
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 11:37:02 0000, "George Dishman"
> <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]
>>> On 8 Mar 2006 04:39:31 0800, "George Dishman"
>>> <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>
>>> OK. That might work for static conditions but what about in traveling
>>> waves.
>>
>>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.
>>> I'm
>>> 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
>>>>problem.
>>>>
>>>>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
>>>>theory.
>>>
>>> George I understand the Mawellian argument perfectly. On the surface it
>>> makes
>>> 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
>>started this.
>
> George the point that started this ...
No, the point that started this was this commentfrom you:
>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]
>>> On 13 Feb 2006 05:31:23 0800, "George Dishman"
>>> <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 11:41:08 0000, "George Dishman"
...
>>>>> That is a local effect and not related to the conventional 'absolute
>>>>> aether'
>>>>> concept. I certainly do not accept the idea of an absolute aether
>>>>> although I
>>>>> wouldn't rule out the existence of local EM FoRs.
>>>>
>>>>A frame of reference is just a coordinate system so
>>>>"the existence of local EM FoRs" really shows you
>>>>don't understand the concept at all. You need some
>>>>physical interaction to slow the light, an aether
>>>>essentially though as you say not 'conventional' since
>>>>it speeds up emitted light in some cases.
>>>
>>> No I don't. I just apply Maxwell's equations.
What you said is that you don't accept "the idea
of an absolute aether" but that you can apply
Maxwell's equations. Now if you have read what I
said above and thought about how you would program
it, you should understand you cannot use Maxwell's
Equations if you think light behaves ballistically.
> ... is the plain fact that according to SR, all
> light in the universe traveling in any particular direction is moving at
> the
> same speed.
> Note, my use of the expression 'same speed' needs no reference
> object. The value of that speed is also irrelevant.
> You can see that happening at: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/graether.exe
>
> You you deny that SR makes this 'aetherian' claim?
SR makes one claim (postulate), that the speed is
independent of the spped of the source. That comes
directly from Maxwell's Equations as you have seen
above.
>>> The explanation might be difficult to find but it
>>> has to exist. I have offered several suggestions already that might
>>> provide a
>>> clue.
>>
>>All of which are incompatible with Maxwell's Equations
>>since they require speeds other than c. That was my point.
>
> Maxwell's equations require a reference for speed.
Look at the equations, they tell you what it is.
> It WAS and still IS, an absolute aether.
Wrong, if aether is moving wrt the x,t coordinates
used in the equations then a wave moving at c wrt
the aether is not a valid solution of the equations.
I know the philosophical views held at the time but
the equations do not permit it.
>>>>> >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
>>a vacuum.
>
> All Maxwell produces is a value of the universal constant 'c' anyway.
Right, and all propagating waves must travel at
that speed if they are to be valid solutions.
> George, if two differently moving observers measure the constants at the
> same
> point (as they pass each other) do they both come up with the same value
> for
> 'c'?
They wouldn't be "universal constants" if they didn't.
> If you consider a single pulse of light approaching the two, what does
> that
> imply? According to you, both calculate its speed to be c.
That is the only valid solution to the equations, yes.
> <O1<p
> >O2
>
> Your claim is clearly impossible ...
It's not a claim Henry, basic calculus proves it.
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_Maxwell.htm#light
> ... unless the LTs apply and 'v' is absolute.
You can derive the transforms from them. That is exactly
what Einstein did.
>>> One of my theories says photons 'their own fields along with them' and
>>> some
>>> kind of mechanism causes them to move at c wrt their sources... in
>>> conformity
>>> with Maxwell.
>>
>>Nope, "in conformity with Maxwell" only permits
>>movement at c wrt the measuring apparatus as
>>explained above.
>
> ....and as I have explained above, that is clearly impossible
I note your words but you have given no explanation,
just a repeated assertion. On the other hand the page
I cited is one of many that derives the speed using
maths that only allows one solution.
> in the case of
> two differently moving observers. A single light pulse cannot approach
> both at
> 'c'.
> Can you not see the error you are making?
I can see you are ignoring basic calculus. If you don't
want to have a single speed for light from differently
moving sources then you cannot use Maxwell's Equations.
the choice is yours Henry, you cannot have it both ways.
>>> 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
>>that value.
>
> Distance and maximum velocity are 'conjugate'.....I think that's the right
> word. Increasing the distance has exactly the same effect as increasing
> the
> velocity.
> I usually just change the distance until I get the right magnitude change
> in
> brightness then fiddle with distance/velocity.
I understand, the critical distance is da/c^2 as
we discussed some time ago and it's just the ratio
of the actual distance to that value that matters,
however when I changed distance from 0.001 light
years to 3000 light years, the light curve was
unaffected. That can't be right! I'm sure it's a
simple bug or maybe there's an "update" button I
need to press and didn't notice.
>>>>Using zero eccentricity gave a dividebyzero error.
>>>
>>> It should work for zero because that represents a circular orbit. A
>>> warning
>>> message should have come up if there is no value in the eccentricity
>>> box.
>>> I
>>> 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.
>
> I will need its distance and frequency.....also its brightness curve
> shape.
> Pulsars are not good subjects for my program.
Distance is 3617 light years, orbital period
1.5 days, circular orbit of diameter 3.8 light
seconds using conventional analysis. Using Ritz
the diameter is undefined though probably not
to significant for the reasons I gave a few days
ago, but the key element will be the inclination.
George

