[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment

Subject: Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment
From: Henri Wilson
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 22:11:46 GMT
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:50:51 +0100, "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message 
>> On 26 Mar 2006 23:46:11 -0800, "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:

>>>I downloaded your program in case it had changed
>>>recently, clicked red then yellow and that was all.
>>>The values are all listed on the left hand side.
>> You can just run it from site.
>No chance, there's no way I would run anything
>but Java without first running the virus checker
>on it and even then I try to use a backup machine.
>Your VB programs have full access to my system so
>there's no way to detect a trojan in it.

There is no way a virus could infect these programs.
But check them if you wish.

>> I am not having any trouble with it now.
>>>> The bottom type occurs when you have passed the critical distance and 
>>>> not
>>>> enough orbits are surveyed.
>>>> If you increase the orbit number, the correct curve is the flat part in 
>>>> the
>>>> middle. You will probably have to increase the output height. However I 
>>>> don't
>>>> see much point in going beyond the critical distance because I don't 
>>>> believe
>>>> brightness curves change beyond a certain distance.... because of the 
>>>> speed
>>>> unification factor.
>>>The curves do settle down after some distance but you
>>>keep saying it is many light years (tens or hundreds?)
>>>and the critical distance for the pulsar is about 3.6 LY.
>>>> This is one discovery I have made.
>>>Didin't Sekerin already suggest speed 'extinction'?
>>>> When so many observed brightness curves are
>>>> matchable with the BaTh yet many distances are well below the Hipparcos 
>>>> figure,
>>>> one must conclude that considerable 'extinction' is definitely occuring.
>>>Or that Ritz is wrong. The fact that you cannot define
>>>a single extinction distance, or at least a reasonably
>>>small range of values, suggests the latter is more
>> Ah, ..but this process is not ordinary extinction, in the classical sense.
>> I call it light speed unification. I have suggested numerous reasons for 
>> it.
>I am using the term in the same sense as Sekerin
>and you.
>> It might depend on how much the star is moving because the properties of 
>> the
>> light paths to Earth might change considerably over months or years.
>> Most stars are considered to be pretty well 'fixed in space' however, so 
>> most
>> light paths should have rather similar properties..
>Over observational periods, that's fairly reasoanble.
>The path won't change much in the seconds to hours it
>takes to record a spectrum in most cases.

Well now that I have managed to produce predicted velocity curves at the
observer end, I would say that we definitely cannot use what we see directly as
a guide to orbit eccentricity. Circular orbits can produce doppler/time
relationships that match moderately eccentric orbits...and vice versa.

I'm glad you asked me to include this.

>>>> >The light curve changes to show the multiple
>>>> >spikes as the distance is now beyond critical
>>>> >but the blue curve is unchanged, it should
>>>> >also have spikes and overlaps as shown by
>>>> >Sekerin's colleague, Serbulenko:
>>>> No my blue curve shows the actual radial velocity at the source, not the
>>>> observed one.
>>>OK, that explains it. I thought you had updated it.
>>>> I haven't included that but I suppose I should.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >See Figure 3. Changing the viewing distance
>>>> >also has no visible effect.
>>>> Yes it does. Curves a), b) and c) are for different distances.
>>>I meant it has no effect in your program. I was
>>>expecting your program to produce curves like
>> I'll work on it today.
>>>> Again however, Sekerin's curves are for situations where the fast light 
>>>> has
>>>> overtaken the slower. I say that rarely if ever happens.
>>>Indeed but that sets an upper limit to your
>>>extinction distance and a lower value than
>>>you have assumed will affect the brightness
>> Maybe. There are lots of possible factors to consider.
>Actually, no. There may be a lot of factors that
>influence the speed but the final light curve and
>spectrum only depend on the integrated effect of
>the speed difference.

What I am saying is that the brightness curve's height and shape might not vary
much for observers beyond a certain distance. An obserevr at 10000LYs will see
about the same curve as one at maybe 30 LYs..but these distances are not
universal by any means. The predicted multiple images will not appear.

>> For instance in the case
>> of a pair of very large stars, their own gravity might somehow constitute 
>> a
>> type of local EM reference frame ..
>Please find out what "reference frame" means Henry,
>I know what you meant but what you said is rubbish.

How do you know it's rubbish. It has never been investigated.
I find the idea quite plausible. The C of G of a binary pair can be regarded as
having a spherical gravity field around it. Maybe this somehow influences local
light speeds (in spite of the fact that no such effect has been discovered)

>> .. which considerably unifies the speeds before
>> they leave the frame's 'sphere of influence'.
>>>>> >You are forgetting I gave you the approximation
>>>> >for the Doppler when beyond the critical distance
>>>> >which I suspect you haven't even got round to
>>>> >putting into your program yet. If you intend to
>>>> >use it around or below the critical distance, you
>>>> >need to combine that with the velocity term which
>>>> >predominates below critical.
>>>> I will endeavour to include the expected OBSERVED doppler relationship 
>>>> in the
>>>> program. I appreciate that it is important...and it shouldn't be very
>>>> difficult. I just never got around to it before.
>>>You also need to include the extinction effect. It should
>>>be easy too as the speed approaches c exponentially.
>>>You can define a "reduced distance" based on the actual
>>>observer range and the extinction length and use that
>>>for your calculations.
>> But that wouldn't reveal much because we cannot assume that unification 
>> rates
>> are anywhere near the same everywhere.
>Close to stars they may vary but once they reach open
>space the ISM is going to be fairly consistent. Any
>significant concentrations will be detectable due to
>the dimming and reddening they would cause.

If matter was the culprit maybe...but not if 'fields' or other factors were the
cause of the unification.

>> On the other hand, if we know the real distance and we know the predicted
>> distance for a particular light curve, we can get an idea of the 
>> unification
>> rate for that star.
>You don't need to know the real distance, beyond a few
>times the extinction distance no further change happens
>to the curves because what you call the "time compression"
>effect ceases. We are so far from even the nearest stars
>that it is always the case.

No it depends on other factors too.
I don't think you fully understand how 'time compression' works.

It goes like this.
Under the right conditions, much of the light from a section of a star's orbit
might arrive at an observer over a very short time interval. For instance, the
light emitted by a star during a one month period might all arrive on Earth in
less than one day. Consequently any periodic event that occurs on the star will
appear to have a frequency 30 times higher than actual. 
The prime example is when the 'star' is actually a binary pair in a fast orbit,
which is moving as a whole in a much slower orbit around a larger centre of




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