wilson time and tidal forces on stars
alistair
each other apart?Is Wilson time the answer and what exactly is it? I
gather that
it has something to do with the speed or frequency of emitted waves
depending on the speed of the emitter.
Dirk Van de moortel
"alistair" <alis...@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:861c1b21.0404...@posting.google.com...
> Why do two stars whose gravity should tear each other apart not tear
> each other apart?
Don't they teach people to properly think and form a sentence in the UK?
> Is Wilson time the answer and what exactly is it? I
> gather that
> it has something to do with the speed or frequency of emitted waves
> depending on the speed of the emitter.
Wilson is an imbecile.
The concept "Wilson time" was coined by Androcles, another imbecile.
Now, yet another imbecile with the name "alistair", has a silly question
about it.
What is this? sci.physics.imbeciles?
Dirk Vdm
Paul B. Andersen
> Why do two stars whose gravity should tear each other apart not tear
> each other apart?
What a strange question.
Binary stars whose gravity should tear them apart do.
But binary stars can be in very close orbit before that will happen.
The stars that Androcles say should tear each other apart
don't because they shouldn't.
The minimum distance between two stars (or other bodies)
before they are torn apart is called the Roche limit.
For example, the Roche limit for the Earth-Moon system
is ca. 10 200 km. Since the radius of the Earth is 6 400 km
and the radius of the Moon is 1 700 km, that means that
the distance between the surfaces would be only 2 100 km,
less than the diameter of the Moon!
The same is the case for stars. They can be so close
to each other that the distance between them is in
the order of - or even less than their radius without
being torn apart. The orbital period for so close binaries
is in the order of hours.
> Is Wilson time the answer and what exactly is it? I
> gather that
> it has something to do with the speed or frequency of emitted waves
> depending on the speed of the emitter.
It is utter nonsense.
There is no mystery to solve.
Paul
Androcles
"alistair" <alis...@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:861c1b21.0404...@posting.google.com...
See http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WilsonTime.htm
Androcles
Androcles
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
news:c69bmv$5r$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
| "alistair" <alis...@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk> skrev i
melding
news:861c1b21.0404...@posting.google.com...
| > Why do two stars whose gravity should tear each other
apart not tear
| > each other apart?
|
| What a strange question.
| Binary stars whose gravity should tear them apart do.
|
| But binary stars can be in very close orbit before that
will happen.
|
| The stars that Androcles say should tear each other apart
| don't because they shouldn't.
Nonsense. Even under the perfect conditions you describe RV
Psc cannot last for more than 44 million years, and that is
negligible on astronomical time scales. The Earth has been
orbitting the sun for 4000 million years at least, as the
fossil record shows. You want to claim that suddenly the
pair came into existence with a perfectly circular orbit
less than 44 million years ago, which is absurd.
|
| The minimum distance between two stars (or other bodies)
| before they are torn apart is called the Roche limit.
| For example, the Roche limit for the Earth-Moon system
| is ca. 10 200 km. Since the radius of the Earth is 6 400
km
| and the radius of the Moon is 1 700 km, that means that
| the distance between the surfaces would be only 2 100 km,
| less than the diameter of the Moon!
|
| The same is the case for stars. They can be so close
| to each other that the distance between them is in
| the order of - or even less than their radius without
| being torn apart. The orbital period for so close binaries
| is in the order of hours.
However, because the speed of light is source dependent,
Wilson time gives a much greater real orbital period than
the apparent orbital period.
|
| > Is Wilson time the answer and what exactly is it? I
| > gather that
| > it has something to do with the speed or frequency of
emitted waves
| > depending on the speed of the emitter.
|
| It is utter nonsense.
| There is no mystery to solve.
|
| Paul
When nTaul say it is utter nonsense, you have to remember
that nTaul thinks
dtau/dt = 0 < 1,
tau = (t+vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),
0.5 = 2.0,
-4.0 = 0.866 * 4.619
and a light beam cannot be shone down a chimney,
and when challenged shows a fat bottom lip
Androcles
alistair
and that gravitons adjust the speed of light after it has left the
emitter
to make it c m/s.This way relativistic physics is a natural
progression of Newtonian physics.
Androcles
"alistair" <alis...@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:861c1b21.0404...@posting.google.com...
the emitter
That's fairly sensible and I'll agree with you. Those that
have the relativity religion wouldn't believe you, though.
They think the speed of light is supernatural, the same for
everyone no matter how we move.
| and that gravitons adjust the speed of light after it has
left the
| emitter
Well, I can see light easily enough. I've neve seen a
graviton, though. What is it?
| to make it c m/s.This way relativistic physics is a
natural
| progression of Newtonian physics.
Actually, it's a step backwards. But never mind, it'll all
get straightened out eventually.
Androcles
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"alistair" <alis...@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:861c1b21.0404...@posting.google.com...
> I think that the speed of light depends on the speed of the emitter
It doesn't. The heavens would look a whole lot different if it did. The
Moon would appear to eclipse high z (fast moving and distant) objects
*after* it has eclipsed low z (or local) objects. This has not been
observed.
> and that gravitons adjust the speed of light after it has left the
> emitter
> to make it c m/s.
There are no gravitons. They are sought to make certain mathematical
models simpler. So were magnetic monopoles.
>This way relativistic physics is a natural
> progression of Newtonian physics.
It *is* a natural progression, like evolution. It is applicable where c <
infinity, where for Newton c = infinity. Newton begat Special Relativity
which in turn begat General Relativity. When you can measure precisely
enough, you find that Newton made some "simplifying assumptions" that are
inaccurate when v is very far from 0.
David A. Smith
luke
<jp006...@spamnotblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"alistair" <alis...@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:861c1b21.0404...@posting.google.com...
>| I think that the speed of light depends on the speed of
>the emitter
>
>That's fairly sensible and I'll agree with you.
Androcles you are the most die hard corpusculist I have ever heard.
Does the speed of sound depend on the speed of the emitter?
Why should light speed depend on emitter speed?
> Those that
>have the relativity religion wouldn't believe you, though.
>They think the speed of light is supernatural, the same for
>everyone no matter how we move.
You are confusing two issues:
1) speed of emitter (irrelevant entirely)
2) speed of observer (change of reference frame)
Anyway, we don't THINK c is the same for everyone, we DEFINE it as
such. It is a very useful definition allowing consistent use of terms
such as SECOND and METER. Unless you are a life form living in a
scale where other forces than electromagnetic are the predominant
ones, I recommend using this convention.
>
>
>Actually, it's a step backwards. But never mind, it'll all
>get straightened out eventually.
I hope you're right! - luke
EjP
"Wilson time" is time you waste on posts that have anything to
do with Wilson. This is Wilson time, for example. Wilson
time is never recovered. It is time lost that could have
been used for more intellectually rewarding pursuits, such
as watching television, drinking beer, or merely staring
into space.
For future reference, Androcles and Wilson are retards.
Don't waste time seriously considering any of their posts.
-E
alistair
Rest masses don't have an exact speed all the time and I don't see why
light should either especially since photons can beget particles with
rest mass.
SR makes an unproven distinction between rest mass and photons-it
might be mathematically accurate on average but I bet if we could
examine the speed of light over very short intervals it would not be
constant.
John Kennaugh
<fun...@yahoo.com> writes
>On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:31:38 +0100, "Androcles"
><jp006...@spamnotblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"alistair" <alis...@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:861c1b21.0404...@posting.google.com...
>>| I think that the speed of light depends on the speed of
>>the emitter
>>
>>That's fairly sensible and I'll agree with you.
>
>Androcles you are the most die hard corpusculist I have ever heard.
>
>Does the speed of sound depend on the speed of the emitter?
No it doesn't because it is constant w.r.t the medium propagating it.
Exactly what was your point?
MMX showed there was no propagating medium. The discovery of the photon
showed that light was made up of particle which don't need a propagating
medium so the fact that MMX couldn't find one was not a problem.
>Why should light speed depend on emitter speed?
What else can it depend on? If there is no propagating medium then a
source is surrounded by nothing which can effect the speed of light so
the only reference point which the speed of light can be constant w.r.t
is the source.
Lorentz of course wouldn't accept that the wave/ether theory was wrong
so came up with a fiddle to explain MMX, but then no one had yet
discovered photons so he may be forgiven.
Maybe you should ask yourself where Einstein got his second postulate
from? It assumes source independence which was dogma associated with
wave/ether theory as in "the speed of light cannot be effected by the
speed of the source because it is constant w.r.t the ether". The second
postulate says that the speed of light is constant w.r.t the observer!
Maybe you can suggest a causal mechanism by which an observer can
influence the speed at which light leaves a distant source as required
by the second postulate.
--
John Kennaugh
to email take 'yourfinger' out
Androcles
"John Kennaugh" <jo...@kennaugh.yourfingerdemon.co.uk> wrote
in message
news:BZqEDdD$aYiA...@kennaughyourfinger.demon.co.uk...
| In message <gmji80hauklsnah9j...@4ax.com>,
luke
| <fun...@yahoo.com> writes
| >On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:31:38 +0100, "Androcles"
| ><jp006...@spamnotblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
| >
| >>
| >>"alistair" <alis...@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
message
| >>news:861c1b21.0404...@posting.google.com...
| >>| I think that the speed of light depends on the speed
of
| >>the emitter
| >>
| >>That's fairly sensible and I'll agree with you.
| >
| >Androcles you are the most die hard corpusculist I have
ever heard.
Indeed I am. Photons are corpuscular light. However, radio
waves are indeed waves, not photons.
A ripple on water is a wave, until the wave amplitude is
reduced to the "height" of a molecule of water. Then the
wave ceases to propagate and quantum effects predominate,
taking on the form of brownian motion dispersing the energy
deeply into the water, and evaporation, leaving a visible
mist of water above. Take a look at Niagara Falls if you
want the see an extreme "wave" (energy transfer) turn into
mist.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/50/destinations/niagara_50/
Quite right, John
Androcles.
luke
>
> [...]
> I bet if we could
> examine the speed of light over very short intervals it would not be
> constant.
If by speed you mean "meters per second", than you can prove yourself
wrong by looking these terms up in the dictionary.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"alistair" <alis...@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:861c1b21.0404...@posting.google.com...
You really should leave some trace of the person's handle in your response,
so they know to whom you reply.
> I couldn't agree less!
> Rest masses don't have an exact speed all the time
Are you referring to uncertainty (which is just a *measurement* problem),
or to thermal motion within the body?
> and I don't see why
> light should either especially since photons can beget particles with
> rest mass.
Because nothing can affect photons directly, then there is no reason to
assume they have different speeds.
> SR makes an unproven distinction between rest mass and photons-
SR says *nothing* about photons. It talks about light, and signals.
Photons are quantum objects, and SR does not apply to them "individually".
>it
> might be mathematically accurate on average but I bet if we could
> examine the speed of light over very short intervals it would not be
> constant.
It is *exactly* constant, by definition. In fact the meter is *defined* by
the speed of light and time. So by *definiton*, the speed of light is
always constant.
David A. Smith
Androcles
"luke" <fun...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gmji80hauklsnah9j...@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:31:38 +0100, "Androcles"
| <jp006...@spamnotblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
|
| >
| >"alistair" <alis...@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
message
| >news:861c1b21.0404...@posting.google.com...
| >| I think that the speed of light depends on the speed of
| >the emitter
| >
| >That's fairly sensible and I'll agree with you.
|
| Androcles you are the most die hard corpusculist I have
ever heard.
|
| Does the speed of sound depend on the speed of the
emitter?
Yes, it does.
All speeds are relative. If you approach a sound source,
then you are increasing
the velocity of the sound as you move through the air. It is
this idea that Michelson was trying to exploit, and when he
failed he was forced to abandon aether.
Doppler knew it, his equation is
f' = f(c+/-u)/(c+/-v) where v is the speed of the source and
u is the speed of the observer relative to the air.
| Why should light speed depend on emitter speed?
Because all speeds are relative, of course. MMX will work on
a plane just as it will on the ground, because the speed of
light is added to the speed of the plane, which is also the
speed of the source.
|
| > Those that
| >have the relativity religion wouldn't believe you,
though.
| >They think the speed of light is supernatural, the same
for
| >everyone no matter how we move.
|
| You are confusing two issues:
|
| 1) speed of emitter (irrelevant entirely)
Not at all. You dont seem to understand the Principle of
Relativity. Its really quite simple. All speed are relative
to something. The speed of the ISS relative to the ground is
17,000 mph, and the speed of the docking shuttle is 17,005
mph, so they approach at 17,005 - 17,000 = 5 mph. Hence the
relative speed of the ISS and the shuttle is 5 mph.
|
| 2) speed of observer (change of reference frame)
If I'm the observer on the ISS, the speed of the shuttle is
5 mph and my speed is zero. The ground is going backwards
at -17000 mph.
if I'm the observer on the shuttle, my speed is 0 mph, the
ISS has speed -5mph and the ground is going backwards
(-17005 mph)
If I'm the observer on the ground, the speeds are 17000 mph
and 17005 mph, and my own speed is zero.
|
| Anyway, we don't THINK c is the same for everyone, we
DEFINE it as
| such.
Which is abject stupidity.
| It is a very useful definition allowing consistent use of
terms
| such as SECOND and METER.
As long as you are at rest with respect to the source,
sure.
| Unless you are a life form living in a
| scale where other forces than electromagnetic are the
predominant
| ones, I recommend using this convention.
Nobody is claiming the velocity of light isn't c with
respect to the source, but claiming it is c with respect to
the observer is beyond all scientific sense and reason, it
is supernatural.
| >
| >Actually, it's a step backwards. But never mind, it'll
all
| >get straightened out eventually.
|
| I hope you're right! - luke
Oh, it will, once the insanity of the 20th Century is put
behind us.
