The Emission Theory of Androcles
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 6 Sep 2009 21:38 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090906202145.5625f6db.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: >> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >> >> > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: >> >> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >> >> >> > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: >> >> >> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote >> > >> >> >> >> > http://yfrog.com/5ystartg >> >> >> >> The star is seen behind where it actually is. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > If the movement of the particle I highlighted in red is what's >> >> >seen,> > then the star is seen behind where it actually is. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > But if the movement of the waves are what's seen, then the >> >star> >> > appears to be exactly in the direction that it actually >> >is.> >> >> >> >> Nope. You see the star at 1:01 o'clock where it was at 12:00 >> >> >o'clock,> it took an hour and a minute for the light to reach you. >> >> >> >> >> >> Construct a table. >> >> >> Time of emission. theta. Time of arrival: >> >> >> 12:00 89 12:00 + >> >1-cos> >> (89) 1:00 90 >> >1:00 +> >1-> cos(90) 2:00 91 >> >> >2:00 +> 1- cos (91) 3:00 92 >> >> >> 3:00 + 1- cos (92) >> >> >> >> >> >> If the next >> >> >> "wave" or circle is seen at a moment later it is seen in a >> >> >different> position. >> >> > >> >> > Sure, but it's passing through the right spot. At any moment the >> >> > waves are pointing at the source, unless the source accelerates. >> >> > Wherever you are, whatever your own velocity, the source's waves >> >> > always face you. A result that's different from other theories >> >> > except maybe SR. >> >> >> >> You have to "face" where the source was when the signal was >> >emitted,> then it's the shortest distance. >> > >> > That's what I'm running into. If you face where the source was when >> > the signal was emitted, that's the direction I'd expect particles >> > emitted from the source to be coming from. >> > >> > But the wave front is coming from a different direction, because it >> > travels at c+v' and v' varies with direction of travel. >> >> You continue talking about waves. Waves are history. You standing >> on a beach and a 6' high roller comes in, you get very wet. Game over. >> It doesn't matter what the next roller does or whether you are facing >> the shore or facing out to sea. >> Put the shoe on the other foot. You are approaching a point just to >> the side of me whilst following a straight line. You brush past me >> and continue on in your straight line. It doesn't matter which way I'm >> facing, you come past me. > > I'm real unclear about all this. People talk about waves to explain > interference. Yes. > They figure that if you have a wave, and you split it into > two parts and then let them rejoin, and one of them is one half cycle > slower, or 1.5 cycles slower, or 2.5 cycles slower etc, then they will > cancel and that's interference. What does "slower" mean? You are using everyday words that I question. If you want to be a mathematician or scientist your language must be precise. I suspect you mean "out of phase". > To do this they assume that the wave is > many cycles long because otherwise how could you get the part that > arrives 2.5 or 3.5 or 4.5 cycles later to cancel out stuff that has > already come and gone? There's that word "assume" again. This is wave superposition: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac2.JPG What do you assume is going on here: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/MechSagnac.gif > > Wave theory works for a variety of things. The doppler equations assume > waves, don't they? No. Doppler is a ratio of velocities. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbdK94vl_Bs Where's the wave? Are the dots waves? > It's a frequency shift you find with them. What does that have to do with waves? > You don't > just get hit by the first wave, game over. Yes I do, I get out of the water fast. Actually I'd never get in it, but I did when I was a kid. Bexhill-on-sea, the waves came over my head. > You get a series of sound > waves and you get a frequency for them. I'm going to use waves until I > see how to get those results without them. That's ok, you won't mind if I use traffic waves instead of cars then. If you get hit by one traffic wave it's game over. >> > So any individual particle of light is traveling in a straight line >> > from the source, and it doesn't matter to the particle that there >> > are other particles that travel at other speeds nearby. But the wave >> > -- a Mexican wave, maybe -- has an existence that's different from >> > that of the particles, just like a mexican wave is different from >> > the people who make it, and doesn't travel at the same speed they >> > do. And if you measure interference or redshift you aren't measuring >> > that on individual particles, you're measuring it on the wave. It's >> > the speed of the wave that matters then. Unless the motion of the >> > particles somehow gets in the way. >> > >> >> Sound and light signals have