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: The Ghost In The Machine on 10 Oct 2005 10:00 In sci.physics.relativity, bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote on Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:32:44 +0000 (UTC) <Xns96EB2E968CE91WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139>: > H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:ovdjk151mondgp68s4e123ukfipuuphsdn@ > 4ax.com: > >> Say the eclipsing star is only about 1/10 the size of the other. >> While the eclipse is complete, the visible part of the star will change >> negligibly in brightness. >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> ..unlike Algol's , which has a distinct >>>>>>>>>> concavity....just as the BaT predicts. > > Algol was the ...nary in question. Its constituents are not spherical and > the eclipsing star is not 1/10 the size of the other. > The hypotheses are these. [1] The standard hypothesis, where Algol has a B8 and a K2 orbiting around each other with a period of less than 3 days. The brightness variations are because of occultation. SR guarantees we can see the occultation easily; all photons reach us at the same time. [2] A standard star of unknown size with a cool, heavy object orbiting around it with a period of less than 3 days; the brightness variations are a consequence of c'=c+v "photon bunchup". [3] A standard star of unknown size with a small object or number of small objects orbiting around it with a period of unknown size; the brightness variations are a consequence of c'=c+v "photon bunchup". -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: Henri Wilson on 10 Oct 2005 18:26 On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:52:14 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in >news:a18q13-p7j.ln1(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net: > >> In sci.physics.relativity, bz >>> Algol was the ...nary in question. Its constituents are not spherical >>> and the eclipsing star is not 1/10 the size of the other. >>> >> >> The hypotheses are these. >> >> [1] The standard hypothesis, where Algol has a B8 and a K2 orbiting >> around each other with a period of less than 3 days. The >> brightness variations are because of occultation. SR guarantees >> we can see the occultation easily; all photons reach us at the >> same time. > >[quote http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/algol.html] >The brightness of the system then changes slightly out of eclipse because >of the tidal distortion of the stars and the reflection of the B star's >light from the K star. [unquote] > >> >> [2] A standard star of unknown size with a cool, heavy object >> orbiting around it with a period of less than 3 days; the >> brightness variations are a consequence of c'=c+v "photon bunchup". >> >> [3] A standard star of unknown size with a small object or number of >> small objects orbiting around it with a period of unknown size; >> the brightness variations are a consequence of c'=c+v "photon >>bunchup". >> >> > >[2] and [3] have problems due to Algol being 93 light years away from >earth. > >Henri needs a mechanism for extinction of c+v and c-v photons to prevent >the problems that the bunching will produce over 100 years of travel (and >the problem of where the stars were 100 years ago vs where they were when >the c-v photons must have left). It doesn't matter. They didn't move far in 3 days, that's what matters. Extinction is not necessary. The estimated radial velocity is way out. The official figure is actually that of light reflected from WCLL planet "Androcles". The main star probably has the radial velocity attributed to the 'small star orbiting a long way out'. > >This is a serious problem because, although we might slow photons down as >they travel through the interstellar gasses, it is difficult to produce a >mechanism to speed them up. So, the c-v photons get slower and slower and >take longer and longer to travel to earth. Algol should have a trail of >older images, somewhat like a ppi radar image on a P7 phosphor screen from >the slow photons. Sorry Bob, Algol's light curve is typical of stars in orbit with ecc = 0.5-0.75 and perihelion pointing towards observer. 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: Timo Nieminen on 10 Oct 2005 21:51 On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, it was written: > Timo Nieminen <timo(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > >Sure, but I still don't see how it can be explained in terms of ballistic > >emission theories with extinction. The density is high enough so there > >should be essentially immediate extinction. So why dragging? > > I never liked the expanation of the fizeau experiment. So come up with your own. > >If you can provide a reproducable lab experiment and a working theory, > >then people will believe you. Otherwise, you have an ad hoc proposal > >that appears to be experimentally untestable, contrary to currently > >accepted theory that works very well in laboratory experiments, and is, in > >the orthodox view, not needed. > > > >At the very least, if you can develop some real theory - quantitative, and > >not just hand-waving - then you're over the first hurdle. > > The cosmic redshift is a place to start. The cause is that light slows down as > it travels, due to 'atom dragging'. We roughly know the rate of slowing. So turn that into a real quantitative theory. Hand-waving won't convince anybody. > >The Maxwell equations holding in all inertial coordinate systems, and > >permittivity and permeability of free space being the same in all inertial > >coordinate systems gives you Maxwellian electrodynamics, with EM waves at > >c relative to the _observer_ in all cases. > > No it doesn't. It moves at 'c' wrt its source. That's all we know. Look, it's really simple: the Maxwell equations predict one thing, you predict a different thing. Either you are wrong, or the Maxwell equations are wrong. This is testable. Do you think your theory is correct? If so, then surely you think it will survive experimental tests. If so, then surely it is worth putting in some effort to find out what would make for a convincing experimental test. You appeared to be claiming that the Maxwell equations predict EM waves to propagate at c relative to the source. That is wrong. Sit down and do the maths yourself. Making incorrect claims about Maxwellian electrodynamics does not help you make your case - it's more likely to convince the reader that you are simply mistaken in your ideas. If your theory is correct, then isn't it worth putting in a little, or even a lot of, effort to learn the physics needed to convince others? > You don't know they hold in all inertial systems and all they produces is the > value of the universal constant 'c'. So find an inertial system where they don't hold. -- Timo
From: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 11 Oct 2005 02:39 "Timo Nieminen" <timo(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.50.0510111142340.14635-100000(a)localhost... | | Look, it's really simple: the Maxwell equations predict one thing, you | predict a different thing. Either you are wrong, or the Maxwell equations | are wrong. This is testable. Look, it's really simple: "It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. "--Albert Einstein, 1905. It was known 100 yeas ago that Maxwell's equation are wrong. Get over it. Androcles.
From: Timo Nieminen on 11 Oct 2005 02:56
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, Androcles wrote: > "Timo Nieminen" <timo(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > | > | Look, it's really simple: the Maxwell equations predict one thing, you > | predict a different thing. Either you are wrong, or the Maxwell > equations > | are wrong. This is testable. > > Look, it's really simple: > "It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at > the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries > which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. "--Albert Einstein, > 1905. > It was known 100 yeas ago that Maxwell's equation are wrong. Get over > it. Does the hook hurt your mouth? (a) When is 5 hours earlier than 5 hours later than now? (b) What is the capacitance of a parallel plate capacitor with vacuum between the plates? (c) If the Maxwell-modified Ampere's law is wrong, what is the correct equation? -- Timo |