Re: Now The Ballistic Theory is Proved, Let's do Some Real Physics.
From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 09/16/04
- Next message: Eric Baird: "Re: definition of a clock in relativity theory"
- Previous message: Bill Hobba: "Re: Article: A Century of Einstein"
- In reply to: Henri Wilson: "Now The Ballistic Theory is Proved, Let's do Some Real Physics."
- Next in thread: Henri Wilson: "Re: Now The Ballistic Theory is Proved, Let's do Some Real Physics."
- Reply: Henri Wilson: "Re: Now The Ballistic Theory is Proved, Let's do Some Real Physics."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:52:34 GMT
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:qt8hk0tbdeocdaimg09vhnlbppnh9kv18r@4ax.com...
| Few will argue that the ballistic theory is now well and truly established
and
| fully supported by variable star data.
| It is clear that in the extreme vacuum of space, light is emitted at the
speed
| c relative to its source.
| There can be no other reference for this speed 'c', as predicted by
Heaveside
| (plagiarized by Maxwell).
|
| Physics can now move ahead, free of the 100 year Einsteinian ball and
chain
| around its legs.
|
| Several interesting questions arise.
|
| What happens to light as it travels across vast distances of space? It
cannot
| be assumed that all of space is homogeneous, as regards gas density and
field
| strengths.
So it gets blocked... Plenty of clouds blocking the light from the Milky
Way,
just as rain clouds block light from the sun. Try living in England, you'll
soon see.
|
| If light suddenly meets a volume of gas that has a density of say 10^-25
units
| instead of the previous 10^-27, and the volume is moving relative to the
| original source, how much does the light change speed (+ or -)?
It gets scattered, mostly, just like a rain cloud. Blue sky is scattered
light from dust motes. Fly a plane, clouds are white on top and grey
underneath... especially in England generally and when you see
thunderstorms.
A cloud is seen by scattered light. A beam of light cannot be seen from the
side, although a shaft of sunlight through your window may be noticable from
dust scattering the light. you cannot see the sun at night because the
Earth blocks the light. Venus and Jupiter (and the other planets) are only
visible because they scatter sunlight.
Does
refractive
| index have any relevance at such low densities?
Yes.
Just as the axis of a spinning ball has relevance no matter how slowly it
turns, but none whatsoever if it doesn't turn at all.
Just as dy/dx has relevance no matter how small dx may be, but it becomes
meaningless if dx = 0.
How is the light accelerated by the gravity of the gas pocket?
Very slightly. Usually too small to be measurable. It taked the mass of
a galaxy to notice the curve, usually. Eddington attempted to measure
the displacement of starlight during an eclipse, and being a relativist
screamed that the deflection as measured by his old box camera, from ONE
photograph,
was proof of GR. A more realistic conclusion was that the displacement was
too small to give any conclusive result.
| What happens to the light after it leaves the pocket of gas?
It goes on it's merry way, of course.
So does light that hits the moon and gets reflected.
|
| A second question relates to the thermal velocities of emitting atoms in
| the stars. According to the ballistic theory, these velocities are
| sufficiently high to affect the predicted brightness curves. That doesn't
appear
| to be the case.
Does to me... atoms of nitrogen and oxygen around my desk are heated to 300
Kelvin and are dancing around, but I don't feel any wind. Yet I'll detect a
breeze at a mere 2 mph. If you plot the range of velocities you'll get a
bell curve centred on zero.
Does this finding
What finding?
support the notion that the gas around individual
stars
| and even binary pairs constitutes a medium that regulates and tends to
unify
| the speed of all light leaving that star or star complex?
If there IS a gas, it would. I have no intention of travelling light years
to find out, though.
| This notion is supported by the fact that close binaries tend to show less
| variation in brightness than well separated ones.
Maybe.... and maybe the dip from one star is countered by a spike from the
other. Flare star / eclipsing binary. Of course most known binaries are
spectroscopic, so if you want to simulate then you'll need to simulate the
spectrum. Long way to go yet, H. :-)
Androcles.
|
|
| HW.
|
| www.users.bigpond.com
- Next message: Eric Baird: "Re: definition of a clock in relativity theory"
- Previous message: Bill Hobba: "Re: Article: A Century of Einstein"
- In reply to: Henri Wilson: "Now The Ballistic Theory is Proved, Let's do Some Real Physics."
- Next in thread: Henri Wilson: "Re: Now The Ballistic Theory is Proved, Let's do Some Real Physics."
- Reply: Henri Wilson: "Re: Now The Ballistic Theory is Proved, Let's do Some Real Physics."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
