Re: Absolute Time

From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 08/25/04 

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:55:07 GMT

"suzysewnshow" <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:e0a23188.0408250329.4b12b36e@posting.google.com...
| "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<hSPWc.191$MB1.2466920@news-text.cableinet.net>...
| > "suzysewnshow" <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
| > news:e0a23188.0408241112.648e6758@posting.google.com...
| > | "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
| > news:<a0GWc.5867$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.
| >
| "Could be" isn't a claim either. The burden goes unborne. Intrepid
| grad students don't work for free anymore now that folks can just
| print their diplomas from an internet site. ;-)

Yes, I long ago realized that my doctorate was worthless unless obtained
from a non-accredited institution. ;-)

A small (and quite serious) aside on that point. I had a mathematics Ph.D.
from Cambridge working as an engineer on the team I was managing in 1987. He
could have had the management role since he had been employed a year prior
to me but had declined, and I had to be coerced out of Quality Assurance to
manage the project, but never mind that. Anyway, I was quite surprised that
he lacked imagination, and although extremely competent in producing work he
was asked to, seldom contributed any new idea to the project. One technician
was quite the opposite, full of very good and useful ideas but unable to
implement them. The two would play chess at lunchtime and invariably the
technician won. He'd beat me three games out of four as well.
| >
| > | >
| > | > | 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.
|
| No... we don't need a lion or a lioness. We need somebody less adroit
| at evading questions about Hubble flow. ROFL

You ask for comment on a theory.
I have commented on the assumptions the theory relies upon.

| I don't disgree with your analysis of the variable system. But my
| support and my background in astronomy won't even buy you a glass of
| water. The fact that SR (de Sitter actually) fails to consider such an
| explanation doesn't mean other effects are not also glossed over in
| the theory. Real world dielectric effects also get a pretty good
| beating. Ya don't have to be the salesman that says "Buy my peanut
| butter because jelly is bad for you" ;-)

jelly n. A gelatin-based desert; I know that this word is in use in the
'States but many Americans know it better as jell-o - a brand name we don't
have over here. The jolly nice sweets that Americans call jelly beans, we
also have and call the same thing. OK, so they don't really resemble jelly,
but I'd say they have precious little in common with beans either. -- The
English-to-American Dictionary.
jam n. This is one of these words I wish I'd never mentioned. Having
suggested that British jam is American jelly, I was hit by a deluge of mail
saying quite the opposite. As I (now) understand it, what Americans call
jelly (the jam without fruity-bits in it), we still call jam. What Americans
call jello, we call jelly. Oh yes, and what Americans call "jam" is still
jam here too. I think that's the jams pretty much covered. -- The
English-to-American Dictionary.

| That is a mistake Einstein made in over-building his case against an
ether.

What would you need an aether for?
RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.
RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and
more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes. -- Sir Isaac Newton
(Principia).

| Kind regards,
| Sue...
| "The weak chain that lionises the sproket makes the epicycle roll
| stronger"

Quantcast