sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment

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:segf129fejadut5jvc8rb1mdn0qf6k3e2o@xxxxxxxxxx
| On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 00:02:35 -0000, "George Dishman" 
<george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| >news:qpce12pj1grc7u7hb79bmg2f96gp4flu8q@xxxxxxxxxx
| >> On 14 Mar 2006 05:33:51 -0800, "George Dishman" 
<george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
|
| >>>>
| >>
| >>>> >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
|
| 



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