the wavelength for the
>distance moved but in the inertial frame, that is
>wrong.
no it is correct. Everything now fits....
>
>Oh good grief, how basic does this need to be
>for you to understand?
>
>"c" is the speed of the light, it tells you
>the distance the light moves in a given time.
>
>"v" is the speed of the splitter, it tells you
>the distance the splitter moves in a given time.
that's correct.
>"c+v" represents the sum of two speeds, it is
>the sum of the distance move by the light and
>the distance moved by the splitter and is also
>the increase in their separation in a given time.
>It is NOT the speed of either the light or the
>splitter.
Stop kidding yourself George. SR refutes itself.
>
>George
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:21:47 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
: wrote:
:
: >
: >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: >news:gdqai3tnjk1nt5k56...@4ax.com...
: >: On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 01:09:55 GMT, "Androcles"
<Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
:
: >: >same
: >: >: sense but one is shifted by 180 degrees....
: >: >
: >: >Forget the 45 mirror, when the water wave hits the tank wall
: >: >the water molecules keep on going up or down as they were.
: >: >A standing wave is the result.
: >: > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/standw.html
: >: >
: >: >Phase difference is simply angle difference, Wilson. It isn't magic.
: >:
: >: See!! I knew you wouldn't understand the problem.
: >:
: >: Put a spot on both wheels to represent their phases. LET ONE WHEEL LAG
THE
: >: OTHER BY 180.
: >
: >Yeah, so what are you shouting for?
: >
: >:
: >: As the wheels roll DOES THEIR PHASE RELATIONSHIP STAY THE SAME OR VARY.
.
: >
: >Depends on their relative diameters, direction and RPM (frequency).
:
: The diameters are the same, representing absolute wavelength.
Tusseladd shows a curve in his diagram, so does this
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
See!! I knew you wouldn't understand the problem (knee-jerk, knee-jerk).
I have exactly 8 wavelengths mirror to mirror, you have tick fairies,
it has been proven you cannot count.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/CoriSag.gif
See!! I knew you wouldn't understand the problem (knee-jerk, knee-jerk).
:
: >See!! I knew you wouldn't understand the problem (knee-jerk, knee-jerk).
: >Your trite comments are so stupid and unnecessary.
:
: Who's talking?
See!! I knew you wouldn't understand the problem (knee-jerk, knee-jerk).
:
: >Same sized wheels, same direction, same frequency, it remains constant.
: >Reverse direction of one wheel, the electric field is doubled and the
: >magnetic field cancels.
: >Different sized wheels or different frequency, it varies.
:
: Same sized wheels. Just roll them around the ring in opposite directions.
Rigid axle. Straight line only, no going around rings.
See!! I knew you wouldn't understand the problem (knee-jerk, knee-jerk).
:
: >: When does reinforcement occur?
: >
: >If you mean superposition, it cancels.
:
: No it doesn't.
Wackypedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
lists:
1 Direct proof
2 Proof by induction
3 Proof by transposition
4 Proof by contradiction
5 Proof by construction
6 Proof by exhaustion
7 Probabilistic proof
8 Combinatorial proof
9 Nonconstructive proof
10 Elementary proof
Not included:
11 Proof by "everybody knows" (proof by popular opinion).
12 Proof by "because I say so" (proof by assertion).
If you mean superposition, it cancels, FUCKHEAD.
See!! I knew you wouldn't understand the problem (knee-jerk, knee-jerk).
: >: >
: >: >: Therefore their phases differ as they travel.
: >: >
: >: >If two identical wheels are side by side and rolling in the same
: >: >direction the phase angle between them remains constant.
: >: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Differential.gif
: >:
: >: Not if one lags the other by 180.
: > (knee-jerk, knee-jerk).
: >
: >Just run your car through a paint spill, jack it up and turn the wheels
: >to 180 apart, drop it down and drive it.
: >If two identical wheels are side by side and rolling in the same
: >direction the phase angle between them remains constant.
:
: Yeh! but if you add the amplitudes, you get a sinewave.
Adding amplitudes with Excel:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac2.JPG
See!! I knew you wouldn't understand the problem (knee-jerk, knee-jerk).
: Henri Wilson, P.I.S.S.
Jerry
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 03:31:50 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 28, 4:27 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
> >> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:15:10 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Amazing. I supposed you don't realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE to
> >> >get an interference pattern from waves following Version 2
> >> >which are at all in accordance with observed patterns?
>
> >No response?
>
> >Please demonstrate how overlapping Wilsonian Wave Theory
> >Version 2 waves produce interference fringes.
>
> >You won't be able to.
>
> >Wilsonian Wave Theory is disproven.
> >BaTh is disproven.
>
> My model has been slightly altered. See my rely to Paul.
Your modifications make absolutely no difference. Your model
fails to predict a proper diffraction pattern.
> I can feel another animation coming on.
Since you keep side-stepping the issue, unable to understand
the problem, I may have to put together another cartoon for
you to view.
Wilsonian Wave Theory is utter nonsense.
Paul B. Andersen
>
> No Paul, my model has been slightly altered...so you will have to repeat your
> exercise with the new feature included.
Why has a correct theory to be changed all the time?
> There is either a 180 phase shift at the 4 mirror OR there is no phase shift
> but the phasing is reversed at he 45 mirror. Both will agree with the BaTh
> result as per www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm.
Of no consequence.
Remember that the phase relationship when the ring is not rotating
is the reference. It doesn't matter if there is a bright or dark fringe
in the center, it is the offset of the fringes when the ring is rotating
that is measured. So you only have to find how the phase difference
depend on the angular velocity, a constant offset is of no consequence.
> I will have to animate the model but meanwhile, here is a simple way to
> visualise what happens.
> Replace the front of a photon with a 'phase wheel'. Mark a spot on the rim.
> At the start point, the two rays are represented by two overlying wheels, with
> both marks lined up, sitting on the edge of the ring.
>
> The movement of the rays is simulated by rolling the two wheels in opposite
> directions arond the ring. The circumference is the wavelength...same in both
> rays.
>
> It is obvious that the two wheel are generally NOT in phase when they meet at
> the detector, the position of which is determined as previosuly outlined.
Ah. :-)
This is obvious only if your photons are rolling in the non-rotating
frame, and not in the Sagnac ring (source frame).
If your photons are rolling in the source frame, that is advancing
one circumference l in the source frame during the time l/c, then they
will obviously be in phase when they meet. They will both have made 2pi*r/l
revolutions when they simultaneously meet at the detector.
But if they are rolling in the inertial frame, that is they are
advancing one circumference l in the inertial frame during
the times l/(c+v) and l/(c-v), then they will be out of phase by
delta_phi = 2pi(Nf-Nb) where the number of revolutions will be:
Nf = (2pi.r/c)/(l/(c+v))= (2pi.r/lc)(c+v)
Nb = (2pi.r/c)/(l/(c-v))= (2pi.r/lc)(c-v)
delta_pi = (2pi.2pi.r/lc)2v = 8pi^2.rv/lc
inserting A = pi.r^2 and w = v/r:
delta_pi = 8pi.Aw/lc
which is in accordance with experimental evidence.
But what have you now done, Henri?
Let's call the distance advanced during one revolution d.
In the inertial frame this is trivially d = l
(where l still is the circumference of your 'photon')
In the source frame, they are different for your two photons:
d_f = 2pi.r/Nf = lc/(c+v)
d_b = 2pi.r/Nb = lc/(c-v)
How do your photons know how to advance a different distance
from the source per revolution, Henri?
Have they according to your BaTh any other reference than the source?
And why don't your photons advance one wavelength per revolution?
Generally:
How does a photon emitted from a source know which
frame of reference it is supposed to advance one
wavelength per revolution in, when it isn't the source frame?
Lets look at the frequencies (revolutions per second)
of your photons:
frequency = speed/(advanced distance during one revolution)
In the inertial frame:
f_f = (c+v)/l
f_b = (c-v)/l
Is this because of Doppler shift maybe?