different >> >> speeds, a deaf man sees the source where it was, a blind man hears >> >> the source where it was, you see and hear both but they are not >> >> simultaneous. >> >> This prompts you to say you hear the sound "behind" the source and >> >> me to say I hear the source from where it came from. >> > >> > Yes. But that's when the air you'r listening through isn't moving >> > relative to you. When you're listening for that sound in a wind >> > that's going 170 meters per second -- when you listen to somebody >> > who's screaming while they're blown away -- it will sound different. >> > It's like the case when you're traveling at half the speed of sound >> > and the source is stationary. You get a doppler effect because you >> > run into the waves at a different speed, but you run into each of >> > them at the same angle you would if you were sitting still at that >> > spot. (Or is there a calculus trick I should be applying?) >> >> No. All you need is f' = f. (c-v.cos(phi))/c > > Let's consider the different effects. You can estimate where sounds come > from because you don't just have one ear at one place, you have two. If > one of them gets the signal a little later than the other, tha gives you > an estimate of left to right, though it does not tell you whether it's > ahead or behind or above. (Subtle differences in sound caused by the > shape of your ears help some with that.) Similarly, you have more than > one sensor for light, your eye has a whole array of them. You focus the > light with lenses and notice which spots on your retina get the light, > and there's your direction. > > If you aim a telescope somewhere other than the wave front then you > won't see that star. If you aim a telescope somewhere other than the incoming photon then you won't see that star. If you aim two telescopes somewhere other than the incoming photon then you won't see that star. If you aim two telescopes at the two incoming photons then you'll see that star. If you aim two telescopes at the one big incoming photon then you'll see that star in radio. http://www.vla.nrao.edu/images/tightcenter.small.jpg > Now we have a picture of it where the light starts out traveling in all > directions from a particular spot. But because the source was moving, > had a velocity dx/dt, the wave front isn't coming from that direction > when it reaches you. It's coming from a completely different direction. Oh really... <yawn> > So we have to either give up the wave models that worked and replace > them with something new, because you can't point a telescope where the > wave model says to point it and have the wave actually go into the > telescope. Or we keep the wave model working and something else changes. > I'm ready to try it both ways. How big is this photon? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys9xL3mw8tI Can a fishing float detect a tsunami? > >> >> >> >> > http://yfrog.com/02starmg >> >> >> >> The star is seen behind where it actually is. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > If the movement of the particle I highlighted in red is what >> >you> >> > see, then the star is seen behind where it actually is. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > But if the movement of the waves are what's seen, then the >> >star> >> > appears to be in exactly the direction that it actually >> >is.> >> > >> >> >> > Either way. >> >> >> >> >> >> The blue observer can only see each circle when it arrives, the >> >> >time of> arrival is constantly changing and so is the duration of >> >> >arrival> between circles. You are looking at the diagram and see >> >the> >circles> equidistant because you are a god looking down, but >> >the blue> >observer> does NOT see them arrive at equal time >> >intervals, only sees> >one circle> at a time, only sees a point on >> >the circle.> > >> >> > Yes, he only sees one at a time. >> >> >> >> In http://yfrog.com/02starmg he only sees the first one at one >> >time.> The trail of red squares doesn't exist, they are all history. >> > >> > Yes. they are the history of the movement of one particle of light. >> > Is that irrelevant? >> >> Yes, that's your wave. You only get wet once. Another wave comes >> from a different direction, so it's irrelevant. Stand on a bridge over >> a flowing river, and drop pebbles in. You'll see circular ripples, but >> you'll also see the circles moving downstream with the flow of the >> river. > > Good thought. It's not a thought. I actually do things like that when I'm fishing. I've often watched ripples moving down the Ohio river. > The ripples are in some ways not real. A cork would go up > and down and sideways a little bit and end up in about the same place. > There's something happening, it is real, but not in the same way as the > current that moves all the water downstream along with the corks and the > ripples. The current is like, like, like -- movement of an aether! Only > in your model it's like every moving source has its own aether that > travels with it.... Einstein's model has the aether attached to the observer, everybody has their own personal aether. "Everything should be as complicated as possible, but not simpler." Newton's model has no waves, so the aether isn't needed. >> > I feel like we're