The alternative is a return to the dark ages with witches
and warlocks, black cats walking under ladders and all the
paraphernalia of religious and superstitious belief, the
sort of nonsense Ptolemy kept alive for 1400 years.
"The most recent accusations of forgery made against Ptolemy
came from Newton in [12]. He begins this book by stating
clearly his views:-
This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime
committed by a scientist against fellow scientists and
scholars, a betrayal of the ethics and integrity of his
profession that has forever deprived mankind of fundamental
information about an important area of astronomy and
history.
Towards the end Newton, having claimed to prove every
observation claimed by Ptolemy in the Almagest was
fabricated, writes [12]:-
[Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and
discovered that they were not consistent with observation.
Instead of abandoning the theories, he deliberately
fabricated observations from the theories so that he could
claim that the observations prove the validity of his
theories. In every scientific or scholarly setting known,
this practice is called fraud, and it is a crime against
science and scholarship. "
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Ptolemy.html
I accuse Einstein of the same crime. Einstein was a fucking
fraud, and you've been suckered.
Of course, having to admit you've been made a fool of is
difficult, but if you insist on him being right, you'll just
get in deeper and be a fraud yourself.
So will the voice of reason prevail, or do you still claim
the speed of light is the same for all observers?
Androcles.
rus...@mdli.com
<jp006...@spamnotblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>| Does the speed of sound depend on the speed of the
>emitter?
>
>Yes, it does.
>All speeds are relative. If you approach a sound source,
>then you are increasing
>the velocity of the sound as you move through the air.
That doesn't answer the previous poster's question.
He asked about *source* dependence. Keep yourself stationary wrt the
air, and allow the emitter of the sound to change its speed. Does the
speed of the sound change, relative to you?
(Yes I know the frequency changes, but I am asking about the speed.)
[snip]
luke
> | >>| I think that the speed of light depends on the speed
> of
> | >>the emitter
> | >>
> | >>That's fairly sensible and I'll agree with you.
> | >
> | >Androcles you are the most die hard corpusculist I have
> ever heard.
>
> Indeed I am. Photons are corpuscular light. However, radio
> waves are indeed waves, not photons.
> A ripple on water is a wave, until the wave amplitude is
> reduced to the "height" of a molecule of water. Then the
> wave ceases to propagate and quantum effects predominate,
> taking on the form of brownian motion dispersing the energy
> deeply into the water, and evaporation, leaving a visible
> mist of water above. Take a look at Niagara Falls if you
> want the see an extreme "wave" (energy transfer) turn into
> mist.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/50/destinations/niagara_50/
OK, so then what do you think is the propagating medium of a radio
wave?
>
> | >
> | >Does the speed of sound depend on the speed of the
> emitter?
> |
> | No it doesn't because it is constant w.r.t the medium
> propagating it.
> | Exactly what was your point?
You made it for me.
> |
> | MMX showed there was no propagating medium.
It did no such thing.
> The discovery
> of the photon
> | showed that light was made up of particle which don't need
> a propagating
> | medium
So the discovery of the phonon - we don't need a propagating medium
for sound now either?
> |
> | Maybe you should ask yourself where Einstein got his
> second postulate
> | from? It assumes source independence which was dogma
> associated with
> | wave/ether theory as in "the speed of light cannot be
> effected by the
> | speed of the source because it is constant w.r.t the
> ether". The second
> | postulate says that the speed of light is constant w.r.t
> the observer!
> | Maybe you can suggest a causal mechanism by which an
> observer can
> | influence the speed at which light leaves a distant source
> as required
> | by the second postulate.
Sure, if I understand you right. The observer can choose his units of
space and time (lets call them m and s) so that the m/s of the emitted
light equals exactly c.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <jp006...@spamnotblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:K5iic.183$Cy6...@nurse.blueyonder.net...
Nice.
Title: The speed of sound depends on the speed of the emitter
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Sound.html
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
nothing, they play leapfrog, each recreating the other as
the fly away from the source. They obey a sine and a cosine
rule, 90 degrees out of step with each other. When one is at
maximum, the other is zero.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Radio%20Wave.htm
|
| >
| > | >
| > | >Does the speed of sound depend on the speed of the
| > emitter?
| > |
| > | No it doesn't because it is constant w.r.t the medium
| > propagating it.
| > | Exactly what was your point?
|
| You made it for me.
| > |
| > | MMX showed there was no propagating medium.
|
| It did no such thing.
It certainly did.
|
| > The discovery
| > of the photon
| > | showed that light was made up of particle which don't
need
| > a propagating
| > | medium
|
| So the discovery of the phonon - we don't need a
propagating medium
| for sound now either?
Conjecture isn't discovery.
|
| > |
| > | Maybe you should ask yourself where Einstein got his
| > second postulate
| > | from? It assumes source independence which was dogma
| > associated with
| > | wave/ether theory as in "the speed of light cannot be
| > effected by the
| > | speed of the source because it is constant w.r.t the
| > ether". The second
| > | postulate says that the speed of light is constant
w.r.t
| > the observer!
| > | Maybe you can suggest a causal mechanism by which an
| > observer can
| > | influence the speed at which light leaves a distant
source
| > as required
| > | by the second postulate.
|
| Sure, if I understand you right. The observer can choose
his units of
| space and time (lets call them m and s) so that the m/s of
the emitted
| light equals exactly c.
You can CHOOSE to call it anything you like, but don't try
to convince me you know any physics if you want to use your
own standards.
Androcles
Androcles
<rus...@mdli.com> wrote in message
news:kecj80l1nrko9sokm...@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 00:59:35 +0100, "Androcles"
| <jp006...@spamnotblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
|
| [snip]
|
| >| Does the speed of sound depend on the speed of the
| >emitter?
| >
| >Yes, it does.
| >All speeds are relative. If you approach a sound source,
| >then you are increasing
| >the velocity of the sound as you move through the air.
|
| That doesn't answer the previous poster's question.
was certainly correct.
|
| He asked about *source* dependence. Keep yourself
stationary wrt the
| air, and allow the emitter of the sound to change its
speed. Does the
| speed of the sound change, relative to you?
|
| (Yes I know the frequency changes, but I am asking about
the speed.)
|
| [snip]
You've snipped the reply I gave. If you wish to challenge
it, put it back and we'll discuss it. Otherwise I have
nothing further to say. I'm not going to paste it back for
you.
Androcles
alistair
> Dear alistair:
>
Because nothing can affect photons directly, then there is no reason to
assume they have different speeds.
How do you know this?
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"alistair" <alis...@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:861c1b21.04042...@posting.google.com...
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:<HUhic.38625$Yf6.7608@fed1read07>...
Thank you. It makes it much easier to see with whom you are intending to
converse...
> > Dear alistair:
> >
> > Because nothing can affect photons directly, then there is no reason to
> > assume they have different speeds.
>
> How do you know this?
We have identified a number of mechanisms that affect a light beam.
Photons can be emitted by charges, absorbed by charges, and collided with
each other. Since it is possible to send very high data rates optically,
with good separations between on and off, it indicates that light travels
at a single speed.
David A. Smith
alistair
Photons can be emitted by charges, absorbed by charges, and collided
with
each other. Since it is possible to send very high data rates
optically,
with good separations between on and off, it indicates that light
travels
at a single speed.
David A. Smith
But all this assumes photons can't communicate with one
another.Suppose photons can send gravitons to one another and use the
gravitons energy to
adjust their speed (presumably by altering the ratio of E/ B).
HenriWilson
The universe functioned quite adequately before observers came onto the scene.
light leaving a star doesn't give a hoot about you or einstein.
Henri Wilson.
HenriWilson
Thankyou EJ, I hadn't laughed much today.
.....too busy comparing predictions of the ballistic theory of light with
variable star observations.
Guess what? They correlate 100%
Einsteinian Relativity is BULL!!!!
Henri Wilson.
John Kennaugh
rus...@mdli.com writes
>On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 00:59:35 +0100, "Androcles"
><jp006...@spamnotblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>| Does the speed of sound depend on the speed of the
>>emitter?
>>
>>Yes, it does.
>>All speeds are relative. If you approach a sound source,
>>then you are increasing
>>the velocity of the sound as you move through the air.
>
>That doesn't answer the previous poster's question.
Mine did. See my post.
John Kennaugh
>waves are indeed waves, not photons.
I am always interested in new ideas provided they have been thought
through so tell me more. At what frequency in the (so called)
electromagnetic spectrum does the changeover from waves to photons
occur? If something just on the photon side of the divide is subject to
Doppler shift does it remain a photon or does it become a wave. Are you
suggesting that the link between radio 'waves' and light is purely
superficial and none existent and they are entirely different phenomena.
>A ripple on water is a wave, until the wave amplitude is
>reduced to the "height" of a molecule of water. Then the
>wave ceases to propagate and quantum effects predominate,
>taking on the form of brownian motion dispersing the energy
>deeply into the water, and evaporation, leaving a visible
>mist of water above. Take a look at Niagara Falls if you
>want the see an extreme "wave" (energy transfer) turn into
>mist.
Surely that is saying that the quantum effects are because of the
inherently granular nature of the propagating medium. In another post
you say that light is propagated as an em wave without any medium. I
don't see the relevance of the above to your concept of light.
John Kennaugh
luke writes
>>
>> | >
>> | >Does the speed of sound depend on the speed of the
>> emitter?
>> |
>> | No it doesn't because it is constant w.r.t the medium
>> propagating it.
>> | Exactly what was your point?
>
>You made it for me.
Hmm! So what are you saying? Light is a wave propagating in a medium?
>> |
>> | MMX showed there was no propagating medium.
>
>It did no such thing.
Right so you are saying there is a medium and the only theory which
still claims that is LET. OK I don't have a problem with that. I
personally find Lorenz's ether hard to swallow but better men than I
believed in the ether for nearly 200 years so I cannot dismiss it. I
mistook you for one of those silly relativists who claim both that light
is source independent and at the same time there is no ether.
>
>> The discovery
>> of the photon
>> | showed that light was made up of particle which don't need
>> a propagating
>> | medium
>
>So the discovery of the phonon - we don't need a propagating medium
>for sound now either?
Of course we do. There are two basic models either:
1/ 'something' leaves the source, travels, and that same 'something'
arrives at the observer - photons fit into this model.
or
2/ a disturbance in a medium is propagated.
Sound is a disturbance in air. There isn't anything else, just air.
There isn't a 'sound particle' just air, and no molecule of air travels
from the source to the listener just a disturbance in the form of a
pressure wave.
The ballistic theory is based on the idea that light is made up of
particles (photons). They travel best when there is nothing to get in
their way. They are perfectly happy in a vacuum. If you fire a gun in
space the bullet doesn't stop at the end of the barrel because there is
no medium to propagate it, on the contrary there is nothing to slow it
down so may go a very, very long way. Bullets will travel through space
but in space no one can hear you scream. There is no medium to propagate
the sound. If you believe that light is a propagated disturbance like
sound then you have to believe that space is filled with a light
propagating medium.
You have therefore two possible models for light (only one for sound).
So is light - waves travelling in the ether as per LET or is it -
particles shot from the source at c as per the ballistic theory? It
obviously can't be both although that hasn't stopped the scientific
community avoiding the issue for a century nor relativists claiming that
SR is not just the mathematics of LET but a different theory while not
stating how it differs from LET. One is therefore faced with two
questions:
1/ How can waves appear to be particles?
2/ How can particles appear to be waves?
Of those two questions I think the latter is easier to answer. We have
numerous examples as to how something consisting of discreet lumps can
appear continuous. That is how a CD or a DVD works. Consider - what
appears to be a continuous wave reduces in amplitude with the square of
the distance. Imagine you are looking at it. As it gets smaller you have
to increase the magnification until low and behold you find it isn't a
continuous wave at all because you can see the individual pixels. It
isn't as simple as that but I can't even see a starting point to find an
answer to question 1.
>
>> |
>> | Maybe you should ask yourself where Einstein got his
>> second postulate
>> | from? It assumes source independence which was dogma
>> associated with
>> | wave/ether theory as in "the speed of light cannot be
>> effected by the
>> | speed of the source because it is constant w.r.t the
>> ether". The second
>> | postulate says that the speed of light is constant w.r.t
>> the observer!
>> | Maybe you can suggest a causal mechanism by which an
>> observer can
>> | influence the speed at which light leaves a distant source
>> as required
>> | by the second postulate.
>
>Sure, if I understand you right. The observer can choose his units of
>space and time (lets call them m and s) so that the m/s of the emitted
>light equals exactly c.
So if I choose my units of space and time such that m/s does not equal c
I have disproved relativity. Hey that was easier than I thought. For my
next trick I'll choose my own conversion rate between Pounds and Dollars
and make an offer for Alaska.
John Kennaugh
>>it
>> might be mathematically accurate on average but I bet if we could
>> examine the speed of light over very short intervals it would not be
>> constant.
>
>It is *exactly* constant, by definition. In fact the meter is *defined* by
>the speed of light and time. So by *definiton*, the speed of light is
>always constant.
>
>David A. Smith
Confusing statement. If you measure the speed of light between a source
and a detector a fixed distance apart (in vacuum) it will always be c.
This is what MMX showed. This is as per the first postulate of
relativity.
If you define the meter in terms of c and time then you can construct an
accurate measuring stick 1m long anywhere in the universe.
If however you use that measuring stick to set two detectors a precise
distance apart and use the time it takes light to travel from one to the
other from a moving source you would be able to check whether the speed
of light from a moving source is c as per the second postulate of
relativity or c+v as per the ballistic theory. Note that the first
postulate is common to both theories, it is the second postulate which
differentiates them.
