Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: Henri Wilson on 3 Jul 2005 18:32 On 3 Jul 2005 07:07:43 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> Consider a star of constant brightness moving in some kind of orbit. >> From O3's POV, light emitted at different times of (its) year will have >> different 'closing speeds' towards any particular target (unless the orbit >> plane is normal). >> For illustration purposes, let the star emit equally spaced and identical >> pulses of light as it orbits. Thus, from O3's POV, some pulses will tend to >> catch up with others. Some will tend to move further away. The O3 will detect >> bunching and separation at certain points along the light path. Fast pulses >> will eventually overtake slow ones if no target intervenes. >> >> Armed with this knowledge, O3 will reason that any target observer will receive >> pulses from the star at different rates. This can only mean that OT will, in >> reality, perceive the observed brightness of any (intrinsically stable) star in >> orbit to be varying cyclically over the star's year, by an amount that will >> depend on the distance to the star. >> >> There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very regular >> brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by my >> variable star simulation program: >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe > >Except for a number of huge problems. Try "extinction". >You claim that -all- measurements of k in c'=c+kv from DeSitter >on which have consistently yielded k~0 are flawed because of >extinction. The extincr\tion argument was put forward by a gentleman called Fox, who subsequently showed that DeSitter's argument against the BaT was wrong. > >If extinction effects prevented DeSitter etc. from measuring >k, extinction must work equally well to predict that BaT cannot >explain variable star light curves. Light being emitted adjusts >its speed to that imposed by the interstellar medium almost >instantly, and faster and slower light cannot add up as you >say it does. > >YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, HENRI! You can't have extinction >invalidating DeSitter's results and not invalidating yours. Yes we can. In remote space, extinction takes place over very large distances....but small enough to prevent multiple images from being observed. I have a figure of about 10LYs for one cepheid, AT Aur. Beyond that distance, the light from the star light is moving at about the same speed and its observed brightness pattern doesn't change. > >Jerry HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Henri Wilson on 3 Jul 2005 20:20 On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 20:46:49 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:0k7ec1lmdc20ar42f27tngpcpn2gktjdl5(a)4ax.com... >> Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source". >> >> If a remote light source emits a pulse of light towards a target observer >> moving relatively at v1, then, from the point of view of a third observer >O3, >> the 'closing speed' of that pulse towards the first observer is c+v1. >> >> For another target observer moving at v2, the closing speed is seen as >c+v2. >> Here is the experimental setup: >> >> S_._._._._._._.>p_._._._._._._.v1<T1_._._ >> v2<T2 >> >> >> >> O3 >> >> O3 sets up a line of equally separated clocks which measure the speed of a >> light pulse emitted by S towards T1 and T2. O3 also measures the speed of >T1 >> and T2 towards S. The readings enable him to calculate the different >'closing >> speeds' between the pulse and T1 and the pulse and T2. >> >> I understand that SRians agree on this. >> >> The principle of relativity says it matters not whether the source or >target is >> considered as moving. Therefore, the above considerations hold just as >well for >> differently moving sources. >> >> Thus, for a particular target, the 'closing speed' of light from >relatively >> moving sources is c+v3, c+v4, etc., as seen by O3. >> >> Consider a star of constant brightness moving in some kind of orbit. >> From O3's POV, light emitted at different times of (its) year will have >> different 'closing speeds' towards any particular target (unless the orbit >> plane is normal). >> For illustration purposes, let the star emit equally spaced and identical >> pulses of light as it orbits. Thus, from O3's POV, some pulses will tend >to >> catch up with others. Some will tend to move further away. The O3 will >detect >> bunching and separation at certain points along the light path. Fast >pulses >> will eventually overtake slow ones if no target intervenes. >> >> Armed with this knowledge, O3 will reason that any target observer will >receive >> pulses from the star at different rates. This can only mean that OT will, >in >> reality, perceive the observed brightness of any (intrinsically stable) >star in >> orbit to be varying cyclically over the star's year, by an amount that >will >> depend on the distance to the star. >> >> There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very regular >> brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by my >> variable star simulation program: >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe >> >> Note: Einstein's unproven claim that the target observer will always >MEASURE >> the speed of the incoming pulses as being c is completely irrelevant to >this >> argument. >> >> The BaT acknowleges the existence of extinction and that 'local aether >frames' >> may exist in the vicinity of matter. These may determine local light >speeds. > >The Ballistic Theory is refuted by the double slit experiment. > Why? photons have cross-sections. The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure. If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between wavecrests change or not? HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Jerry on 4 Jul 2005 04:29 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 3 Jul 2005 07:07:43 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >Henri Wilson wrote: > > > >> Consider a star of constant brightness moving in some kind of orbit. > >> From O3's POV, light emitted at different times of (its) year will have > >> different 'closing speeds' towards any particular target (unless the orbit > >> plane is normal). > >> For illustration purposes, let the star emit equally spaced and identical > >> pulses of light as it orbits. Thus, from O3's POV, some pulses will tend to > >> catch up with others. Some will tend to move further away. The O3 will detect > >> bunching and separation at certain points along the light path. Fast pulses > >> will eventually overtake slow ones if no target intervenes. > >> > >> Armed with this knowledge, O3 will reason that any target observer will receive > >> pulses from the star at different rates. This can only mean that OT will, in > >> reality, perceive the observed brightness of any (intrinsically stable) star in > >> orbit to be varying cyclically over the star's year, by an amount that will > >> depend on the distance to the star. > >> > >> There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very regular > >> brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by my > >> variable star simulation program: > >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe > > > >Except for a number of huge problems. Try "extinction". > >You claim that -all- measurements of k in c'=c+kv from DeSitter > >on which have consistently yielded k~0 are flawed because of > >extinction. > > The extincr\tion argument was put forward by a gentleman called Fox, who > subsequently showed that DeSitter's argument against the BaT was wrong. ....and this very same Fox conducted an experiment specifically designed to counter extinction arguments, the result of which was ihnconsistent with BaT. > >If extinction effects prevented DeSitter etc. from measuring > >k, extinction must work equally well to predict that BaT cannot > >explain variable star light curves. Light being emitted adjusts > >its speed to that imposed by the interstellar medium almost > >instantly, and faster and slower light cannot add up as you > >say it does. > > > >YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, HENRI! You can't have extinction > >invalidating DeSitter's results and not invalidating yours. > > Yes we can. In remote space, extinction takes place over very large > distances....but small enough to prevent multiple images from being observed. > > I have a figure of about 10LYs for one cepheid, AT Aur. Beyond that distance, > the light from the star light is moving at about the same speed and its > observed brightness pattern doesn't change. You turn on extinction only when you want to, and turn it off when you don't. Jerry
From: kenseto on 4 Jul 2005 09:46 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:f20hc1l3tg7k9ja2h959jujt3smv4vodtn(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 20:46:49 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message > >news:0k7ec1lmdc20ar42f27tngpcpn2gktjdl5(a)4ax.com... > >> Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source". > >> > >> If a remote light source emits a pulse of light towards a target observer > >> moving relatively at v1, then, from the point of view of a third observer > >O3, > >> the 'closing speed' of that pulse towards the first observer is c+v1. > >> > >> For another target observer moving at v2, the closing speed is seen as > >c+v2. > >> Here is the experimental setup: > >> > >> S_._._._._._._.>p_._._._._._._.v1<T1_._._ > >> v2<T2 > >> > >> > >> > >> O3 > >> > >> O3 sets up a line of equally separated clocks which measure the speed of a > >> light pulse emitted by S towards T1 and T2. O3 also measures the speed of > >T1 > >> and T2 towards S. The readings enable him to calculate the different > >'closing > >> speeds' between the pulse and T1 and the pulse and T2. > >> > >> I understand that SRians agree on this. > >> > >> The principle of relativity says it matters not whether the source or > >target is > >> considered as moving. Therefore, the above considerations hold just as > >well for > >> differently moving sources. > >> > >> Thus, for a particular target, the 'closing speed' of light from > >relatively > >> moving sources is c+v3, c+v4, etc., as seen by O3. > >> > >> Consider a star of