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: Timo Nieminen on 8 Oct 2005 16:03 On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, it was written: > Timo Nieminen <timo(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: >> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, it was written: >>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote: >>>> In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Maxwell's equations don't apply in completelyempty space, idiot. >>>> >>>> OK, I'll bite. >>> >>> OK Ghost, you are out in remote and completely empty space. >>> >>> What answers do you get when your instruments measure the two constants? >>> Are they zero? What do they imply? >> >> One very traditional way to measure permittivity is using a parallel plate >> capacitor. Neglecting edge effects, the capacitance is C=eA/d where e is >> the permittivity, A is the area, and d is the distance between the plates. >> Measure the capacitance, and you have the permittivity. > > That's right. > Trouble is, the field itself turns 'empty space' into 'space with a field'. Given that the electric field of any charged particle extends to an infinite distance (or, if the particle came into existence a time t ago, extends to tc), then there isn't any empty space anywhere in the vicinity of matter. Oh, look, there's light in intergalactic space! Look, the microwave background radiation is everywhere! If the presence of electromagnetic fields is enough to make space not "completely empty", then can your claim "Maxwell's equations don't apply in completelyempty space" have any purpose, since there isn't any "completely empty" space anywhere? >> What do you say the effect of having "completely empty" space between the >> two plates is? >> >> Likewise, you can measure permeability by measuring inductance. >> > Once again, the field itself turns 'empty space' into 'space with a field'. > >>> Next, you accelerate at 0.0001 c/sec2 for 1000 seconds. >>> What values do you now get for the two constants? >>> What do they imply? >> >> Well, the traditional relativistic view is that moving through empty >> space won't have any effect, so the measurements would be the same as >> before. > > I don't want to hear the 'traditional relativistic view'. > However, the finding might be that the value of the universal constant 'c' is > indeed constant. > > This implies that light emitted by the observer would travel at c wrt that > observer. Sure. It would also mean that light emitted by other sources would travel at c wrt that observer. Unless the Maxwell equations are wrong. Prove that, and you are a long way towards getting your theory accepted. If you can't prove it, then your theory is kaput. Now, this is IMHO an interesting question of physics. I'd have thought the ballistic theory gang would be interested, since it could lead to a real test of your various ballistic/emission theories. Alas, it hasn't been possible to discuss it with Greenfield or Androcles. What about you? Are you willing to discuss the physics of your theory? >> If there was an effect, it would be evidence of "ether wind", which brings >> to mind a certain experiment by Trouton and Noble. > > According to aether theories the instruments would physically change so as to > keep the measured values constant. According to SOME ether theories. Only according to ether theories specifically designed to explain such null results. -- Timo
From: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 8 Oct 2005 18:48 "Timo Nieminen" <uqtniemi(a)mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:20051009055134.F83690(a)emu.uq.edu.au... | | Now, this is IMHO an interesting question of physics. I'd have thought the | ballistic theory gang would be interested, since it could lead to a real | test of your various ballistic/emission theories. Alas, it hasn't been | possible to discuss it with Greenfield or Androcles. I'll discuss it, but you have to agree to do it on an equal basis, I'll only cheese off your pompous know-it-all attitude and one-up-manship games of "Noted refused to answer". I'll cuss you out. I've started the thread "Capacitors in space". This one has a silly title. Androcles.
