On May 8, 1:35*am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in messagenews:u7a424p2ouajtsbae9aq5ilrmhcvthp7fg@4ax .com...
| On Tue, 6 May 2008 14:51:35 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
| wrote:

|
| On May 6, 3:45 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
| On Mon, 5 May 2008 15:00:07 -0700 (PDT), PD
wrote:
| On May 5, 4:48 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
|
| Benj's point well proven.
| I suppose you will also describe a 'photon' as a 'package of light
energy'.
|
| Admit it Kolker, virtually nothing is known about
light...particularly light in
| transit, which includes most of it.
|
| Well, the concept of light *not* in transit is certainly an
| interesting one, Henri. I suppose that's what fills the Wilsonian
| Bubble between your ears. Right next to the concept of pointy circles
| and acceleration in equilibrium.
|
| Draper, in case you haven't realised it, virtually all the light and
other EM
| in the universe IS in transit.
| Our knowledge of it is restricted to what happens when it interacts
with our
| eyes and instruments.
|
| Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
|
| ....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and
mathematicians....- Hide quoted text -
|
| - Show quoted text -
|
| Dear Henri: *That "EM" that keeps getting used goes back to the
| erroneous idea that light 'requires' a medium through which to flow.
| But the Universe is about equal parts spaces with ether, and spaces
| with little or no ether.
|
| I state that differently.
|
| In most of space, there are fields of some description. I say the inverse
| square law pertaining to any 'field' eventually breaks down as though the
field
| were quantized. All individual fields eventually develop holes containing
pure
| 'nothing'.
| I say there are many regions in space where field strengths are so low
that
| there is literally more 'nothing' than field.
| It is at the Wilson Density threshold (WDT) that space begins to become
holed.
|
| Light travels through the holes purely ballistically. It carries its own
little
| package of field so its presence temporarily destroys the hole.
| .
| Photons are a small bundle of energy. *It
| has properties, but "mass" isn't one of them.
|
| You can't say that. Anything that possesses energy should also possess
mass.
|
| Light doesn't even have
| color until it reacts with our eyes.
|
| Now you are raving. Photons possess properties when they are in transit.
|
| Colour is 100% psychological.
|
| All photons are the same
| regardless of the "wave length" (sic) of the light.
|
| Raving again.
|
| "Photon spacing"
| would be a more descriptive distinction for different frequencies of
| light.
|
| No it wouldn't. It wouldn't explain diffraction.
| Photons are nebulus particles that have an intrinsic oscillation.
|
| - NoEinstein -
|
|
|
| Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
|www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
|
| ....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

Raving again...

Dear Henri: You almost, but don't quite, get it. Diffraction was
Michelson's area of specialty. Closely spaced lines can bend light.
Since 'red' light (the photons) bends further with each line, the
spacing of the lines, and their separation can be used to isolate a
particular frequency of light. Regardless of the frequency, all
photons are IDENTICAL—without color nor mass! The following reply of
mine, from earlier, "should" (if you will think) explain how photons
"work" in glass or next to lines. — NoEinstein —

Visible light entering a prism has the same "spectrum" as it has
when it leaves. It is just that the light leaving has different
direction based on it wavelength. It will have no effect on
"persistence".

Will you tell more about black body rediation
persisting for very long time.

It does not matter that it is comprised of many wavelengths,
representing a black body radiator. What is important is that it
has passed through almost no intervening matter. So the only
effect on the light (as we see it) is that it is uniformly red
shifted. Otherwise, it is a strong source, and is distributed as
it was when it was emitted.
David A. Smith