If OTOH you assume 4 dimensional spacetime you build in the idea that
the (speed of light) x t always gives a unique value for a given value
of t and therefore you build the second postulate into the actual
geometry. That is why modern versions of relativity theory always use
the 4 rather than 3+1 dimensional approach. The purpose is to get away
from the second postulate with its highly dodgy provenance and its
absurd implications. By promoting spacetime to be the fundamental fabric
of the universe (rather than a mathematical trick to allow relativity to
be shown in the form of a diagram) it is possible to claim (as Bilge
does) that Relativity is a geometric spacetime theory which allows you
to derive all the equations without the need of the second postulate
(because it is already inherent in spacetime).
Putting it another way - Relativity is a conceptually absurd theory so
the further it can be removed from reality the less the absurdities will
be apparent.
HenriWilson
>Why do two stars whose gravity should tear each other apart not tear
>each other apart?Is Wilson time the answer and what exactly is it? I
>gather that
>it has something to do with the speed or frequency of emitted waves
>depending on the speed of the emitter.
Alistair, I assume you are a regular here posting under another name. That's
OK by me.
'Wilson Time' or rather, 'Wilson Time Focussing' refers to a very important
phenomenon associated with the ballistic light theory.
It is illustrated in my introductory demonstration
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
You will probably need windows to run it.
(A streamlined version is almost ready to replace the present one).
As a star or any other object moves around the 'concave' section of an orbit,
(concave relative to an observer) it emits light at different speeds depending
on the cosine of the angle to the observer. As it travel through space, the
faster c+v light catches up to the slower c-v. At a critical distance, most of
the light emitted over about one quarter of each orbit might arrive over a very
short period. Light emitted during the convex part of the orbit becomes
stretched through space and arrives over an artificially long period.
Any natural local periodicity of the star will appear to occur at a much higher
frequency than it actually has.
Of particular interest is the case of a binary pair in slow orbit around a
galactic centre or similar.
If the natural period is say 1 year, one thousand periods might arrive at the
distant observer over a few weeks because of time focussing.
Thus the observed period will be much shorter, maybe only hours or days.
The logical conclusion is that none of the observed high speed variable stars
are really spinning at rates that would surely make them fly apart.
Astronomy and in fact the whole of physics has been sidetracked for a century
by the Einstein '2nd postulate' hoax.
Get it?
Henri Wilson.
Dirk Van de moortel
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:vk1n8092a0602c0dr...@4ax.com...
And so is logic, right?
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LogicBull.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Stuff/BULLfighter.jpg
Dirk Vdm
HenriWilson
You ar right..... and since nobody has ever measured the one-way speed of light
under any circumstance, nobody can argue.
Henri Wilson.
HenriWilson
Smithy, how many times do you have to be told? Nothing, including light, has a
'speed'.
It can have a speed relative to something else..... but not a speed on its own.
Henri Wilson.
Dirk Van de moortel
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:lq1n80t0dt0ma99vb...@4ax.com...
> On 22 Apr 2004 08:23:59 -0700, alis...@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) wrote:
>
> >Why do two stars whose gravity should tear each other apart not tear
> >each other apart?Is Wilson time the answer and what exactly is it? I
> >gather that
> >it has something to do with the speed or frequency of emitted waves
> >depending on the speed of the emitter.
>
> Alistair, I assume you are a regular here posting under another name. That's
> OK by me.
>
> 'Wilson Time' or rather, 'Wilson Time Focussing' refers to a very important
> phenomenon associated with the ballistic light theory.
>
> It is illustrated in my introductory demonstration
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
>
> You will probably need windows to run it.
Correction: he needs windows to jump through after having
contaminated his system with your virusses.
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
"alistair" <alis...@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:861c1b21.04042...@posting.google.com...
light beam.
| Photons can be emitted by charges, absorbed by charges,
and collided
| with
| each other. Since it is possible to send very high data
rates
| optically,
| with good separations between on and off, it indicates
that light
| travels
Relative to an observer, there will be doppler shift if that
observer is in motion relative to the source.
The problem can be summarized by Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato,
relativist:
"Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato" <va...@icmf.inf.cu> wrote in
message
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3793514941d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=33d06fe2.0404071118.6397ea0%40posting.google.com&rnum=73
"Light has c velocity in the K frame and at the same time
c-v... ...in the K frame."
Discussion is futile when you have such superstitious
contradictory supernatural witchcraft to contend with.
Androcles.
alistair
(alistair) wrote:
>Why do two stars whose gravity should tear each other apart not tear
>each other apart?Is Wilson time the answer and what exactly is it? I
>gather that
>it has something to do with the speed or frequency of emitted waves
>depending on the speed of the emitter.
Alistair, I assume you are a regular here posting under another name.
That's
OK by me.
I am a regular using my real name and my only name on here!
If Wilson time is right then it would have all sorts of implications.
For example, a pulsar might not be what we think it is.And as for
binaries
which should fly apart - what if gravity's strength isn't the same all
over the universe - we've already got a problem with anomalously high
speeds in galaxies leading to dark matter theories.
YBM
[...]
http://zgub.homelinux.org/RH/wilson-is-a-computer-genious.jpg
A very good "illustration" indeed.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"alistair" <alis...@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:861c1b21.04042...@posting.google.com...
> > We have identified a number of mechanisms that affect a light
> > beam. Photons can be emitted by charges, absorbed by charges,
> > and collided with each other. Since it is possible to send very
> > high data rates optically, with good separations between on and
> > off, it indicates that light travels at a single speed.
>
> But all this assumes photons can't communicate with one
> another.Suppose photons can send gravitons to one another and use the
> gravitons energy to
> adjust their speed (presumably by altering the ratio of E/ B).
No evidence that gravitons exist. And since only pairs of "identical"
photons have "mass", no reason that gravitons (as currently defined) would
be involved in communication. Gravitons are the proposed moderator for
gravity. Speed regulation is not one of their attributes, especially since
they are limited to c themselves.
David A. Smith
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:oa3n80p52et8c9brv...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 16:45:42 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1
> D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote:
...
> >It is *exactly* constant, by definition. In fact the meter is *defined*
by
> >the speed of light and time. So by *definiton*, the speed of light is
> >always constant.
>
> Smithy, how many times do you have to be told? Nothing, including light,
has a
> 'speed'.
It does, and it is a matter of establishment by rule of law.
> It can have a speed relative to something else..... but not a speed on
its own.
In a Universe with only a single photon, you are correct. In the Universe
the OP and I are posting in, it has a speed. You've had too much red wine.
Lay off for a couple of hours, Willy.
David A. Smith
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"John Kennaugh" <jo...@kennaugh.yourfingerdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qoTefXHa...@kennaughyourfinger.demon.co.uk...
...
> >It is *exactly* constant, by definition. In fact the meter is *defined*
by
> >the speed of light and time. So by *definiton*, the speed of light is
> >always constant.
>
> Confusing statement. If you measure the speed of light between a source
> and a detector a fixed distance apart (in vacuum) it will always be c.
> This is what MMX showed.
Not really. MMX only showed that the Two Way Light Speed (TWLS) was an
average of c over the path.
> This is as per the first postulate of
> relativity.
Not quite. Special relativity posits that the laws of physics are the same
for all inertial frames. This comes down to an assumption of OWLS = c.
> If you define the meter in terms of c and time then you can construct an
> accurate measuring stick 1m long anywhere in the universe.
Right. It makes an excellent transfer standard, assuming you have a good
clock.
> If however you use that measuring stick to set two detectors a precise
> distance apart and use the time it takes light to travel from one to the
> other from a moving source you would be able to check whether the speed
> of light from a moving source is c as per the second postulate of
> relativity or c+v as per the ballistic theory. Note that the first
> postulate is common to both theories, it is the second postulate which
> differentiates them.
Only one postulate is necessary to formulate SR. Especially since Maxwell
already had c as a constant.
> If OTOH you assume 4 dimensional spacetime you build in the idea that
> the (speed of light) x t always gives a unique value for a given value
> of t and therefore you build the second postulate into the actual
> geometry. That is why modern versions of relativity theory always use
> the 4 rather than 3+1 dimensional approach. The purpose is to get away
> from the second postulate with its highly dodgy provenance and its
> absurd implications.
This is an emotional appeal, and not valid scientific reasoning. The
second postulate is not required, because OWLS cannot be measured. It is
like the human appendix, of historical signficance only.
> By promoting spacetime to be the fundamental fabric
> of the universe (rather than a mathematical trick to allow relativity to
> be shown in the form of a diagram) it is possible to claim (as Bilge
> does) that Relativity is a geometric spacetime theory which allows you
> to derive all the equations without the need of the second postulate
> (because it is already inherent in spacetime).
>
> Putting it another way - Relativity is a conceptually absurd theory so
> the further it can be removed from reality the less the absurdities will
> be apparent.
An absurdity that correctly models reality to 15 decimal places. So your
blather is that you would rather have less precision? How nice.
David A. Smith
Androcles
| Right so you are saying there is a medium and the only
theory which
| still claims that is LET. OK I don't have a problem with
that. I
| personally find Lorenz's ether hard to swallow but better
men than I
| believed in the ether for nearly 200 years so I cannot
dismiss it. I
| mistook you for one of those silly relativists who claim
both that light
| is source independent and at the same time there is no
ether.
MMX clearly shows there is no medium.
SR is absurd, it contains contradictions.
|
| >
| >> The discovery
| >> of the photon
| >> | showed that light was made up of particle which don't
need
| >> a propagating
| >> | medium
Nobody has ever discovered a phonon. If they had, we could
all discover it.
| >
| >So the discovery of the phonon - we don't need a
propagating medium
| >for sound now either?
|
| Of course we do. There are two basic models either:
|
| 1/ 'something' leaves the source, travels, and that same
'something'
| arrives at the observer - photons fit into this model.
|
| or
|
| 2/ a disturbance in a medium is propagated.
|
| Sound is a disturbance in air. There isn't anything else,
just air.
| There isn't a 'sound particle' just air, and no molecule
of air travels
| from the source to the listener just a disturbance in the
form of a
| pressure wave.
Which is divergent. Light, on the other hand, is not.
Not all stone blocks have weather vanes on top, but all
cathedrals have stone blocks. Why would anyone expect a
prayer or a praise to be a stone block?
Yet that is what a cathedral is for.
A wave is a transfer of energy. The smallest possible wave
is a photon.
A cathedral is for praying at. So is an altar or shrine. How
can we tell a cathedral from a stone clock?
That a good idea!
I bid one penny for the entire United States!
Androcles
alistair
> photons have "mass", no reason that gravitons (as currently defined) would
> be involved in communication. Gravitons are the proposed moderator for
> gravity. Speed regulation is not one of their attributes, especially since
> they are limited to c themselves.
>
> David A. Smith
What if gravitons move faster than light and have something to do with
epr paradoxes? When I say graviton I just mean a massless force
mediator for gravity- not necessarily a spin 2 particle!
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"alistair" <alis...@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:861c1b21.04042...@posting.google.com...
> > No evidence that gravitons exist. And since only pairs of "identical"
> > photons have "mass", no reason that gravitons (as currently defined)
would
> > be involved in communication. Gravitons are the proposed moderator for
> > gravity. Speed regulation is not one of their attributes, especially
since
> > they are limited to c themselves.
> >
> > David A. Smith
>
> What if gravitons move faster than light and have something to do with
> epr paradoxes?
Gravitons have not been proposed to travel at anything but c. No particle
has been proposed to travel at anything but c or less, except the tachyon.
> When I say graviton I just mean a massless force
> mediator for gravity- not necessarily a spin 2 particle!
Choose another carrier then. Graviton's propagate at c, by current
definition.
David A. Smith
Androcles
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
such as EjP's is so easily taken in by a moron like
Einstein.
Even "Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato" <va...@icmf.inf.cu> wrote
in
message
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3793514941d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=33d06fe2.0404071118.6397ea0%40posting.google.com&rnum=73
"Light has c velocity in the K frame and at the same time
c-v... ...in the K frame."
in what they say.
Androcles
Androcles
| Androcles writes
| >| In message
<gmji80hauklsnah9j...@4ax.com>,
| >luke
| >
| >Indeed I am. Photons are corpuscular light. However,
radio
| >waves are indeed waves, not photons.
|
| I am always interested in new ideas provided they have
been thought
| through so tell me more. At what frequency in the (so
called)
| electromagnetic spectrum does the changeover from waves to
photons
| occur?
Wrong question, I'm afraid. The correct question is:
At what amplitude does the changeover from waves to photons
occur?
This is one of the mysteries yet to be solved, because (as
far as I know, and I could easily be wrong) nobody has yet
measured the amplitude of a photon.
| If something just on the photon side of the divide is
subject to
| Doppler shift does it remain a photon or does it become a
wave.
Doppler shift is entirely relative. The easiest way I can
think of in describing the difference between a photon and a
wave is to use the water ripple example. Waves radiate from
the source conveying the energy of the stone or raindrop
that fell in water. If the puddle is shallow, the wavelength
is short and the amplitude is low. At the other end of the
scale is the tsunami. Waves on the beach "break" because the
the depth of the water becomes shallow. Observing such waves
by moving relatively to them does not affect them. What we
do observe is the infinitely large puddle, into which the
droplet falls, radiating the energy in all directions. As
the ripples expand, their amplutude falls. There must come a
point at some distance from the splash where the amplitude
has fallen to less than the height of a water molecule,
which is a discrete particle. At this distance the wave has
effectively ceased to propagate, and the energy is
distributed over the entire circle. We are in the quantum
world of discrete particles which are involved in random
collisions.
Are you
| suggesting that the link between radio 'waves' and light
is purely
| superficial and none existent and they are entirely
different phenomena.
|
| >A ripple on water is a wave, until the wave amplitude is
| >reduced to the "height" of a molecule of water. Then the
| >wave ceases to propagate and quantum effects predominate,
| >taking on the form of brownian motion dispersing the
energy
| >deeply into the water, and evaporation, leaving a
visible
| >mist of water above. Take a look at Niagara Falls if you
| >want the see an extreme "wave" (energy transfer) turn
into
| >mist.
|
| Surely that is saying that the quantum effects are because
of the
| inherently granular nature of the propagating medium.
