On 1 Mar 2006 04:57:31 -0800, "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 28 Feb 2006 06:05:49 -0800, "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Let me remind you of what you said:
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:50:14 -0000, "George Dishman"
>> Not exactly. I visualise the universe as behaving like any other turbulent
>> except that the density of its matter is generally so low that it has very
>> little effect on light speed. I am suggesting lots of randomly moving 'local
>> aethers' that can change the speed of any light entering to a very small
>> >I'm not talking of blurring, ballistic theory
>> >predicts we should see multiple copies of sharp
>> Ah that's where you and De Sitter are wrong. Light speed unification puts an
>> end to that theory. Star brightness curves don't seem to change much beyond a
>> certain distance....a distance that depends on conditions.
>So you have been describing "lots of randomly moving 'local
>aethers'" through which light moves and which change the
>speed of the light as it passes through that aether. an aether
>that behaves "like any other turbulent gas".
An 'aether' fully determines light speed, which can have only one value in that
aether. My concet is nothing like that. Why are you so confused about this.
>> Photons have effective size and shape and retain those features as they
>> self-propagate at c wrt their source.
>> An experiment to determine c via Maxwell's constants determines c in the
>> of the apparatus used, 'c' being the speed of light wrt a light source in
>> frame. It says nothing about light arriving in that frame.
>Wrong, Maxwell's equations tell you that changes to the
>electric field affects the magnetic and vice versa which
>means the constants in those equations determine the
>speed at which those changes propagate, ALL changes,
>which means they tell you the speed of ALL light regardless
>of the source. That's why they cannot apply to ballistic theory.
Maxwell's theory is Lorentz invariant because it was assumed that the
'''measured''' values of the constants would always be the same in a vacuum
irrespective of observer movement through the 'aether'.
I see no connection between light emitted in the frame that determines 'c' via
Maxwell and light arriving from other moving sources.
You say measurements in other moving frames would also produce the same value
Obviously this leads to an impossibility. You cannot have two differenty moving
observers coming up with the same value for the speed of a particular light
beam...unless there is genuine physical contraction in the instruments used to
measure that speed as well as the two constants. That means you need AN
Your argument requires an aether George.
>> >Your words Henry, "like any other turbulent gas", and
>> >it does have a major effect since without it De Sitter's
>> >argument prevails. Your model is nothing more than
>> >a dragged aether theory but for some (philosophical?)
>> >reason you want to graft in speed dependence as well.
>> De Sitter was wrong for reasons other than extinction.
>Speed unification by the "turbulent gas aether" is the
>only explanation you have offerred so far.
De Sitter assumed that what he was observing was real when in fact all his data
>> Yes, they are very interesting. It's hard to imagine such enormous magnetic
>> Current pulsar theory does not generally conflict with the BaTh
>No, I'm not suggesting there is a conflict in the mechanism
>by which the light is generated, the point of the pulses is that
>we know they stay in the same order they were emitted over
>very long distances even though, in the case of pulsars in binary
>systems, the speed of the source is varying considerably. That
>gives you a useful measure which constrains your "speed
Some Pulsar frequencies tend to drift slowly. That's OK.
But one point you are missing is that if the system lies well beyond the
critical distance, all kinds of strange effects may be expected. Frequency can
be grossly exaggerated, for instance.
>> >> I imagine that unification is a complex process involving more than one
>> >> factor.
>> >> I would be speculating if I gave you a better answer than that.
>> >But that's all you ever do Henry, it is all
>> >speculation until you publish the maths :-)
>> Computer simulations are far more effective and illustrative than the maths..
>You need the maths first before you can program the
>simulation.Without programming in the rate at which
>speed is unified, you cannot predict the brightness
>or doppler curve.
Unfortunately it takes a lot of processing time. My program includes it in the
'wavefront demo' but not in the brightness curves.
>> >> It's hard to get hold of spectral information for variable stars anyway.
>> >That's no excuse, you can still publish
>> >what your program predicts.
>> My latest findings will cause a few ripples in atronomical circles. Wait for
>I've been waiting a long time Henry, you seem to spend
>all your time arguing and not making any real progress.
>Including speed unification in your variable star program
>and adding the predicted curve would be a start.
Curve shape is more important at this stage.
>My expectation is that you will not do either because you
>already know it will prove you wrong, but I can hope to be
>pleasantly surprised. The ball's in your court though, as
George, I have made some very interesting discoveries recently.
Einstein's supposedly unique brightness curve for gravitational lensing is
exactly producable using BaTh principles alone.