In the source frame:
f_f = c/(lc/(c+v))= (c+v)/l
f_b = c/(lc/(c-v))= (c-v)/l
They are still different! No Doppler shift!
(Obviously! With absolute time (Galilean relativity),
your photons rotates once during the same time in
any frame of reference.)
Your photons emitted from the same source have different
frequencies in the source frame!
You do understand that this is fatal for your 'slightly
altered model', don't you?
I think you will have to slightly alter your model yet again, Henri.
What will it be this time? :-)
> Alternatively, the wheels can rotate in the same sense but with an initial
> phase difference of 180. (the marks are opposite each other at the start point)
>
> Again, the phase the detector will not generally be the same.
>
> Get it?
Yes.
Did you?
All your inventions are of course nonsensical.
But it is fun to see you struggle. :-)
--
Paul, still amused after all these years
Jerry
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 03:31:50 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 28, 4:27 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
> >> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:15:10 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Amazing. I supposed you don't realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE to
> >> >get an interference pattern from waves following Version 2
> >> >which are at all in accordance with observed patterns?
>
> >No response?
>
> >Please demonstrate how overlapping Wilsonian Wave Theory
> >Version 2 waves produce interference fringes.
>
> >You won't be able to.
>
> >Wilsonian Wave Theory is disproven.
> >BaTh is disproven.
>
> My model has been slightly altered. See my rely to Paul.
>
> I can feel another animation coming on.
It is really quite pathetic that you are unable to
grasp the implications of Paul's equations describing
your Wilsonian Wave Theory without the aid of cartoons.
Scroll down to the bottom of
http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/toothwheel/toothwheel.htm
As you can see, Wilsonian Wave Theory predicts no fringes
in the Two-Slit Experiment. Since the waves are
everywhere in phase within the volume of space swept out
by the beams, they add constructively within the entire
overlap region.
This is drastically in conflict with observation.
Wilsonian Wave Theory is disproven.
BaTh is yet again shown to be nonsense.
Henri Wilson will yet again snip my short list of his more
egregious lies and falsifications, as if that will make
the list go away and give him more credibility among the
lurkers reading this post.
Dr. Henri Wilson
This is a rather hurried version of what happens if the wheels rotate in
different directions. The phasing is generally different at the detector..
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/wheels.exe
done the code for the 180 phase shift yet.
>But if they are rolling in the inertial frame, that is they are
>advancing one circumference l in the inertial frame during
>the times l/(c+v) and l/(c-v), then they will be out of phase by
>delta_phi = 2pi(Nf-Nb) where the number of revolutions will be:
>Nf = (2pi.r/c)/(l/(c+v))= (2pi.r/lc)(c+v)
>Nb = (2pi.r/c)/(l/(c-v))= (2pi.r/lc)(c-v)
>delta_pi = (2pi.2pi.r/lc)2v = 8pi^2.rv/lc
>inserting A = pi.r^2 and w = v/r:
>delta_pi = 8pi.Aw/lc
>which is in accordance with experimental evidence.
>
>But what have you now done, Henri?
>
>Let's call the distance advanced during one revolution d.
>In the inertial frame this is trivially d = l
>(where l still is the circumference of your 'photon')
>In the source frame, they are different for your two photons:
> d_f = 2pi.r/Nf = lc/(c+v)
> d_b = 2pi.r/Nb = lc/(c-v)
>
>How do your photons know how to advance a different distance
>from the source per revolution, Henri?
>Have they according to your BaTh any other reference than the source?
>And why don't your photons advance one wavelength per revolution?
Wrong.
Run the program again.....the wavelength is the same for all ring speeds.
>Generally:
>How does a photon emitted from a source know which
>frame of reference it is supposed to advance one
>wavelength per revolution in, when it isn't the source frame?
>
>Lets look at the frequencies (revolutions per second)
>of your photons:
>
>frequency = speed/(advanced distance during one revolution)
>In the inertial frame:
> f_f = (c+v)/l
> f_b = (c-v)/l
>
> Is this because of Doppler shift maybe?
>
>In the source frame:
> f_f = c/(lc/(c+v))= (c+v)/l
> f_b = c/(lc/(c-v))= (c-v)/l
>
> They are still different! No Doppler shift!
> (Obviously! With absolute time (Galilean relativity),
> your photons rotates once during the same time in
> any frame of reference.)
>
>Your photons emitted from the same source have different
>frequencies in the source frame!
>
>You do understand that this is fatal for your 'slightly
>altered model', don't you?
>
>I think you will have to slightly alter your model yet again, Henri.
>What will it be this time? :-)
No problem Paul.
The 'frequency' you are refering to is just the 'wavecrest' arrival rate. It is
different for each ray because of the different speeds.
>> Alternatively, the wheels can rotate in the same sense but with an initial
>> phase difference of 180. (the marks are opposite each other at the start point)
>>
>> Again, the phase the detector will not generally be the same.
>>
>> Get it?
>
>Yes.
>Did you?
>
>All your inventions are of course nonsensical.
>But it is fun to see you struggle. :-)
....Henri, amused and still struggling with a theory that gets the right
answer....and proves Sagnac is fully explained by BaTh.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:tfici39vu71jqf6n7...@4ax.com...
>: >:
>: >: As the wheels roll DOES THEIR PHASE RELATIONSHIP STAY THE SAME OR VARY.
>.
>: >
>: >Depends on their relative diameters, direction and RPM (frequency).
>:
>: The diameters are the same, representing absolute wavelength.
>
>Tusseladd shows a curve in his diagram, so does this
> http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
>See!! I knew you wouldn't understand the problem (knee-jerk, knee-jerk).
>
>I have exactly 8 wavelengths mirror to mirror, you have tick fairies,
> it has been proven you cannot count.
then yours wont have and phase difference of fringe displacement.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/CoriSag.gif
Christ, we regularly see crap here on this NG ..but this must beat
everything...
>: >Same sized wheels, same direction, same frequency, it remains constant.
>: >Reverse direction of one wheel, the electric field is doubled and the
>: >magnetic field cancels.
>: >Different sized wheels or different frequency, it varies.
>:
>: Same sized wheels. Just roll them around the ring in opposite directions.
>
>Rigid axle. Straight line only, no going around rings.
>See!! I knew you wouldn't understand the problem (knee-jerk, knee-jerk).
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/wheels.exe
>: >: Not if one lags the other by 180.
>: > (knee-jerk, knee-jerk).
>: >
>: >Just run your car through a paint spill, jack it up and turn the wheels
>: >to 180 apart, drop it down and drive it.
>: >If two identical wheels are side by side and rolling in the same
>: >direction the phase angle between them remains constant.
>:
>: Yeh! but if you add the amplitudes, you get a sinewave.
>
>Adding amplitudes with Excel:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac2.JPG
>See!! I knew you wouldn't understand the problem (knee-jerk, knee-jerk).
run this again; http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/wheels.exe
>: Henri Wilson, P.I.S.S.E.D OFF WITH OLD DRUNKS
>
>
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>On Oct 29, 4:07 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 03:31:50 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net>
>>
>> >Wilsonian Wave Theory is disproven.
>> >BaTh is disproven.
>>
>> My model has been slightly altered. See my rely to Paul.
>>
>> I can feel another animation coming on.
>
>It is really quite pathetic that you are unable to
>grasp the implications of Paul's equations describing
>your Wilsonian Wave Theory without the aid of cartoons.
This is a pretty rough program but it shows what I'm saying.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/wheels.exe
I will add the 180 phase shift soon...you should be able to visualise what it
does.
>Scroll down to the bottom of
>http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/toothwheel/toothwheel.htm
>
>As you can see, Wilsonian Wave Theory predicts no fringes
>in the Two-Slit Experiment. Since the waves are
>everywhere in phase within the volume of space swept out
>by the beams, they add constructively within the entire
>overlap region.
Don't change the subject please.
>This is drastically in conflict with observation.
>
>Wilsonian Wave Theory is disproven.
>BaTh is yet again shown to be nonsense.
I particularly like this exhibition of relativist logic and consistancy. "BaTh
is disproven BECAUSE IT PRODUCES THE EXPERIMENTALLY VERIFIED RESULT".