Correct.
| In another post
| you say that light is propagated as an em wave without any
medium.
Correct.
| I
| don't see the relevance of the above to your concept of
light.
There would appear to be a minumum amplitude below which the
amplitude of the em wave cannot go. Why this should be, I
cannot say. All I know is that we observe photons from
distant stars discretely. They build up over time on the
CCD, requiring a time exposure in order to see the object
that is emitting them. When the radio wave reaches this
minumum amplitude, it must either break apart into
individual photons or slow down, waiting for additional
energy to catch up. The energy of radio is organized, having
considerable amplitude when it leaves the transmitter. This
is quite unlike the single photon emitted from an atom or
molecule in vast quantities from the sun, for example, yet
both are electromagnetic phenomena, one at the minumum
amplitude and the other at a greater than minimum. I am of
the opinion that there is superposition (ie. interaction)
between individual photons that causes them to slow as they
radiate, so that we observe redshift, not as a function of
velocity of the source,
but as a function of the light reducing its speed over vast
distances. Planck's equation E = h(nu) is a little too
simple and doesn't include amplitude. it apply solely to
single photons moving at c. I do not believe the INTRINSIC
frequency of the photon changes. The thinking behind this is
is best explained by considering the wheel RPM of an
approaching car. If we assume it has a 1 meter circumference
and is rolling along the road at 100 metres per second,
then the car wheel is revolving at 100 rpm. By approaching
the car with our own vehicle at 100 metres per second, we
have a relative closing velocity of 200 metres per second.
In the absence of a road reference, we might be tempted to
conclude that we are at rest and the wheel RPM of the
approaching car is 200 rpm. In space, we have no road
reference. When the photon hits atmosphere (or any other
medium) its "wheel" bites the "road", the velocity suddenly
falls from 2c to c_air and the wheel RPM suddenly increases,
as would the wheel of a small plane landing on a runway.
We don't know the frequency until we actually detect it, and
then it is too late.
Igor
Wilson's entire hypothesis hinges on the notion of the dependence of
the speed of EM waves on the speed of their sources. As far as I'm
aware, there is no type of wave motion that ever has this property.
And even if it were true, it would have tremendous far-reaching
implications for Maxwell's equations. In other words, they wouldn't
exhibit the simple covariance that they do and we would still be
unraveling their great complexity. The biggest problem is that
permittivities and/or permeabilities of free space would no longer be
invariant constants and would appear to be different in different
systems. I don't think anyone has ever noticed this, so I think it's
safe to say the whole thing is nonsense.
Androcles
"Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d434b6c6.04042...@posting.google.com...
| Wilson's entire hypothesis hinges on the notion of the
dependence of
| the speed of EM waves on the speed of their sources. As
far as I'm
| aware, there is no type of wave motion that ever has this
property.
Try standing on a bridge over a flowing river and drop a
stone in. You'll soon see a type of wave motion that ever
has the property. What are doing, walking around with your
eyes closed?
| And even if it were true, it would have tremendous
far-reaching
| implications for Maxwell's equations. In other words,
they wouldn't
| exhibit the simple covariance that they do and we would
still be
| unraveling their great complexity.
What great complexity? The only thing great is your
perplexity. Take a math course in differential equations,
for heavens sake.
| The biggest problem is that
| permittivities and/or permeabilities of free space would
no longer be
| invariant constants and would appear to be different in
different
| systems. I don't think anyone has ever noticed this, so I
think it's
| safe to say the whole thing is nonsense.
It's safe to say there is no aether that Maxwell imagined,
and that you walk around blindfolded.
Androcles
luke
> Disentangling my post from that of Androcles
>
> luke writes
> >>
> >> | >
> >> | >Does the speed of sound depend on the speed of the
> emitter?
> >> |
> >> | No it doesn't because it is constant w.r.t the medium
> propagating it.
> >> | Exactly what was your point?
>
> >
> >You made it for me.
>
> Hmm! So what are you saying? Light is a wave propagating in a medium?
>
>
> >> |
> >> | MMX showed there was no propagating medium.
>
> >
> >It did no such thing.
>
> Right so you are saying there is a medium and the only theory which
> still claims that is LET. OK I don't have a problem with that. I
> personally find Lorenz's ether hard to swallow but better men than I
> believed in the ether for nearly 200 years so I cannot dismiss it. I
> mistook you for one of those silly relativists who claim both that light
> is source independent and at the same time there is no ether.
>
:) I like the way you put that.
> >
> >> The discovery
> >> of the photon
> >> | showed that light was made up of particle which don't need
> a propagating
> >> | medium
>
> >
> >So the discovery of the phonon - we don't need a propagating medium
> >for sound now either?
>
> Of course we do. There are two basic models either:
>
> 1/ 'something' leaves the source, travels, and that same 'something'
> arrives at the observer - photons fit into this model.
>
> or
>
> 2/ a disturbance in a medium is propagated.
>
> Sound is a disturbance in air. There isn't anything else, just air.
> There isn't a 'sound particle' just air, and no molecule of air travels
> from the source to the listener just a disturbance in the form of a
> pressure wave.
>
Well OK, but that simple picture has lots of complications. There are
no monochromatic waves.. a single "note" consists of a "wave packet"
of sorts, which leaves the string or speaker and carries momentum.
Wave-fronts dictate ray geometries, etc.. I hate to be a pain in the
ass logician but your 1) and 2) are not necessarily mutually
exclusive.
> The ballistic theory is based on the idea that light is made up of
> particles (photons). They travel best when there is nothing to get in
> their way. They are perfectly happy in a vacuum. If you fire a gun in
> space the bullet doesn't stop at the end of the barrel because there is
> no medium to propagate it, on the contrary there is nothing to slow it
> down so may go a very, very long way. Bullets will travel through space
> but in space no one can hear you scream. There is no medium to propagate
> the sound. If you believe that light is a propagated disturbance like
> sound then you have to believe that space is filled with a light
> propagating medium.
>
> You have therefore two possible models for light (only one for sound).
>
> So is light - waves travelling in the ether as per LET or is it -
> particles shot from the source at c as per the ballistic theory? It
> obviously can't be both although that hasn't stopped the scientific
> community avoiding the issue for a century nor relativists claiming that
> SR is not just the mathematics of LET but a different theory while not
> stating how it differs from LET. One is therefore faced with two
> questions:
>
An excellent synopsis!
> 1/ How can waves appear to be particles?
> 2/ How can particles appear to be waves?
>
> Of those two questions I think the latter is easier to answer. We have
> numerous examples as to how something consisting of discreet lumps can
> appear continuous. That ishow a CD or a DVD works. Consider - what
> appears to be a continuous wave reduces in amplitude with the square of
> the distance. Imagine you are looking at it. As it gets smaller you have
> to increase the magnification until low and behold you find it isn't a
> continuous wave at all because you can see the individual pixels. It
> isn't as simple as that but I can't even see a starting point to find an
> answer to question 1.
>
I see how a particle medium can appear continuous, but how can a
"particle" show interference effects and source independent
velocities? A wave-packet carries momentum and should provide at
least a good starting point for your question 1.
> >
> >> |
> >> | Maybe you should ask yourself where Einstein got his
> second postulate
> >> | from? It assumes source independence which was dogma
> associated with
> >> | wave/ether theory as in "the speed of light cannot be
> effected by the
> >> | speed of the source because it is constant w.r.t the
> ether". The second
> >> | postulate says that the speed of light is constant w.r.t
> the observer!
> >> | Maybe you can suggest a causal mechanism by which an
> observer can
> >> | influence the speed at which light leaves a distant source
> as required
> >> | by the second postulate.
>
> >
> >Sure, if I understand you right. The observer can choose his units of
> >space and time (lets call them m and s) so that the m/s of the emitted
> >light equals exactly c.
>
> So if I choose my units of space and time such that m/s does not equal c
> I have disproved relativity. Hey that was easier than I thought. For my
> next trick I'll choose my own conversion rate between Pounds and Dollars
> and make an offer for Alaska.
You haven't disproved it, merely decided to use a different protocol.
You have redefined meters and/or seconds if m/s (light ray)!= c. I
like your idea however. Choosing units where c=g=h=1, I'll give you
2$ for England.
Cheers - luke
luke
> > [...]
> >Sure, if I understand you right. The observer can choose his units of
> >space and time (lets call them m and s) so that the m/s of the emitted
> >light equals exactly c.
>
> The universe functioned quite adequately before observers came onto the scene.
>
> light leaving a star doesn't give a hoot about you or einstein.
>
True enough! However if I redefine the meter, the light's wavelengh
(as measured in the new meter) changes instantly. Nothing actually
happens to the light of course, we're just talking about our
conceptions of it. That's all we really can talk about after all.
rus...@mdli.com
<jp006...@spamnotblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
><rus...@mdli.com> wrote in message
>news:kecj80l1nrko9sokm...@4ax.com...
>| On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 00:59:35 +0100, "Androcles"
>| <jp006...@spamnotblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>|
>| [snip]
>|
>| >| Does the speed of sound depend on the speed of the
>| >emitter?
>| >
>| >Yes, it does.
>| >All speeds are relative. If you approach a sound source,
>| >then you are increasing
>| >the velocity of the sound as you move through the air.
>|
>| That doesn't answer the previous poster's question.
> Yes it does. It wasn't the answer he was expecting, but it
>was certainly correct.
It had nothing to do with the question. He asked about emitter, you
answered about observer. It might have had something to do with some
point *you* wanted to make, but my remark had nothing to do with
*that*.
>
>|
>| He asked about *source* dependence. Keep yourself
>stationary wrt the
>| air, and allow the emitter of the sound to change its
>speed. Does the
>| speed of the sound change, relative to you?
>|
>| (Yes I know the frequency changes, but I am asking about
>the speed.)
>|
>| [snip]
>You've snipped the reply I gave.
If you mean your statement that "all velocities are relative", then I
gather your answer is yes. (Which is wrong.) Otherwise I can't see
where you actually answer *that* question.
If you wish to challenge
>it, put it back and we'll discuss it. Otherwise I have
>nothing further to say. I'm not going to paste it back for
>you.
Well then, remain silent if you like. I'm not likely to discuss the
matter with you in the future either.
HenriWilson
That's just like, "don't question the teachings of god or you will be punished
in hell"
...very revealing Dinky.
Henri Wilson.
HenriWilson
HenriWilson
D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote:
>Dear HenriWilson:
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>news:oa3n80p52et8c9brv...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 16:45:42 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
>dlzc1
>> D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote:
>...
>> >It is *exactly* constant, by definition. In fact the meter is *defined*
>by
>> >the speed of light and time. So by *definiton*, the speed of light is
>> >always constant.
>>
>> Smithy, how many times do you have to be told? Nothing, including light,
>has a
>> 'speed'.
>
>It does, and it is a matter of establishment by rule of law.
>
>> It can have a speed relative to something else..... but not a speed on
>its own.
>
>In a Universe with only a single photon, you are correct. In the Universe
>the OP and I are posting in, it has a speed. You've had too much red wine.
>Lay off for a couple of hours, Willy.
>
>David A. Smith
>
you are an aetherist, eh?
..but I suppose all relativists are really aetherists in disguise.
Henri Wilson.
HenriWilson
>If Wilson time is right then it would have all sorts of implications.
>For example, a pulsar might not be what we think it is.And as for
>binaries
>which should fly apart - what if gravity's strength isn't the same all
>over the universe - we've already got a problem with anomalously high
>speeds in galaxies leading to dark matter theories.
Let's face it Alistair, physics has been completely sidetracked for one hundred
years by Einsteins joke.
Astronomers are still rejecting the ballistic theory of light even though it
explains nearly all variable star data.
Henri Wilson.
John Kennaugh
Tosh! The c of Maxwell was the solution to an unknown question with
units of speed. It indicated that something had a speed of c but it said
absolutely nothing about what the speed was referenced to. He believed
it was the speed relative to the ether. Relativity has it as the speed
relative to the observer and the ballistic theory the speed relative to
the source. As the option favoured by Maxwell is the only one ruled out
it is hard to see how reference to Maxwell is likely to arbitrate
between the other two.
The first postulate, I accept your version
>the laws of physics are the same
>for all inertial frames.
Does not say whether the speed of light is constant w.r.t the observer
or w.r.t the source, only that whichever it is it is the same in all
frames of reference.
The second postulate does not say that an observer will always see light
leave the source at c relative to the source it says that the speed will
be c relative to himself. This is what defines relativity not the first
postulate which is common to both theories. It is of course a
fundamentally silly idea that an observer can determine at what speed
light leaves a remote source by the power of observation alone, or
alternatively how two observers in relative motion can both find
themselves stationary w.r.t the propagating medium.
>
>> If OTOH you assume 4 dimensional spacetime you build in the idea that
>> the (speed of light) x t always gives a unique value for a given value
>> of t and therefore you build the second postulate into the actual
>> geometry. That is why modern versions of relativity theory always use
>> the 4 rather than 3+1 dimensional approach. The purpose is to get away
>> from the second postulate with its highly dodgy provenance and its
>> absurd implications.
>
>This is an emotional appeal, and not valid scientific reasoning.
I can justify my description 'highly dodgy provenance and absurd
implications' of the second postulate if you so wish.
> The
>second postulate is not required, because OWLS cannot be measured. It is
>like the human appendix, of historical signficance only.
You will have to explain what you mean. It seems to me a totally
irrelevant comment. Are you suggesting that no experiment could be
devised which would give a different result if the speed of light added
to that of the source as per the ballistic theory or is constant w.r.t
the observer observing it as per relativity? If both theories always
give the same results and if both theories comply with the first
postulate then the second postulate is redundant but I don't think that
is the case.