actually looking at the wave and not >> > the movement of the particle through time. The movement of the >> > particle seems completely irrelevant to me until you need it to go >> > down a telescope. >> > >> >> I drew a history trail like yours in >> >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Aberration.gif >> >> but when I animated it I deleted all the cubes except one in each >> >> frame. So one image shows the light hits the edge, but it really >> >hits> the centre and travels down the axis. This is because the one >> >cube> cannot be in two places at once. >> > >> > I may have missed your point. I saw the cylinder moving while the >> > dot traveled, so that the dot could go down the center because of >> > that movement. It doesn't matter that the wall of the cylinder hits >> > places where the dot used to be, if the dot isn't there any more. >> > >> > I drew the history trails because I thought it mattered where the >> > particles came from. But if I ignore the particles and just look at >> > the circles then everything seems to work out. It's only when I pay >> > attention to the particles that I start having objections that need >> > more theory to deal with them. >> > >> Make your theory fit the known facts. > > Exactly. If I do that, I get circular waves that spread out in all > directions while they move sideways. And now I see one possible way your > aberration picture could fit in. Since you know the source is moving, How? What's it moving with respect to? I know nothing of the kind, you are making assumptions again. <Snip remainder, PoR not understood by you> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm Come back when you understand the PoR.
From: Jonah Thomas on 7 Sep 2009 09:43 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: > "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: > >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >> > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: > >> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > >> >> > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: > >> >> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > >> >> >> > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_n> wrote: > >> >> >> >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > >> > > >> >> >> >> > http://yfrog.com/5ystartg > >> >> >> >> The star is seen behind where it actually is. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > If the movement of the particle I highlighted in red is > >what's> >> >seen,> > then the star is seen behind where it actually > >is.> >> >> > > >> >> >> > But if the movement of the waves are what's seen, then the > >> >star> >> > appears to be exactly in the direction that it actually > >> >is.> >> > >> >> >> Nope. You see the star at 1:01 o'clock where it was at 12:00 > >> >> >o'clock,> it took an hour and a minute for the light to reach > >you.> >> >> > >> >> >> Construct a table. > >> >> >> Time of emission. theta. Time of arrival: > >> >> >> 12:00 89 12:00 + > >> >1-cos> >> (89) 1:00 90 > >> >1:00 +> >1-> cos(90) 2:00 91 > >> >> >2:00 +> 1- cos (91) 3:00 92 > >> >> >> 3:00 + 1- cos (92) > >> >> >> > >> >> >> If the next > >> >> >> "wave" or circle is seen at a moment later it is seen in a > >> >> >different> position. > >> >> > > >> >> > Sure, but it's passing through the right spot. At any moment > >the> >> > waves are pointing at the source, unless the source > >accelerates.> >> > Wherever you are, whatever your own velocity, the > >source's waves> >> > always face you. A result that's different from > >other theories> >> > except maybe SR. > >> >> > >> >> You have to "face" where the source was when the signal was > >> >emitted,> then it's the shortest distance. > >> > > >> > That's what I'm running into. If you face where the source was > >when> > the signal was emitted, that's the direction I'd expect > >particles> > emitted from the source to be coming from. > >> > > >> > But the wave front is coming from a different direction, because > >it> > travels at c+v' and v' varies with direction of travel. > >> > >> You continue talking about waves. Waves are history. You standing > >> on a beach and a 6' high roller comes in, you get very wet. Game > >over.> It doesn't matter what the next roller does or whether you are > >facing> the shore or facing out to sea. > >> Put the shoe on the other foot. You are approaching a point just to > >> the side of me whilst following a straight line. You brush past me > >> and continue on in your straight line. It doesn't matter which way > >I'm> facing, you come past me. > > > > I'm real unclear about all this. People talk about waves to explain > > interference. > > Yes. > > > They figure that if you have a wave, and you split it into > > two parts and then let them rejoin, and one of them is one half > > cycle slower, or 1.5 cycles slower, or 2.5 cycles slower etc, then > > they will cancel and that's interference. > > What does "slower" mean? You are using everyday words that I question. > If you want to be a mathematician or scientist your language must be > precise. I suspect you mean "out of phase". It may be a mistake to make your language too precise when the concept is fuzzy. People believe that there's something