>Henri Wilson will yet again snip my short list of his more
>egregious lies and falsifications, as if that will make
>the list go away and give him more credibility among the
>lurkers reading this post.
>
>Jerry...expert at turning over geriatric patients.....
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:14:15 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
"See!! I knew you wouldn't understand the problem."
"Christ, we regularly see crap here on this NG ..but this must beat
everything..."
"That's the kind of argument I'd expect from a desperate
person....completely out of ideas... ahahahaha!"
You have different emission frequencies. That's impossible
with a beam splitter. Spin your wheels the other way:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/closeup.gif
Here's two speeds, same frequency:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TwoSpeedRack.gif
: >: >: Not if one lags the other by 180.
: >: > (knee-jerk, knee-jerk).
: >: >
: >: >Just run your car through a paint spill, jack it up and turn the
wheels
: >: >to 180 apart, drop it down and drive it.
: >: >If two identical wheels are side by side and rolling in the same
: >: >direction the phase angle between them remains constant.
: >:
: >: Yeh! but if you add the amplitudes, you get a sinewave.
: >
: >Adding amplitudes with Excel:
: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac2.JPG
: >See!! I knew you wouldn't understand the problem (knee-jerk, knee-jerk).
:
: run this again; http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/wheels.exe
:
You have different emission frequencies. That's impossible
with a beam splitter. Spin your wheels the other way:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/closeup.gif
Here's two speeds, same frequency:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TwoSpeedRack.gif
Remember, Wilson, we have two speeds, v+c and v-c.
You can change fuckin' time, that's Einstein idiocy, and f = 1/t.
You are a closet Einstein Dingleberry.
"See!! I knew you wouldn't understand the problem."
"Christ, we regularly see crap here on this NG ..but this must beat
everything..."
"That's the kind of argument I'd expect from a desperate
person....completely out of ideas... ahahahaha!"
: >: Henri Wilson, P.I.S.S.E.D OFF WITH OLD DRUNKS
You must be pissed off with yourself, then.
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: run this again; http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/wheels.exe
12.5 ticks red, 18.5 ticks tan, IN THE SAME TIME.
Unlike you, Wilson, I can count.
That's different frequencies.
The Wilson tick fairy stole 3 ticks from red and gave them to tan.
Nice demonstration of tick fairies, Wilson. As good as Jeery's
tick fairies. Of course your path lengths are different too, one
is 6 ticks longer than the other.
Even better at 0.0099 ...
LOL!
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:r0hfi3d9gjcrd9nfo...@4ax.com...
>: On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:14:15 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
>: Christ, we regularly see crap here on this NG ..but this must beat
>: everything...
>:
>: >: >Same sized wheels, same direction, same frequency, it remains
>constant.
>: >: >Reverse direction of one wheel, the electric field is doubled and the
>: >: >magnetic field cancels.
>: >: >Different sized wheels or different frequency, it varies.
>: >:
>: >: Same sized wheels. Just roll them around the ring in opposite
>directions.
>: >
>: >Rigid axle. Straight line only, no going around rings.
>: >See!! I knew you wouldn't understand the problem (knee-jerk, knee-jerk).
>:
>: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/wheels.exe
>
>"See!! I knew you wouldn't understand the problem."
>"Christ, we regularly see crap here on this NG ..but this must beat
>everything..."
>"That's the kind of argument I'd expect from a desperate
>person....completely out of ideas... ahahahaha!"
>
>You have different emission frequencies.
Light doesn't have a 'frequency'. It has a 'wavelength'. (it actually has an
intrinsic oscillation but that's another matter).
The thing YOU refer to as 'frequency' us just 'wavecrest arrival per second'.
The clockwise ray is moving more slowly that the other one and therefore has a
lower 'frequency'. there is a doppler shift when light from the static
startpoint reflects from the MOVING 45 mirror.
>That's impossible
>with a beam splitter. Spin your wheels the other way:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/closeup.gif
>
>Here's two speeds, same frequency:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TwoSpeedRack.gif
..what you can't get into your head is that MY approach, ie., constant
wavelength, GIVES THE RIGHT ANSWER.
YOU HAVE NEVER PRODUCED ANY ANSWER..
>: >Adding amplitudes with Excel:
>: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac2.JPG
>: >See!! I knew you wouldn't understand the problem (knee-jerk, knee-jerk).
>:
>: run this again; http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/wheels.exe
>:
>
>You have different emission frequencies. That's impossible
>with a beam splitter.
You are as bad as a relativist.
In the moving frame, the frequencies are the same.
>Spin your wheels the other way:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/closeup.gif
Good graphics....nothing else....
>Here's two speeds, same frequency:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TwoSpeedRack.gif
So what?
>Remember, Wilson, we have two speeds, v+c and v-c.
>You can change fuckin' time, that's Einstein idiocy, and f = 1/t.
>You are a closet Einstein Dingleberry.
MY theory produces the right answer. YOURS produces NO answer.
>"See!! I knew you wouldn't understand the problem."
>"Christ, we regularly see crap here on this NG ..but this must beat
>everything..."
>"That's the kind of argument I'd expect from a desperate
>person....completely out of ideas... ahahahaha!"
>
>: >: Henri Wilson, P.I.S.S.E.D OFF WITH OLD DRUNKS
>
>You must be pissed off with yourself, then.
>
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
Now check the rotating frame....
>Even better at 0.0099 ...
>LOL!
>
>
>
>
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:37:46 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
Idiot.
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 01:05:48 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
: wrote:
:
: >
: >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: >news:r0hfi3d9gjcrd9nfo...@4ax.com...
: >
: >: run this again; http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/wheels.exe
: >
: >12.5 ticks red, 18.5 ticks tan, IN THE SAME TIME.
: >Unlike you, Wilson, I can count.
: >That's different frequencies.
: >The Wilson tick fairy stole 3 ticks from red and gave them to tan.
: >Nice demonstration of tick fairies, Wilson. As good as Jeery's
: >tick fairies. Of course your path lengths are different too, one
: >is 6 ticks longer than the other.
:
: Now check the rotating frame....
That's the whole fucking point.
a) The dingbats claim the speed is c in either frame.
b) BaTh says no, the wavelength is the same in either frame,
add ticks from the tick fairy to make more length.
c) Emission Fact says no, the frequency is the same in either
frame and the ticks don't change, you get the same number of
ticks in the same time wherever you are although it may not seem
it due to Doppler shift and we DO get Doppler shift in Sagnac.
Set your number to 0.01 and you have no length at all,
but the frequency is still there. Actually you do have length,
the "stationary" wheel went around the big circle.
Jerry
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:07:55 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >It is really quite pathetic that you are unable to
> >grasp the implications of Paul's equations describing
> >your Wilsonian Wave Theory without the aid of cartoons.
>
> This is a pretty rough program but it shows what I'm
> saying.
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/wheels.exe
Omigod. Do you realize what you've modeled?
Viewed from the rotating frame, light is being emitted
at different frequencies in the forwards and reverse
directions! Forwards light is being emitted with a
frequency of (c+v)/l, while reverse light is being
emitted with a frequency of (c-v)/l.
This is a real keeper. I've saved a copy of your program
as evidence. You, my dear Henri, believe in tick fairies.
Jerry
> On Oct 30, 7:06 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>
> > This is a pretty rough program but it shows what I'm
> > saying.
> >http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/wheels.exe
>
> Omigod. Do you realize what you've modeled?
>
> Viewed from the rotating frame, light is being emitted
> at different frequencies in the forwards and reverse
> directions! Forwards light is being emitted with a
> frequency of (c+v)/l, while reverse light is being
> emitted with a frequency of (c-v)/l.
>
> This is a real keeper. I've saved a copy of your program
> as evidence. You, my dear Henri, believe in tick fairies.
Not only do you believe in tick fairies, you have a model
that allows determination of one's motion in absolute
space. The frequency asymmetry should be apparent in
inertial motion as well as in rotational motion. One need
only measure the frequency of emitted light in different
directions, and one should be able to determine one's
absolute motion in space. Only a warped aetherist could
conceive of such a scheme!
