
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 21:16:24 0000, "George Dishman" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:02:26 0000, "George Dishman"
>> Second postulate: w = c = c(c+v)/c+v) = (c+v)/1+cv/c^2)
>>
>> How could I possibly forget this logical masterpiece, George?
>
>It seems you have forgotten, the postulate is
>that the speed is independent of the speed of
>the source.
The postualte says that light travels at speed c in free space independent of
source speed.
Obviously this assumes an aether. Otherwise it is meaningless.
>>>> ,,,but at least his theory works, for
>>>> his parameters, even if it is completely wrong. SR doesn't even work and
>>>> IS also completely wrong.
>>>
>>>You cannot name a repeatable experiment in
>>>which GR gives an inaccurate prediction.
>>
>> that would be because much of GR is exactly the same as the BaTh gravity
>> theory.
>
>Ritz's theory doesn't include gravity.
Wilson's theory say light accelerates down a gravity well like all matter. This
gives the same redshift as GR.
...proof, the PoundRebka experiment.
>>>>
>>>> The maths don't tell you what the reference is for light speed.
>>>> Maxwell's equation provide a light speed in the absolute aether, which
>>>> we
>>>> now know doesn't exist.
>>>
>>>One speed for all light, that's the point.
>>
>> That's the MEANINGLESS point that you keep repeating.
>
>I made a simple point, that Maxwell's Equation
>only allow one speed for light so they cannot
>be used to describe the Ritzian model for light.
>You have turned into a neverending saga for no
>reason I can fathm.
There is no such quantity as a 'speed without a reference'. Speed is a relative
thing.
Maxwell's equations merely produce a value for the contstant c....which has
dimensions L/T.
>> Light moves initially at c wrt its source. That's all we can say.
>
>On the contrary, Sagnac proved that it doesn't.
Sagnac proves nothing.
>>>> What YOU cannot understand is that speed no matter what or where must be
>>>> specified relative to something.
>>>> Maxwell's equations are meaningless without an aether.
>>>>
>>>>>> Either you accept that you are stating 'light speed moves at c wrt its
>>>>>> source'
>>>>>> or you must accept an absolute aether.
>>>>>
>>>>>That is what you would like, it is not what the
>>>>>equations tell you. They say it is c relative
>>>>>to the inertial reference frame which defines
>>>>>x and t. In terms you might find easier, they
>>>>>say the speed is c relative to the observer.
>>>>>If you try to use the equation for light moving
>>>>>at c relative to the source or relative to any
>>>>>arbitrary aether, you will find you CANNOT solve
>>>>>them. Basic maths Henry.
>>>>
>>>> All I can say George, is your faith is so strong it takes away your
>>>> power
>>>> of
>>>> reason.
>>>> IF TWO DIFFERNETLY MOVING OBSERVERS OBTAIN THE SAME VALUE FOR C VIA
>>>> MAXWELL, IT
>>>> IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO MEASURE THE SAME OWLS FOR A PARTICULAR LIGHT
>>>> PULSE.
>>>
>>>The value of c from the equations IS "the oneway
>>>speed of light".
>>
>> At least you got that one right.
>> Now do you agree it is impossible (above)?
>
>Your philosophy says it is impossible, Sagnac
>showed it is true therefore your philosophy is
>wrong. That is MY logic.
>
>>>> (unless an aether exists, which is not the case)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>You don't have any choice in the matter, the equations
>>>>>>>are completely explicit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The equations give a value for speed relative to an absolute frame.
>>>>>
>>>>>Wrong, go read that maths book.
>>>>
>>>> Are you claiming that Maxwell did not construct his equations on the
>>>> basis
>>>> that
>>>> an aether existed? Really George, you're the one who should read the
>>>> book.
>>>
>>>Most people felt that an aether would explain EM
>>>phenomena but actually that's not what led him
>>>to the solution AIUI. The key change he made was
>>>to add the displacement current and the reasoning
>>>behind that was from conservation of charge.
>>
>> There is no charge in a perfect vacuum devoid of fields.
>
>Right, so where does the current go that enters
>a capacitor? Maxwell extended Ampere's Law by
>treating the rate of change of the field between
>the plates as "displacement current".
..and to this day nobody has a clue as to what constitutes a 'field'.
>
>> That's what most of
>> space is made of. That's why packages of EM travel across vast distances
>> of it
>> at c wrt their sources.
>> When they enter a telescope or the plates of a capacitor, they probably
>> slow
>> very rapidly to the natural light speed set by its 'local aether'.
>
>There you go again Henry, using the "aether" word
>for your own theory ;)
Call it what you wish. It is a local EM FoR that almost entirely determines
light speed wrt that frame.
>>>> We don't know how often we see multiple images. They don't carry a sign
>>>> saying,
>>>> "I have twentyfive indentical brothers".
>>>
>>>Yes they do, the Doppler shift. When you look at
>>>a line in a spectroscopic binary, you should see
>>>several lines, some rising, others falling because
>>>each if the overlapping images was transmitted from
>>>a different point in the orbit.
>>
>> Without extinction effects, a multiple image will suddenly appear in a
>> bright
>> flash after which two separate images will move in oposite directions away
>> from
>> the point where the flash occured.
>> This kind of phenomenon is never likely to be seen however because stars
>> which
>> exhibit it will always be too far away for sufficient resolution.
>
>You don't need to resolve them, spectroscopic binaries
>should show the effect. Of course Sekerin's value for
>the "speed extinction" effect would eliminate it quite
>nicely.
>
>Incidentally, since the speeds (c+v and cv) converge
>exponentially, the limit as D tends to infinity is
>finite and beyond some distance, the effect would
>become essentially unchanging (below the photometry
>resolution). I think you can incorporate that in your
>program just by fixing the distance at 0.0047 light
>years for all stars. The nearest to us is 850 times
>that distance and e^850 is _very_ small.
This is not even wrth considering. You are raving again.
>
>George
>
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

