Re: The Emission Theory of Androcles

"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message news:i4b1b5dch6b9ebtu3odnrnuka4hir5vdur@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:40:56 -0400, Jonah Thomas <jethomas5@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote:
Jonah Thomas <jethomas5@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote:


>
>A moving source would give you a compression, you'd get eccentric
>circles instead.
>
>But you could use that eccentricity to tell who was moving. If there
>aren't preferred frames then everybody ought to calculate those
>things as concentric circles. And that's one of the things SR gives
>you.

It doesn't. It simply says it does by postulate.

Sure, but it gives a model that does result in the waves moving in
concentric circles independent of frame, and so far it's largely
compatible with experimental evidence. What more would you want? Well,
it would be nice if it made sense. But apart from that....

Wake up. There is NO experimental evidence.

Henry always resorts to lies

>> It was thrown away when the PE effect was discovered.......
>ironically> by Einstein himself.
>
>I don't see that. The PE effect is perfectly compatible with light as
>waves, isn't it?

NONONONONONONONONO!

That's the problem.

Relativity is incompatible with quantium theory yet idiots like
inetial and demented dougie still try to defend the nonsense.

But apart from relativity, there's no particular reason you can't have
light waves and still have atoms that demonstrate the PE effect, right?

There is. That's been known for a century

Yes we have light that is wavelike and the photoelectric effect. QM deals with it nicely

>
>It seems to me that you don't have an alternative model, you have a
>proposal for an alternative model.

Well I have the basis of a model. I don't spend all day thinking about
it. I don't care how many more UNI students are brainwashed by the
physics establishment. The truth will eventually come out.

Sure, but your model isn't better than their model until you have
something that works.

It does work.

Nope

It produces the experimentally verified equation for sagnac.

Nope

Why
do you think 'inertial' and Jerry are so desperate to find a flaw in my theory?

We're not desperate .. jsut freustrated with your stupidity

I am a threat to their whole belief system.

What a load of nonsense .. you're not a threat to anything .. the only threat is is your over-inflated ego explodes

Poor old Jerry has backed a loser
all his life. Do you think he wants to know about it?

You AR a loser. And that's why you can't see that you're wrong.

You're getting close.
My definition of wavelength is something like "In the source frame, a
photon moves a certain distance in one 'cycle' of its intrinsic
oscillation (whatever that may be)". That distance is an absolute and
invariant spatial interval....just like the distance between the ends
of a rigid rod..

So turns go with distance independent of time. Light can have different
"wavelengths", it can have a different number of turns per unit
distance, but it's distance that matters independent of the time or the
speed. We can stop talking about frequency. Turns, distance, and time
give everything so far. There's polarization, which people interpret as
linear in any direction perpendicular to the direction of travel, or as
circular, or as elliptical. At this point my interpretation of their
interpretation is that the axis of turning can be any direction in 3D.
When it's the direction of travel it's circular polarization. When it's
perpendicular to the direction of travel you get linear polarization in
the third direction. You'll probably want something analogous for your
turns because what they do fits the reality on some level.

Any theory about the nature of photons has to explain polarization. Maxwell's
wave theory does that but it requires a medium. I believe a photon carries it
own little bit of 'aether'

Gawd .. here we go .. not ballistic theory is an aether theory .. Henry's lies and twists and turns never end.

[snip more crap]


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Two suns
    ... half the distance) around a sun-like star. ... the Jupiter-mass planet's eccentricity goes from ... most of the life on the planet. ... meantime (rather than the extinction of dinosaurs). ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Distance between centers of two intersecting circles that have
    ... David W. Cantrell wrote: ... want the area of the their intersection to be A (i.e. the lens is ... What is the distance d between the centers of the two circles to ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Two suns
    ... half the distance) around a sun-like star. ... the Jupiter-mass planet's eccentricity goes from almost zero ... It means that the distance at closest approach is much smaller ... How long ago was it that dinosaurs died out? ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Democratic candidates address the issue of global warming while Republicans snooze...
    ... eccentricity of Earth's orbit is one part in 60, ... from the sun at aphelion and at perihelion. ... distance and also add it to the aphelion distance. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Fun Earthquake Quiz
    ... that the event is a given distance away. ... circles are tangent to each other). ... With 3 stations, you can narrow it ... waves grows (because P waves travel faster). ...
    (sci.geo.earthquakes)