"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
> On 8 Mar 2006 04:39:31 -0800, "George Dishman" <[email protected]>
>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>> On 7 Mar 2006 05:33:24 -0800, "George Dishman"
>>> <[email protected]>
>>> >> >Note that two sources are dealt with by
>>> >> >superposition since the derivative of a sum
>>> >> >is the sum of the derivatives.
>>> I'm not sure what you are getting at here but if I am interpreting you
>>> correctly, I cannot see how it agrees with Einstein's velocity addition
>>You misunderstood. If, at some point, one source
>>produces an E field of 1V/m and another source
>>contributes 2V/m, then the total field is 3V/m.
>>Since E = E_1 + E_2, the derivatives also add.
> OK. That might work for static conditions but what about in traveling
The value "E" is the field at a point at a time.
Think of how you would write a program to illustrate
how the ME work. Take a square of pixels. For each
pixel hold the value of E. Look at each pixel and
it's immediate neighbour, one left and one right.
Fit a quadratic to those three values and twice the
x^2 coefficient gives you d^2E/dx^2. Divide by c^2
and that is d^2E/dt^" for that pixel. You need the
previous value of E as well to get dE/dt but then
you have the value and rates of change at time t.
Using those, calculate the next value and rates at
time t + delta_t, repeat the process for every point
and if you initialise everything with a propagating
sine wave, it will move at speed c across your screen.
The above only deals with x but the same technique
would apply to y and z. More generally you need
to repeat the process for the magnetic component too.
> There can be constructive and destructive interference at various points.
> not sure if that is relevant.
Yes, if you initialise with a combination of two waves
with suitable geometry (plane waves at an angle or
point sources for example) then interference effects
should appear in your results.
>>If you looked the link, the solution is for a vacuum,
>>just set rho and J to zero. The equations handle a
>>(hypothetical f you like) perfect vacuum with no
>>My point is that Maxwell's Equations tell you that
>>the speed of light in a perfect vacuum has the same
>>value for all sources when measured is a single
>>frame, therefore they are not suitable for ballistic
> George I understand the Mawellian argument perfectly. On the surface it
> it appear that light must travel at the same c in all frames.
> To the trained eye that can look BENEATH the surface, that is obviously
> meaningless and impossible.
To the trained eye, it is clear that waves travelling
at speeds other than c are not a valid solution to the
equations. What is impossible therefore is to use them
to calculate anything in a Ritzian model, you need an
alternative set of equations, which was the point that
> The explanation might be difficult to find but it
> has to exist. I have offered several suggestions already that might
> provide a
All of which are incompatible with Maxwell's Equations
since they require speeds other than c. That was my point.
>>> >It is not circular at all Henry, it is derived from
>>> >Maxwell's Equations which give one speed
>>> >regardless of the motion of the source.
>>> That's just an aether interpretation.
>>> Maxwell's equations don't apply to a pure vacuum
>>Yes they do, see the page I cited. You may feel
>>the universe doesn't behave that way but the
>>equations handle the situation just fine.
> The constants cannot be measured in a pure vacuum. The act of measuring
> destroys the vacuum.
They don't need to be, it is fundamental to the
equations that they are constants so can be measured
in the lab at varying densities and extrapolated to
> One of my theories says photons 'their own fields along with them' and
> kind of mechanism causes them to move at c wrt their sources... in
> with Maxwell.
Nope, "in conformity with Maxwell" only permits
movement at c wrt the measuring apparatus as
> In other words, Maxwell's constants only exist because of EM.
> Space without EM has zero for both.
>>> or anything near one...I
>>> should say they probably apply but it is impossible to measure the two
>>> constants without destroying the 'vacuum' .
>>> 'Vacuum' here doesn't just mean space devoid of matter either.
>>> >> Have look at www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe
>>> >> Tell me if it works OK on your computer.
>>> >Probably be later this evening.
>>Had a brief look but it crashed several times and
>>doesn't seem to give valid curves. I'll try to spend
>>some time onit tonight but for a starter the distance
>>to the observer doesn't seem to influence the
>>brightness curve very much at all. The effect on
>>the Doppler is closer.
> Distance should have a marked effect.
I agree, but in my attempts I could only
get a minor change. I was trying to use
the pulsar figures I gave elsewhere but
then see what happened as the distance
increased from much less than the critical
value to much more and especially around
>>Using zero eccentricity gave a divide-by-zero error.
> It should work for zero because that represents a circular orbit. A
> message should have come up if there is no value in the eccentricity box.
> must have accidentally excluded that when I rewrote the thing.
Try modelling the pulsar and see if you can
get sensible results, if so tell me what
numbers to enter into the screens.