periodic about light, in distance and in time. Since they believe the light travels at a speed, something that's periodic in time will be periodic in space also. To get light out of phase they arrange to make some of it follow a longer path, or go through a medium with a higher refractive index that slows it, etc. Two different paths with the middle path removed. Then they see the light do interference. Why would two particles interfere when one arrives later than the other, but not interfere when they arrive at the same time? Maybe they do arrive at the same time? Maybe the refractive index doesn't actually slow the light but just changes its phase? Maybe the light travels the different-length paths in the same time but its phase changes? > > To do this they assume that the wave is > > many cycles long because otherwise how could you get the part that > > arrives 2.5 or 3.5 or 4.5 cycles later to cancel out stuff that has > > already come and gone? > > There's that word "assume" again. Yes, I use that word when I want to make it clear that I'm not repeating a doctrine I believe in, but I am repeating an interpretation for observed events. I'd be interested in other interpretations too. > This is wave superposition: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac2.JPG Yes. You put together two frequencies, and they heterodyne, and the result is you get their sum and their difference. > What do you assume is going on here: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/MechSagnac.gif I've never been sure what your intentions were with this picture. It looks like you've drawn a 2D image in 3D perspective of 3 toothed disks that are rotating at different speeds. > > Wave theory works for a variety of things. The doppler equations > > assume waves, don't they? > > No. Doppler is a ratio of velocities. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbdK94vl_Bs > Where's the wave? What it predicts is frequency -- the frequency of the periodic change over time and space. If you don't want to call the periodic change over time and space a wave, then pick another name for it and I'll try to remember to use that name. I wouldn't mind calling it a "floo" or a "smerp" if you'd prefer. > Are the dots waves? What dots? > > It's a frequency shift you find with them. > > What does that have to do with waves? It has to do with a periodic change over time and space. > > You get a series of sound > > waves and you get a frequency for them. I'm going to use waves until > > I see how to get those results without them. > > That's ok, you won't mind if I use traffic waves instead of cars then. > If you get hit by one traffic wave it's game over. If you put down one of those portable sensors that records the bump when cars drive over it, then you can look for periodic changes there. Almost always when you get one bump you'll get another one right behind it because cars and motorcycles have front and back wheels. And when there are enough cars on the road that they fall into line, then you see periodic motion. The closer the different drivers come to keeping the same constant distance behind the cars they're following, the more periodic it gets. > >> > So any individual particle of light is traveling in a straight > >line> > from the source, and it doesn't matter to the particle that > >there> > are other particles that travel at other speeds nearby. But > >the wave> > -- a Mexican wave, maybe -- has an existence that's > >different from> > that of the particles, just like a mexican wave is > >different from> > the people who make it, and doesn't travel at the > >same speed they> > do. And if you measure interference or redshift > >you aren't measuring> > that on individual particles, you're > >measuring it on the wave. It's> > the speed of the wave that matters > >then. Unless the motion of the> > particles somehow gets in the way. > >> > > >> >> Sound and light signals have different > >> >> speeds, a deaf man sees the source where it was, a blind man > >hears> >> the source where it was, you see and hear both but they are > >not> >> simultaneous. > >> >> This prompts you to say you hear the sound "behind" the source > >and> >> me to say I hear the source from where it came from. > >> > > >> > Yes. But that's when the air you'r listening through isn't moving > >> > relative to you. When you're listening for that sound in a wind > >> > that's going 170 meters per second -- when you listen to somebody > >> > who's screaming while they're blown away -- it will sound > >different.> > It's like the case when you're traveling at half the > >speed of sound> > and the source is stationary. You get a doppler > >effect because you> > run into the waves at a different speed, but > >you run into each of> > them at the same angle you would if you were > >sitting still at that> > spot. (Or is there a calculus trick I should > >be applying?)