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>On Oct 30, 7:06 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:07:55 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >It is really quite pathetic that you are unable to
>> >grasp the implications of Paul's equations describing
>> >your Wilsonian Wave Theory without the aid of cartoons.
>>
>> This is a pretty rough program but it shows what I'm
>> saying.
>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/wheels.exe
>
>Omigod. Do you realize what you've modeled?
>
>Viewed from the rotating frame, light is being emitted
>at different frequencies in the forwards and reverse
>directions! Forwards light is being emitted with a
>frequency of (c+v)/l, while reverse light is being
>emitted with a frequency of (c-v)/l.
Light doesn't have a 'frequency'. It has a wavelength.
The conventional frequency associated with light is inferred as the 'number of
wavecrests ariving per second'.
>
>This is a real keeper. I've saved a copy of your program
>as evidence. You, my dear Henri, believe in tick fairies.
You will have to wait a few days for my preferred option...in which the wheels
both rotate in the same sense but are 180 out because of the reflection of one
at the 45 mirror.
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>On Oct 30, 11:38 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 30, 7:06 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>>
>> > This is a pretty rough program but it shows what I'm
>> > saying.
>> >http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/wheels.exe
>>
>> Omigod. Do you realize what you've modeled?
>>
>> Viewed from the rotating frame, light is being emitted
>> at different frequencies in the forwards and reverse
>> directions! Forwards light is being emitted with a
>> frequency of (c+v)/l, while reverse light is being
>> emitted with a frequency of (c-v)/l.
>>
>> This is a real keeper. I've saved a copy of your program
>> as evidence. You, my dear Henri, believe in tick fairies.
>
>Not only do you believe in tick fairies, you have a model
>that allows determination of one's motion in absolute
>space. The frequency asymmetry should be apparent in
>inertial motion as well as in rotational motion. One need
>only measure the frequency of emitted light in different
>directions, and one should be able to determine one's
>absolute motion in space. Only a warped aetherist could
>conceive of such a scheme!
Sorry Jerry, it enables one to determiine absolute ROTATION. ....which is what
Sagnac does.
...and just another reminder...my approach produces the right equation for ring
gyros....
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:b1ufi3df4tfapqjuj...@4ax.com...
>: Now check the rotating frame....
>
>That's the whole fucking point.
>a) The dingbats claim the speed is c in either frame.
They ARE dingbats.
>b) BaTh says no, the wavelength is the same in either frame,
>add ticks from the tick fairy to make more length.
No tick fairies needed.
>c) Emission Fact says no, the frequency is the same in either
>frame and the ticks don't change, you get the same number of
>ticks in the same time wherever you are although it may not seem
>it due to Doppler shift and we DO get Doppler shift in Sagnac.
Frequency is the number of wavecrests arriving per second.
There IS doppler shift. The detector is moving wrt the static startpoint.
>Set your number to 0.01 and you have no length at all,
>but the frequency is still there.
'1' means the ring is moving at c. You aren't supposed to use it.
>Actually you do have length,
>the "stationary" wheel went around the big circle.
>
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Jerry
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:11:55 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 30, 11:38 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Oct 30, 7:06 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>
> >> > This is a pretty rough program but it shows what I'm
> >> > saying.
> >> >http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/wheels.exe
>
> >> Omigod. Do you realize what you've modeled?
>
> >> Viewed from the rotating frame, light is being emitted
> >> at different frequencies in the forwards and reverse
> >> directions! Forwards light is being emitted with a
> >> frequency of (c+v)/l, while reverse light is being
> >> emitted with a frequency of (c-v)/l.
>
> >> This is a real keeper. I've saved a copy of your program
> >> as evidence. You, my dear Henri, believe in tick fairies.
>
> >Not only do you believe in tick fairies, you have a model
> >that allows determination of one's motion in absolute
> >space. The frequency asymmetry should be apparent in
> >inertial motion as well as in rotational motion. One need
> >only measure the frequency of emitted light in different
> >directions, and one should be able to determine one's
> >absolute motion in space. Only a warped aetherist could
> >conceive of such a scheme!
>
> Sorry Jerry, it enables one to determiine absolute
> ROTATION. ....which is what Sagnac does.
Increase the radius of the ring to infinity. Then set the
device in motion.
What do you see? Do you need another silly cartoon, Henri?
Are your powers of visualization so feeble that you can't
immediately perceive the implications of your model?
Paul B. Andersen
Quite.
Your 'photons' are rolling in the inertial frame, as described below.
>> But if they are rolling in the inertial frame, that is they are
>> advancing one circumference l in the inertial frame during
>> the times l/(c+v) and l/(c-v), then they will be out of phase by
>> delta_phi = 2pi(Nf-Nb) where the number of revolutions will be:
>> Nf = (2pi.r/c)/(l/(c+v))= (2pi.r/lc)(c+v)
>> Nb = (2pi.r/c)/(l/(c-v))= (2pi.r/lc)(c-v)
>> delta_pi = (2pi.2pi.r/lc)2v = 8pi^2.rv/lc
>> inserting A = pi.r^2 and w = v/r:
>> delta_pi = 8pi.Aw/lc
>> which is in accordance with experimental evidence.
>>
>> But what have you now done, Henri?
>>
>> Let's call the distance advanced during one revolution d.
>> In the inertial frame this is trivially d = l
>> (where l still is the circumference of your 'photon')
>> In the source frame, they are different for your two photons:
>> d_f = 2pi.r/Nf = lc/(c+v)
>> d_b = 2pi.r/Nb = lc/(c-v)
>>
>> How do your photons know how to advance a different distance
>> from the source per revolution, Henri?
>> Have they according to your BaTh any other reference than the source?
>> And why don't your photons advance one wavelength per revolution?
>
> Wrong.
> Run the program again.....the wavelength is the same for all ring speeds
My analysis is correct.
The advanced distance per revolution _in the source frame_
is different from the circumference of your 'photons'.
>> Generally:
>> How does a photon emitted from a source know which
>> frame of reference it is supposed to advance one
>> wavelength per revolution in, when it isn't the source frame?
No answer, Henri?
How do your 'photons' know which frame of reference they
are supposed to roll in, when it is not in the soutce frame?
>> Lets look at the frequencies (revolutions per second)
>> of your photons:
>>
>> frequency = speed/(advanced distance during one revolution)
>> In the inertial frame:
>> f_f = (c+v)/l
>> f_b = (c-v)/l
>>
>> Is this because of Doppler shift maybe?
>>
>> In the source frame:
>> f_f = c/(lc/(c+v))= (c+v)/l
>> f_b = c/(lc/(c-v))= (c-v)/l
>>
>> They are still different! No Doppler shift!
>> (Obviously! With absolute time (Galilean relativity),
>> your photons rotates once during the same time in
>> any frame of reference.)
>>
>> Your photons emitted from the same source have different
>> frequencies in the source frame!
>>
>> You do understand that this is fatal for your 'slightly
>> altered model', don't you?
>>
>> I think you will have to slightly alter your model yet again, Henri.
>> What will it be this time? :-)
>
> No problem Paul.
> The 'frequency' you are refering to is just the 'wavecrest' arrival rate. It is
> different for each ray because of the different speeds.
The frequency I am refering to is the number of
revolutions per time unit of your 'photons'.
They are different for your two photons emitted from the same source.
>>> Alternatively, the wheels can rotate in the same sense but with an initial
>>> phase difference of 180. (the marks are opposite each other at the start point)
>>>
>>> Again, the phase the detector will not generally be the same.
>>>
>>> Get it?
>> Yes.
>> Did you?
>> All your inventions are of course nonsensical.
>> But it is fun to see you struggle. :-)
>
> ....Henri, amused and still struggling with a theory that gets the right
> answer....and proves Sagnac is fully explained by BaTh.
Your model is so nonsensical and idiotic that it's getting boring.
Your 'BaTh' has nothing common with Ritz Emission Theory at all.
The latter makes sense, even if it is falsified.
The former doesn't make sense at all.
--
Paul
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 04:04:15 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
: wrote:
:
: >
: >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: >news:b1ufi3df4tfapqjuj...@4ax.com...
:
: >: Now check the rotating frame....
: >
: >That's the whole fucking point.
: >a) The dingbats claim the speed is c in either frame.
:
: They ARE dingbats.
:
: >b) BaTh says no, the wavelength is the same in either frame,
: >add ticks from the tick fairy to make more length.
:
: No tick fairies needed.
Can't have a foot long path when your rods are all one inch absolute
and you've only got 8.5 of them, the tick fairy needs to add three more.
BaTh needs a tick fairy, Wilson is a the tick fairy.
:
: >c) Emission Fact says no, the frequency is the same in either
: >frame and the ticks don't change, you get the same number of
: >ticks in the same time wherever you are although it may not seem
: >it due to Doppler shift and we DO get Doppler shift in Sagnac.
:
: Frequency is the number of wavecrests arriving per second.
You've only got 8.5 low frequency ticks and a short path, see wheels.exe.
: There IS doppler shift.
Not in wheels.exe, true.
: The detector is moving wrt the static startpoint.
I see no Doppler, the wheels are in phase. I see a tick fairy, I can count.
You never could count, Wilson. Put your crazy number at the top to 0.01.
:
: >Set your number to 0.01 and you have no length at all,
: >but the frequency is still there.
:
: '1' means the ring is moving at c. You aren't supposed to use it.
'1' is the radius of the ring, circumference is 2pi, you are suppose to use
it.
Not being a mathematician you are too fuckin' dumb to see that.
:
: >Actually you do have length,
Paul B. Andersen
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 21:38:39 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobu...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 30, 7:06 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:07:55 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is really quite pathetic that you are unable to
>>>> grasp the implications of Paul's equations describing
>>>> your Wilsonian Wave Theory without the aid of cartoons.
>>> This is a pretty rough program but it shows what I'm
>>> saying.
>>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/wheels.exe
>> Omigod. Do you realize what you've modeled?
>>
>> Viewed from the rotating frame, light is being emitted
>> at different frequencies in the forwards and reverse
>> directions! Forwards light is being emitted with a
>> frequency of (c+v)/l, while reverse light is being
>> emitted with a frequency of (c-v)/l.
>
> Light doesn't have a 'frequency'. It has a wavelength.
> The conventional frequency associated with light is inferred as the 'number of
> wavecrests ariving per second'.
Frequency = angular frequency/2pi
Angular frequency = (d/dt)phase(t)
You are comparing the phase of your 'photons' at the detector,
so your 'photons' have a phase. This phase is changing with
time, so your photons have an angular frequency.
The angular frequencies of the two photons emitted
from the same source are different.
Go figure.
--
Paul
Dr. Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
There is only one frame involved....the nonrotating frame of the ring centre.
Paul, let me explain.
I have defined a 'wavelength' as the absolute distance a photon moves (at c) in
its source frame during one cycle of its INTRINSIC oscillation, whatever that
might be.
Like all lengths, this wavelength is the same in all inetial frames.
In a ring gyro, the speeds and path lengths are different. The travel times are
the same. The phase difference at the detector is just the 'path length
difference'/lambda
If one assumes that the phase of any 'photon' goes through 360 degrees every
time it travels a distance equal to one of its absolute wavelengths then one
can derive the equation that predicts the correct, EXPERIMENTALLY VERIFIED
fringe displacement. This occurs IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PHOTONS SPEED relative to
anything else.
get it?
The task remains to find the right model that matches this unusual phenomenon.
I have put forward two such models.
>> ....Henri, amused and still struggling with a theory that gets the right
>> answer....and proves Sagnac is fully explained by BaTh.
>
>Your model is so nonsensical and idiotic that it's getting boring.
>Your 'BaTh' has nothing common with Ritz Emission Theory at all.
>The latter makes sense, even if it is falsified.
>The former doesn't make sense at all.
I see you have been influenced by that ever alert super genius, Androcles....
......I remind both of you that my approach produces the correct answer....so
what does that say about someone who claims that it's 'idiotic and
nonsensical'?
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:6hfgi3dalqrq13770...@4ax.com...
>: >b) BaTh says no, the wavelength is the same in either frame,
>: >add ticks from the tick fairy to make more length.
>:
>: No tick fairies needed.
>
>Can't have a foot long path when your rods are all one inch absolute
>and you've only got 8.5 of them, the tick fairy needs to add three more.
>BaTh needs a tick fairy, Wilson is a the tick fairy.
The other three and a half have already gone....but photons don't tick like a
normal clock anyway.....They tick once every time they move 1 absolute
wavelength, no matter what their speed might be...relative to anything else....
>: >c) Emission Fact says no, the frequency is the same in either
>: >frame and the ticks don't change, you get the same number of
>: >ticks in the same time wherever you are although it may not seem
>: >it due to Doppler shift and we DO get Doppler shift in Sagnac.
>:
>: Frequency is the number of wavecrests arriving per second.
>
>You've only got 8.5 low frequency ticks and a short path, see wheels.exe.
>
>: There IS doppler shift..
>
>Not in wheels.exe, true.
It's more 'Wilson Shift' than Doppler... he didn't know anything about this....
>: The detector is moving wrt the static startpoint.
>
>I see no Doppler, the wheels are in phase. I see a tick fairy, I can count.
>You never could count, Wilson. Put your crazy number at the top to 0.01.
In the program, '0'01' is light speed....so you can't use it or the fucking
thing goes negative....
>: >Set your number to 0.01 and you have no length at all,
>: >but the frequency is still there.
>:
>: '1' means the ring is moving at c. You aren't supposed to use it.
>
>'1' is the radius of the ring, circumference is 2pi, you are suppose to use
>it.
>Not being a mathematician you are too fuckin' dumb to see that.
I meant '0.01'... sorry
That's the value I used for light speed.
>: >Actually you do have length,
>: >the "stationary" wheel went around the big circle.
>
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>On Oct 31, 3:34 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:11:55 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>> >that allows determination of one's motion in absolute
>> >space. The frequency asymmetry should be apparent in
>> >inertial motion as well as in rotational motion. One need
>> >only measure the frequency of emitted light in different
>> >directions, and one should be able to determine one's
>> >absolute motion in space. Only a warped aetherist could
>> >conceive of such a scheme!
>>
>> Sorry Jerry, it enables one to determiine absolute
>> ROTATION. ....which is what Sagnac does.
>
>Increase the radius of the ring to infinity. Then set the
>device in motion.
Getting desperate again?
Ring gyros are never infinite.
>What do you see? Do you need another silly cartoon, Henri?
>Are your powers of visualization so feeble that you can't
>immediately perceive the implications of your model?
I can but YOU can't.
Dr. Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 21:38:39 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobu...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Viewed from the rotating frame, light is being emitted
>>> at different frequencies in the forwards and reverse
>>> directions! Forwards light is being emitted with a
>>> frequency of (c+v)/l, while reverse light is being
>>> emitted with a frequency of (c-v)/l.
>>
>> Light doesn't have a 'frequency'. It has a wavelength.
>> The conventional frequency associated with light is inferred as the 'number of
>> wavecrests ariving per second'.
>
>Frequency = angular frequency/2pi
>Angular frequency = (d/dt)phase(t)
A photon goes through one 'cycle' when it traverses a distance equal to one of
its absolute wavelengths. This is irrespective of its 'speed', ..which is very
logical since speed is relative to the observer.
>You are comparing the phase of your 'photons' at the detector,
>so your 'photons' have a phase. This phase is changing with
>time, so your photons have an angular frequency.
>
>The angular frequencies of the two photons emitted
>from the same source are different.
A photon has an intrinsic oscillation of an as yet unknown kind.
The conventional 'frequency' associated with light is just the 'wavecrest
emission rate' or 'wavecrest arrival rate' at a particular observer.
>Go figure.
I have. I'm always one step ahead of you.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:23:28 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
: wrote:
:
: >
: >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: >news:6hfgi3dalqrq13770...@4ax.com...
:
: >: >b) BaTh says no, the wavelength is the same in either frame,
: >: >add ticks from the tick fairy to make more length.
: >:
: >: No tick fairies needed.
: >
: >Can't have a foot long path when your rods are all one inch absolute
: >and you've only got 8.5 of them, the tick fairy needs to add three more.
: >BaTh needs a tick fairy, Wilson is a the tick fairy.
:
: The other three and a half have already gone....but photons don't tick
like a
: normal clock anyway.....They tick once every time they move 1 absolute
: wavelength, no matter what their speed might be...relative to anything
else....
Set wheel.exe magic number to 0.01, see time stop.
Fuckin' imbecile.
http://home.new.rr.com/trumpetb/loco/rodsr.html
Jerry
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:22:03 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Viewed from the rotating frame, light is being emitted
> >>> at different frequencies in the forwards and reverse
> >>> directions! Forwards light is being emitted with a
> >>> frequency of (c+v)/l, while reverse light is being
> >>> emitted with a frequency of (c-v)/l.
>
> >> Light doesn't have a 'frequency'. It has a wavelength.
> >> The conventional frequency associated with light is inferred
> >> as the 'number of wavecrests ariving per second'.
>
> >Frequency = angular frequency/2pi
> >Angular frequency = (d/dt)phase(t)
>
> A photon goes through one 'cycle' when it traverses a distance
> equal to one of its absolute wavelengths. This is irrespective
> of its 'speed', ..which is very
> logical since speed is relative to the observer.
Henri, your model is not Ritzian. Wavelength is not "absolute"
in your model. The wavelength as perceived in the rotating
frame is not the same as that perceived in the stationary frame.
The wavelength of the forward ray (viewed from the source) does
not equal the wavelength of the backward ray.
Your model postulates an absolute space (the stationary frame)
and implies that inertial motion within this absolute space can
be detected. All you need is to replace your rigid circle with
a flexible belt and to straighten out a section of the belt.
Follow the source as it travels along the belt and compare the
forward and backward rays emanating from the source.
Do you need another Roadrunner cartoon to illustrate your
cartoon physics, Dr. Wile E. Coyote Wilson?
> >You are comparing the phase of your 'photons' at the detector,
> >so your 'photons' have a phase. This phase is changing with
> >time, so your photons have an angular frequency.
>
> >The angular frequencies of the two photons emitted
> >from the same source are different.
>
> A photon has an intrinsic oscillation of an as yet unknown kind.
>
> The conventional 'frequency' associated with light is just
> the 'wavecrest emission rate' or 'wavecrest arrival rate'
> at a particular observer.
>
> >Go figure.
>
> I have. I'm always one step ahead of you.
Jerry
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
Androcles
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1193906355.4...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
: On Oct 31, 4:57 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
: > On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:22:03 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
: >
: > <paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
: > >Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
: > >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 21:38:39 -0700, Jerry
<Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net>
: > >> wrote:
: >
: > >>> Viewed from the rotating frame, light is being emitted
: > >>> at different frequencies in the forwards and reverse
: > >>> directions! Forwards light is being emitted with a
: > >>> frequency of (c+v)/l, while reverse light is being
: > >>> emitted with a frequency of (c-v)/l.
: >
: > >> Light doesn't have a 'frequency'. It has a wavelength.
: > >> The conventional frequency associated with light is inferred
: > >> as the 'number of wavecrests ariving per second'.
: >
: > >Frequency = angular frequency/2pi
: > >Angular frequency = (d/dt)phase(t)
: >
: > A photon goes through one 'cycle' when it traverses a distance
: > equal to one of its absolute wavelengths. This is irrespective
: > of its 'speed', ..which is very
: > logical since speed is relative to the observer.
:
: Henri, your model is not Ritzian. Wavelength is not "absolute"
: in your model. The wavelength as perceived in the rotating
: frame is not the same as that perceived in the stationary frame.
That's true, he copied your model.
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:fcthi310qkdi6lr6i...@4ax.com...
>: On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:23:28 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
>: wrote:
>:
>: >
>: >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>: >news:6hfgi3dalqrq13770...@4ax.com...
>:
>: >: >b) BaTh says no, the wavelength is the same in either frame,
>: >: >add ticks from the tick fairy to make more length.
>: >:
>: >: No tick fairies needed.
>: >
>: >Can't have a foot long path when your rods are all one inch absolute
>: >and you've only got 8.5 of them, the tick fairy needs to add three more.
>: >BaTh needs a tick fairy, Wilson is a the tick fairy.
>:
>: The other three and a half have already gone....but photons don't tick
>like a
>: normal clock anyway.....They tick once every time they move 1 absolute
>: wavelength, no matter what their speed might be...relative to anything
>else....
>
> Set wheel.exe magic number to 0.01, see time stop.
see latest version.
>Fuckin' imbecile.
> http://home.new.rr.com/trumpetb/loco/rodsr.html
..Aha! Androcles' steam powered photons....
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>On Oct 31, 4:57 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:22:03 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> >Frequency = angular frequency/2pi
>> >Angular frequency = (d/dt)phase(t)
>>
>> A photon goes through one 'cycle' when it traverses a distance
>> equal to one of its absolute wavelengths. This is irrespective
>> of its 'speed', ..which is very
>> logical since speed is relative to the observer.
>
>Henri, your model is not Ritzian. Wavelength is not "absolute"
>in your model. The wavelength as perceived in the rotating
>frame is not the same as that perceived in the stationary frame.
Crank, don't use rotating frames. They're very misleading....
>The wavelength of the forward ray (viewed from the source) does
>not equal the wavelength of the backward ray.
Wavelength ..like all lengths...are absolute...
The expresion 'viewed from the source' is the type of thing we expect from
relativists. It means nothing.
>Your model postulates an absolute space (the stationary frame)
>and implies that inertial motion within this absolute space can
>be detected. All you need is to replace your rigid circle with
>a flexible belt and to straighten out a section of the belt.
>Follow the source as it travels along the belt and compare the
>forward and backward rays emanating from the source.
Nah! It doesn't work in straight lines. I tried that. It only explains sagnac.
>Do you need another Roadrunner cartoon to illustrate your
>cartoon physics, Dr. Wile E. Coyote Wilson?
Crank, you can have your little jokes...but I will have the last laugh...my
approach produces the right answer...whether you like it or not...
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:1193906355.4...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>: On Oct 31, 4:57 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>: > On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:22:03 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>: >
>: >
>: > A photon goes through one 'cycle' when it traverses a distance
>: > equal to one of its absolute wavelengths. This is irrespective
>: > of its 'speed', ..which is very
>: > logical since speed is relative to the observer.
>:
>: Henri, your model is not Ritzian. Wavelength is not "absolute"
>: in your model. The wavelength as perceived in the rotating
>: frame is not the same as that perceived in the stationary frame.
>
>
>That's true, he copied your model.
...as the inventor of the steam powered photon, you should know.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 08:46:58 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
http://home.new.rr.com/trumpetb/loco/rodsr.html
Phase between valve and piston, Wilson... You'd never see
the connection, you are too stupid.
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 01:39:15 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobu...@comcast.net>
: wrote:
:
: >On Oct 31, 4:57 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
: >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:22:03 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
:
: >> >Frequency = angular frequency/2pi
: >> >Angular frequency = (d/dt)phase(t)
: >>
: >> A photon goes through one 'cycle' when it traverses a distance
: >> equal to one of its absolute wavelengths. This is irrespective
: >> of its 'speed', ..which is very
: >> logical since speed is relative to the observer.
: >
: >Henri, your model is not Ritzian. Wavelength is not "absolute"
: >in your model. The wavelength as perceived in the rotating
: >frame is not the same as that perceived in the stationary frame.
:
: Crank, don't use rotating frames. They're very misleading....
Wilson cannot manage Sagnac.
:
: >The wavelength of the forward ray (viewed from the source) does
: >not equal the wavelength of the backward ray.