Dear David: Long time no hear! White light is closely spaced trains
of photons of all of the visible wavelengths. Light on the “blue” end
of the visible spectrum is more energetic, because the photons are
arriving on a closer spacing, and thus at a quicker time interval.
That is like an 30 cal. machine gun being more energetic than a 30
cal. repeating rifle.
It turns out that glass prisms, and lenses, too, pass photons
with less angular deviation when the photons are arriving at quicker
intervals. So, blue light deviates less than red light in passing
through prisms or lenses. The reason for this is that light inside
the glass follows the moving ether envelope that’s around each atom.
And those envelopes get nudged faster or slower depending on which
side of the atom the photon “hit”.
Blue light tends to establish a more consistent course through
the glass, because the ether inside has less time to return to its
normal spin between “hits”. Red light photons arrive more slowly, so
the ether envelopes are more prepared to do their own nudging on the
photons. And those photons deviate the most.
An amazing thing happens at the glass-to-air junctu The ether
fields around the atoms on the face of the glass partially bond with
the photons to ‘slingshot’ those at angles inversely proportional to
the arrival frequency. So the light OUT of a 60 degree prism is
broken into “colored” bands, or spectra, and isn’t the same as the
white light that entered. Conceivably, another prism of the proper
shape and placement could recombine the spectra to produce slightly
red shifted “white” light.
For 45 degree prisms, the angle of approach of the photons to the
glass-to-air juncture of the hypotenuse is shallow enough that the
rotating ether fields can slingshot all of the light 90 degrees. Each
of the photons arch around the atoms on the face of the glass, then re
enter the glass to exit perpendicular to the prism face.
My recent focus (no pun intended) on the nature of light results
from my extensive thought necessary to understand, and to invalidate
the 1887 Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment as a light
velocity detector. And, of course, such disproves Einstein, and
reinstates ether as the energy “stuff” from which the Universe is
constructed.
I’ve disproved that light is in the form of waves. Photons will
travel perfectly well in those portions of the Universe—between the
galaxies—where the ether density is slight. Because of the gaps in
the ether, gravity isn’t a force to be reckoned with across the
Universe, and so will never cause a Big Crunch. And since I have also
proved that there are no… “super massive” black holes, there never
could have been a gravity force that would “crunch” all of the matter
in the Universe to the size of a sub-atomic particle. And so there
was no Big Bang.
Please read my recent posts:

Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...8737b3de57d9e6
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...9aef0aee462d26
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...967db2b?hl=en#

On May 8, 1:35*am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in messagenews:u7a424p2ouajtsbae9aq5ilrmhcvthp7fg@4ax .com...
| On Tue, 6 May 2008 14:51:35 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
| wrote:

|
| On May 6, 3:45 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
| On Mon, 5 May 2008 15:00:07 -0700 (PDT), PD
wrote:
| On May 5, 4:48 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
|
| Benj's point well proven.
| I suppose you will also describe a 'photon' as a 'package of light
energy'.
|
| Admit it Kolker, virtually nothing is known about
light...particularly light in
| transit, which includes most of it.
|
| Well, the concept of light *not* in transit is certainly an
| interesting one, Henri. I suppose that's what fills the Wilsonian
| Bubble between your ears. Right next to the concept of pointy circles
| and acceleration in equilibrium.
|
| Draper, in case you haven't realised it, virtually all the light and
other EM
| in the universe IS in transit.
| Our knowledge of it is restricted to what happens when it interacts
with our
| eyes and instruments.
|
| Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
|
| ....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and
mathematicians....- Hide quoted text -
|
| - Show quoted text -
|
| Dear Henri: *That "EM" that keeps getting used goes back to the
| erroneous idea that light 'requires' a medium through which to flow.
| But the Universe is about equal parts spaces with ether, and spaces
| with little or no ether.
|
| I state that differently.
|
| In most of space, there are fields of some description. I say the inverse
| square law pertaining to any 'field' eventually breaks down as though the
field
| were quantized. All individual fields eventually develop holes containing
pure
| 'nothing'.
| I say there are many regions in space where field strengths are so low
that
| there is literally more 'nothing' than field.
| It is at the Wilson Density threshold (WDT) that space begins to become
holed.
|
| Light travels through the holes purely ballistically. It carries its own
little
| package of field so its presence temporarily destroys the hole.
| .
| Photons are a small bundle of energy. *It
| has properties, but "mass" isn't one of them.
|
| You can't say that. Anything that possesses energy should also possess
mass.
|
| Light doesn't even have
| color until it reacts with our eyes.
|
| Now you are raving. Photons possess properties when they are in transit.
|
| Colour is 100% psychological.
|
| All photons are the same
| regardless of the "wave length" (sic) of the light.
|
| Raving again.
|
| "Photon spacing"
| would be a more descriptive distinction for different frequencies of
| light.
|
| No it wouldn't. It wouldn't explain diffraction.
| Photons are nebulus particles that have an intrinsic oscillation.
|
| - NoEinstein -
|
|
|
| Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
|www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
|
| ....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

Raving again...

Androcles: After just sending my reply, I realize that I replied to
"Henri" rather than to you. I hope that Henri will read what I
wrote. Note: "Raving" is what people do when they won't explain
themselves! — NoEinstein — :-)

On Fri, 9 May 2008 01:09:38 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
| On Thu, 8 May 2008 06:35:40 +0100, "Androcles"

| wrote:
|
|
| "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message

|
| Raving again...
|
| You of all people are in no position to accuse others of raving.