From: Henri Wilson on 8 Oct 2005 18:59 On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 17:24:03 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:pjodk1hp01816bqaj639orkc2k05fnuat2(a)4ax.com: > >> On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 19:01:12 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> >> wrote: >> >>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>news:kuv5k15e65jjb9f44egkok6qht68k537c0(a)4ax.com: >>> >>>> Oh, there could be. The brightness curves would be just about the >>>> same. The main difference is that the one involving an eclipse is dead >>>> flat between the troughs. >>> >>>That is assuming 'uniform brightness' of the star being eclipsed (which >>>isn't true because of the geometry of a spherical radiatior) and no >>>gravity lensing. >> >> That sounds like the argument of a desperate person. > >That doesn't even sound like an argument based on science. What the hell has spherical geometry to do with the constancy of a star's brightness? > >Ad hominem attacks are the last refuge of desperate people. >When you make such attacks, you put yourself into that catagory. > >Download starlight pro from http://www.physics.sfasu.edu/astro/binstar.html >and play with it a bit. Can't you see the flat sections between the eclipses? > >You will quickly find that the way you can get 'flat between the troughs' >is by making the stars spherical. I don't know what you are trying to say here Bob. If the star is not being eclipsed, its brightness should remain almost dead constant whatever its shape and spin. >If you want the troughs flat bottomed, >turn off limb darkening and make sure the plane of the orbit allows total >or annular occultation to take place. I don't want the troughs flat bottomed. It is obvious how that can be achieved. > > >>>> ..unlike Algol's , which has a distinct >>>> concavity....just as the BaT predicts. >>>> HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
From: Henri Wilson on 8 Oct 2005 19:25 On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 06:03:44 +1000, Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi(a)mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote: >On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, it was written: > >> Timo Nieminen <timo(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: >>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, it was written: >>> One very traditional way to measure permittivity is using a parallel plate >>> capacitor. Neglecting edge effects, the capacitance is C=eA/d where e is >>> the permittivity, A is the area, and d is the distance between the plates. >>> Measure the capacitance, and you have the permittivity. >> >> That's right. >> Trouble is, the field itself turns 'empty space' into 'space with a field'. > >Given that the electric field of any charged particle extends to an >infinite distance (or, if the particle came into existence a time t ago, >extends to tc), You are assuming that electric fields travel at c wrt the charge that creates them.. >then there isn't any empty space anywhere in the vicinity >of matter. Oh, look, there's light in intergalactic space! Look, the >microwave background radiation is everywhere! You could be right..... but there could also be a lot of empty space between the 'photons' that make up starlight and the CMBR. > >If the presence of electromagnetic fields is enough to make space not >"completely empty", then can your claim >"Maxwell's equations don't apply in completelyempty space" >have any purpose, since there isn't any "completely empty" space anywhere? That's why I have proposed the 'Wilson density threshold' below which the interaction between photons and matter changes fairly abruptly. Above the threshold density, matter constitutes a kind of aether, which determines the equilibrium light speed in that region. The speed of any light emitted in that region or entering from outside will tend towards that equilibrium...not necessarilty very rapidly, though. Below the threshold, photons are large and engulf atoms, causing them to be 'dragged along a little'. The energy lost by the photon to the atom is a major cause of the cosmic redshift although the photon's direction of travel is virtually unaffected. >>> What do you say the effect of having "completely empty" space between the >>> two plates is? >>> >>> Likewise, you can measure permeability by measuring inductance. >>> >> Once again, the field itself turns 'empty space' into 'space with a field'. >> >>>> Next, you accelerate at 0.0001 c/sec2 for 1000 seconds. >>>> What values do you now get for the two constants? >>>> What do they imply? >>> >>> Well, the traditional relativistic view is that moving through empty >>> space won't have any effect, so the measurements would be the same as >>> before. >> >> I don't want to hear the 'traditional relativistic view'. >> However, the finding might be that the value of the universal constant 'c' is >> indeed constant. >> >> This implies that light emitted by the observer would travel at c wrt that >> observer. > >Sure. It would also mean that light emitted by other sources would travel >at c wrt that observer. Unless the Maxwell equations are wrong. Prove >that, and you are a