sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment

Subject: Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment
From: "George Dishman"
Date: 15 Mar 2006 05:12:24 -0800
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 14 Mar 2006 02:53:58 -0800, "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 22:27:24 -0000, "George Dishman" 
> >> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
>
> >> >>
> >> >> George, the pulsar must be orbiting something for my program to throw 
> >> >> any
> >> >> light
> >> >> on why its pulses appear to behave as they do.
> >> >
> >> >It is orbiting a low mass white dwarf based on
> >> >it's spectrum. See fig 3 of:
> >> >
> >> >http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/jacoby.pdf
> >>
> >> This doesn't tell us much.
> >
> >It gives you an indication of the companion mass
> >which, together with the known orbital period,
> >gives an adequate estimate of the orbital speed
> >and acceleration.
>
> Possibly....but I wouldn't believe any of the willusory observed data.

It's up to you to find alternatives values using Ritz, the
spectrum is what it is regardless of interpretation.

> >> >> Please give me the reference again.
> >> >
> >> >The pulsar is J1909-3744. The paper I looked at before
> >> >was this
> >> >
> >> >http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0507/0507420.pdf
> >> >
> >> >but I think the discussion was prompted by a paper
> >> >forwarded by Andrew Yee.
> >>
> >> There are too many uncertancies and assumptions for me to do anything
> >> constructive George.
> >
> >Nonsense, there are no problems with the
> >observations, you are of course at liberty to
> >re-interpret them in the ballistic model, that's
> >what your program is supposed to do.
> >
> >Regardless, it gives you the values I want to
> >put into your program to test it. You can debug
> >your progam using these numbers regardless of
> >whether they represent an actual pulsar or a
> >purely hypothetical one.
>
> When the star lies well beyond the critical distance, brightness curves are
> hard to interpret.

Your program should still produce curves, not crash.

> >> >>>It's all just fishing, work out the equations and apply
> >> >>>them to Sagnac, MMX, Ives-Stilwell etc. and then you
> >> >>>would have something to talk about.
> >> >>
> >> >> The BaTh explains all of these.
> >> >
> >> >No it doesn't, stop wasting time. Ballistic theory
> >> >gets Sagnac and Ives-Stilwell wrong. You know that,
> >> >it's why your looking for "photon drag" to correct
> >> >the Sagnac failure. Ballistic theory (Ritz) predicts
> >> >a null as it stands.
> >>
> >> No it doesn't. Your original claim was that in the rotating frame, both 
> >> beams
> >> would move identically according to the BaTh.
> >
> >No, my claim is and always has been that Ritz's
> >ballistic theory predicts a null result for Sagnac
> >and that remains true. You haven't developed an
> >alternative.
>
> One of your main arguments has always been that in the rotating frame, both
> beams always move identically.

I have stated a simple fact - Ritz's theory postulates
they move at c relative to the source.

> I have shown that to be wrong.

You have shown nothing whatsoever. Post the results
of your experiment. If you do manage to prove it wrong
then you have shown ballistic theory to be wrong.

> >> I have shown this to be wrong.
> >> Sagnac does not refute hte BaTh.
> >
> >You have shown nothing at all, you haven't even
> >made an attempt to show anything. When you
> >post your derivation of the standard equation,
> >then we can discuss it but as it stands at the
> >moment Sagnac falsifies Ritz, as does Ives and
> >Stilwell.
>
> As you should know, my main explanation of sagnac is related to the fact that
> light 'has its own built in gyro and doesn't like being rotated'.

No, your main argument is that friction slows photons
in a fibre but you have never explained Sagnac because
you haven't applied the equation for that slowing and you
haven't proved anything because you haven't done the
experiment. You have never even used the gyro idea in
trying to solve your Sagnac problem.

No equations, no explanation.

George


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>