From: Tom Roberts on
John Kennaugh wrote:
> Ballistic theory
> has to give the same result as SR.

Say, rather, that ANY valid theory MUST give "the same result as SR" for
the experiments being discussed, as SR "gives the same results" as the
experiments. The actual requirement, of course, is that valid theories
predict results consistent with the results of the experiments -- your
use of SR is a red herring here.

The problem is, ballistic theories do not "give the same result as SR"
(unless one modifies them so extensively that they are no longer
ballistic theories).


> Kantor's own experiment apparently disproved SR and Ballistic theory.

Another red herring -- Kantor's experiment has been repeated, and
thoroughly discredited:

Kantor, J. O. S. A. 52 (1962),978.
Criticized in: Burcev, Phys. Lett. 5 no. 1 (1963), pg 44.
Repeated by: Babcock and Bergman, J.O.S.A. 54 (1964), pg 147.
Repeated by: Rotz, Phys. Lett. 7 no. 4 (1963), pg 252.
Repeated by: Waddoups et al., JOSA 55, pg 142 (1965).
The consensus is now that Kantor�s non-null result was due to his
rotating mirrors dragging the air; repetitions in vacuum yield a null
result consistent with SR.


Tom Roberts
From: Tom Roberts on

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:30:30 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> As the implicit goal of ballistic theories is to relate light to
>> Newtonian mechanics, it is not clear how a light packet could have an
>> energy independent of its speed, in which case such "magic" is indeed
>> required.
>
> This is plain nonsense.

No, it is not; it is historical fact. In Newtonian mechanics the energy
of an object is a function of its speed, and the original ballistic
theories of light shared this property.


> A photon may be regarded as an 'intrinsic oscillator' of some as yet unknown
> kind....maybe a rotating pair of charges...

You may have a theory that you CALL a "ballistic theory", but based on
your descriptions it not actually ballistic in the sense of Newton or
the common usage of the word (you have so many exceptions to ballistic
motion).

The electron dipole moment of a photon is measured to be inconsistent
with there being "rotating charges" inside it, if the charge is
comparable to that on an electron. Ditto for the magnetic moment of the
photon. So you must assume charges vastly smaller than that on an
electron. It's not clear that makes much sense....


> An intrinsic oscillator such as a spinning pair of charges will have a
> 'natural' or equilibrium speed of propagation in any dielectric medium.

How? Why? Please demonstrate this claim using any accepted theory of
electrodynamics.


Tom Roberts
From: John Kennaugh on
Tom Roberts wrote:
>John Kennaugh wrote:
>> Ballistic theory has to give the same result as SR.
>
>Say, rather, that ANY valid theory MUST give "the same result as SR"
>for the experiments being discussed, as SR "gives the same results" as
>the experiments. The actual requirement, of course, is that valid
>theories predict results consistent with the results of the experiments
>-- your use of SR is a red herring here.
>

The specific quote - quoted without the context [why?] related
specifically to Sagnac where SR and ballistic theory predict the same
results. Ballistic theory must give the same results as SR because SR
only works for inertial FoR and the only inertial FoR you can chose to
do the analysis is the inertial frame of reference in which the light
was emitted. When predicting outcomes from that specific FoR the two
theories do not differ so must produce the same maths. Both say that in
the inertial FoR in which the light was emitted light travels at c.


Look Roberts will you actually READ a post before you respond to it.
Just above the footnote:

>> Kantor's own experiment apparently disproved SR and Ballistic theory.

Was the statement

"He [Waldron] lists the following experiments as being consistent with
his theory:"

within that list was

James-Sternburg repetition of Kantor's experiment*,
Babcock-Bergman repetition of Kantor's experiment,
Beckmen-Mandics repetition of Kantor's experiment,

In the table he produced the above were all stated as being consistent
with both SR and ballistic theory and Kantor's listed as disagreeing
with both hence my footnote

>
>Another red herring -- Kantor's experiment has been repeated, and
>thoroughly discredited:

Which is what I said. [shrug]

>
>Kantor, J. O. S. A. 52 (1962),978.
>Criticized in: Burcev, Phys. Lett. 5 no. 1 (1963), pg 44.
>Repeated by: Babcock and Bergman, J.O.S.A. 54 (1964), pg 147.
>Repeated by: Rotz, Phys. Lett. 7 no. 4 (1963), pg 252.
>Repeated by: Waddoups et al., JOSA 55, pg 142 (1965).
>The consensus is now that Kantor's non-null result was due to his
>rotating mirrors dragging the air; repetitions in vacuum yield a null
>result consistent with SR.
>
>
>Tom Roberts

--
John Kennaugh

From: Dr. Henri Wilson on
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:26:46 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

>
>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:30:30 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>> As the implicit goal of ballistic theories is to relate light to
>>> Newtonian mechanics, it is not clear how a light packet could have an
>>> energy independent of its speed, in which case such "magic" is indeed
>>> required.
>>
>> This is plain nonsense.
>
>No, it is not; it is historical fact. In Newtonian mechanics the energy
>of an object is a function of its speed, and the original ballistic
>theories of light shared this property.

Tom, is the total energy of a lump of red hot steel proportional to its
relative speed?
I don't think you understand Newtonian Physics at all....

>> A photon may be regarded as an 'intrinsic oscillator' of some as yet unknown
>> kind....maybe a rotating pair of charges...
>
>You may have a theory that you CALL a "ballistic theory", but based on
>your descriptions it not actually ballistic in the sense of Newton or
>the common usage of the word (you have so many exceptions to ballistic
>motion).

My version of BaTh says that light consists of discreet particle-like objects
called photons, which possess structure and intrinsic properties that allow for
some kind of internal oscillation. Their total energy is partly 'observer
speed' dependent because the 'nu' in 'h.nu' is Doppler dependent.
There is nothing strange about this. Just consider the energy of a violin being
played in a moving train...or the energy coming out of your car's alternator.

>The electron dipole moment of a photon is measured to be inconsistent
>with there being "rotating charges" inside it, if the charge is
>comparable to that on an electron. Ditto for the magnetic moment of the
>photon. So you must assume charges vastly smaller than that on an
>electron. It's not clear that makes much sense....

I was under the impression that this is indeed the latest theory about
'charge'. It is smaller than the electron, which merely carries it. Particle
physics is still very much in its infancy.

>> An intrinsic oscillator such as a spinning pair of charges will have a
>> 'natural' or equilibrium speed of propagation in any dielectric medium.
>
>How? Why? Please demonstrate this claim using any accepted theory of
>electrodynamics.

Not unlike Maxwell's equations and theory....except there is rotation instead
of wave motion.

>Tom Roberts



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: bz on
HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:t5sbk3pk5rhvnpkqrbfnj0242gi3r52qlj(a)4ax.com:

> My version of BaTh says that light consists of discreet particle-like
> objects called photons, which possess structure and intrinsic properties

Henri, I suggest that, to avoid confusion, you call yours pheaux-tons.

That way, no one is likely to think they have the properties that photons
have.

> that allow for some kind of internal oscillation. Their total energy is
> partly 'observer speed' dependent because the 'nu' in 'h.nu' is Doppler
> dependent. There is nothing strange about this.

You can then define a variable called gnu to use instead of the normal nu.
Then your theory will be both gnu and strange.



--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap