Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #362895 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-03 03:48 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-09-05 19:54 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 161 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-03 03:48 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 11:39 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-03 08:39 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 16:08 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-03 15:22 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-03 20:28 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-03 15:33 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-04 05:16 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-04 01:07 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-04 08:34 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-04 08:50 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-04 19:42 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-05 00:53 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-05 11:20 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-05 18:33 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-05 21:50 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-06 05:29 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-05 23:54 -0400
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-06 16:43 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-07 07:08 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-09 12:46 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-10 14:20 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-11 13:39 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Tad Winter <floyw@timedomain.au> - 2015-09-11 19:02 +0000
Re: Particles and Theory underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-11 13:05 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-12 15:11 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-12 14:56 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-12 14:43 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-13 08:54 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-13 09:28 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-13 18:33 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-13 16:50 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-14 19:30 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-12 23:21 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-13 09:23 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-06 12:18 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 13:22 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-16 19:11 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-09 12:40 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-09-09 17:52 +0000
Re: Particles and Theory Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-09-09 17:53 +0000
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-10 13:49 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-11 06:56 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-11 13:50 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-11 22:28 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-25 07:34 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-25 10:56 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-12 20:32 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-13 09:34 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 14:00 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-13 19:04 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 23:17 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-14 19:23 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 18:43 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2015-09-15 17:28 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-15 15:13 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 14:51 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-15 19:10 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 21:28 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-18 03:00 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 12:17 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-18 14:59 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 13:11 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-23 07:56 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-23 10:30 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-23 17:56 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-24 04:46 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-23 21:20 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 12:33 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-23 21:57 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-23 20:07 +0000
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-23 22:43 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-24 05:16 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-24 20:24 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-24 23:16 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-25 12:52 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-25 22:50 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 15:06 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-26 11:42 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 13:04 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-26 23:17 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 16:18 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-27 12:26 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 11:42 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-27 23:10 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 01:31 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-28 01:44 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-28 03:23 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 16:55 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-27 23:22 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-26 08:45 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-26 16:09 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-26 12:48 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 12:25 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-23 21:48 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-23 20:04 +0000
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-24 06:50 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 14:28 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-24 05:38 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 10:57 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-24 20:23 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 11:37 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-24 21:59 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-25 13:05 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 12:09 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-25 19:18 +0000
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 12:38 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-25 19:44 +0000
Re: Particles and Theory alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-25 13:07 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-26 16:15 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-26 12:54 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-27 12:23 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-16 19:32 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-15 15:04 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 15:05 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-15 19:02 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 21:40 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-18 03:53 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-09-18 09:40 +0000
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 13:18 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-18 23:33 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-22 13:17 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-16 19:30 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-17 20:56 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-17 04:25 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-09-18 15:19 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-18 05:43 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-19 07:05 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-18 15:29 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-09-20 08:04 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-19 17:10 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-21 06:13 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-20 13:41 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-25 03:03 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-24 13:51 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-18 02:45 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-19 08:04 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-19 00:11 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-09-20 08:32 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-19 23:56 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-21 06:17 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-20 18:11 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-21 19:36 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-21 06:08 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-21 16:31 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-23 20:03 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-23 04:57 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-24 06:33 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-23 14:05 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-24 19:22 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-24 04:51 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-28 10:41 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-18 19:17 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-18 21:17 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory HW@...(HG Wilson) - 2015-09-20 08:34 +1000
Re: Particles and Theory Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-19 00:16 -0500
Re: Particles and Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-09-25 08:06 +0200
Re: Particles and Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 00:20 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-25 00:35 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-09-26 07:07 -0700
Re: Particles and Theory John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-05 19:54 -0700
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
| From | Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 06:17 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <7s4uvade7069nqee8jo68bqlb8tof3lc07@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #364670 |
On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 23:56:56 -0500, Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> wrote: >HW@...(HG Wilson) wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >> > Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > >----snip---- > >Getting sick of your misconsructions, HG. Snippers are losers, troll. >> > > The true answer is that the wavelength of light must be >> > > absolute....ie., frame independent. >> > >> > That's relativitist gobbledegook. >> >> It the opposite of what relativists claim. > >True. My bad. It's still wrong. > >----snip---= snippers are losers, troll. >> > Try incorporating my definitions of >> > particulate frequency and wavelength. >> >> I have > >You have not. Otherwise you would not say that the wavelength of light >is absolute. > >----alleged consequence snipped---- snippers are those who are trapped without answers >> What is more, you are not the first to consider that a photon >> might be a spinning pair of charges or something similar. > >I consider it no such thing. Try reading the model with your eyes open. You model does not work. >----further nonsense snipped---- further snippers are losers. __ Henry Wilson DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 18:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmvuf9i.4s0.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #364750 |
Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > HW@...(HG Wilson) wrote: ----broken record snipped---- > > > What is more, you are not the first to consider that a photon > > > might be a spinning pair of charges or something similar. > > > > I consider it no such thing. Try reading the model with your > >i eyes open. > > You model does not work. You don't have the whererwithal to judge. ---further moronic drivel snipped----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 19:36 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ppjvva91ccvv7taqpokrsjlo9fdjiap275@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #364773 |
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 18:11:47 -0500, Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> wrote: >Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >> > HW@...(HG Wilson) wrote: > >----broken record snipped---- > >> > > What is more, you are not the first to consider that a photon >> > > might be a spinning pair of charges or something similar. >> > >> > I consider it no such thing. Try reading the model with your >> >i eyes open. >> >> You model does not work. > >You don't have the whererwithal to judge. Neddy old chap, you model has merit but does not work. It does not explain the Sagnac effect. Do you know what that is? >---further moronic drivel snipped---- Compulsive snippers admit defeat. __ Henry Wilson DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 06:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmvvpa8.mgj.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #364811 |
Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > HW@...(HG Wilson) wrote:
> >
> >----broken record snipped----
> >
> > > > > What is more, you are not the first to consider that a photon
> > > > > might be a spinning pair of charges or something similar.
