Henri Wilson wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 22:27:24 -0000, "George Dishman"
> >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
> >> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 11:49:35 -0000, "George Dishman"
> >> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> wrote:
> >>>I would rather you went back to our conversation which
> >>>Jim interrupted, looking at the pulses from the pulsar
> >>>in a binary system and how your program can model their
> >>>arrival times. That is like bullets from a machine gun
> >>>on a carousel in the ballistic light model but each
> >>>round represents a multi-megaton blast, not a photon.
> >> 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:
> 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
> >> Please give me the reference again.
> >The pulsar is J1909-3744. The paper I looked at before
> >was this
> >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.
> >>>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
> 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