[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment

Subject: Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment
From: "George Dishman"
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 21:16:24 -0000
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message 
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:02:26 -0000, "George Dishman" 
> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 00:02:35 -0000, "George Dishman"
>>> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>The whole of "physics as we know it" is based on
>>relativity, you are trying to resurrect physics
>>from the nineteenth century.
> You are right. A whole section of physics has been hijacked by Einstein 
> and his
> followers and is now heading nowhere with all the symptoms of genetic
> inbreeding.
>>>>> 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.
>>No, they tell you there is one speed in any frame,
>>and that applies to all sources. Your argument is
>>forgetting the effects of the formula for adding
>>velocities in "physics as we know it".
> Second postulate: w = c = c(c+v)/c+v) = (c+v)/1+cv/c^2)
> How could I possibly forget this logical masterpiece, George?

It seems you have forgotten, the postulate is
that the speed is independent of the speed of
the source.

>>> Yes George, they give a value for the constant c, which is also light 
>>> sped
>>> wrt its source.
>>Or the aether, or the apparatus, depending on
>>which of your posts I read.
> The apparatus isn't infinite.

The coordinate axes in Maxwell's Equations are.

>>>>> 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 point is, you seem to have lost the
>>ability to read equations.
> This argument is not about maths.

Yes it is, maths and nothing else. I said to
you that Maxwell's Equations are incompatible
with Ritz's ballistic theory which is something
you can confirm on PURELY mathematical grounds.

>>>>> 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.
>>Or the aether, or the apparatus, or the source
>>depending on which of your posts I read.
>>> Lorentz thought of that first, you know.
>>Before Maxwell gathered the equations?
> You arguments are degenerating George.

Your knowledge of history is degenerate.

>>> ,,,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 cannot name a repeatable experiment in
>>which GR gives an inaccurate prediction.
> that would be because much of GR is exactly the same as the BaTh gravity
> theory.

Ritz's theory doesn't include gravity.

>>>>>>> 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.
>>Many people were involved, but you get the
>>point. All that investigation produced a
>>set of equations, and Einstein derived SR
>>from those, the process was not circular.
> The overiding fact George, is the speed must always have a reference.
> In Maxwell's case, it was the absolute aether.

The overiding fact Henry is that your claim of
"circular logic" is nonsense.

>>> 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.
>>One speed for all light, that's the point.
> That's the MEANINGLESS point that you keep repeating.

I made a simple point, that Maxwell's Equation
only allow one speed for light so they cannot
be used to describe the Ritzian model for light.
You have turned into a never-ending saga for no
reason I can fathm.

> Light moves initially at c wrt its source. That's all we can say.

On the contrary, Sagnac proved that it doesn't.

>>> 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.
>>> PULSE.
>>The value of c from the equations IS "the one-way
>>speed of light".
> At least you got that one right.
> Now do you agree it is impossible (above)?

Your philosophy says it is impossible, Sagnac
showed it is true therefore your philosophy is
wrong. That is MY logic.

>>> (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.
>>Most people felt that an aether would explain EM
>>phenomena but actually that's not what led him
>>to the solution AIUI. The key change he made was
>>to add the displacement current and the reasoning
>>behind that was from conservation of charge.
> There is no charge in a perfect vacuum devoid of fields.

Right, so where does the current go that enters
a capacitor? Maxwell extended Ampere's Law by
treating the rate of change of the field between
the plates as "displacement current".

> That's what most of
> space is made of. That's why packages of EM travel across vast distances 
> of it
> at c wrt their sources.
> When they enter a telescope or the plates of a capacitor, they probably 
> slow
> very rapidly to the natural light speed set by its 'local aether'.

There you go again Henry, using the "aether" word
for your own theory ;-)

>>> We don't know how often we see multiple images. They don't carry a sign
>>> saying,
>>> "I have twenty-five indentical brothers".
>>Yes they do, the Doppler shift. When you look at
>>a line in a spectroscopic binary, you should see
>>several lines, some rising, others falling because
>>each if the overlapping images was transmitted from
>>a different point in the orbit.
> Without extinction effects, a multiple image will suddenly appear in a 
> bright
> flash after which two separate images will move in oposite directions away 
> from
> the point where the flash occured.
> This kind of phenomenon is never likely to be seen however because stars 
> which
> exhibit it will always be too far away for sufficient resolution.

You don't need to resolve them, spectroscopic binaries
should show the effect. Of course Sekerin's value for
the "speed extinction" effect would eliminate it quite

Incidentally, since the speeds (c+v and c-v) converge
exponentially, the limit as D tends to infinity is
finite and beyond some distance, the effect would
become essentially unchanging (below the photometry
resolution). I think you can incorporate that in your
program just by fixing the distance at 0.0047 light
years for all stars. The nearest to us is 850 times
that distance and e^-850 is _very_ small.


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