> > > >
> > > > I consider it no such thing. Try reading the model with your
> > > > eyes open.
> > >
> > > You model does not work.
> >
> > You don't have the whererwithal to judge.
>
> Neddy old chap, you model has merit but does not work.
Wrong. It is as yet incomplete.
> It does not explain the Sagnac effect.
Neither jointly nor severally do SR, GR and QED explain the results
of low-emission-rate versions of Young's experiment.
Ergo, they don't work, right?
> Do you know what that is?
Hmm. Sag: subside, droop, bulge downwards
Nac: short for knacker ...
Sagnac: Nickname for an old man.
Sagnac effect: Bowlegged walking.
----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 16:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mtp4cu$g0j$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #364811 |
On 21.09.2015 11:36, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > > Neddy old chap, you model has merit but does not work. It does not explain the > Sagnac effect. Do you know what that is? > It is one of the many experiments that falsifies the emission theory. https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf https://paulba.no/FourMirrorSagnac.html Problem running Java? https://paulba.no/RunningJava.html -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-23 20:03 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <sos40b1ehd9oos7v08o659q4blckcqfv16@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #364833 |
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 16:31:38 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> wrote: >On 21.09.2015 11:36, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: >> >> Neddy old chap, you model has merit but does not work. It does not explain the >> Sagnac effect. Do you know what that is? >> > >It is one of the many experiments that falsifies >the emission theory. Neddy, Paul is noted for his ability to post sily lists of websites The ones below belong to list number 102. >https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf This is a typically amusing article by Paul. It shows firstly that in the inertial frame, the Relativity explanation requires that the beams travel at c+v and c-v wrt the splitting mirror. I wonder how they know how to do that.....maybe the fairies are involved. Secondly, in section 3.1, he correctly shows why Ned Latham's photon theory does not work but says nothing about Emission theory. Unlike BaTh, Paul thinks light is a simple oscillator. Thirdly, in section 3.2 he suddenly jumps into the rotating frame and makes several wrong claims about emission theory. I have warned Paul many times that amateurs like himself should steer clear of rotating frames because they have hidden imaginary effects. For one thing, relativity's explanation collapses if the rotating frame is used for the analysis. According to BaTh, there is an imaginary shift in the absolute wavelenth of the light when considerd from the pov of that frame. The simple BaTh explanation of Sagnac is here. http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro.html Note how it produces the experimentally verified answer and therefore must be correct. __ Henry Wilson DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-23 04:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9b636dba-8b41-4736-a026-045a53cfbd71@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365037 |
On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 4:04:04 AM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > > Neddy, Paul is noted for his ability to post sily lists of websites > The ones below belong to list number 102. > > >https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf > > This is a typically amusing article by Paul. > It shows firstly that in the inertial frame, the Relativity explanation > requires that the beams travel at c+v and c-v wrt the splitting mirror. This is just one more example of the extreme stupidity of Ralphie-boy. He routinely mistakes a distance of (c +/- v)*t for a speed when it is clearly a distance. He makes this stupid mistake over and over again. For example, a source moving at v emits a pulse of light at time t = 0, which is SPECIFIED to travel at c in EVERY frame. A mirror at a distance d at t = 0 reflects the light back to a receiver moving with the source. The equations describing this are t1 = d/c t2 = [d - v*(t1 + t2)]/c t_roundtrip = t1 + t2 = 2*d/(c + v) Ralphie-boy stupidly claims that the c + v in the denominator proves that the light pulse is traveling at that speed when the problem SPECIFIED that the pulse was traveling at c! So stupid little Ralphie-boy doesn't even understand algebra! This is proof not only that his "DSc" was manufactured out of thin air but also that he either didn't finish high school or he flunked his math classes. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-24 06:33 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <9r260b53spg5uvhe4tiq3u5pko8c694ub0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #365040 |
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 04:57:36 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 4:04:04 AM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>
>> Neddy, Paul is noted for his ability to post sily lists of websites
>> The ones below belong to list number 102.
>>
>> >https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
>>
>> This is a typically amusing article by Paul.
>> It shows firstly that in the inertial frame, the Relativity explanation
>> requires that the beams travel at c+v and c-v wrt the splitting mirror.
>
>This is just one more example of the extreme stupidity of
>henrie-boy. He routinely mistakes a distance of (c +/- v)*t for a speed when it is
>clearly a distance. He makes this stupid mistake over and over again.
>For example, a source moving at v emits a pulse of light at time t = 0,
>which is SPECIFIED to travel at c in EVERY frame. A mirror at a distance
>d at t = 0 reflects the light back to a receiver moving with the source.
>The equations describing this are
>
>t1 = d/c
>t2 = [d - v*(t1 + t2)]/c
>
>t_roundtrip = t1 + t2 = 2*d/(c + v)
>
>henrie-boy stupidly claims that the c + v in the denominator proves that
>the light pulse is traveling at that speed when the problem SPECIFIED
>that the pulse was traveling at c! So stupid little Ralphie-boy doesn't
>even understand algebra! This is proof not only that his "DSc" was
>manufactured out of thin air but also that he either didn't finish high
>school or he flunked his math classes.
Readers note: this message typifies the way in which Garrulous changes the
subject completely when he knows he is beaten.
He obviously has not a clue about the Sagnac effect. (or the rest of physics)
>Gary
The Dingleberry Motto:
"The best way to cure stupidity is to keep on preaching it"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-23 14:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9e40ca9b-8c58-431f-a919-682e86ab5777@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365096 |
On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 2:33:59 PM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 04:57:36 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > This is just one more example of the extreme stupidity of > > Ralphie-boy. He routinely mistakes a distance of (c +/- v)*t for a > > speed when it is clearly a distance. He makes this stupid mistake > > over and over again. > > For example, a source moving at v emits a pulse of light at time t = 0, > > which is SPECIFIED to travel at c in EVERY frame. A mirror at a distance > > d at t = 0 reflects the light back to a receiver moving with the source. > > The equations describing this are > > > > t1 = d/c > > t2 = [d - v*(t1 + t2)]/c > > > > t_roundtrip = t1 + t2 = 2*d/(c + v) > > > > Stupid Ralphie-boy stupidly claims that the c + v in the denominator > > proves that the light pulse is traveling at that speed when the problem > > SPECIFIED that the pulse was traveling at c! So stupid little Ralphie- > > boy doesn't even understand algebra! This is proof not only that his > > "DSc" was manufactured out of thin air but also that he either didn't > > finish high school or he flunked his math classes. > > Readers note: this message typifies the way in which Garrulous changes the > subject completely when he knows he is beaten. Au contraire, lying weasel Ralphie-boy. This is a pertinent example of how you make a complete shambles of reality, just as you did it your abysmally stupid and laughable attempt to screw up the Sagnac effect. > He obviously has not a clue about the Sagnac effect. (or the rest of physics) Ralphie-boy's Mottos: "The best way to prolong stupidity is to keep on preaching it" "The best way to rebut an issue is to attack the messenger."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-24 19:22 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e5g70b1fhl71jpb77ot9qj3djdl0r8rarb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #365105 |
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 14:05:05 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Readers note: this message typifies the way in which Garrulous changes the >> subject completely when he knows he is beaten. > >Au contraire, lying weasel Ralphie-boy. This is a pertinent example of how >you make a complete shambles of reality, just as you did it your abysmally >stupid and laughable attempt to screw up the Sagnac effect. > >> He obviously has not a clue about the Sagnac effect. (or the rest of physics) I think I will stop reading your posts. I have better things to do. __ Henry Wilson DSc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-24 04:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2e0525bc-b713-47c3-88ac-1bc309bba806@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365121 |
On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 3:23:34 AM UTC-6, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 14:05:05 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > Au contraire, lying weasel Ralphie-boy. This is a pertinent example of how > > you make a complete shambles of reality, just as you did it your abysmally > > stupid and laughable attempt to screw up the Sagnac effect. > > I think Really? You don't act like you think. > I will stop reading your posts. I have better things to do. > > Henry Wilson DSc. Like having delusional dreams about your refuted BaTh?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-28 10:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <muaugm$8ic$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #365121 |
On 24.09.2015 11:22, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: > > I think I will stop reading your posts. I have better things to do. > Quite. Like writing beauties like this: | On 21.09.2015 11:36, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote: |> |> https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf |> |> This is a typically amusing article by Paul. |> It shows firstly that in the inertial frame, the Relativity explanation |> requires that the beams travel at c+v and c-v wrt the splitting mirror. I |> wonder how they know how to do that.....maybe the fairies are involved. |> |> Secondly, in section 3.1, he correctly shows why Ned Latham's photon theory |> does not work but says nothing about Emission theory. Unlike BaTh, Paul thinks |> light is a simple oscillator. |> |> Thirdly, in section 3.2 he suddenly jumps into the rotating frame and makes |> several wrong claims about emission theory. I have warned Paul many times |> that amateurs like himself should steer clear of rotating frames because they |> have hidden imaginary effects. For one thing, relativity's explanation |> collapses if the rotating frame is used for the analysis. According to BaTh, |> there is an imaginary shift in the absolute wavelenth of the light when |> considerd from the pov of that frame. I will not insult the reader by explaining why I find this hilarious. :-D And I won't comment this 'article', because nobody can demonstrate it's stupidity better than Ralph Malcom Rabbidge himself: http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro.html (BTW: "Bitdefender blocked this page This page is blocked by Bitdefender Antimalware filter." I don't know why, but Bitdefender is the best internet security software on the market. It may be an .exe file there which Bitdefender finds suspicious.) -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-18 19:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <107f1575-f26e-4b0f-a5f5-0eddcc044daa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364353 |
I have read it and can relate to some of it. However, as I pointed out, a photon cannot be regarded as a simple oscillator because that would make the Sagnac effect impossible. Nobody knows anything about light in transit becasue our knowledge is limited to its cration and annihilation. If you think about it, there is no reason to believe that a photon does actually exhibit wavelike behavior at all. The oscillations and waves attributed to light really occur in the detector, not the light itself. As an analogy, if a rock is thrown at a metal diaphragm, the latter will vibrate but not the rock. The vacuum of Space time itself is the oscillator. K.E. = 1/2 m v^2 1/2 m c^2 m = photon eV Kinetic energy of the vacuum
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-18 21:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <00d43477-895c-4d40-aa4a-026d48b3f374@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #364541 |
I have read it and can relate to some of it. However, as I pointed out, a photon cannot be regarded as a simple oscillator because that would make the Sagnac effect impossible. Nobody knows anything about light in transit becasue our knowledge is limited to its cration and annihilation. If you think about it, there is no reason to believe that a photon does actually exhibit wavelike behavior at all. The oscillations and waves attributed to light really occur in the detector, not the light itself. As an analogy, if a rock is thrown at a metal diaphragm, the latter will vibrate but not the rock. The vacuum of Space time itself is the oscillator. K.E. = 1/2 m v^2 = 1/2 m c^2 m = photon eV Kinetic energy of the vacuum Mass being pushed out of a Time reversed black hole http://www.msri.org/publications/sgp/jim/geom/level/library/triper2/imag/P.jpg = 1/2 m c^2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HW@...(HG Wilson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 08:34 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <blorvahjh6i5t00u53uqr6cesnvugp4gc6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #364548 |
On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 21:17:47 -0700 (PDT), fuller.david@hotmail.com wrote: > > >I have read it and can relate to some of it. However, as I pointed out, a >photon cannot be regarded as a simple oscillator because that would make the >Sagnac effect impossible. Nobody knows anything about light in transit becasue >our knowledge is limited to its cration and annihilation. > >If you think about it, there is no reason to believe that a photon does >actually exhibit wavelike behavior at all. The oscillations and waves >attributed to light really occur in the detector, not the light itself. As an >analogy, if a rock is thrown at a metal diaphragm, the latter will vibrate but >not the rock. I wrote that. >The vacuum of Space time itself is the oscillator. Spacetime does not exist. End of story.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-19 00:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmvprt1.v0g.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #364541 |
fuller.david@hotmail.com wrote: You should do some thinking about how to quote effectively. Your post is an abomination. ----snip---- > The vacuum of Space time itself is the oscillator. And try to avoid using unsubstantiated hypotheses as fact. ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-25 08:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d6k6jrFee00U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #364232 |
