sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment

Subject: Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment
From: Henri Wilson
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 22:04:46 GMT
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 15:33:50 -0000, "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message 
>news:tu3g02lk0ihh6po5d8dqi3a5011h875que@xxxxxxxxxx
>> On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 00:28:26 -0000, "George Dishman" 
>> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:

>>>
>>>No. Consider two sources sending light through a
>>>transparent block:
>>>
>>>   ->       +-------+
>>>   S1 ----> |       |
>>>            |       |
>>>   S2 ----> |       |
>>>   <-       +-------+
>>>
>>>Source S1 is moving to the right while source S2
>>>is moving to the left. Measure the parameters of
>>>the block and Maxwell's Equations will tell you
>>>the speed that a change in the fields on the left
>>>edge of the block will propagate to the right.
>>
>> I accept that light may move at only one speed in the block. That doesn't 
>> tell
>> us anything about light speed in remote space.
>
>The box I drew can equally be a specified
>volume of vacuum in deep space, the point
>is that if you apply Maxwell's Equations,
>they give just one speed for the propagation
>of EM waves through that volume but ballistic
>theory says the speed from the two sources
>must be different. Maxwell's Equations are
>therefore not compatible with Ritz.

You just don't see why that argument is meaningless do you.
You seem to think that the volume has walls and is fixed in absolute space?

Maxwell's equations only apply to a medium.

You cannot say that two differently moving observers will get the same measured
values for the two constants. Even if they did, it would indicate that light
speed was c relative to both...which is again impossible unless one accepts
absolute space and their measuring apparatus 'physically contracts'..

>>>> Obviously this leads to an impossibility.
>>>
>>>No, it just conflicts with your philosophy.
>>
>> My science you mean.
>
>No, your philosophy. You assume abolute
>simultaneity and couch any attempts at
>science within that. It means you end up
>with ad-hoc phenomena like speed extinction
>and photon drag to explain experiments.

'Now' here is NOW everywhere. That is bloody obvious.
At least the astronomers got that one right.

>>>> You cannot have two differenty moving
>>>> observers coming up with the same value for the speed of a particular
>>>> light
>>>> beam...
>>>
>>>Same speed, same observer, different beams, but
>>>same speed for different observers is also true
>>>although that's not what I said.
>>
>> What is that supposed to mean?
>
>I discussed one observer and two sources,
>you reversed it to multiple observers and
>one light source.
>
>>>> unless there is genuine physical contraction in the instruments used to
>>>> measure that speed as well as the two constants.
>>>
>>>Nope, you just need Riemann geometry, no
>>>contractions
>>
>> Big words impress small minds.
>
>Glad you're impressed but I don't think
>"geometry" qualifies as a big word and
>"Riemann" is just the name of the gut
>who analysed it.

It's bullshit anyway.

>>>> That means you need AN
>>>> AETHER!!!!
>>>>
>>>> Your argument requires an aether George.
>>>
>>>Or the right geometry.
>>
>> ....change the geometry to make your theory work?
>
>No need to change, it's always been Riemann.
>
>> OK. I'll write a paper about my equi-density theory then..
>>
>> THE DENSITY OF THE UNIVERSE IS CONSTANT. SPACE COMPRESES AND CONTRACTS TO 
>> MAKE
>> IT SO.
>>
>> It's no more stupid than GR.
>>
>>
>>>> De Sitter assumed that what he was observing was real when in fact all 
>>>> his
>>>> data
>>>> was Willusory.
>>>
>>>He assumed when he saw only one line on a stellar
>>>spectrum that ther really was only one line. That
>>>isn't an illusion. Ballistic theory predicts
>>>multiple copies of each line beyond the critical
>>>distance.
>>
>> One needs a computer to analyse this stuff.
>
>Nah, I showed you the maths a few days ago,
>it's trivial (even if Sekerin got it wrong).
>
>> The maths are too complex and
>> tedious. De Sitter didn't have a hope in hell of disproving the BaTh with 
>> his
>> primative methods.
>
>Nonsense. You might find it hard but it's
>peanuts to the maths that was being done at
>the end of the nineteenth century.

Time was the problem.
Computers do it all for us now.

>>>> But one point you are missing is that if the system lies well beyond the
>>>> critical distance, all kinds of strange effects may be expected. 
>>>> Frequency
>>>> can
>>>> be grossly exaggerated, for instance.
>>>
>>>It is grossly exaggerated _below_ the critical distance.
>>>Beyond it curves fold over and you get multiple copies.
>>>
>>>Have you read this?
>>>
>>>http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/sekerin.htm
>>
>>>Look at the graphs near the bottom and on page 3.
>>
>> Again, Sekerin was rally battling to produce the facts without a computer.
>> The curves are wrong.
>
>He made a small mistake, but Serbulenko corrected
>that. Compare the graphs on that page with the red
>lines on mine
>
>http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/Ritz_Doppler_3.png
>
>The corrected curves are right.
>
>> My program does in seconds more than De sitter, Einstein and Sekerin could
>> achieve in a life time.
>
>Henry, you couldn't even produce the equations
>that I use to plot those curves, you had to use
>a brute force approach.

It enables me to vary all the parameters easily...and it plots all the curves.
Incidentally, I have simplified the program. Will make it available soon.

>>>>>Including speed unification in your variable star program
>>>>>and adding the predicted curve would be a start.
>>>>
>>>> Curve shape is more important at this stage.
>>>
>>>Unless you include the extinction, the shapes will
>>>be wrong. Note the site talks of extinction distances
>>>as low as 0.0045 light years (also page 4).
>>
>> yes.
>> I doubt if they are that short.
>
>That is the _maximum_ based on the data from
>1997, there may be more recent observations
>that set an even lower maximum. You should
>study that site Henry, it's examining the
>same case you make but it has some science
>as well.

Very funny George.

I actually contacted Robert Fritzius by email some years back about his
interest in Ritz's theory. Quite a friendly fellow. I invited him to join this
group but no sign yet unless he drops in occasionally under a nickname. 
His site has been improved considerably since then.



>
>George
>
>


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm



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