Re: Absolute Time

From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 08/24/04 

Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 23:06:53 GMT

"suzysewnshow" <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:e0a23188.0408241112.648e6758@posting.google.com...
| "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<a0GWc.5867$yI3.73276619@news-text.cableinet.net>...
| > "suzysewnshow" <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
| > news:e0a23188.0408232138.392a00a5@posting.google.com...
| > | > >P.S. Will ya consider SOL is source dependant untill the light's
field
| > | > >has significant interaction with other matter?
| > | >
| > | > That has already been pointed out.
| > | > When light reaches a medium, it (eventually) moves according to the
| > refractive
| > | > index of that medium RELATIVE TO THE FRAME OF THAT MEDIUM.
| > | >
| > | > Big question: why does it accelerate back to exactly its original
speed
| > after
| > | > leaving that medium?
| > | >
| > | Remove the word "accelerate" [1] and remember that is has no mass and
| > | it is not a question at all, certainly not a big one.
| > |
| > | 10 people in first railcar.
| > | 20 people in second railcar.
| > | 10 people in third railcar.
| > | Brakeman in caboose.
| > | Engineer passes written message to Brakeman which must pass through 40
| > | hands.
| > | If all people handle the message at the same speed, won't it take
| > | longer to move through the second car?
| > |
| > | Here the people are a ***medium***. Remove them and the message can't
| > | move.
| > |
| > | Now use a train's conductor to hand carry the message. If he has to
| > | have some minor interacton with each passenger, tip o' the hat,
| > | howdyado and jog to the rightandleft, then the message will still move
| > | slower through the second car.
| > |
| > | Do we see the dielectric funciton of a gasses density?
| > |
| > | Here the people are a ***dielectric*** Remove them and the message
| > | will move unimpeded at the concuctor's normal walking speed.
| >
| > Err... the conductor's walking speed, which is relative to the engine
and
| > independent of the airflow outside the train, but is limited by the
people
| > inside the train if they exist. In MMX, the train is the whole Earth of
| > which the experiment is just one car, and the supposed aether is the air
| > outside the train. The aether is not part of the experiment, but if it
were
| > it would fill the train with people.
| >
| By some defintions of ether, yes. But there are many. Have you
| considered what an MMX experiment would do if the the components were
| light years apart and moving a signifcant fraction of c relative to
| the bulk matter in the region.

No, but I'll consider it now.

| Just the dielectric effects of matter
| in the region (Fizeau MM) could be predicted to appear the same as an
| ether on that scale.

Burden of proof is upon the claimant. "Could be" doesn't count.

| >
| > | If the conductor or the slip of paper is massless, there is no
| > | mechanism to gain or loose energy moving from car to car. Don't
| > | confuse this with ***angular momemtum*** which is bound up in a
| > | photon's magnetic moment and has nothing to do with the propagation
| > | velocity. Brighter lights don't move faster. Eh?
| > |
| > | Kind regards,
| > | Sue...
| > |
| > | [1] In electrodynamics the term acceleration is more complex that
| > | simply a = 1/2 mv^2 . It gets all snarled up in some of worst
| > | features of Maxwell's equations. While that may seem a good excuse to
| > | discard Maxwell's equations there seems little in the existing model
| > | to suggest a projectile model would function as a replacement.
| > | http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/MaxwellEquations.html
| >
| > The projectile model does NOT disagree with Maxwell. It only disagrees
with
| > the permeability and permittivity of a vacuum and the constancy of c.
| > http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Radio%20Wave.htm
|
| I think you are definitly barking up the right tree in your scrutiny
| of Maxwell/Heaviside's "displacement current" on that page.
| I can agree that the values e and u must change very slghtly to
| account for what astronmers measure. But a statement that "speed of
| light is in some way independant of u and e for any region of space."
| is one I could not support. I am not really sure that is what you are
| saying anyway.

It is what I'm saying when simplified down to fundamental physics and
observation. Whether you consider light as a wave (as in a single radio
transmitter emitting a regular oscillation) or a photon ( an uncountable
number of molecules each emitting photons randomly), or a machine gun firing
bullets, consider what happens when the source is following an elliptical
orbit that obeys Kepler's laws, as we might expect from a binary star or
even a quite ordinary star such as our sun with its planets. Currenty,
systems with large planets are being discovered, detected by the motion of
the star as it revolves about a common centre with the planet.
          B

   A C----------------------------------------------> O

           D
A hypothetical star is moving in an orbit 100 light years away. It emits
light at a constant rate, just as our sun does. When it is at A, on Sunday,
Jan 1, 1995, the light travels through space for exactly 100 years and
arrives on Saturday, Jan 1, 2095.