Einstein said
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same.


Wilson said
"For one ray, ct = 2piR+vt , for the other ct = 2piR-vt. This gives t =
2piR/(c+v) and 2piR/(c-v)" -- Wilson.
...

Crank Wilson agrees with Crank Einstein.

You should specify the experiment.
The above equations apply to the rotating frame of a ring gyro, in which light
moves at c wrt the source. vt is the distance the startpoint (wrt static frame)
of each element of light moves backwards (in the rotating frame).

The interesting aspect of this, which I have recognized but not discussed
before, is that time itself can be illusory in rotating frames. In that frame,
the two rays appear to move at c but for different times.
In the static frame, they move for the same time but at different speeds and
hence different doppler shifted frequencies.

What you should have said is

"For one ray, ct = 2piR+vt , for the other ct = 2piR-vt. This gives t =
(2piR +vt)/(c+v) and (2piR-vt)/(c-v)"

I'd like to know how.....

although it would have been
neater not to mix angle with linear distance.

t = R.(2pi+alpha)/(c+v) and R.(2pi-alpha)/(c-v) where R.alpha = vt.

Still, schoolboy mathematics is beyond your capabilities (and Tusseladd's).

.....your maths ability is aptly demonstrated above......


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On Fri, 09 May 2008 00:11:34 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2008 07:48:55 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"
wrote:

Benj wrote:


I think it should be patently obvious at this point that nobody in
physics has the slightest clue what light is, even though they are
trying hard to cover up that fact.
Light is energy in the form of photons.

Benj's point well proven.
I suppose you will also describe a 'photon' as a 'package of light energy'.

Admit it Kolker, virtually nothing is known about light...particularly light in
transit, which includes most of it.

Bob Kolker

Henri, for a guy who claims to be educated, your posting record
indicates otherwise.

Physics FAQ: What is the mass of a photon?
http://edu-observatory.org/physics-f...oton_mass.html

Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://edu-observatory.org/physics-f...periments.html

The Physics FAQ was put together by people like Roberts and van de Morbidity.
Why should I bother to read it?

So admit it Kolker, virtually nothing is known about light...


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On Fri, 9 May 2008 09:02:31 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:

On May 8, 1:35*am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in messagenews:u7a424p2ouajtsbae9aq5ilrmhcvthp7fg@4ax .com...
| On Tue, 6 May 2008 14:51:35 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein


Dear Henri: You almost, but don't quite, get it. Diffraction was
Michelson's area of specialty. Closely spaced lines can bend light.
Since 'red' light (the photons) bends further with each line, the
spacing of the lines, and their separation can be used to isolate a
particular frequency of light. Regardless of the frequency, all
photons are IDENTICAL—without color nor mass!

If that were true, the TWLS in vacuum of different wavelength light would not
be the same.
There is no evidence of that.

The following reply of
mine, from earlier, "should" (if you will think) explain how photons
"work" in glass or next to lines. — NoEinstein —

Visible light entering a prism has the same "spectrum" as it has
when it leaves. It is just that the light leaving has different
direction based on it wavelength. It will have no effect on
"persistence".

Will you tell more about black body rediation
persisting for very long time.

It does not matter that it is comprised of many wavelengths,
representing a black body radiator. What is important is that it
has passed through almost no intervening matter. So the only
effect on the light (as we see it) is that it is uniformly red
shifted. Otherwise, it is a strong source, and is distributed as
it was when it was emitted.
David A. Smith

Dear David: Long time no hear! White light is closely spaced trains
of photons of all of the visible wavelengths. Light on the “blue” end
of the visible spectrum is more energetic, because the photons are
arriving on a closer spacing, and thus at a quicker time interval.
That is like an 30 cal. machine gun being more energetic than a 30
cal. repeating rifle.

Your theories have certain similarities with mine but also big differences.
I say individual photons DO exists and these can have different intrinsic
properties.
I also believe that waveforms of generated EM signals like RF are based on
variations in photon density.

It turns out that glass prisms, and lenses, too, pass photons
with less angular deviation when the photons are arriving at quicker
intervals. So, blue light deviates less than red light in passing
through prisms or lenses. The reason for this is that light inside
the glass follows the moving ether envelope that’s around each atom.
And those envelopes get nudged faster or slower depending on which
side of the atom the photon “hit”.
Blue light tends to establish a more consistent course through
the glass, because the ether inside has less time to return to its
normal spin between “hits”. Red light photons arrive more slowly, so
the ether envelopes are more prepared to do their own nudging on the
photons. And those photons deviate the most.

Nah...don't like it....
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/bathgrating.jpg
explains diffraction according to ballistic theory.

An amazing thing happens at the glass-to-air junctu The ether
fields around the atoms on the face of the glass partially bond with
the photons to ‘slingshot’ those at angles inversely proportional to
the arrival frequency. So the light OUT of a 60 degree prism is
broken into “colored” bands, or spectra, and isn’t the same as the
white light that entered. Conceivably, another prism of the proper
shape and placement could recombine the spectra to produce slightly
red shifted “white” light.
For 45 degree prisms, the angle of approach of the photons to the
glass-to-air juncture of the hypotenuse is shallow enough that the
rotating ether fields can slingshot all of the light 90 degrees. Each
of the photons arch around the atoms on the face of the glass, then re
enter the glass to exit perpendicular to the prism face.
My recent focus (no pun intended) on the nature of light results
from my extensive thought necessary to understand, and to invalidate
the 1887 Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment as a light
velocity detector. And, of course, such disproves Einstein, and
reinstates ether as the energy “stuff” from which the Universe is
constructed.
I’ve disproved that light is in the form of waves. Photons will
travel perfectly well in those portions of the Universe—between the
galaxies—where the ether density is slight. Because of the gaps in
the ether, gravity isn’t a force to be reckoned with across the
Universe, and so will never cause a Big Crunch. And since I have also
proved that there are no… “super massive” black holes, there never
could have been a gravity force that would “crunch” all of the matter
in the Universe to the size of a sub-atomic particle. And so there
was no Big Bang.
Please read my recent posts:

Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...8737b3de57d9e6
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...9aef0aee462d26
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...967db2b?hl=en#



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 9 May 2008 01:09:38 +0100, "Androcles"

| wrote:
|
|
| "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Thu, 8 May 2008 06:35:40 +0100, "Androcles"
|
| | wrote:
| |
| |
| | "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
|
| |
| | Raving again...
| |
| | You of all people are in no position to accuse others of raving.
|
|
| Einstein said
| the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
| the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
| the "time" each way is the same.
|
|
| Wilson said
| "For one ray, ct = 2piR+vt , for the other ct = 2piR-vt. This gives t =
| 2piR/(c+v) and 2piR/(c-v)" -- Wilson.
| ...
|
| Crank Wilson agrees with Crank Einstein.
|
| You should specify the experiment.

The experiment was to see if you are raving again.
The result was positive.

| The above equations apply to the rotating frame of a ring gyro, in which
light
| moves at c wrt the source.

Then it just plain wrong since v = dx/dt and vt = x.

| vt is the distance the startpoint (wrt static frame)
| of each element of light moves backwards (in the rotating frame).

The "distance" vt along an arc, not a straight line.

| The interesting aspect of this, which I have recognized but not discussed
| before, is that time itself can be illusory in rotating frames. In that
frame,
| the two rays appear to move at c but for different times.
| In the static frame, they move for the same time but at different speeds
and
| hence different doppler shifted frequencies.

Nothing to discuss. That is just plain silly Einstein ****.
You are raving again.

|
| What you should have said is
|
| "For one ray, ct = 2piR+vt , for the other ct = 2piR-vt. This gives t =
| (2piR +vt)/(c+v) and (2piR-vt)/(c-v)"
|
| I'd like to know how.....

Ok, I'll tell you. Whether you understand or not is up to you.

2pi is an angle. It is 360 degrees of angle.
2piR is a distance around the circumference of a circle (all of it).
pi is an angle. It is 180 degrees of angle.
piR is a distance around the circumference (half of it).
pi/2 is an angle. It is 90 degrees of angle.
piR/2 is a distance around the circumference (quarter of it).

alpha is a small angle.
alphaR is a small distance around the circumference of a circle (part of
it).

Mathematicians can add angles.
When we add 2pi to alpha we get a slightly bigger angle than 2pi
If we multiply that by R we get a slightly greater distance than 2piR

We write
(2pi + alpha)R = 2piR + alphaR

Ref:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Distributive.html


|
| although it would have been
| neater not to mix angle with linear distance.
|
| t = R.(2pi+alpha)/(c+v) and R.(2pi-alpha)/(c-v) where R.alpha = vt.
|
| Still, schoolboy mathematics is beyond your capabilities (and
Tusseladd's).
|
| ....your maths ability is aptly demonstrated above......

It always has been. It is nothing more difficult than
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Distributive.html

That is of course "Raving again...."

Lesson 2:
t = R.(2pi+alpha)/(c+v) and R.(2pi-alpha)/(c-v) where R.alpha = vt.


Perhaps I should call it " *My* theory" but that would rather silly,
you would be expected to know before starting a
rookie course in mathematics.

Examine this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...gnacIdiocy.htm

Einstein wrote
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same.

That is ****ing ridiculous.

On May 9, 7:03*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2008 09:02:31 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:

On May 8, 1:35*am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in messagenews:u7a424p2ouajtsbae9aq5ilrmhcvthp7fg@4ax .com...
| On Tue, 6 May 2008 14:51:35 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein

Dear Henri: *You almost, but don't quite, get it. *Diffraction was
Michelson's area of specialty. *Closely spaced lines can bend light.
Since 'red' light (the photons) bends further with each line, the
spacing of the lines, and their separation can be used to isolate a
particular frequency of light. *Regardless of the frequency, all
photons are IDENTICAL—without color nor mass! *

If that were true, the TWLS in vacuum of different wavelength light would not
be the same.
There is no evidence of that.





The following reply of
mine, from earlier, "should" (if you will think) explain how photons
"work" in glass or next to lines. *— NoEinstein —

Visible light entering a prism has the same "spectrum" as it has
when it leaves. It is just that the light leaving has different
direction based on it wavelength. It will have no effect on
"persistence".

Will you tell more about black body rediation
persisting for very long time.

It does not matter that it is comprised of many wavelengths,
representing a black body radiator. What is important is that it
has passed through almost no intervening matter. So the only
effect on the light (as we see it) is that it is uniformly red
shifted. Otherwise, it is a strong source, and is distributed as
it was when it was emitted.
David A. Smith

Dear David: *Long time no hear! *White light is closely spaced trains
of photons of all of the visible wavelengths. *Light on the “blue” end
of the visible spectrum is more energetic, because the photons are
arriving on a closer spacing, and thus at a quicker time interval.
That is like an 30 cal. machine gun being more energetic than a 30
cal. repeating rifle.

Your theories have certain similarities with mine but also big differences..
I say individual photons DO exists and these can have different intrinsic
properties.
I also believe that waveforms of generated EM signals like RF are based on
variations in photon density.

* * It turns out that glass prisms, and lenses, too, pass photons
with less angular deviation when the photons are arriving at quicker
intervals. *So, blue light deviates less than red light in passing
through prisms or lenses. *The reason for this is that light inside
the glass follows the moving ether envelope that’s around each atom.
And those envelopes get nudged faster or slower depending on which
side of the atom the photon “hit”.
* * Blue light tends to establish a more consistent course through
the glass, because the ether inside has less time to return to its
normal spin between “hits”. *Red light photons arrive more slowly, so
the ether envelopes are more prepared to do their own nudging on the
photons. *And those photons deviate the most.

Nah...don't like it....http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/bathgrating.jpg
explains diffraction according to ballistic theory.





* * An amazing thing happens at the glass-to-air junctu The ether
fields around the atoms on the face of the glass partially bond with
the photons to ‘slingshot’ those at angles inversely proportional to
the arrival frequency. *So the light OUT of a 60 degree prism is
broken into “colored” bands, or spectra, and isn’t the same as the
white light that entered. *Conceivably, another prism of the proper
shape and placement could recombine the spectra to produce slightly
red shifted “white” light.
* * For 45 degree prisms, the angle of approach of the photons to the
glass-to-air juncture of the hypotenuse is shallow enough that the
rotating ether fields can slingshot all of the light 90 degrees. Each
of the photons arch around the atoms on the face of the glass, then re
enter the glass to exit perpendicular to the prism face.
* * My recent focus (no pun intended) on the nature of light results
from my extensive thought necessary to understand, and to invalidate
the 1887 Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment as a light
velocity detector. *And, of course, such disproves Einstein, and
reinstates ether as the energy “stuff” from which the Universe is
constructed.
* * I’ve disproved that light is in the form of waves. *Photons will
travel perfectly well in those portions of the Universe—between the
galaxies—where the ether density is slight. *Because of the gaps in
the ether, gravity isn’t a force to be reckoned with across the
Universe, and so will never cause a Big Crunch. *And since I have also
proved that there are no… “super massive” black holes, there never
could have been a gravity force that would “crunch” all of the matter
in the Universe to the size of a sub-atomic particle. *And so there
was no Big Bang.
* * Please read my recent posts:

Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...d/thread/1e3e4...
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...d/thread/5d847...
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...d/thread/989e1...