> > >> No. All you need is f' = f. (c-v.cos(phi))/c > > > > Let's consider the different effects. You can estimate where sounds > > come from because you don't just have one ear at one place, you have > > two. If one of them gets the signal a little later than the other, > > tha gives you an estimate of left to right, though it does not tell > > you whether it's ahead or behind or above. (Subtle differences in > > sound caused by the shape of your ears help some with that.) > > Similarly, you have more than one sensor for light, your eye has a > > whole array of them. You focus the light with lenses and notice > > which spots on your retina get the light, and there's your > > direction. > > > > If you aim a telescope somewhere other than the wave front then you > > won't see that star. > > If you aim a telescope somewhere other than the incoming photon then > you won't see that star. If you aim two telescopes somewhere other > than the incoming photon then you won't see that star. > If you aim two telescopes at the two incoming photons then you'll see > that star. > If you aim two telescopes at the one big incoming photon then you'll > see > that star in radio. Well, every other theory I've heard of predicts the wave front and the photon direction will be the same. Yours has them in different directions. The frequency that the doppler effect gets is the frequency of whatever it is that's periodic, and if you restrict it to one up-time and one down-time you still get an expanding circle whose radius moves at v. So there might be some way to test that. If what you detect is the wave motion, you will detect it in the direction the wave is moving. But if what you detect is particles, the particles which are the medium the wave is moving in, then you will detect it in the direction that the source was when it created the particles. If you detect it in the direction of the waves, then you will get the same results as SR without SR's time dilations etc. It would say that EmT and SR get correct results (or transformed correct results). If you detect it in the direction of the original source then you will get a radically different result from SR and either SR or EmT must get quite incorrect results. I wonder whether there is a way to actually get data about that. > > Now we have a picture of it where the light starts out traveling in > > all directions from a particular spot. But because the source was > > moving, had a velocity dx/dt, the wave front isn't coming from that > > direction when it reaches you. It's coming from a completely > > different direction. > > > Oh really... <yawn> > > > > So we have to either give up the wave models that worked and replace > > them with something new, because you can't point a telescope where > > the wave model says to point it and have the wave actually go into > > the telescope. Or we keep the wave model working and something else > > changes. I'm ready to try it both ways. > > How big is this photon? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys9xL3mw8tI > > Can a fishing float detect a tsunami? > > >> >> >> >> > http://yfrog.com/02starmg > >> >> >> >> The star is seen behind where it actually is. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > If the movement of the particle I highlighted in red is > >what> >you> >> > see, then the star is seen behind where it actually > >is.> >> >> > > >> >> >> > But if the movement of the waves are what's seen, then the > >> >star> >> > appears to be in exactly the direction that it actually > >> >is.> >> > > >> >> >> > Either way. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The blue observer can only see each circle when it arrives, > >the> >> >time of> arrival is constantly changing and so is the > >duration of> >> >arrival> between circles. You are looking at the > >diagram and see> >the> >circles> equidistant because you are a god > >looking down, but> >the blue> >observer> does NOT see them arrive at > >equal time> >intervals, only sees> >one circle> at a time, only sees > >a point on> >the circle.> > > >> >> > Yes, he only sees one at a time. > >> >> > >> >> In http://yfrog.com/02starmg he only sees the first one at one > >> >time.> The trail of red squares doesn't exist, they are all > >history.> > > >> > Yes. they are the history of the movement of one particle of > >light.> > Is that irrelevant? > >> > >> Yes, that's your wave. You only get wet once. Another wave comes > >> from a different direction, so it's irrelevant. Stand on a bridge > >over> a flowing river, and drop pebbles in. You'll see circular > >ripples, but> you'll also see the circles moving downstream with the > >flow of the> river. > > > > Good thought. > > > The ripples are in some ways not real. A cork would go up > > and down and sideways a little bit and end up in about the same > > place. There's something happening, it is real, but not in the same > > way as the current that moves all the water downstream along with > > the corks and the ripples. The current is like, like, like -- > > movement of an aether! Only in your model it's like every moving > > source has its own aether that travels with it.... > > >> > I feel like we're actually looking at the wave and not > >> > the movement of the particle through time. The movement of the > >> > particle seems completely irrelevant to me until you need it to > >go> > down a telescope. > >> > > >> >> I drew a history trail like yours in > >> >> > >http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Aberration.gif> >> > >but when I animated it I deleted all the cubes except one in each> >> > >frame. So one image shows the light hits the edge, but it really> > >>hits> the centre and travels down the axis. This is because the one> > >>cube> cannot be in two places at once.