On Monday, Jan 2, it has moved to B, where it now has a component of
velocity in the direction of the observer. If this velocity is then added
to the velocity of light it emits, the light travels through space a little
faster, taking 99 years and 364 days to arrive, so it too arrives on the
same Saturday, Jan 1, 1995. Because we are seeing the light from the star
from two days instead of one, it appears brighter than it really is. We
would also see in in two positions at the same time, if we were able to
resolve it. Unfortunately few stars can actually be resolved, but if we
could, it would show as a blur of all positions between A and B.

On Tuesday, Jan 3 1995 the star has moved to C, and now it isn't moving in
the direction of the observer, so once again it takes the light 100 years to
arrive, on Monday, Jan 3, 2095.

Wednesday, Jan 4th, 1995 the star is at D, and now it is moving away from
the observer, and it takes 100 years and 1 day to arrive, on Wednesday, Jan
5, 2095. Not much light was received on Tuesday, Jan 4, 2095

On Thursday, Jan 6, 1995 the star is back at A again, the cycle repeats, the
light arriving on Wednesday, Jan 6, 2095.

This is certainly what you would expect to happen if the star were a machine
gun firing bullets instead of photons or waves.

 http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/CplusVstar.htm

Now, do we see any stars do this?
The answer is... YES.
Do astronomers, relativists and aetherialists believe it happens?
No.
They'd rather believe what they see is really happening. So they imagine the
speed of light always takes exactly 100 years and the star is pulsating
intrinsically, then mutter about Maxwell and permittivity.
The example I've given is rather crude, and to do the job properly we need
to model the orbit to obey Kepler's second law and perform the calculations
in three dimensions. This I have done. The source code (less graphic
interface, user interface and some minor routines) can be found at

 http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/C_Program_for_Copernicus.htm

The program executable can be downloaded from
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/virus_alert.htm

Two very remarkable results are obtained. Algol (embedded in the program)
and V1493 Aql, the outburst of which occurred long after the program was
written, documented at
 http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/actual_data.htm

"Could be", when supported by prediction and data, becomes "Highly
probable".

| >
| > In your conductor analogy above, nothing is preventing the conductor
from
| > riding a bicycle through the train. He is not limited to walking speed
at
| > all.
| 40 passengers might just extend the analogy to blood red Cerenkov
| radiation. ;-)
| > The photon is represented by the wheels, and space by a layer of ice on
the
| > floor of the train. He can slide with the brakes on or pedal furiously
with
| > the wheel spinning, it does not affect his ejection velocity from the
| > engine. Only as he meets a passenger is there a patch of floor beyond
with
| > carpet upon which the wheel grips. He'll slow or accelerate accordingly,
and
| > instantaneously get back on the ice.
| > When on the ice, the train can accelerate or decelerate at will, even go
| > into reverse and slam the conductor back into the engine.
| I didn't even say the train was moving but if it is then you have a
| moving dielectric. Fiber optic gyros should make an inexpensive test
| bed.
| BTW... aren't astromomers actually considering the expanding universe
| to be a moving dielectric by the process of separating the redshift
| due to orbital recession from the Hubble flow?

| Kind regards,
| Sue...

Cosmological theory and astrophysics have gone down a blind alley that
intuition discovered and Einstein opened up, and bears little relation to
Nature. Progress from Ptolemy to Copernicus was stagnant for 1400 years,
from Copernicus to Einstein was marginal for 300 years, and from Einstein to
the present day, another 100 years, has been plagued by the disease of
relativity.
We need a lion like Newton, I am but a Copernicus.
Androcles, friend of the lion.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT Speed of light stuff - was Pluto.
    ... Here on earth, we measure speed relative to earth, which is moving ... > pretty fast as it circles the sun. ... in a stopped train, for example, and looked out the window and saw another ... You could try dropping a ball but it ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: OT Speed of light stuff - was Pluto.
    ... Here on earth, we measure speed relative to earth, which is moving pretty fast as it circles the sun. ... It would seem that if we employ the movement of earth as it circles the sun, we could fire rockets into space, with greater speed and less rocket boost than if we fired them counter to the movement of the earth around the sun. ... and saw another train passing, you would not be able to tell whether ... You could try dropping a ball but it ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: The train and the light inside.
    ... the relative speeds are being ignored if such is true. ... faster time rate than has the train because the train is moving faster ... they must be moving at the same speed ... They cannot be at CV with just "constant relative motion" unless they ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The train and the light inside.
    ... Let's say they are moving at CV as they accelerate, ... I'm sitting on a train headed east at 97 mph. ... Yes, you do, but you and the train are not at CV wrt to the earth. ... only you and the train changed speeds and so you are no longer at CV ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Another Question They Cannot Answer
    ... moving train by simply hopping on board and pulling out your tape. ... But don't be ridiculous, Henri. ... Is the slope of a hill an intrinsic property of that hill? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast