"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
> On 1 Mar 2006 04:57:31 -0800, "George Dishman" <[email protected]>
>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>> On 28 Feb 2006 06:05:49 -0800, "George Dishman"
>>> <[email protected]>
>>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"
>>> <[email protected]>
>>> Not exactly. I visualise the universe as behaving like any other
>>> turbulent gas,
>>> except that the density of its matter is generally so low that it has
>>> little effect on light speed. I am suggesting lots of randomly moving
>>> 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
> aether. My concet is nothing like that.
Let me remind you of a post from a couple of weeks ago
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 11:41:08 -0000, "George Dishman"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>AIUI you describe something
>>like releasing a lead ball at rest on the surface
>>of a pond compared with firing a bullet downwards.
>>The first will speed up while the second slows but
>>eventually both approach the same speed.
> Actually that is not a bad analogy for extreme cases.
> Maybe you DO have some physics ability after all.
That is how I understand your concept.
> ... Why are you so confused about this.
I'm not confused, I'm just reflecting your own term.
You keep calling it an aether.
>>> 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 that
>>> 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
> irrespective of observer movement through the 'aether'.
And since we both agree there is no aether
to move through, that is reasonable.
> I see no connection between light emitted in the frame that determines 'c'
> Maxwell and light arriving from other moving sources.
> You say measurements in other moving frames would also produce the same
> for c.
No. Consider two sources sending light through a
S1 ----> | |
S2 ----> | |
Source S1 is moving to the right while source S2
is moving to the left. Measure the parameters of
the block and Maxwell's Equations will tell you
the speed that a change in the fields on the left
edge of the block will propagate to the right.
> Obviously this leads to an impossibility.
No, it just conflicts with your philosophy.
> You cannot have two differenty moving
> observers coming up with the same value for the speed of a particular
Same speed, same observer, different beams, but
same speed for different observers is also true
although that's not what I said.
> unless there is genuine physical contraction in the instruments used to
> measure that speed as well as the two constants.
Nope, you just need Riemann geometry, no
> That means you need AN
> Your argument requires an aether George.
Or the right geometry.
>>> >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
> was Willusory.
He assumed when he saw only one line on a stellar
spectrum that ther really was only one line. That
isn't an illusion. Ballistic theory predicts
multiple copies of each line beyond the critical
>>> Yes, they are very interesting. It's hard to imagine such enormous
>>> 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.
Yes, the spin gradually reduces but that's easily
separated, it is on scales of millions of years.
> 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
> be grossly exaggerated, for instance.
It is grossly exaggerated _below_ the critical distance.
Beyond it curves fold over and you get multiple copies.
Have you read this?
Look at the graphs near the bottom and on page 3.
>>> >> 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
>>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
> 'wavefront demo' but not in the brightness curves.
You can download the program from the above site
from page 4.
>>> >> 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
>>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.
Unless you include the extinction, the shapes will
be wrong. Note the site talks of extinction distances
as low as 0.0045 light years (also page 4).