Re: Now The Ballistic Theory is Proved, Let's do Some Real Physics.
From: Henri Wilson (H_at_..(Henri)
Date: 09/17/04
- Next message: Henri Wilson: "Re: How can DHRs be This Stupid?"
- Previous message: Henri Wilson: "Re: Going near the speed of light"
- In reply to: Androcles: "Re: Now The Ballistic Theory is Proved, Let's do Some Real Physics."
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: Now The Ballistic Theory is Proved, Let's do Some Real Physics."
- Reply: Androcles: "Re: Now The Ballistic Theory is Proved, Let's do Some Real Physics."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:49:45 GMT
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:52:34 GMT, "Androcles"
<androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"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.
But I'm talking about extremely low density gas clouds, A.
Sure there will be a small amount of scattering but not enough to distort
distant images significantly.
>
>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.
Yes I think light velocity will change by the refractive index of the gas cloud
but the velocity of the cloud itself will also be passed on to the light
traveling through it.
Fizeau's experiment showed what happens in a moving heavy medium. What about a
very rare gas?
>
> 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.
There is a lot of gas in the universe and no reason why a large volume of it
could not have the mass of a whole galaxy.
If so, light would be accelerated towards the centre and would slow down again
after passing through (just like a spaceship would).
I am really interested in the way the gas cloud's own speed (relative toteh
light's source) would affect the light.
We have to consider extinction 'half-distance' and cloud speed.
I will assume extinction takes place exponentially and will define this new
term, 'half-distance'.
If light suddenly enters a pocket of homogeneous VLP gas (that is at rest wrt
the source), its speed change will presumeably depend on the gas density.
'Half-distance is that distance over which the light speed will changes to half
the final, fully extinct one.
Maybe I'm wrong here. Maybe I should be considering a 'hafl-time' rather than a
'half -distance'.
Do you see what I'm getting at here?
>
>
>
>| 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.
At what speed (relative to its original speed)
>
>|
>| 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?
The broadening of distant spectral lines can tell us something about star
temperature.
The brightness curves of distant variables should also be completely stuffed up
by thermal velocities, which, at 10000K might easily be of the same order as
the star's orbiting velocities.
Maybe they are, maybe not.
If thermal velocities DO NOT affect brightness curves, this can be explained on
the basis of your recent suggestion, ie, that a large 'gas cloud' around a star
OR STAR SYSTEM effectively regulates the speed of all light leaving that
system.
This would squash Andersen's obsessive gloat that close binaries do not exhibit
much variation when the ballistc theory says they should.
>
>
>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.
...but it it would squash Andersen?
>
>
>| 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. :-)
The spectrum is relatively easy to simulate or at least to imagine, once the
ballistic theory is understood. It is basically the same as that which the
CDEFs would claim.
>Androcles.
>
>|
>|
>| HW.
>|
>| www.users.bigpond.com
>
>
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com
- Next message: Henri Wilson: "Re: How can DHRs be This Stupid?"
- Previous message: Henri Wilson: "Re: Going near the speed of light"
- In reply to: Androcles: "Re: Now The Ballistic Theory is Proved, Let's do Some Real Physics."
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: Now The Ballistic Theory is Proved, Let's do Some Real Physics."
- Reply: Androcles: "Re: Now The Ballistic Theory is Proved, Let's do Some Real Physics."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