>
>> By promoting spacetime to be the fundamental fabric
>> of the universe (rather than a mathematical trick to allow relativity to
>> be shown in the form of a diagram) it is possible to claim (as Bilge
>> does) that Relativity is a geometric spacetime theory which allows you
>> to derive all the equations without the need of the second postulate
>> (because it is already inherent in spacetime).
>>
>> Putting it another way - Relativity is a conceptually absurd theory so
>> the further it can be removed from reality the less the absurdities will
>> be apparent.
>
>An absurdity that correctly models reality to 15 decimal places. So your
>blather is that you would rather have less precision?
> How nice.
If relativity does give the correct answers then it is not because of
the postulates of relativity but because natural physical processes work
together to produce the result. It is only by understanding those
natural physical processes that we will understand why relativity
produces the right answer (if in fact it does). Then and only then would
we be able to get rid of the conceptual absurdity which at the moment
can only be explained in terms of Lorentz's ether which nobody,
including me, is very keen on. The alternatives to LET are even more
absurd but one cannot get around it by sticking your head in the sand
and adhering to the doctrine of "it's better not to ask" or to work on
ways of presenting the theory such that the cracks are less obvious, or
yet again redefining what constitutes a theory so that you can say that
"relativity does not attempt to answer those sorts of question".
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"John Kennaugh" <jo...@kennaugh.yourfingerdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:sN$PW4QuO...@kennaughyourfinger.demon.co.uk...
How has it been ruled out? Maxwell works quite well for either SR or LET,
and disallows the ballistic theory.
>
> The first postulate, I accept your version
>
> >the laws of physics are the same
> >for all inertial frames.
>
> Does not say whether the speed of light is constant w.r.t the observer
> or w.r.t the source, only that whichever it is it is the same in all
> frames of reference.
Which disallows a different value for c for each frame, dependent on
source. If ballistic light is used in MMX (a possiblity), from a high z
source, how would it know to keep its first reflected speed at c-v, and
second reflection at c+v, and so on.
> The second postulate does not say that an observer will always see light
> leave the source at c relative to the source it says that the speed will
> be c relative to himself. This is what defines relativity not the first
> postulate which is common to both theories. It is of course a
> fundamentally silly idea that an observer can determine at what speed
> light leaves a remote source by the power of observation alone, or
> alternatively how two observers in relative motion can both find
> themselves stationary w.r.t the propagating medium.
But the second postulate is not required to formulate SR.
> >> If OTOH you assume 4 dimensional spacetime you build in the idea that
> >> the (speed of light) x t always gives a unique value for a given value
> >> of t and therefore you build the second postulate into the actual
> >> geometry. That is why modern versions of relativity theory always use
> >> the 4 rather than 3+1 dimensional approach. The purpose is to get away
> >> from the second postulate with its highly dodgy provenance and its
> >> absurd implications.
> >
>
> >This is an emotional appeal, and not valid scientific reasoning.
>
> I can justify my description 'highly dodgy provenance and absurd
> implications' of the second postulate if you so wish.
Second postulate is not required. It may be nice/handy, but it is not
required.
> > The
> >second postulate is not required, because OWLS cannot be measured. It
is
> >like the human appendix, of historical signficance only.
>
> You will have to explain what you mean. It seems to me a totally
> irrelevant comment. Are you suggesting that no experiment could be
> devised which would give a different result if the speed of light added
> to that of the source as per the ballistic theory or is constant w.r.t
> the observer observing it as per relativity?
Correct. Any established distance is already a TWLS distance, therefore
any measurement of c using it... results in c. A distance is a properly
synchronized clock...
> If both theories always
> give the same results and if both theories comply with the first
> postulate then the second postulate is redundant but I don't think that
> is the case.
It is totally redundant, and the ballistic theory of light does not survive
the earliest set of experiments perfomed... MMX.
Dither in philosophy if you wish, but relativity does give correct answers
in the Solar System, to within 1 part in 10^12. Beyond that, us
flatlanders still have some issues, IMHO.
David A. Smith
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:288r80digknj5ijnt...@4ax.com...
...
> you are an aetherist, eh?
The Universe is the aether, and inseparable from the mass/energy that
created the space therein. So in that sense, yes I am an aetherist. As
was Mach.
David A. Smith
David Evens
Why do you keep claiming that there is validity to a theory you just
stated is observed to be wrong?
YBM
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 18:39:42 +0200, YBM <y...@nooos.fr> wrote:
>
>
>>HenriWilson wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>>>It is illustrated in my introductory demonstration
>>>www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
>>
>>http://zgub.homelinux.org/RH/wilson-is-a-computer-genious.jpg
>>
>>A very good "illustration" indeed.
>
>
> Why don't you subscribe to alt.IMAMORON
Because reading your posts on sci.physics.relativity is far enough
for me. Why should I read you elsewhere ? You can hardly be more
stupid than here.
So, what about this "Runtime erreur 13" ? Does 13 means someting
special ? Is this an orbital period of some kind ? The other day
a friend of mine got MS Word.exe to crash with error -2765412. Does
it means that QM is wrong ?
Robert J. Kolker
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
>
> The Universe is the aether, and inseparable from the mass/energy that
> created the space therein. So in that sense, yes I am an aetherist. As
> was Mach.
Mach did not believe atoms existed until the day he died.
Bob Kolker
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Robert J. Kolker" <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BCnjc.29592$cF6.1318921@attbi_s04...
Did he believe that matter was infinitely divisible? It must have some low
order persistent structure in order to have differing chemical
characteristics... Maybe he was just a gifted crank?
David A. Smith
alistair
And according to QM atoms don't exist until wavefunctions die!!
QM says Mach was right. Isay Mach was wrong.There is an aether of some
kind.
Special relativity has not given a mechanistic proof of the reason for
Lorentz invariance.
John Kennaugh
>
>"John Kennaugh" <jo...@kennaugh.yourfingerdemon.co.uk> wrote
>in message
>news:noIdvRG2...@kennaughyourfinger.demon.co.uk...
>| Androcles writes
>| >| In message
><gmji80hauklsnah9j...@4ax.com>,
>| >luke
>| >
>| >Indeed I am. Photons are corpuscular light. However,
>radio
>| >waves are indeed waves, not photons.
>|
>| I am always interested in new ideas provided they have
>been thought
>| through so tell me more. At what frequency in the (so
>called)
>| electromagnetic spectrum does the changeover from waves to
>photons
>| occur?
>
>Wrong question, I'm afraid. The correct question is:
>At what amplitude does the changeover from waves to photons
>occur?
You said - "Photons are corpuscular light. However, radio waves are
indeed waves, not photons".
>This is one of the mysteries yet to be solved, because (as
>far as I know, and I could easily be wrong) nobody has yet
>measured the amplitude of a photon.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'amplitude of a photon'. I assume a photon
is a particle. We know its energy. The idea of size is a difficult
concept. Cross sectional area might be a meaningful concept but I cannot
see how amplitude fits in.
>
>
>| If something just on the photon side of the divide is
>subject to
>| Doppler shift does it remain a photon or does it become a
>wave.
>
>Doppler shift is entirely relative. The easiest way I can
>think of in describing the difference between a photon and a
>wave is to use the water ripple example. Waves radiate from
>the source conveying the energy of the stone or raindrop
>that fell in water. If the puddle is shallow, the wavelength
>is short and the amplitude is low. At the other end of the
>scale is the tsunami. Waves on the beach "break" because the
>the depth of the water becomes shallow. Observing such waves
>by moving relatively to them does not affect them. What we
>do observe is the infinitely large puddle, into which the
>droplet falls, radiating the energy in all directions. As
>the ripples expand, their amplutude falls. There must come a
>point at some distance from the splash where the amplitude
>has fallen to less than the height of a water molecule,
>which is a discrete particle. At this distance the wave has
>effectively ceased to propagate, and the energy is
>distributed over the entire circle. We are in the quantum
>world of discrete particles which are involved in random
>collisions.
That is just repeating what you said before i.e.:
[....]
>|
>| >A ripple on water is a wave, until the wave amplitude is
>| >reduced to the "height" of a molecule of water. Then the
>| >wave ceases to propagate and quantum effects predominate,
>| >taking on the form of brownian motion dispersing the
>energy
>| >deeply into the water, and evaporation, leaving a
>visible
>| >mist of water above. Take a look at Niagara Falls if you
>| >want the see an extreme "wave" (energy transfer) turn
>into
>| >mist.
>|
>| Surely that is saying that the quantum effects are because
>of the
>| inherently granular nature of the propagating medium.
>
>Correct.
>
>
>| In another post
>| you say that light is propagated as an em wave without any
>medium.
>
>Correct.
>
>| I
>| don't see the relevance of the above to your concept of
>light.
>
>There would appear to be a minumum amplitude below which the
>amplitude of the em wave cannot go.
What evidence have you for that? Why not accept the idea that em
radiation is always made up of photons which on mass mimic a wave but
when they thin out sufficiently you see the individual 'pixels'. If you
take a CCD chip in a camera, it has a number of cells each of which is
in effect a capacitor. I can't remember off hand whether photons charge
the capacitor when they hit the cell or whether the cell starts charged
and is discharged by each photon but essentially it doesn't matter
whether the light is bright or dim. If bright a fast shutter and narrow
aperture prevent too many photons getting through and overloading the
circuit. I don't see that waves come into it.
>Why this should be, I
>cannot say. All I know is that we observe photons from
>distant stars discretely. They build up over time on the
>CCD, requiring a time exposure in order to see the object
>that is emitting them.
As I said.
>When the radio wave reaches this
>minumum amplitude, it must either break apart into
>individual photons or slow down, waiting for additional
>energy to catch up. The energy of radio is organized, having
>considerable amplitude when it leaves the transmitter.
>This
>is quite unlike the single photon emitted from an atom or
>molecule in vast quantities from the sun, for example,
Surely this is simply saying it is coherent. The earliest radio
transmitters (spark transmitters) were not organised and simply radiated
radio noise. A normal light source is the same. A laser is the nearest
thing in terms of light to a radio transmitter as that is organised.
I appreciate that it is difficult to picture a long wave radio signal in
terms of photons and equally difficult to picture a gamma photon as a
wave but maybe that is our limitation not natures.
> yet
>both are electromagnetic phenomena, one at the minumum
>amplitude and the other at a greater than minimum. I am of
>the opinion that there is superposition (ie. interaction)
>between individual photons that causes them to slow as they
>radiate, so that we observe redshift, not as a function of
>velocity of the source,
I think you are on your own there. If individual photos have a given
energy how can they lose energy without breaching the law of
conservation of energy. Suppose you had a regular array of photons each
with the same energy. As they move they spread out and the density of
photons (the number per square meter per second) reduces by the square
of the distance. If you are going to get red shift then you need energy
loss in addition to spherical spreading loss. Now if there was some
matter in the way it might absorb or scatter individual photons which
would cause energy loss. Essentially that removes photons from the mass
but cannot effect the photons which continue so that is loss of
intensity without change of colour. The only way you can get red shift
is for the individual photons to lose energy. I suppose you could take
the way out that the rest of physics uses whenever their pet theory
doesn't work and invent an undetectable particle which is emitted by the
photon and takes away the energy you want to lose - but count me out. I
think that fiddle has been grossly over used already.
>but as a function of the light reducing its speed over vast
>distances. Planck's equation E = h(nu) is a little too
>simple and doesn't include amplitude. it apply solely to
>single photons moving at c. I do not believe the INTRINSIC
>frequency of the photon changes. The thinking behind this is
>is best explained by considering the wheel RPM of an
>approaching car. If we assume it has a 1 meter circumference
>and is rolling along the road at 100 metres per second,
>then the car wheel is revolving at 100 rpm. By approaching
>the car with our own vehicle at 100 metres per second, we
>have a relative closing velocity of 200 metres per second.
>In the absence of a road reference, we might be tempted to
>conclude that we are at rest and the wheel RPM of the
>approaching car is 200 rpm. In space, we have no road
>reference.
What you have just described is in effect Doppler shift. If you change
your speed relative to a periodic function the frequency changes. There
is no magic about it. If you run a ruler along some railings and then
break into a run the frequency will increase. Relativity says that if
you are travelling towards a source the light (magically) has a speed
relative to the source of c-v and a speed relative to you of c.
Different speeds, same periodic function = Doppler. Ballistic theory
says light leaves source (logically) at c relative to the source and
will be c+v relative to you. Different speeds, same periodic function =
Doppler.
HenriWilson
Today's upgraged version of the program is foolproof. Now even YOU should be
able to use it.
Henri Wilson.
HenriWilson
<jo...@kennaugh.yourfingerdemon.co.uk> wrote:
>Disentangling my post from that of Androcles
>
>luke writes
>>>
>>> | >
>>> | >Does the speed of sound depend on the speed of the
>>> emitter?
>>> |
>>> | No it doesn't because it is constant w.r.t the medium
>>> propagating it.
>>> | Exactly what was your point?
>
>>
>>You made it for me.
>
>Hmm! So what are you saying? Light is a wave propagating in a medium?
>
>
>>> |
>>> | MMX showed there was no propagating medium.
>
>>
>>It did no such thing.
>
>Right so you are saying there is a medium and the only theory which
>still claims that is LET. OK I don't have a problem with that. I
>personally find Lorenz's ether hard to swallow but better men than I
>believed in the ether for nearly 200 years so I cannot dismiss it. I
>mistook you for one of those silly relativists who claim both that light
>is source independent and at the same time there is no ether.
The MMX would give a null result whether or not a medium was present, so long
as the medium moved with the apparatus.
The MMX supports the ballistic model of light, 100%.
