Subject: |
Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment |
---|---|

From: |
"Hexenmeister" |

Date: |
Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:29:10 GMT |

Newsgroups: |
sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics |

"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:[email protected] | On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 00:02:35 -0000, "George Dishman" <[email protected]> | wrote: | | > | >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message | >news:[email protected] | >> On 14 Mar 2006 05:33:51 -0800, "George Dishman" <[email protected]> | | >>>> | >> | >>>> >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. | >>>> | >>>> I can if I assume that Maxwells' equations produce a value for c, which | >>>> is the | >>>> speed of light relative to its source. | >>> | >>>But they don't, Maxwell's equations produce the value | >>>relative to the screen of your program. Look at how I | >>>described the code and realise that the pixel calculation | >>>doesn't use any information about the source, only the | >>>present value of the neighbouring pixels and past value | >>>of the same pixel. | >> | >> But according to SR, I can move my screen sideways ... | > | >Irrelevant, the equations only permit a single speed | >for all sources which is incompatibel with Ritz. | | It is also incompatible with logic and physics as we know it. | | > | >> andd the pulses will remain | >> at the same original speed wrt the table. | >> Silly isn't it. ..but that's what the second postulate says. No doubt | >> about it | >> George. | > | >It's also what Maxwell's Equations say Henry, no doubt | >about it. | | Maxwell's equation tell us there is an infinte number of different light speeds | in a perfect vacuum. | You had better face the truth George. | | | >>>> Which, as I have pointed out many times leads to an impossibility ... | >>> | >>>Which I have pointed out equally often is an untrue | >>>assertion, it only conflicts with your philosophy. | >> | >> What is untrue about it? | >> | >> How can two differently moving observers at the same location get the same | >> value for c via Maxwell and also measure the OWLS of a single light pulse | >> to | >> also be 'c'. | >> It is clearly impossible. | > | >How can two balloons at different heights both have | >the same angle of elevation for a ground observer, it | >is clearly impossible - unless of course the angle is | >90 degrees. In Riemann geometry that special angle | >becomes the equivalent of 45 degrees or "c" as we call | >it. | | Oh crap!!! | We live in the REAL world George, not one that lies in your imagination. | | | >>>> That's a strange way to express what you are trying to prove. | >>>> The Aether doesn't MOVE. Things move wrt IT. | >>> | >>>I see you have forgotten even Galilean relativity :-) | >> | >> No George, | > | >Yes Henry, "The Aether doesn't MOVE. Things move wrt IT." | >ignores Galilean relativity. | > | >> I often refer to the aether concept to demonstrate that SR is | >> identical to it. | > | >I know, you make a lot of mistakes that way. | | It wasn't a mistake George. I am quite aware odf the qualities of the ancient ' | 'aether' concept. | It is what Einstein believed in you know. | | | >>>Nope, Maxwell's Equations still give the same result | >>>if you apply them to a perfect vacuum. | >> | >> But 'Light speed' in a perfect vacuum has no physical meaning. What is the | >> reference for that speed? | > | >They are just equations Henry, they give the same | >result if you apply them to a perfect vacuum whether | >we can assign that physical meaning or not. | | Yes George, they give a value for the constant c, which is also light sped wrt | its source. | | >> A perfect vacuum contains an infinite number of | >> differently moving imaginary points. To which one does Maxwell's 'c' | >> refer? | > | >All of them, that's the point. | | The point is George, you sem to have lost your marbles. | | >> The whole theory is ridiculous without a light carrying medium. | > | >There is no medium in the equations no matter | >how ridiculous you might think that is. | | It IS ridiculous ....and experimental results prove it. | | >>>> Otherwise light moves at c wrt its source. What other speed referece | >>>> does it | >>>> have? | >>> | >>>Rhetorical questions don't alter the equations, and | >>>they only allow one speed for their solution. Perhaps | >>>you should get out a maths text book that covers | >>>solving differential equations. | >> | >> No George. | > | >That doesn't surprise me. | > | >> Maxwell's equations allow for an infinite number of speeds in a | >> perfect vacuum. One speed for every differently moving imaginary point. | > | >The same speed. | | Yes, wrt each point. | Lorentz thought of that first, you know.,,,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 are using circular logic again. You are assuming the second | >>>> postulate to | >>>> derive transforms that in turn support the second postulate. | >>>> This is surely a joke George. | >>> | >>>What are you gibbering about Henry? Maxwell didn't | >>>use Einstein's postulate to develop his Equations, you | >>>know that perfectly well. | >> | >> Correct. | > | >In which case it isn't circular. | > | >> He used an absolute medium. | > | >No he didn't, he derived them from existing | >empirical formulae which were derived from | >lab experiments with Leyden jars and coils. | | I think that was Faraday or maybe Heaveside. | I doubt if Einstein ever saw a Leyden jar. | | >>>> >> ....