> > > >> > I may have missed your point. I saw the cylinder moving while the > >> > dot traveled, so that the dot could go down the center because of > >> > that movement. It doesn't matter that the wall of the cylinder > >hits> > places where the dot used to be, if the dot isn't there any > >more.> > > >> > I drew the history trails because I thought it mattered where the > >> > particles came from. But if I ignore the particles and just look > >at> > the circles then everything seems to work out. It's only when I > >pay> > attention to the particles that I start having objections that > >need> > more theory to deal with them. > >> > > >> Make your theory fit the known facts. > > > > Exactly. If I do that, I get circular waves that spread out in all > > directions while they move sideways. And now I see one possible way > > your aberration picture could fit in. Since you know the source is > > moving, > > How? What's it moving with respect to? > I know nothing of the kind, you are making assumptions again. > <Snip remainder, PoR not understood by you> The source is moving wrt the observer, of course. Otherwise we'd just have circles of particles extending from the source, everything lines up, and there's nothing much to discuss.
From: Jerry on 7 Sep 2009 14:18 On Sep 4, 5:24 pm, hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > Actually Andro and I agree in principle but when a theory is under development, > it is natural that there will be speculation and temporary disagreement on many > issues. The point is, BaTh (EmT) has been ignored for a century because of > Einstein. There is little data to go on. > Little by little I have crushed its opponents, for instance those who claim the > Sagnac effect refutes it. Sure, Henri :-) I wrote a rather entertaining new Java animation for you. I doubt you will understand my critique of your fanciful explanation of the ring gyro. But there's always hope, however distant and forlorn... http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/HWFantasy.htm Jerry
From: Henry Wilson, DSc on 7 Sep 2009 17:15 On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 11:18:19 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Sep 4, 5:24�pm, hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > >> Actually Andro and I agree in principle but when a theory is under development, >> it is natural that there will be speculation and temporary disagreement on many >> issues. The point is, BaTh (EmT) has been ignored for a century because of >> Einstein. There is little data to go on. >> Little by little I have crushed its opponents, for instance those who claim the >> Sagnac effect refutes it. > >Sure, Henri :-) > >I wrote a rather entertaining new Java animation for you. I doubt >you will understand my critique of your fanciful explanation of the >ring gyro. But there's always hope, however distant and forlorn... >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/HWFantasy.htm I have already commented on it. Didn't you read my reply. Basically you have published something quite silly in an attempt to make me look silly. >Jerry Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
From: Jonah Thomas on 7 Sep 2009 18:07
hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote: > Light speed is modified as it travels through any rare medium. That's > called extinction...not a very appropriate name I agree. Variable star > data suggests that all light traveling in a particular direction tends > toward a common speed.(Andro strongly disagrees) I can easily imagine this. Even though intergalactic space is mostly empty, still light goes for extremely long distances through it so there's lots of opportunity to get effects that are more than subliminal. Light would tend to change to the speed that this extremely low-pressure gas would produce, and probably the average velocity of that gas would make a difference. But that gives us at least two extra fudge factors, parameters we don't know but can only estimate. So to me that makes astronomical data even more suspect. > If you want to see how the brightness of orbiting stars should vary > due to the bunching and separation of c+v light you can spend some > time running mty very comprehensive program that does all the > calculations for you. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe > It is not a virus. What I would really like is a program that does ray-tracing and interference effects based on your theory. I'm having a lot of trouble getting it straight what Androcles is saying when he uses hardly any math. I could probably write it if I had the equations. Incidentally, this is likely to seem like a stupid question -- I am ignorant about such things and I don't know any better. If the electrons in a radio tower are moving at close to lightspeed to generate their signal, could your theory predict anything from that which might be different from other theories? You're at rest relative to the antenna, and the electrons are moving very fast, not necessarily orthogonal to you. Any chance of something observable from that? |