:
: Wavelength ..like all lengths...are absolute...
You don't think, you don't know and you don't care.
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:46:21 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
Phase angle between piston and valve, Wilson. You are too
stupid to realise engineers understand phase and you don't.
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
I know everything about engines and phases you old dope....
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:8l7ji3l0ja8rvq268...@4ax.com...
>: On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 01:39:15 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobu...@comcast.net>
>: wrote:
>:
>: >On Oct 31, 4:57 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>: >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:22:03 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>:
>: >> >Frequency = angular frequency/2pi
>: >> >Angular frequency = (d/dt)phase(t)
>: >>
>: >> A photon goes through one 'cycle' when it traverses a distance
>: >> equal to one of its absolute wavelengths. This is irrespective
>: >> of its 'speed', ..which is very
>: >> logical since speed is relative to the observer.
>: >
>: >Henri, your model is not Ritzian. Wavelength is not "absolute"
>: >in your model. The wavelength as perceived in the rotating
>: >frame is not the same as that perceived in the stationary frame.
>:
>: Crank, don't use rotating frames. They're very misleading....
>
>Wilson cannot manage Sagnac.
The old Crank is in a pretty bad state. He is desperate to prove that my
theory, which produces the right answer, DOES NOT produce the right answer.
>: >The wavelength of the forward ray (viewed from the source) does
>: >not equal the wavelength of the backward ray.
>:
>: Wavelength ..like all lengths...are absolute...
>
>You don't think, you don't know and you don't care.
You're no better tthan Crank.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:02:25 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
[Androcles]:
If two identical wheels are side by side and rolling in the same
direction the phase angle between them remains constant.
[Idiot Wilson:]
Not if one lags the other by 180.
You are the prat that said that.
You don't think, you don't know and you don't care.
You are a babbling idiot.
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:43:22 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
: wrote:
:
: >
: >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: >news:8l7ji3l0ja8rvq268...@4ax.com...
: >: On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 01:39:15 -0700, Jerry
<Cephalobu...@comcast.net>
: >: wrote:
: >:
: >: >On Oct 31, 4:57 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
: >: >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:22:03 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
: >:
: >: >> >Frequency = angular frequency/2pi
: >: >> >Angular frequency = (d/dt)phase(t)
: >: >>
: >: >> A photon goes through one 'cycle' when it traverses a distance
: >: >> equal to one of its absolute wavelengths. This is irrespective
: >: >> of its 'speed', ..which is very
: >: >> logical since speed is relative to the observer.
: >: >
: >: >Henri, your model is not Ritzian. Wavelength is not "absolute"
: >: >in your model. The wavelength as perceived in the rotating
: >: >frame is not the same as that perceived in the stationary frame.
: >:
: >: Crank, don't use rotating frames. They're very misleading....
: >
: >Wilson cannot manage Sagnac.
:
: The old Crank is in a pretty bad state. He is desperate to prove that my
: theory, which produces the right answer, DOES NOT produce the right
answer.
You got that right, Old Crank, you are in a bad state.
Dishpan proves you wrong,
Jeery proves you wrong,
Tusseladd proves you wrong,
this proves you wrong:
http://home.new.rr.com/trumpetb/loco/rodsr.html
[Androcles]:
If two identical wheels are side by side and rolling in the same
direction the phase angle between them remains constant.
[Idiot Wilson:]
Not if one lags the other by 180.
(Your words, Old Crank.)
: >: >The wavelength of the forward ray (viewed from the source) does
: >: >not equal the wavelength of the backward ray.
: >:
: >: Wavelength ..like all lengths...are absolute...
: >
: >You don't think, you don't know and you don't care.
:
: You're no better tthan Crank.
You don't think, you don't know and you don't care. (Your words, Old Crank.)
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:4haki3t28mdkg131s...@4ax.com...
>: >: ..Aha! Androcles' steam powered photons....
>: >
>: >Phase angle between piston and valve, Wilson. You are too
>: >stupid to realise engineers understand phase and you don't.
>:
>: I know everything about engines and phases you old dope....
>
>[Androcles]:
>If two identical wheels are side by side and rolling in the same
>direction the phase angle between them remains constant.
What happens when they turn a corner?
What happens if they move at different speeds.
>[Idiot Wilson:]
> Not if one lags the other by 180.
>
>You are the prat that said that.
>You don't think, you don't know and you don't care.
>You are a babbling idiot.
Didn't you know that light experiences a 180 phase shift when it is reflected.
>
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Paul B. Andersen
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:22:03 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>
>> Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 21:38:39 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobu...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>
>>>> Viewed from the rotating frame, light is being emitted
>>>> at different frequencies in the forwards and reverse
>>>> directions! Forwards light is being emitted with a
>>>> frequency of (c+v)/l, while reverse light is being
>>>> emitted with a frequency of (c-v)/l.
>>> Light doesn't have a 'frequency'. It has a wavelength.
>>> The conventional frequency associated with light is inferred as the 'number of
>>> wavecrests ariving per second'.
>> Frequency = angular frequency/2pi
>> Angular frequency = (d/dt)phase(t)
>
> A photon goes through one 'cycle' when it traverses a distance equal to one of
> its absolute wavelengths. This is irrespective of its 'speed', ..which is very
> logical since speed is relative to the observer.
Indeed.
And the numbers of such cycles per time unit are different
for your two photons emitted from the same source.
>> You are comparing the phase of your 'photons' at the detector,
>> so your 'photons' have a phase. This phase is changing with
>> time, so your photons have an angular frequency.
>>
>> The angular frequencies of the two photons emitted
>>from the same source are different.
>
> A photon has an intrinsic oscillation of an as yet unknown kind.
>
> The conventional 'frequency' associated with light is just the 'wavecrest
> emission rate' or 'wavecrest arrival rate' at a particular observer.
>
>> Go figure.
>
> I have. I'm always one step ahead of you.
Sure.
Your current 'model' is always different from the one you
last proposed, which invariably proved to be self contradictory nonsense.
BTW, what is your current model?
--
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
are supposed to roll in, when it is not in the source frame?
Didn't you say that according to the BaTh, the only reference
the photons have is the source? So how do they know that they
are supposed to roll in a frame of reference where the source
is moving?
I do of course not expect a sensible answer, because there is none.
I would however expect you to understand that your 'model'
is self contradictory nonsense.
Yes.
You are saying that the model you just proposed is wrong.
Yet another failed 'model'.
>
> The task remains to find the right model that matches this unusual phenomenon.
Indeed the task remains. Hard to achieve the impossible.
> I have put forward two such models.
Quite.
Both failed.
The task remains to find the right model that matches this unusual phenomenon.
>>> ....Henri, amused and still struggling with a theory that gets the right
>>> answer....and proves Sagnac is fully explained by BaTh.
>> Your model is so nonsensical and idiotic that it's getting boring.
>> Your 'BaTh' has nothing common with Ritz Emission Theory at all.
>> The latter makes sense, even if it is falsified.
>> The former doesn't make sense at all.
>
> I see you have been influenced by that ever alert super genius, Androcles....
>
> ......I remind both of you that my approach produces the correct answer....so
> what does that say about someone who claims that it's 'idiotic and
> nonsensical'?
I remind you that the task remains to find the right model that
matches this unusual phenomenon.
--
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
> The expresion 'viewed from the source' is the type of thing we expect from
> relativists. It means nothing.
SIC! :-)
--
Paul
Dr. Henri Wilson
Both rays move at c wrt the source. That is what the animation shows.
They move at c+v and c-v in the nonrotating frame of the ring. that is what the
animation shows.
What could be more simple?
>I do of course not expect a sensible answer, because there is none.
>I would however expect you to understand that your 'model'
>is self contradictory nonsense.
You have your answer. It should have been obvious even to a Tusselad....
Paul, what are your trying to achieve. Are you trying desperately to show that
my theory, WHICH PRODUCES THE RIGHT ANSWER, DOES NOT produce the right answer?
If so, this shows a degee of desperation probably necessitating a visit to a
psychiatrist.