>
>>
>>> The discovery
>>> of the photon
>>> | showed that light was made up of particle which don't need
>>> a propagating
>>> | medium
>
>>
>>So the discovery of the phonon - we don't need a propagating medium
>>for sound now either?
>
>Of course we do. There are two basic models either:
>
>1/ 'something' leaves the source, travels, and that same 'something'
>arrives at the observer - photons fit into this model.
>
>or
>
>2/ a disturbance in a medium is propagated.
>
>Sound is a disturbance in air. There isn't anything else, just air.
>There isn't a 'sound particle' just air, and no molecule of air travels
>from the source to the listener just a disturbance in the form of a
>pressure wave.
>
>The ballistic theory is based on the idea that light is made up of
>particles (photons). They travel best when there is nothing to get in
>their way. They are perfectly happy in a vacuum. If you fire a gun in
>space the bullet doesn't stop at the end of the barrel because there is
>no medium to propagate it, on the contrary there is nothing to slow it
>down so may go a very, very long way. Bullets will travel through space
>but in space no one can hear you scream. There is no medium to propagate
>the sound. If you believe that light is a propagated disturbance like
>sound then you have to believe that space is filled with a light
>propagating medium.
>
>You have therefore two possible models for light (only one for sound).
>
>So is light - waves travelling in the ether as per LET or is it -
>particles shot from the source at c as per the ballistic theory? It
>obviously can't be both although that hasn't stopped the scientific
>community avoiding the issue for a century nor relativists claiming that
>SR is not just the mathematics of LET but a different theory while not
>stating how it differs from LET. One is therefore faced with two
>questions:
>
>1/ How can waves appear to be particles?
>2/ How can particles appear to be waves?
>
>Of those two questions I think the latter is easier to answer. We have
>numerous examples as to how something consisting of discreet lumps can
>appear continuous. That is how a CD or a DVD works. Consider - what
>appears to be a continuous wave reduces in amplitude with the square of
>the distance. Imagine you are looking at it. As it gets smaller you have
>to increase the magnification until low and behold you find it isn't a
>continuous wave at all because you can see the individual pixels. It
>isn't as simple as that but I can't even see a starting point to find an
>answer to question 1.
There is also the question what makes a gamma particle different from a ULF
radio signal. Does a gamma consist of lots of 'photons' condensed into a small
volume whilst the latter is made up of a low density 'gas of photons' with
phase-synched fields?
This raises the question, do photons have volume?
>
Henri Wilson.
HenriWilson
D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote:
>Dear John Kennaugh:
>
>"John Kennaugh" <jo...@kennaugh.yourfingerdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:sN$PW4QuO...@kennaughyourfinger.demon.co.uk...
>>
Of course it does. Where did you get that idea?
It provides the obvious solution to the MMX puzzle.
Henri Wilson.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:nnlt80hfcseclb748...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 20:49:15 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1
> D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote:
...
> >> If both theories always
> >> give the same results and if both theories comply with the first
> >> postulate then the second postulate is redundant but I don't think
that
> >> is the case.
> >
> >It is totally redundant, and the ballistic theory of light does not
survive
> >the earliest set of experiments perfomed... MMX.
>
> Of course it does. Where did you get that idea?
> It provides the obvious solution to the MMX puzzle.
It is not obvious how light knows to reflect with c-v on one reflection
then c+v on the next. Conservation of momentum *should* have the light
reflect with c+v (or c-v) every time. So ballistic light solves *nothing*.
TWLS always comes out c. So either it is simply always c, or the
"mechanism" distorts to make it always c. Source dependency is a non
sequitur.
"NOUN:1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises
or evidence.
2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it."
David A. Smith
John Kennaugh
>Dear HenriWilson:
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>news:nnlt80hfcseclb748...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 20:49:15 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
>dlzc1
>> D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote:
>...
>> >> If both theories always
>> >> give the same results and if both theories comply with the first
>> >> postulate then the second postulate is redundant but I don't think
>that
>> >> is the case.
>> >
>> >It is totally redundant, and the ballistic theory of light does not
>survive
>> >the earliest set of experiments perfomed... MMX.
>>
>> Of course it does. Where did you get that idea?
>> It provides the obvious solution to the MMX puzzle.
>
>It is not obvious how light knows to reflect with c-v on one reflection
>then c+v on the next. Conservation of momentum *should* have the light
>reflect with c+v (or c-v) every time. So ballistic light solves *nothing*.
?????????????????????????????????
The idea of ballistic theory is that the speed of light simply adds to
that of the source in the same way that other speeds add. So in MMX the
speed of light is c relative to the source and as the mirror is not in
relative motion w r t the source it will be c w.r.t the mirror also.
I have no idea at all what you are trying to describe and have no idea
at all what your v is supposed to be the speed of.
John Kennaugh
Quite so. It happens time and time again on this NG and it really
bothers me that people who have obviously spent a lot more of their
lives studying physics than I, have such an unquestioning faith in Urban
Myths. e.g.
That MMX ruled out Ballistic theory - it didn't on the contrary it was
the obvious interpretation of MMX.
That Maxwell ruled out ballistic theory - in the absence of an ether the
ballistic option is the only sensible alternative.
That the second postulate is unnecessary - they wish!
That the second postulate is derived from MMX - how can it be there was
no relative motion between source and detector.
That the second postulate is derived from the PoR. - It wasn't.
There is plenty of justification for the first postulate but that is
common to both SR and Ballistic theory. The second postulate (which is
what defines SR) seems to have been plucked from thin air (or pinched
from LET). It combines the dogma of the wave ether theory - that the
speed of light is unaffected by the speed of the source because it is
constant w.r.t the ether, with the result of MMX - that it wasn't
effected by the speed of the source either.
I just cannot understand how anyone can accept the idea that the speed
of light is constant w.r.t to the observer observing it. Why? How?
The answer I get - sorry 'improper question'. SR does not attempt to
answer those sort of questions.
I wonder why?
Never in the field of scientific endeavour has so much been built by so
many on so little.
Paul B. Andersen
"Androcles" <jp006...@spamnotblueyonder.co.uk> skrev i melding news:bxpic.941$N74...@doctor.cableinet.net...
>
> "luke" <fun...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:e1b04639.0404...@posting.google.com...
> | OK, so then what do you think is the propagating medium of
> | a radio wave?
> Itself. The electric and magnetic fields both exist in
> nothing, they play leapfrog, each recreating the other as
> the fly away from the source. They obey a sine and a cosine
> rule, 90 degrees out of step with each other. When one is at
> maximum, the other is zero.
Whenever Androcles tries to write a factual statement,
he gets it wrong. :-)
The electric and magnetic fields in an EM-wave are
in phase with each other.
Paul
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"John Kennaugh" <jo...@kennaugh.yourfingerdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:sp7PflH+...@kennaughyourfinger.demon.co.uk...
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N@?.D.invalid> writes
...
> >> Of course it does. Where did you get that idea?
> >> It provides the obvious solution to the MMX puzzle.
> >
> >It is not obvious how light knows to reflect with c-v on one reflection
> >then c+v on the next. Conservation of momentum *should* have the light
> >reflect with c+v (or c-v) every time. So ballistic light solves
*nothing*.
>
> ?????????????????????????????????
>
> The idea of ballistic theory is that the speed of light simply adds to
> that of the source in the same way that other speeds add. So in MMX the
> speed of light is c relative to the source and as the mirror is not in
> relative motion w r t the source it will be c w.r.t the mirror also.
If the source is a high-z light source, as I started saying, then the
mirrors and detector are at motion wrt the source.
> I have no idea at all what you are trying to describe and have no idea
> at all what your v is supposed to be the speed of.
Source speed wrt the MMX appartus. It reflects off the first mirror with
the velocity c-v, rather than c+v, in order to accomplish c for an average.
How does it do that?
David A. Smith
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"John Kennaugh" <jo...@kennaugh.yourfingerdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:QK0wnKIA...@kennaughyourfinger.demon.co.uk...
> HenriWilson writes
> >On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 20:49:15 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1
> >D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote:
...
> >>It is totally redundant, and the ballistic theory of light does not
survive
> >>the earliest set of experiments perfomed... MMX.
>
> >
> >Of course it does. Where did you get that idea?
> >It provides the obvious solution to the MMX puzzle.
>
> Quite so. It happens time and time again on this NG and it really
> bothers me that people who have obviously spent a lot more of their
> lives studying physics than I, have such an unquestioning faith in Urban
> Myths. e.g.
>
> That MMX ruled out Ballistic theory - it didn't on the contrary it was
> the obvious interpretation of MMX.
Not for a moving light source. MMX destroys ballistic light.
> That Maxwell ruled out ballistic theory - in the absence of an ether the
> ballistic option is the only sensible alternative.
Opinion.
> That the second postulate is unnecessary - they wish!
Not required. SR has been derived with out the simplifying assumption of
the second postulate.
> That the second postulate is derived from MMX - how can it be there was
> no relative motion between source and detector.
It has been done. MMX disallows ballistic light.
> That the second postulate is derived from the PoR. - It wasn't.
>
> There is plenty of justification for the first postulate but that is
> common to both SR and Ballistic theory. The second postulate (which is
> what defines SR) seems to have been plucked from thin air (or pinched
> from LET). It combines the dogma of the wave ether theory - that the
> speed of light is unaffected by the speed of the source because it is
> constant w.r.t the ether, with the result of MMX - that it wasn't
> effected by the speed of the source either.
>
> I just cannot understand how anyone can accept the idea that the speed
> of light is constant w.r.t to the observer observing it. Why? How?
Because it agrees with experiment, including MMX with a moving light
source. As described in the Lorentz transforms.
> The answer I get - sorry 'improper question'. SR does not attempt to
> answer those sort of questions.
>
> I wonder why?
Because relativity is not a religion. It is a basis for making testable
predictions. "Why" questions are part of philosophy, not science.
> Never in the field of scientific endeavour has so much been built by so
> many on so little.
A nice one liner. Too bad it also applies so well to your narrow world
view.
David A. Smith
YBM
> Today's upgraged version of the program is foolproof. Now even YOU should be
> able to use it.
It is far better, it now crashes a little bit later :
http://zgub.homelinux.org/RH/wilson-is-a-computer-genious2.jpg
What about giving up playing with computers Mr. Dumbson ? You
are definitely handle such a thing.
YBM
> Today's upgraged version of the program is foolproof. Now even YOU should be
> able to use it.
It is far better, it now crashes a little bit later :
http://zgub.homelinux.org/RH/wilson-is-a-computer-genious2.jpg
What about giving up playing with computers Mr. Dumbson ? You
are definitely unable to handle such a thing.
HenriWilson
wrote:
Reference please
>
>Paul
>
Henri Wilson.
HenriWilson
<jo...@kennaugh.yourfingerdemon.co.uk> wrote:
>Androcles writes
>>
>> yet
>>both are electromagnetic phenomena, one at the minumum
>>amplitude and the other at a greater than minimum. I am of
>>the opinion that there is superposition (ie. interaction)
>>between individual photons that causes them to slow as they
>>radiate, so that we observe redshift, not as a function of
>>velocity of the source,
>
>I think you are on your own there. If individual photos have a given
>energy how can they lose energy without breaching the law of
>conservation of energy. Suppose you had a regular array of photons each
>with the same energy. As they move they spread out and the density of
>photons (the number per square meter per second) reduces by the square
>of the distance. If you are going to get red shift then you need energy
>loss in addition to spherical spreading loss. Now if there was some
>matter in the way it might absorb or scatter individual photons which
>would cause energy loss. Essentially that removes photons from the mass
>but cannot effect the photons which continue so that is loss of
>intensity without change of colour. The only way you can get red shift
>is for the individual photons to lose energy. I suppose you could take
>the way out that the rest of physics uses whenever their pet theory
>doesn't work and invent an undetectable particle which is emitted by the
>photon and takes away the energy you want to lose - but count me out. I
>think that fiddle has been grossly over used already.
As far as we know, any irreversible physical change results in an increase in
entropy and a tranference of energy.
If photons 'spread out' where does that energy come from... and where does it
go?
Also, 'frequency' as applied to light refers to '(c+v)/lambda', which in turn
refers to the periodicity of a spatial regularity past a detector at velocity
(c+v)....in other words my 'sawtooth' photon model.
Photons must have a spatial periodicity that shows up as a time periodicity
when they move. (simple dn/dt=dn/dx.dx/dt)
The fact is, the size of the photon 'teeth' can diminish without affecting the
distance between them.
>
>
>
Henri Wilson.
Dirk Van de moortel
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:ts50909qaf3jklod8...@4ax.com...
http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/java/emWave/emWave.html
Idiot
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:ts50909qaf3jklod8...@4ax.com...
Ah yes, I forgot to mention:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EMWaves.html
Title: Let's Teach Them Some Electromagnetics.
The first combined Androcles and Wilson - history is being written
here.
Nice hunting, Paul.
Prepare for the fertilizer ;-)
Dirk Vdm
John Kennaugh
<He...@the.edge> writes
I'm thinking about it! OK suppose you have two identical 'things' A and
B
AB
Suppose that we apply a force between them which sends them flying
apart:
A B
v<-- -->v
Now according to Newton a body will continue in its state of uniform
motion unless acted upon by a force. Now if A and B have mass there is a
force acting to slow them down but any slowing down there is will be
greatest at the beginning when they are closest together. Now photons
are massless so that doesn't apply. OK there could be some sort of
mutual attraction between photons. It could cause a slowing down which
would look like red shift but again it would be at its greatest when
they are closest together and the red shift from near stars would be the
same as far stars.
>
>Also, 'frequency' as applied to light refers to '(c+v)/lambda', which in turn
>refers to the periodicity of a spatial regularity past a detector at velocity
>(c+v)....in other words my 'sawtooth' photon model.
You will have to explain your 'sawtooth' photon model.