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Henri: Fortunately for me, I strive for science truths. Truths
are their own best defense. And I don't have to convince you for a
truth to be a TRUTH! — NoEinstein —

On May 9, 7:52*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 00:11:34 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2008 07:48:55 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"
wrote:

Benj wrote:

*I think it should be patently obvious at this point that nobody in
physics has the slightest clue what light is, even though they are
trying hard to cover up that fact.
Light is energy in the form of photons.
Benj's point well proven.
I suppose you will also describe a 'photon' as a 'package of light energy'.

Admit it Kolker, virtually nothing is known about light...particularly light in
transit, which includes most of it.

Bob Kolker

* Henri, for a guy who claims to be educated, your posting record
* indicates otherwise.

* Physics FAQ: What is the mass of a photon?
* *http://edu-observatory.org/physics-f...ar/photon_mass...

* Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
* *http://edu-observatory.org/physics-f...eriments..html

The Physics FAQ was put together by people like Roberts and van de Morbidity.
Why should I bother to read it?

So admit it Kolker, virtually nothing is known about light...

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

* *What do you know about light, Henri?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

:-) — NoEinstein —

On Sat, 10 May 2008 00:30:38 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .

| vt is the distance the startpoint (wrt static frame)
| of each element of light moves backwards (in the rotating frame).

The "distance" vt along an arc, not a straight line.

It's so small it is as good as straight.


|
| What you should have said is
|
| "For one ray, ct = 2piR+vt , for the other ct = 2piR-vt. This gives t =
| (2piR +vt)/(c+v) and (2piR-vt)/(c-v)"
|
| I'd like to know how.....

Ok, I'll tell you. Whether you understand or not is up to you.

If ct = 2piR+vt as you state, then t certainly does not equal (2piR +vt)/(c+v),
as you claim.

This is 10yo stuff.


2pi is an angle. It is 360 degrees of angle.
2piR is a distance around the circumference of a circle (all of it).
pi is an angle. It is 180 degrees of angle.
piR is a distance around the circumference (half of it).
pi/2 is an angle. It is 90 degrees of angle.
piR/2 is a distance around the circumference (quarter of it).

alpha is a small angle.
alphaR is a small distance around the circumference of a circle (part of
it).

Mathematicians can add angles.
When we add 2pi to alpha we get a slightly bigger angle than 2pi
If we multiply that by R we get a slightly greater distance than 2piR

We write
(2pi + alpha)R = 2piR + alphaR

Ref:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Distributive.html


|
| although it would have been
| neater not to mix angle with linear distance.
|
| t = R.(2pi+alpha)/(c+v) and R.(2pi-alpha)/(c-v) where R.alpha = vt.
|
| Still, schoolboy mathematics is beyond your capabilities (and
Tusseladd's).
|
| ....your maths ability is aptly demonstrated above......

It always has been. It is nothing more difficult than
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Distributive.html

That is of course "Raving again...."

Lesson 2:
t = R.(2pi+alpha)/(c+v) and R.(2pi-alpha)/(c-v) where R.alpha = vt.


Perhaps I should call it " *My* theory" but that would rather silly,
you would be expected to know before starting a
rookie course in mathematics.

Examine this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...gnacIdiocy.htm

Einstein wrote
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same.

That is ****ing ridiculous.

It IS...and so are you.



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On Fri, 09 May 2008 23:52:40 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 00:11:34 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2008 07:48:55 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"
wrote:

Benj wrote:


I think it should be patently obvious at this point that nobody in
physics has the slightest clue what light is, even though they are
trying hard to cover up that fact.
Light is energy in the form of photons.
Benj's point well proven.
I suppose you will also describe a 'photon' as a 'package of light energy'.

Admit it Kolker, virtually nothing is known about light...particularly light in
transit, which includes most of it.

Bob Kolker

Henri, for a guy who claims to be educated, your posting record
indicates otherwise.

Physics FAQ: What is the mass of a photon?
http://edu-observatory.org/physics-f...oton_mass.html

Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://edu-observatory.org/physics-f...periments.html

The Physics FAQ was put together by people like Roberts and van de Morbidity.
Why should I bother to read it?

So admit it Kolker, virtually nothing is known about light...


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

What do you know about light, Henri?

Very little compared with what remains to be discovered.

But at least I'm not under the delusion that I know everything ....like some
people here.


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....