[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment

Subject: Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment
From: Henri Wilson
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 21:53:44 GMT
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
On 14 Mar 2006 05:33:51 -0800, "George Dishman" <[email protected]>

>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 21:41:28 -0000, "George Dishman" 
>> <[email protected]>
>> wrote:

>> >What you said is that you don't accept "the idea
>> >of an absolute aether" but that you can apply
>> >Maxwell's equations. Now if you have read what I
>> >said above and thought about how you would program
>> >it, you should understand you cannot use Maxwell's
>> >Equations if you think light behaves ballistically.
>> I can if I assume that Maxwells' equations produce a value for c, which is 
>> the
>> speed of light relative to its source.
>But they don't, Maxwell's equations produce the value
>relative to the screen of your program. Look at how I
>described the code and realise that the pixel calculation
>doesn't use any information about the source, only the
>present value of the neighbouring pixels and past value
>of the same pixel.

But according to SR, I can move my screen sideways 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

>> >> ... is the plain fact that according to SR, all
>> >> light in the universe traveling in any particular direction is moving at
>> >> the
>> >> same speed.
>> >> Note, my use of the expression 'same speed' needs no reference
>> >> object. The value of that speed is also irrelevant.
>> >> You can see that happening at:
>> >>
>> >> You you deny that SR makes this 'aetherian' claim?
>> >
>> >SR makes one claim (postulate), that the speed is
>> >independent of the spped of the source. That comes
>> >directly from Maxwell's Equations as you have seen
>> >above.
>> Which, as I have pointed out many times leads to an impossibility ...
>Which I have pointed out equally often is an untrue
>assertion, it only conflicts with your philosophy.

What is untrue about it?

How can two differently moving observers at the same location get the same
value for c via Maxwell and also measure the OWLS of a single light pulse to
also be 'c'.
It is clearly impossible.

>> unless one
>> assumes absolute space.
>> (even if two differently moving observers get the same values for the
>> constants, it is obvious that a pulse of light cannot travel at the same 
>> speed
>> wrt both)
>> >>>> The explanation might be difficult to find but it
>> >>>> has to exist. I have offered several suggestions already that might
>> >>>> provide a
>> >>>> clue.
>> >>>
>> >>>All of which are incompatible with Maxwell's Equations
>> >>>since they require speeds other than c. That was my point.
>> >>
>> >> Maxwell's equations require a reference for speed.
>> >
>> >Look at the equations, they tell you what it is.
>> >
>> >> It WAS and still IS, an absolute aether.
>> >
>> >Wrong, if aether is moving wrt the x,t coordinates
>> >used in the equations then a wave moving at c wrt
>> >the aether is not a valid solution of the equations.
>> >I know the philosophical views held at the time but
>> >the equations do not permit it.
>> That's a strange way to express what you are trying to prove.
>> The Aether doesn't MOVE. Things move wrt IT.
>I see you have forgotten even Galilean relativity :-)

No George, I often refer to the aether concept to demonstrate that SR is
identical to it.

>> >>>
>> >>>They don't need to be, it is fundamental to the
>> >>>equations that they are constants so can be measured
>> >>>in the lab at varying densities and extrapolated to
>> >>>a vacuum.
>> >>
>> >> All Maxwell produces is a value of the universal constant 'c' anyway.
>> >
>> >Right, and all propagating waves must travel at
>> >that speed if they are to be valid solutions.
>> Only in a medium.
>Nope, Maxwell's Equations still give the same result
>if you apply them to a perfect vacuum.

But 'Light speed' in a perfect vacuum has no physical meaning. What is the
reference for that speed? A perfect vacuum contains an infinite number of
differently moving imaginary points. To which one does Maxwell's 'c' refer?

The whole theory is ridiculous without a light carrying medium.

>> Otherwise light moves at c wrt its source. What other speed referece does it
>> have?
>Rhetorical questions don't alter the equations, and
>they only allow one speed for their solution. Perhaps
>you should get out a maths text book that covers
>solving differential equations.

No George. Maxwell's equations allow for an infinite number of speeds in a
perfect vacuum. One speed for every differently moving imaginary point.