>
>Photons must have a spatial periodicity that shows up as a time periodicity
>when they move. (simple dn/dt=dn/dx.dx/dt)
>
>The fact is, the size of the photon 'teeth' can diminish without affecting the
>distance between them.
>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Henri Wilson.
>
>www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
--
Tim^^BOB
professional of you HenriWilson and Androcles. Was the origional
question even anwsered? After wasting half an hour skimming through 80
posts in which the same people were called morons in various creative
ways, I don't think so.
HenriWilson
<jo...@kennaugh.yourfingerdemon.co.uk> wrote:
But what is 'MASS'? I reckon all matter is made of 'fields' . So what are
fields made of? I dunno.
>OK there could be some sort of
>mutual attraction between photons. It could cause a slowing down which
>would look like red shift but again it would be at its greatest when
>they are closest together and the red shift from near stars would be the
>same as far stars.
>
>>
>>Also, 'frequency' as applied to light refers to '(c+v)/lambda', which in turn
>>refers to the periodicity of a spatial regularity past a detector at velocity
>>(c+v)....in other words my 'sawtooth' photon model.
>
>You will have to explain your 'sawtooth' photon model.
My sawtooth model was invented to explain why light should exhibit a frequency
at all. All we really know is that it possesses spatial regularities we call
'wavelength'. Frequency is merely inferred as being c/lambda. Nobody has ever
directly associated an intrinsic frequency with light. I say photons are like
moving saw blades or 'serated bullets'. Wvelength is the distance between
teeth. The number of teeth passing an observer per second, dn/dt, is equivalent
to c/lambda, the frequency.
If photons also possess some kind of internal intrinsic oscillation, it is
certainly not the one we use in E=h.nu.
Now, for photons to lose energy, they don't have to slow down,.The distance
between the teeth can simply increase. That causes a drop in the number passing
per second... a red shift.
Photons must have a spatial 'periodicity' and I say this becomes stretched as
the photon travels, due to loss of energy.
>
>>
>>Photons must have a spatial periodicity that shows up as a time periodicity
>>when they move. (simple dn/dt=dn/dx.dx/dt)
>>
>>The fact is, the size of the photon 'teeth' can diminish without affecting the
>>distance between them.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Henri Wilson.
>>
>>www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Henri Wilson.
HenriWilson
D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote:
>Dear HenriWilson:
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>news:nnlt80hfcseclb748...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 20:49:15 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
>dlzc1
>> D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote:
>...
>> >> If both theories always
>> >> give the same results and if both theories comply with the first
>> >> postulate then the second postulate is redundant but I don't think
>that
>> >> is the case.
>> >
>> >It is totally redundant, and the ballistic theory of light does not
>survive
>> >the earliest set of experiments perfomed... MMX.
>>
>> Of course it does. Where did you get that idea?
>> It provides the obvious solution to the MMX puzzle.
>
>It is not obvious how light knows to reflect with c-v on one reflection
>then c+v on the next. Conservation of momentum *should* have the light
>reflect with c+v (or c-v) every time. So ballistic light solves *nothing*.
You haven't done the maths properly. Have a closer look.
>
>TWLS always comes out c. So either it is simply always c, or the
>"mechanism" distorts to make it always c. Source dependency is a non
>sequitur.
>
>"NOUN:1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises
>or evidence.
>2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it."
What the hell are you talking about Smithy?
I have just placed my latest and vastly improved 'variable star' program on my
web page. Using the ballistic model it predicts exactly what is observed. The
program is very complicated and comprehensive but quite easy to use.
All the relevant parameters can be varied. It produces just about any observed
variable star brightness pattern.
If that is not proof that light speed is source dependent, what is?
>
>David A. Smith
>
Henri Wilson.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
See proof that light speed is source dependent.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestar.exe
HenriWilson
All Maxwell really did was say that light leaves its source at c. He must have
actually believed that a medium was involved and that medium traveled with the
source.
>
>That the second postulate is unnecessary - they wish!
>
>That the second postulate is derived from MMX - how can it be there was
>no relative motion between source and detector.
>
>That the second postulate is derived from the PoR. - It wasn't.
>
>There is plenty of justification for the first postulate but that is
>common to both SR and Ballistic theory. The second postulate (which is
>what defines SR) seems to have been plucked from thin air (or pinched
>from LET). It combines the dogma of the wave ether theory - that the
>speed of light is unaffected by the speed of the source because it is
>constant w.r.t the ether, with the result of MMX - that it wasn't
>effected by the speed of the source either.
>
>I just cannot understand how anyone can accept the idea that the speed
>of light is constant w.r.t to the observer observing it. Why? How?
It can be done mathematically. That's what Einstein did. Unfortunately, his
little tricks dont apply at the source end.
>
>The answer I get - sorry 'improper question'. SR does not attempt to
>answer those sort of questions.
>
>I wonder why?
>
>Never in the field of scientific endeavour has so much been built by so
>many on so little.
Earth centrism survive for quite a long time too.
HenriWilson
D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote:
>Dear John Kennaugh:
>
>"John Kennaugh" <jo...@kennaugh.yourfingerdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:QK0wnKIA...@kennaughyourfinger.demon.co.uk...
>> HenriWilson writes
>> >On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 20:49:15 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
>dlzc1
>> >D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote:
>...
>> >>It is totally redundant, and the ballistic theory of light does not
>survive
>> >>the earliest set of experiments perfomed... MMX.
>>
>> >
>> >Of course it does. Where did you get that idea?
>> >It provides the obvious solution to the MMX puzzle.
>>
>> Quite so. It happens time and time again on this NG and it really
>> bothers me that people who have obviously spent a lot more of their
>> lives studying physics than I, have such an unquestioning faith in Urban
>> Myths. e.g.
>>
>> That MMX ruled out Ballistic theory - it didn't on the contrary it was
>> the obvious interpretation of MMX.
>
>Not for a moving light source. MMX destroys ballistic light.
Have you any idea how the MMX works Smithy?
It doesn't use a 'moving source'.
>
>> That Maxwell ruled out ballistic theory - in the absence of an ether the
>> ballistic option is the only sensible alternative.
>
>Opinion.
>
>> That the second postulate is unnecessary - they wish!
>
>Not required. SR has been derived with out the simplifying assumption of
>the second postulate.
>
>> That the second postulate is derived from MMX - how can it be there was
>> no relative motion between source and detector.
>
>It has been done. MMX disallows ballistic light.
You're going crazy Smithy. Is your faith waning?
>
>> That the second postulate is derived from the PoR. - It wasn't.
>>
>> There is plenty of justification for the first postulate but that is
>> common to both SR and Ballistic theory. The second postulate (which is
>> what defines SR) seems to have been plucked from thin air (or pinched
>> from LET). It combines the dogma of the wave ether theory - that the
>> speed of light is unaffected by the speed of the source because it is
>> constant w.r.t the ether, with the result of MMX - that it wasn't
>> effected by the speed of the source either.
>>
>> I just cannot understand how anyone can accept the idea that the speed
>> of light is constant w.r.t to the observer observing it. Why? How?
>
>Because it agrees with experiment, including MMX with a moving light
>source. As described in the Lorentz transforms.
Gord! the christian bible must have been put together by people just like you.
>
>> The answer I get - sorry 'improper question'. SR does not attempt to
>> answer those sort of questions.
>>
>> I wonder why?
>
>Because relativity is not a religion. It is a basis for making testable
>predictions. "Why" questions are part of philosophy, not science.
Relativity IS a religion.
Indoctrination is the only way to maintain a constant supply of supporters.
>
>> Never in the field of scientific endeavour has so much been built by so
>> many on so little.
>
>A nice one liner. Too bad it also applies so well to your narrow world
>view.
A 'flat-Earther' like you wouldn't understand the significance of John's
statement.
>
>David A. Smith
>
Henri Wilson.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
See proof that light speed is source dependent.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestar.exe
HenriWilson
I just upgraded it again. It does everything and cannot crash any more.
HenriWilson
How does that differ from most of the threads here?
Whenever one of we thinkers puts up a sensible argument or asks a difficult
question, the SRian crackpots bombard us with abuse. Ridicule is their only
remaining weapon.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:85r190t94gd8cu3oe...@4ax.com...
Come up with MMX that shows an average of c over a two way path. You
haven't thought past your vague hopes.
> >TWLS always comes out c. So either it is simply always c, or the
> >"mechanism" distorts to make it always c. Source dependency is a non
> >sequitur.
> >
> >"NOUN:1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the
premises
> >or evidence.
> >2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it."
>
> What the hell are you talking about Smithy?
reality.
> I have just placed my latest and vastly improved 'variable star' program
on my
> web page. Using the ballistic model it predicts exactly what is observed.
The
> program is very complicated and comprehensive but quite easy to use.
Oh good. Another virus.
> All the relevant parameters can be varied. It produces just about any
observed
> variable star brightness pattern.
>
> If that is not proof that light speed is source dependent, what is?
reality says you are FOS. Your bad code is not proof.
David A. Smith
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:e3s1905ren9qnkt2h...@4ax.com...
It is not constrained from doing so, Willy. The incoming light can come
from anywhere, Willy. MMX is what you do with it after, Willy.
David A. Smith
YBM
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 19:58:25 +0200, YBM <y...@nooos.fr> wrote:
>
>
>>HenriWilson wrote:
>>
>>>Today's upgraged version of the program is foolproof. Now even YOU should be
>>>able to use it.
>>
>>It is far better, it now crashes a little bit later :
>>
>>http://zgub.homelinux.org/RH/wilson-is-a-computer-genious2.jpg
>>
>>What about giving up playing with computers Mr. Dumbson ? You
>>are definitely unable to handle such a thing.
>>
>
>
> I just upgraded it again. It does everything and cannot crash any more.
It now crashes sooner : when pressing on the ugly red button.
Why don't you try to learn to play golf or to paint fruits ? It is far
too late for you to learn anything on matters like computers or physics.
John Kennaugh
<N@?.D.invalid> writes
>Dear John Kennaugh:
>
>"John Kennaugh" <jo...@kennaugh.yourfingerdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:QK0wnKIA...@kennaughyourfinger.demon.co.uk...
>> HenriWilson writes
>> >On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 20:49:15 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
>dlzc1
>> >D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote:
>...
>> >>It is totally redundant, and the ballistic theory of light does not
>survive
>> >>the earliest set of experiments perfomed... MMX.
>>
>> >
>> >Of course it does. Where did you get that idea?
>> >It provides the obvious solution to the MMX puzzle.
>>
>> Quite so. It happens time and time again on this NG and it really
>> bothers me that people who have obviously spent a lot more of their
>> lives studying physics than I, have such an unquestioning faith in Urban
>> Myths. e.g.
>>
>> That MMX ruled out Ballistic theory - it didn't on the contrary it was
>> the obvious interpretation of MMX.
>
>Not for a moving light source. MMX destroys ballistic light.
MMX did not have a moving source. It was a fixed part of the apparatus.
MMX was 18years before SR was published. Walter Ritz was a contemporary
of Einstein and he worked on his emission theory, a ballistic theory. He
would not have done so had it been ruled out by MMX or by any other
experiment. Unfortunately he died young.
>
>> That Maxwell ruled out ballistic theory - in the absence of an ether the
>> ballistic option is the only sensible alternative.
>
>Opinion.
Maxwell produced a set of equations. One interpretation is a wave
travelling at c. Maxwell assumed it was c relative to the ether. If you
assume there is no ether then the only other sensible thing c can be
referenced to is the source. Light which is not going to be observed
still manages to leave the source so suggesting that c is relative to
the observer as per SR is a bizarre alternative not a sensible one. When
it comes to applying the actual equations then for SR you simply assume
Maxwell's ether is stationary w.r.t the observer. After all that is what
the second postulate infers. If someone sees something propagated in all
directions at the same speed it can only be because they are stationary
w.r.t the propagation medium. To apply the equations for the ballistic
theory you do the equivalent of assuming that Maxwell's ether is
stationary w.r.t the source. Unlike SR where you still need an ether the
ballistic theory can put forward an alternative explanation of why the
speed of light leaving the source is c in all directions. SR cannot
because if light speed is not dependent upon the source then it must be
dependent on something else and whatever that something else is, must
take charge of the process from the moment the light leaves the source.
Opinion? No the above is a set of reasoned arguments. It is not my
opinion versus yours it is my reasoning against yours so what is your
reasoning that SR is a more sensible interpretation?
>
>> That the second postulate is unnecessary - they wish!
>
>Not required. SR has been derived with out the simplifying assumption of
>the second postulate.
Analogy - Suppose a crime was witnessed on CCTV and as usual the picture
lacked detail. The area is cordoned off and two suspects rounded up.
From the CCTV footage it is clear that the criminal had dark hair. Both
suspects have dark hair. Which do you arrest? According to you, you have
all the evidence you need to arrest the one you prefer because he has
dark hair. I OTOH notice that one of the suspects is a man and the other
is a woman. I suggest that that information is the key to determining
which committed the crime. You say no, you have all the information you
need from the first piece of evidence.
There are two possibilities, either you are wrong and somehow assumption
have been included in the derivation which are the equivalent of the 2nd
postulate or the mathematics of ballistic and SR theories are identical.
They are certainly a lot more similar than relativists believe but I
doubt they are the same. If they are, your main argument in favour of
SR, that it gives the right answer, falls by the wayside because in that
case Ballistic theory would give the same answer and is inherently a
more sensible theory.
>
>> That the second postulate is derived from MMX - how can it be there was
>> no relative motion between source and detector.
>
>It has been done. MMX disallows ballistic light.
No it didn't see comments above. The reason many believe it is due to
semantic slight of hand used by many text books. They make a statement
in the chapter on MMX which says:
"....and thus it was shown that the speed of light was unaffected by the
speed of the observer.." which in context is not incorrect but means
"....and thus it was shown that the speed of light was unaffected by the
speed of the observer's apparatus relative to the rest of the
universe.."