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. | >>>> | >>>> It gives one solution for the constant 'c' but it give no reference for | >>>> speed. | >>> | >>>I suggest you read the page again, or don't you | >>>know how to solve differential equations? | >> | >> One doesn't have to solve them to understand what they mean physically. | > | >Yes you do. Go learn some maths. | | 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. | If you are so good at maths George, why don't you rewrite Maxwell's equation | for a universe that is truly relative. | | > | >> If I | >> wanted to solve them I would look it up in a book somewhere. | > | >Please do so. | | I don't need to. I understand what they mean and I understand why they are not | supportive of SR. | | >> That doesn't alter the fact that speed can only be specified relative to | >> something. Maxwell's 'c' is merely a constant. | >> | >>>> There is only one solution. Light initially moves at c wrt its source. | >>> | >>>Nope, it has the same value of dx/dt for all sources | >>>regardless of the motion of the source. Read the page. | >> | >> Which is nonsense of course | > | >That's your opinion, but that's the ONLY solution | >allowed by the equations. | | Rubbish. It is the LET solution George. | | >>>I'm not claiming any factors at all, just pointing out | >>>that Maxwell's Equations only allow one speed | >>>for all sources. It's simple maths Henry, you don't | >>>even need to consider the physics. | >> | >> You are repeating the same meaningless drivel over and over. | > | >I am telling you basic calculus which you | >should know already. | | Forget the calculus, that's the easy part. | 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. | | (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. | | > | >> In a perfect vacuum, there is no such frame. Maxwell's c therefore | >> produces an | >> infinite number of 'speeds'. | >> | >> | >>>> >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. | >>>> | >>>> It works pefectly well for me. | >>> | >>>Well previously you had a button I missed or maybe | >>>the program got into a state where it didn't update | >>>the display, just tell me what settings to use. | >> | >> Just run it with the default settings. Then change the distance to say | >> 0.5. | > | >OK, I'll try again tomorrow. | > | >>>> If your distances are well beyond eth critical | >>>> one, you wont see much difference ...but the light curve is pretty | >>>> meaningles | >>>> there anyway because it if a sufficient number of orbits were included | >>>> it would | >>>> be flat. | >>> | >>>That's right, but it never went flat, it retained the | >>>same curve as when close to the critical distance. | >> | >> The curves are only of value before the critical distance is reached. | >> After that too many multiple images appear (if extinction is not | >> considered). | > | >That's the point, we never see multiple images | >so extinction must be included, and that will | >significantly change your results. | | We don't know how often we see multiple images. They don't carry a sign saying, | "I have twenty-five indentical brothers". | | >>>> >>>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. | >>>> | >>>> Apparently the orbit is edge on. | >>>> | >>>> ..but this is a clear case of trying to establish reality for a | >>>> willusion. | >>> | >>>I think even with ballistic theory, the dip would | >>>suggest near grazing, but that's the point, you | >>>have complete freedom to determine an | >>>alternative orbit from the data using your | >>>program. | >>> | >>>> We simply cannot believe any of these readings. | >>> | >>>Of course we can trust the readings, they aren't | >>>in question, it is the _interpretation_ of the readings | >>>that you need to revise using ballistic theory. If you | >>>can't, ballistic theory is falsified by observation again. | >> | >> You wish, George. | >> Observing distant stars is a lot more complicated that looking at | >> something | >> across the road, where light speed doesn't matter. | > | >You time the arrival of the pulses against a local | >clock. It is far from easy of course, but your ideas | >on the source speed don't invalidate the measurement | >process, they only influence how the orbit would be | >inferred from the times. | | Measurements are measurements. Interpreting them is another matter. | Stars aren't right outside your window. | | > | >George | > | I thought you said "It's no good slinging shit at the dunny cleaners", H? Do you consider Dishman a "leader" then? Androcles. | | HW. | www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm | | |

Previous by Date: | Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Henri Wilson |
---|---|

Next by Date: | Re: Teacher has right to Hitler comments, Borked Pseudo Mailed |

Previous by Thread: | Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Henri Wilson |

Next by Thread: | Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Henri Wilson |

Indexes: | [Date]
[Thread]
[Top]
[All Lists] |