>> >> George, if two differently moving observers measure the constants at the
>> >> same
>> >> point (as they pass each other) do they both come up with the same value
>> >> for
>> >> 'c'?
>> >
>> >They wouldn't be "universal constants" if they didn't.
>> >
>> >> If you consider a single pulse of light approaching the two, what does
>> >> that
>> >> imply? According to you, both calculate its speed to be c.
>> >
>> >That is the only valid solution to the equations, yes.
>> >
>> >> <-O1----------------<-p-----------
>> >> ->O2
>> >>
>> >> Your claim is clearly impossible ...
>> >
>> >It's not a claim Henry, basic calculus proves it.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> ... unless the LTs apply and 'v' is absolute.
>> >
>> >You can derive the transforms from them. That is exactly
>> >what Einstein did.
>> 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. He used an absolute medium.

>> >> ....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. If I
wanted to solve them I would look it up in a book somewhere.

That doesn't alter the fact that speed can only be specified relative to
something. Maxwell's 'c' is merely a constant.

>> There is only one solution. Light initially moves at c wrt its source.
>Nope, it has the same value of dx/dt for all sources
>regardless of the motion of the source. Read the page.

Which is nonsense of course UNLESS AN AETHER EXISTS in which case every
differently moving observer would really be measuring a different relative
light speed but wouldn't be aware of the fact.

>> What
>> other factors are you claiming for the determination of light speed wrt its
>> source, George?
>I'm not claiming any factors at all, just pointing out
>that Maxwell's Equations only allow one speed
>for all sources. It's simple maths Henry, you don't
>even need to consider the physics.

You are repeating the same meaningless drivel over and over.
Either you accept that you are stating 'light speed moves at c wrt its source'
or you must accept an absolute aether.

>> >> in the case of
>> >> two differently moving observers. A single light pulse cannot approach
>> >> both at
>> >> 'c'.
>> >> Can you not see the error you are making?
>> >
>> >I can see you are ignoring basic calculus. If you don't
>> >want to have a single speed for light from differently
>> >moving sources then you cannot use Maxwell's Equations.
>> >the choice is yours Henry, you cannot have it both ways.
>> I cannot use maxwell's method without an aether unless I accept that it 
>> merely
>> provides a value for the constant c, which is also the speed of light wrt its
>> source.
>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.
In a perfect vacuum, there is no such frame. Maxwell's c therefore produces an
infinite number of 'speeds'.

>> >I understand, the critical distance is da/c^2 as
>> >we discussed some time ago and it's just the ratio
>> >of the actual distance to that value that matters,
>> >however when I changed distance from 0.001 light
>> >years to 3000 light years, the light curve was
>> >unaffected. That can't be right! I'm sure it's a
>> >simple bug or maybe there's an "update" button I
>> >need to press and didn't notice.
>> It works pefectly well for me.
>Well previously you had a button I missed or maybe
>the program got into a state where it didn't update
>the display, just tell me what settings to use.

Just run it with the default settings. Then change the distance to say 0.5. 

>> If your distances are well beyond eth critical
>> one, you wont see much difference ...but the light curve is pretty meaningles
>> there anyway because it if a sufficient number of orbits were included it 
>> would
>> be flat.
>That's right, but it never went flat, it retained the
>same curve as when close to the critical distance.

The curves are only of value before the critical distance is reached.
After that too many multiple images appear (if extinction is not considered).

>> >>>
>> >>>Try modelling the pulsar and see if you can
>> >>>get sensible results, if so tell me what
>> >>>numbers to enter into the screens.
>> >>
>> >> I will need its distance and frequency.....also its brightness curve
>> >> shape.
>> >> Pulsars are not good subjects for my program.
>> >
>> >Distance is 3617 light years, orbital period
>> >1.5 days, circular orbit of diameter 3.8 light
>> >seconds using conventional analysis. Using Ritz
>> >the diameter is undefined though probably not
>> >to significant for the reasons I gave a few days
>> >ago, but the key element will be the inclination.
>> Apparently the orbit is edge on.
>> ..but this is a clear case of trying to establish reality for a willusion.
>I think even with ballistic theory, the dip would
>suggest near grazing, but that's the point, you
>have complete freedom to determine an
>alternative orbit from the data using your
>> We simply cannot believe any of these readings.
>Of course we can trust the readings, they aren't
>in question, it is the _interpretation_ of the readings
>that you need to revise using ballistic theory. If you
>can't, ballistic theory is falsified by observation again.

You wish, George.
Observing distant stars is a lot more complicated that looking at something
across the road, where light speed doesn't matter.



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