long way towards getting your theory accepted. If you >can't prove it, then your theory is kaput. Maxwell's equations are totally meaningless unless a speed reference is provided. For Maxwell, that reference was a universal medium. >Now, this is IMHO an interesting question of physics. I'd have thought the >ballistic theory gang would be interested, since it could lead to a real >test of your various ballistic/emission theories. Alas, it hasn't been >possible to discuss it with Greenfield or Androcles. > >What about you? Are you willing to discuss the physics of your theory? I am always willing. I have thought about this a great deal...and repeat what I just stated above. Speed must have a reference. Maxwell's equations do not imply that EM must move at c wrt ALL observers. They merely say that light generated by a source should move at the value of c determined by an observer who measures the two constants in the source frame. That notion is in accordance with aether theories, which basically say that any observer will always get the same value 'c' ""because his instruments change to make it so"".. >>> If there was an effect, it would be evidence of "ether wind", which brings >>> to mind a certain experiment by Trouton and Noble. >> >> According to aether theories the instruments would physically change so as to >> keep the measured values constant. > >According to SOME ether theories. Only according to ether theories >specifically designed to explain such null results. I think they all do that. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
From: Henri Wilson on 8 Oct 2005 19:32
On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 19:00:06 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: >In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> > wrote >on Sat, 08 Oct 2005 10:05:12 GMT >>>Probably not, but both theories predict the same thing AFAICT. >>> >>>In any event, the Earth is moving around in a circle at a speed >>>of about 10^-4 c (or 30 km/s). >> >> And it is rotating with the galaxy > >Very slowly, though the actual speed might be 10x faster. >The good news about the Earth's revolution is that we know >the period -- it's 1 year. Any variation of lightspeed >relative to that period should show up fairly readily. You are just reiterating the age old notion that ONE EARTH ROTATION is an excellent time reference. :) Very good Ghost. I'm sure if you had been around 10000 years ago you would have invented the sundial and maybe designed stonehenge. >>>> Anyway, the answer would be the value of the universal constant 'c'. >>> >>>For all four constants? >> >> How do you know the readings would be the same? > >I don't, but I don't see why they wouldn't be. I don't either. But the fact that both of us don't see any obvious reason isn't a proof that there isn't one. > >> . >>>>Why wouldn't they apply? And what equations *do* apply? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>In any event, space isn't truly empty, though intergalactic >>>>>>>space is probably pretty desolate. >>>>>> >>>>>> Probably below the 'Wilsonian threshold density', where >>>>>> strange things happen to light. >>>>> >>>>>OK, dumb question #2: what value/quantity/units is the >>>>>"Wilsonian threshold density"? >>>> >>>> Somewhere between 10^-20 and 10^-100 kgm/m3 >>> >>>Hm...well, the density of interstellar space is estimated to >>>be 0.1-1000 atoms per cubic centimeter, which, if every atom >>>is a neutral hydrogen atom, translates into >>>1.673 * 10^-21 to 1.673 * 10^-17 kg/m^3. >> >> That's within the galaxy. > >Yes. > >> Estimates are much smaller in intergalactic space. ....10^26 -10^-29 >> >> These are all guesses anyway. >> >>>http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/DaWeiCai.shtml >>> >>>This would suggest that a star the size of our sun (1.9862 * 10^30 kg) >>>would require a spherical volume of diameter 0.64 light years, at >>>this density, to form. (It's of course a lot smaller now, :-) but >>>still big enough to dominate the Solar System.) >>> >>>For the entire Universe, a report suggests 3 * 10^-27 kg/m^3: >>> >>>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/universe_density_010307.html >> >> Just guesses really. > >No way to know without a lot of work and exploring. We can make >some guesses by establishing G = 6.674215*10^-11 m^3/(kg s^2) >and trying to weigh the Earth, then the Sun -- but there's a lot >of unknown stuff out there, not the least of which is "dark matter". > >Presumably, that's what's being done here. > >> >> If you want to use my redshift program to see how light is redshifted as it >> escapes a star or galaxy, you can plug in any density you like. >> >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/redshift.exe > >If I wanted to use your redshift program I'd rewrite it in Java. :-P Java is terrible to use. The code is pretty easy though. >And even then, there's the issue of the Eolas patent, which basically >precludes, among other things, applets and objects without a license. I am not trying to make money out of my programs. > >http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='5838906'.WKU.&OS=PN/5838906&RS=PN/5838906 > >[.sigsnip] HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". |