Am 16.09.2015 00:05, schrieb JanPB: > On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 1:04:08 PM UTC-7, Ned Latham wrote: >> JanPB wrote:" >> >> ----snip---- >> >>> If you cannot do QED, >> >> Your premise is false. > > Well, what is that amplitude equal to, then? Remember, I asked you > to evaluate one of the simplest Feynman diagrams: electron-muon > scattering with 2 vertices. Actually, I'll accept it if you just set > up the relevant integral. > >>> you cannot improve on it, >> >> Your conclusion doesn't follow from it anyway. > > Perhaps in some NeverNeverLand, but in real life anyone who ever improved > upon predecessors' work (not necessarily in physics) was fully competent > at what went on before, whether it was Lagrange or Bach or Joyce or Picasso. > It is simply 100% impossible for anyone not familiar with physics to improve > physics. Not quite. My impression: the science called 'physics' as it is teached in universities is a 'cover' of some other kind of science, that is trying to hide behind. The real nature of the world is understood somehow, but this is not told to the general public. Instead we have some sort of blunder, that is utilised to educate apprentices in the art of logical thinking and acceptance of voodoo rituals. We see this phenomenon all over the place, especially in such groups like this: we have some 'master sorcerer', who has the privilege to tell, what is right and what is wrong. Once you obey and appreciate some of this junk, you receive a new portion - only a little worse. At the end of this procedure, you run around like a zombie and mechanically chant, what you have been told. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-25 00:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f3d86fee-dc5e-49c8-870b-a37323b2f605@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365214 |
On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 11:06:55 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 16.09.2015 00:05, schrieb JanPB: > > On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 1:04:08 PM UTC-7, Ned Latham wrote: > >> JanPB wrote:" > >> > >> ----snip---- > >> > >>> If you cannot do QED, > >> > >> Your premise is false. > > > > Well, what is that amplitude equal to, then? Remember, I asked you > > to evaluate one of the simplest Feynman diagrams: electron-muon > > scattering with 2 vertices. Actually, I'll accept it if you just set > > up the relevant integral. > > > >>> you cannot improve on it, > >> > >> Your conclusion doesn't follow from it anyway. > > > > Perhaps in some NeverNeverLand, but in real life anyone who ever improved > > upon predecessors' work (not necessarily in physics) was fully competent > > at what went on before, whether it was Lagrange or Bach or Joyce or Picasso. > > It is simply 100% impossible for anyone not familiar with physics to improve > > physics. > > Not quite. > > My impression: the science called 'physics' as it is teached in > universities is a 'cover' of some other kind of science, that is trying > to hide behind. > > The real nature of the world is understood somehow, but this is not told > to the general public. Instead we have some sort of blunder, that is > utilised to educate apprentices in the art of logical thinking and > acceptance of voodoo rituals. > > We see this phenomenon all over the place, especially in such groups > like this: > we have some 'master sorcerer', who has the privilege to tell, what is > right and what is wrong. > > Once you obey and appreciate some of this junk, you receive a new > portion - only a little worse. > > At the end of this procedure, you run around like a zombie and > mechanically chant, what you have been told. > > > TH What you describe above is pure fantasy. The truth is as usual a bit too boring to satisfy feverish minds: physics happens to be not easy and it requires a fair amount of honest hard work. That's it. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-25 00:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9c94f8ea-62f0-4c4b-9c0d-3e0bc3e040ef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365227 |
On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 9:20:12 AM UTC+2, JanPB wrote: > What you describe above is pure fantasy. The truth is as usual a bit too boring > to satisfy feverish minds: physics happens to be not easy and it requires a fair > amount of honest hard work. That's it. What you describe above is pure fantasy. The truth is as usual sad and disappointing: physics has gone completely insane, and all its followers are really able to do, is yelling and pretending incredible wisdom. Just like you do. That's it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fuller.david@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-26 07:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ca3a9fc7-df65-4d63-b318-95b273da6c39@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365214 |
My impression: the science called 'physics' as it is teached in universities is a 'cover' of some other kind of science, that is trying to hide behind. The real nature of the world is understood somehow, but this is not told to the general public. Instead we have some sort of blunder, that is utilised to educate apprentices in the art of logical thinking and acceptance of voodoo rituals. We see this phenomenon all over the place, especially in such groups like this: we have some 'master sorcerer', who has the privilege to tell, what is right and what is wrong. Once you obey and appreciate some of this junk, you receive a new portion - only a little worse. At the end of this procedure, you run around like a zombie and mechanically chant, what you have been told. TH I agree with your observations What "Gain or Advantage" are the high priests of physics trying to obtain with their purposeful Deceit ??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web