>> The task remains to find the right model that matches this unusual phenomenon.
>
>Indeed the task remains. Hard to achieve the impossible.
>
>> I have put forward two such models.
>
>Quite.
>Both failed.
Both show fringe displacement proportional to ring speed.....D = 4Aw/cL to be
precise...which is the exprimentally verified equation..
>The task remains to find the right model that matches this unusual phenomenon.
It does.
>>>> ....Henri, amused and still struggling with a theory that gets the right
>>>> answer....and proves Sagnac is fully explained by BaTh.
>>> Your model is so nonsensical and idiotic that it's getting boring.
>>> Your 'BaTh' has nothing common with Ritz Emission Theory at all.
>>> The latter makes sense, even if it is falsified.
>>> The former doesn't make sense at all.
>>
>> I see you have been influenced by that ever alert super genius, Androcles....
>>
>> ......I remind both of you that my approach produces the correct answer....so
>> what does that say about someone who claims that it's 'idiotic and
>> nonsensical'?
>
>I remind you that the task remains to fid the right model that
>matches this unusual phenomenon.
Does light experience a 180 phase shift when reflected, Paul?
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
A wheel doesn't have a phase angle.
A spot on a wheel might.
You inferred the two wheels had the SAME phase angle.
I meant 'the two spots 180 apart did not have the same phase angle'.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
>> The expresion 'viewed from the source' is the type of thing we expect from
>> relativists. It means nothing.
>
>SIC! :-)
the source doesn't 'view' anything.
You should say, 'in the source frame'.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:51:10 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
It isn't reflected when two beams are side-by-side coming from
a beam splitter with the same frequency and different velocities,
you fuckin' prat.
You don't think, you don't know and you don't care.
You are a babbling, ranting idiot.
Dr. Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:22:03 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>>>> Viewed from the rotating frame, light is being emitted
>>>>> at different frequencies in the forwards and reverse
>>>>> directions! Forwards light is being emitted with a
>>>>> frequency of (c+v)/l, while reverse light is being
>>>>> emitted with a frequency of (c-v)/l.
>>>> Light doesn't have a 'frequency'. It has a wavelength.
>>>> The conventional frequency associated with light is inferred as the 'number of
>>>> wavecrests ariving per second'.
>>> Frequency = angular frequency/2pi
>>> Angular frequency = (d/dt)phase(t)
>>
>> A photon goes through one 'cycle' when it traverses a distance equal to one of
>> its absolute wavelengths. This is irrespective of its 'speed', ..which is very
>> logical since speed is relative to the observer.
>
>Indeed.
>And the numbers of such cycles per time unit are different
>for your two photons emitted from the same source.
No, the same number of cycles is present in both rays.
What you have to realise is that the startpoint of each cycle moves with the
source. The program shows only ONE emission point of the leading edge of a
photon. The next start point occurs when the source has moved anticlockwise a
short distance. ..so in the source frame, there is always the same number of
'wavelengths' in each path. Count them....
But because, EITHER, the wheels rotate in opposite directions AND/OR there is a
180 phase shift of one ray at the 45 mirror, the phases differ at the detector.
What do you get if you add two sinewaves that are 180 out of phase Paul?
The apparent change in frequency in Sagnac is now known as the 'Wilson shift'.
>> A photon has an intrinsic oscillation of an as yet unknown kind.
>>
>> The conventional 'frequency' associated with light is just the 'wavecrest
>> emission rate' or 'wavecrest arrival rate' at a particular observer.
>>
>>> Go figure.
>>
>> I have. I'm always one step ahead of you.
>
>Sure.
>Your current 'model' is always different from the one you
>last proposed, which invariably proved to be self contradictory nonsense.
Theories evolve with time...
>BTW, what is your current model?
see the latest version....www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/wheels.exe
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:58:08 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
http://home.new.rr.com/trumpetb/loco/rodsr.html
If two identical wheels are side by side and rolling in the same
direction the phase angle between them remains constant.
: You inferred the two wheels had the SAME phase angle.
Lying cunt, I clearly said
"If two identical wheels are side by side and rolling in the same
direction the phase angle between them remains constant."
You don't read, you don't think, you don't know and you don't care.
: I meant 'the two spots 180 apart did not have the same phase angle'.
The two spots have a CONSTANT phase angle of 180 degrees
between them. What is it supposed to be different to, moron?
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: see the latest version....www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/wheels.exe
0.01. no red spot movement. No wavelength. That disproves
Wilson's constant wavelength.
Yellow spot: double frequency.
Hopeless crap.
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
Look, if you study my animation you will see that the number of wavelengths or
part thereof in both paths is the same. The number leaving is the same as the
number arriving. You have to count from the source to the detector not the
startpoint to the detector. That tells you the number of wavelengths each
photon move through..
If one ray is 180 behind the other and the wheels rotate in opposite sense,
then the degree of reinforcement is the sum of sinx and -sin(x+180) or 2sinx
THe phase relationship varies with path length..or travel time.
Maybe one ray is 90 behind the other and the wheels rotate in the same sense.
that's another possibility.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:78fki3pkqc0j3m10j...@4ax.com...
>: A wheel doesn't have a phase angle.
>: A spot on a wheel might.
>
> http://home.new.rr.com/trumpetb/loco/rodsr.html
>
>If two identical wheels are side by side and rolling in the same
>direction the phase angle between them remains constant.
>
>: You inferred the two wheels had the SAME phase angle.
>
>Lying cunt, I clearly said
> "If two identical wheels are side by side and rolling in the same
>direction the phase angle between them remains constant."
>You don't read, you don't think, you don't know and you don't care.
How am I supposed to know what you meant?
>The two spots have a CONSTANT phase angle of 180 degrees
>between them. What is it supposed to be different to, moron?
Run my program and see.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>news:5ffki39287rlqur8c...@4ax.com...
>
>: see the latest version....www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/wheels.exe
>
>0.01. no red spot movement. No wavelength.
I told you, light speed is 0.01. You have the ring moving at light speed.
naturally you wont see anything.
>That disproves
>Wilson's constant wavelength.
>Yellow spot: double frequency.
>Hopeless crap.
The problem is, you are turning a second order error into a first order one.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:16:20 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
Study it? Just set the fucking magic number to 0.01, your
poxy wheel doesn't even turn on the spot, zero frequency,
zero wavelength.
That's the same as setting c = v.
BTW, the spin of a photon is like a propeller on a plane
or the impeller in a turbine, at right angles to the forward flight.
That's where Gaasenbeek got his helical wave from.
Simple question, Wilson:
What's the wavelength of this sine curve?
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/tracking/
You don't think, you don't know and you don't care.
You are fucking useless.
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:20:07 GMT, "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics>
: wrote:
:
: >
: >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: >news:78fki3pkqc0j3m10j...@4ax.com...
:
: >: A wheel doesn't have a phase angle.
: >: A spot on a wheel might.
: >
: > http://home.new.rr.com/trumpetb/loco/rodsr.html
: >
: >If two identical wheels are side by side and rolling in the same
: >direction the phase angle between them remains constant.
: >
: >: You inferred the two wheels had the SAME phase angle.
: >
: >Lying cunt, I clearly said
: > "If two identical wheels are side by side and rolling in the same
: >direction the phase angle between them remains constant."
: >You don't read, you don't think, you don't know and you don't care.
:
: How am I supposed to know what you meant?
By paying attention to what is written, you stupid sheep-shagger.
You don't read, you don't think, you don't know and you don't care.
How am I supposed to tell you if you are too stupid to even read it?
:
: >The two spots have a CONSTANT phase angle of 180 degrees
: >between them. What is it supposed to be different to, moron?
:
: Run my program and see.
Listen, fuckhead, if I fly in a plane the engines don't move
relative to me but they still spin, they do NOT have a constant
wavelength in MY frame of reference, they have zero wavelength.
You don't read, you don't think, you don't know and you don't care.
Set c = v (magic number 0.01), zero frequency and zero
wavelength for the red dot. What you should have is zero
wavelength and no change in frequency, but you don't
understand the PoR.