Then in the chapter on relativity it is restated:
"....as it was shown that the speed of light was unaffected by the speed
of the observer.."
But this time used to mean:
"....as it was shown that the speed of light was unaffected by the speed
of the observer relative to that of the source.."
which in fact had not been shown because there was no relative motion
between source and detector in the MM apparatus.
If you know otherwise quote chapter and verse. In my profession High-z
means 'high impedance' so I have not a clue what you are talking about
in your other post.
>
>> That the second postulate is derived from the PoR. - It wasn't.
>>
>> There is plenty of justification for the first postulate but that is
>> common to both SR and Ballistic theory. The second postulate (which is
>> what defines SR) seems to have been plucked from thin air (or pinched
>> from LET). It combines the dogma of the wave ether theory - that the
>> speed of light is unaffected by the speed of the source because it is
>> constant w.r.t the ether, with the result of MMX - that it wasn't
>> effected by the speed of the source either.
>>
>> I just cannot understand how anyone can accept the idea that the speed
>> of light is constant w.r.t to the observer observing it. Why? How?
>
>Because it agrees with experiment, including MMX with a moving light
>source. As described in the Lorentz transforms.
>
>> The answer I get - sorry 'improper question'. SR does not attempt to
>> answer those sort of questions.
>>
>> I wonder why?
>
>Because relativity is not a religion. It is a basis for making testable
>predictions. "Why" questions are part of philosophy, not science.
Natural Philosophy has always been the very basis of science. It is
structured thinking. Since Einstein it has been replaced by mysticism.
The speed of light leaving a very distant source is magically controlled
by an observer such that it leaves the source at whatever speed it is
necessary to leave at, to be c relative to that observer and if there
are more than one observer it magically leaves the source at as many
different speeds as is necessary to satisfy all those observers. It even
obliges them by setting out at different times when necessary. Asking
how this can possibly be the result of natural processes (as against
supernatural processes) is a disallowed question. How convenient.
>
>> Never in the field of scientific endeavour has so much been built by so
>> many on so little.
>
>A nice one liner.
Thank you!
Androcles
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
Sure:
http://www.brunel.ac.uk/depts/fdtd/maxwell.html
"They are vector differential equations, describing the evolution in time
and space of the electric and magnetic fields Eand H. Different problems are
specified by boundary conditions, ...
Richard Feynman, the Nobel prize winning physicist and parallel computing
pioneer, worked with such fields for most of his life and still found it
impossible to truly visualise them. He said [2]:
"I have no picture of the electromagnetic field that is in any sense
accurate...I see some kind of vague shadowy wiggling lines - here and there
is an E and a B written on them somehow, and perhaps some of the lines have
arrows on them - an arrow here or there which disappears when I look too
closely at it."
Of course, Andersen and Bilge know better than Richard Feynman.
Androcles
Androcles
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:ts50909qaf3jklod8...@4ax.com...
http://www.sst.ph.ic.ac.uk/photonics/pdf/Wijnands_OpQE29.pdf
"We start from the source free....."
"assuming a time dependence exp(-i omega t)..."
In other words, as with all mathematics, the physics has not been taken into
consideration by Andersen. Nowhere do Maxwell's (differential) equations
state that EM fields are in phase with each other. The source (or initial)
conditions apply, as with all differential equations.
Androcles
HenriWilson
>HenriWilson wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 19:58:25 +0200, YBM <y...@nooos.fr> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>HenriWilson wrote:
>>>
>>>>Today's upgraged version of the program is foolproof. Now even YOU should be
>>>>able to use it.
>>>
>>>It is far better, it now crashes a little bit later :
>>>
>>>http://zgub.homelinux.org/RH/wilson-is-a-computer-genious2.jpg
>>>
>>>What about giving up playing with computers Mr. Dumbson ? You
>>>are definitely unable to handle such a thing.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I just upgraded it again. It does everything and cannot crash any more.
>
>It now crashes sooner : when pressing on the ugly red button.
Stop lying. You are just trying to protect your eyes from the truth.
Why don't you get a decent computer. It doesn't crash on mine.
>
>Why don't you try to learn to play golf or to paint fruits ? It is far
>too late for you to learn anything on matters like computers or physics.
>
Androcles
no resistance. It contains a finite but increasing number of air molecules.
Add another molecule and the radius of the bubble increases, the pressure
and temperature remaining constant (in a real bubble, the pressure increases
of course). It has to, the volume increased. For a constant stream of air
entering the bubble, the volume increases linearly. However, the radial
velocity of the skin of the bubble is gradually reduced as the surface area
is filled by the molecules of air.
Suppose we have 1 photon per unit area at some radius. When we double the
radius, we have 1 photon per 4 unit areas. So we could, if we chose, drill a
hole in the 4 unit area of size one unit area and let the photon through. We
can repeat this for the adjacent photon. The trouble is, the photons wont
play by our rules. They go through multiple holes and diffract. When they do
that, we measure redshift, because a diffraction grating is a mask with
holes in it. If we double the distance yet again, we have 1 photon per 16
unit areas, and now we have 4 holes per photon.
Any interaction between photons (or air molecules in the bubble) will be
repulsive near the star as they push each other out of the way, and
attractive when they are distant if the volume is to be evenly filled with a
finite number of photons.
Surface tension on water is sufficent to support a paper clip, a globule of
water holds together in gravity free space (raindrops), why should photons
be an different?
I fail to see why you would think a nearby star will have the same shift as
a distant one. That would not be true for a pipe inflating a soap bubble.
The air velocity in the pipe will be greater than the radial velocity of the
bubble, and the radial velocity inside the bubble will be different for
individual molecules, a function of DISTANCE from the origin. Therefore the
air molecules are slowing the further away they are.
Androcles
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"John Kennaugh" <jo...@kennaugh.yourfingerdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3yK5J9Ql...@kennaughyourfinger.demon.co.uk...
> In message <58Pjc.866$ph.525@fed1read07>, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)"
> <N@?.D.invalid> writes
> >Dear John Kennaugh:
...
> >> That MMX ruled out Ballistic theory - it didn't on the contrary it was
> >> the obvious interpretation of MMX.
> >
> >Not for a moving light source. MMX destroys ballistic light.
>
> MMX did not have a moving source.
MMX can be, and I believe has been, performed with a moving light source.
The result is the same.
Therefore ballistic theory is dead, unless photons have really good
communications or memory.
David A. Smith
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"John Kennaugh" <jo...@kennaugh.yourfingerdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3yK5J9Ql...@kennaughyourfinger.demon.co.uk...
> In message <58Pjc.866$ph.525@fed1read07>, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)"
> <N@?.D.invalid> writes
...
> >> That Maxwell ruled out ballistic theory - in the absence of an ether
the
> >> ballistic option is the only sensible alternative.
>
> >
> >Opinion.
>
> Maxwell produced a set of equations. One interpretation is a wave
> travelling at c. Maxwell assumed it was c relative to the ether. If you
> assume there is no ether then the only other sensible thing c can be
> referenced to is the source.
Why would you do this? There are aethers, such as that proposed by
Lorentz, that have no issues with experiment.
Also consider that Maxwell defines the same c at a reflector, both before
relection and after. So the very first thing that the light encounters
will also see the light to travel at c. So much for source dependency.
> Light which is not going to be observed
> still manages to leave the source so suggesting that c is relative to
> the observer as per SR is a bizarre alternative not a sensible one.
Opinion. The very same opinion, in fact.
> When
> it comes to applying the actual equations then for SR you simply assume
> Maxwell's ether is stationary w.r.t the observer. After all that is what
> the second postulate infers.
It actually posits it, so no inference is required. Light always travels
at c.
> If someone sees something propagated in all
> directions at the same speed it can only be because they are stationary
> w.r.t the propagation medium.
Or their c-moderated constitution is altered is altered by the "medium
speed", so that they will always measure c.
> To apply the equations for the ballistic
> theory you do the equivalent of assuming that Maxwell's ether is
> stationary w.r.t the source.
Which fails at the first medium this light encounters.
> Unlike SR where you still need an ether the
> ballistic theory can put forward an alternative explanation of why the
> speed of light leaving the source is c in all directions.
At fails at any other frame.
> SR cannot
> because if light speed is not dependent upon the source then it must be
> dependent on something else
Opinion. It is only dependent on the first postulate, which brings us back
eventually to all measurements of the speed of light are c.
> and whatever that something else is, must
> take charge of the process from the moment the light leaves the source.
Or the source is not a preferred frame, and it, like all other frames,
measures the speed of light to be c.
> Opinion? No the above is a set of reasoned arguments.
Full of opinion. Your opinion.
> It is not my
> opinion versus yours
Right. It is your opinion against observation.
> it is my reasoning against yours so what is your
> reasoning that SR is a more sensible interpretation?
It does not require me to make judgement calls about *why* I measure length
contraction, or time dilation. It is based purely on tested theory. If
you want a mechanism, try LET. Ilja has done a *very* good job, I hear.
David A. Smith
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"John Kennaugh" <jo...@kennaugh.yourfingerdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3yK5J9Ql...@kennaughyourfinger.demon.co.uk...
> In message <58Pjc.866$ph.525@fed1read07>, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)"
> <N@?.D.invalid> writes
...
> >> That the second postulate is unnecessary - they wish!
> >
> >Not required. SR has been derived with out the simplifying assumption
of
> >the second postulate.
>
> Analogy - Suppose a crime was witnessed on CCTV and as usual the picture
> lacked detail. The area is cordoned off and two suspects rounded up.
> From the CCTV footage it is clear that the criminal had dark hair. Both
> suspects have dark hair. Which do you arrest? According to you, you have
> all the evidence you need to arrest the one you prefer because he has
> dark hair. I OTOH notice that one of the suspects is a man and the other
> is a woman. I suggest that that information is the key to determining
> which committed the crime. You say no, you have all the information you
> need from the first piece of evidence.
>
> There are two possibilities, either you are wrong and somehow assumption
> have been included in the derivation which are the equivalent of the 2nd
> postulate or the mathematics of ballistic and SR theories are identical.
> They are certainly a lot more similar than relativists believe but I
> doubt they are the same. If they are, your main argument in favour of
> SR, that it gives the right answer, falls by the wayside because in that
> case Ballistic theory would give the same answer and is inherently a
> more sensible theory.
Simpler still. The first postulate says all the laws of physics are the
same for all inertial frames. Maxwell says light propagates at c for a
frame. Therefore, light propagates at c for the source frame, for the
transmitter frame, and for the detector frame. So I arrest the dark haired
person named Maxwell.
David A. Smith
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"John Kennaugh" <jo...@kennaugh.yourfingerdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3yK5J9Ql...@kennaughyourfinger.demon.co.uk...
> In message <58Pjc.866$ph.525@fed1read07>, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)"
> <N@?.D.invalid> writes
...
> >> That the second postulate is derived from MMX - how can it be there
was
> >> no relative motion between source and detector.
> >
> >It has been done. MMX disallows ballistic light.
>
> No it didn't see comments above. The reason many believe it is due to
> semantic slight of hand used by many text books. They make a statement
> in the chapter on MMX which says:
> "....and thus it was shown that the speed of light was unaffected by the
> speed of the observer.." which in context is not incorrect but means
> "....and thus it was shown that the speed of light was unaffected by the
> speed of the observer's apparatus relative to the rest of the
> universe.."
> Then in the chapter on relativity it is restated:
> "....as it was shown that the speed of light was unaffected by the speed
> of the observer.."
> But this time used to mean:
> "....as it was shown that the speed of light was unaffected by the speed
> of the observer relative to that of the source.."
> which in fact had not been shown because there was no relative motion
> between source and detector in the MM apparatus.
>
> If you know otherwise quote chapter and verse. In my profession High-z
> means 'high impedance' so I have not a clue what you are talking about
> in your other post.
No chapter and verse. Ballistic is dead. Maxwell killed it. You cannot
infer anything else, from observation of experimental result. If you
choose to stay blind, that is your perogative.
David A. Smith
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"John Kennaugh" <jo...@kennaugh.yourfingerdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3yK5J9Ql...@kennaughyourfinger.demon.co.uk...
> In message <58Pjc.866$ph.525@fed1read07>, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)"
> <N@?.D.invalid> writes
...
> >> I wonder why?
> >
> >Because relativity is not a religion. It is a basis for making testable
> >predictions. "Why" questions are part of philosophy, not science.
>
> Natural Philosophy has always been the very basis of science.
No. Science progressed beyond this even in the time of Newton. But since
scientists are still human, some philosophy, no matter how disjoint, seems
to be added for flavor. Just as each person flavors steak differently.
> It is
> structured thinking.
It is not necessary.
> Since Einstein it has been replaced by mysticism.
If it is not physically verifiable, it is mysticism. That is the purview
of Philosophy, not science.
> The speed of light leaving a very distant source is magically controlled
> by an observer such that it leaves the source at whatever speed it is
> necessary to leave at, to be c relative to that observer and if there
> are more than one observer it magically leaves the source at as many
> different speeds as is necessary to satisfy all those observers.
Opinion. Light always travels at c. If you don't like it this simple, if
you must have some mysticism, try LET. The source instruments and observer
instruments are all affected by the same aether, so they always detect c.
> It even
> obliges them by setting out at different times when necessary. Asking
> how this can possibly be the result of natural processes (as against
> supernatural processes) is a disallowed question. How convenient.
LET provides your "how", if you wish to have some physical mechanism. SR
simply says that this is what you will measure.
> >> Never in the field of scientific endeavour has so much been built by
so
> >> many on so little.
> >
> >A nice one liner.
>
> Thank you!
Just like your response to my post. So much response with nothing ever in
consideration of what was supplied. Very like one Androcles with whom I
have discoursed at one time.
David A. Smith