constant brightness moving in some kind of orbit. > >> From O3's POV, light emitted at different times of (its) year will have > >> different 'closing speeds' towards any particular target (unless the orbit > >> plane is normal). > >> For illustration purposes, let the star emit equally spaced and identical > >> pulses of light as it orbits. Thus, from O3's POV, some pulses will tend > >to > >> catch up with others. Some will tend to move further away. The O3 will > >detect > >> bunching and separation at certain points along the light path. Fast > >pulses > >> will eventually overtake slow ones if no target intervenes. > >> > >> Armed with this knowledge, O3 will reason that any target observer will > >receive > >> pulses from the star at different rates. This can only mean that OT will, > >in > >> reality, perceive the observed brightness of any (intrinsically stable) > >star in > >> orbit to be varying cyclically over the star's year, by an amount that > >will > >> depend on the distance to the star. > >> > >> There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very regular > >> brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by my > >> variable star simulation program: > >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe > >> > >> Note: Einstein's unproven claim that the target observer will always > >MEASURE > >> the speed of the incoming pulses as being c is completely irrelevant to > >this > >> argument. > >> > >> The BaT acknowleges the existence of extinction and that 'local aether > >frames' > >> may exist in the vicinity of matter. These may determine local light > >speeds. > > > >The Ballistic Theory is refuted by the double slit experiment. > > > > Why? photons have cross-sections. > > The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure. > If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between wavecrests change > or not? You missed the point. If BaT is true then we should not have observed the interfference fringes with the double slit-experiment. We should have just saw the images of the two slits. Ken Seto
From: Henri Wilson on 4 Jul 2005 20:21
On 4 Jul 2005 01:29:02 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 3 Jul 2005 07:07:43 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >Henri Wilson wrote: >> > >> >> Consider a star of constant brightness moving in some kind of orbit. >> >> From O3's POV, light emitted at different times of (its) year will have >> >> different 'closing speeds' towards any particular target (unless the orbit >> >> plane is normal). >> >> For illustration purposes, let the star emit equally spaced and identical >> >> pulses of light as it orbits. Thus, from O3's POV, some pulses will tend to >> >> catch up with others. Some will tend to move further away. The O3 will detect >> >> bunching and separation at certain points along the light path. Fast pulses >> >> will eventually overtake slow ones if no target intervenes. >> >> >> >> Armed with this knowledge, O3 will reason that any target observer will receive >> >> pulses from the star at different rates. This can only mean that OT will, in >> >> reality, perceive the observed brightness of any (intrinsically stable) star in >> >> orbit to be varying cyclically over the star's year, by an amount that will >> >> depend on the distance to the star. >> >> >> >> There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very regular >> >> brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by my >> >> variable star simulation program: >> >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe >> > >> >Except for a number of huge problems. Try "extinction". >> >You claim that -all- measurements of k in c'=c+kv from DeSitter >> >on which have consistently yielded k~0 are flawed because of >> >extinction. >> >> The extincr\tion argument was put forward by a gentleman called Fox, who >> subsequently showed that DeSitter's argument against the BaT was wrong. > >...and this very same Fox conducted an experiment specifically >designed to counter extinction arguments, the result of which >was ihnconsistent with BaT. Different Fox. > >> >If extinction effects prevented DeSitter etc. from measuring >> >k, extinction must work equally well to predict that BaT cannot >> >explain variable star light curves. Light being emitted adjusts >> >its speed to that imposed by the interstellar medium almost >> >instantly, and faster and slower light cannot add up as you >> >say it does. >> > >> >YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, HENRI! You can't have extinction >> >invalidating DeSitter's results and not invalidating yours. >> >> Yes we can. In remote space, extinction takes place over very large >> distances....but small enough to prevent multiple images from being observed. >> >> I have a figure of about 10LYs for one cepheid, AT Aur. Beyond that distance, >> the light from the star light is moving at about the same speed and its >> observed brightness pattern doesn't change. > >You turn on extinction only when you want to, and turn it off >when you don't. No. It happens naturally. > >Jerry HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. |