Re: Now The Ballistic Theory is Proved, Let's do Some Real Physics.

From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 09/17/04 

Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:20:13 GMT

"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:7q7lk0p9nqabc7cfd97deul7p6tt8o8n77@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 05:57:22 +0000 (UTC), Eric Baird
| <eric_baird@compuserve.com> wrote:
|
| >On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:42:38 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote:
| >
| >>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.
| >>
| >>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 -)? Does
refractive
| >>index have any relevance at such low densities? How is the light
accelerated by
| >>the gravity of the gas pocket?
| >>What happens to the light after it leaves the pocket of gas?
| >>
| >>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 this 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?
| >>This notion is supported by the fact that close binaries tend to show
less
| >>variation in brightness than well separated ones.
| >
| >
| >Personally, I'd attempt to reintroduce wave/particle duality in the
| >emission theory model, by saying that perhaps the emission lightspeeds
| >are initially "c+v" and "c-v", but then I'd try to express that
| >lightspeed difference as an effective gravitational differential in
| >the metric and use field arguments to smear it out, and say that
| >although the light is emitted at "c" wrt the two emitting stars, the
| >influence of the star's velocity on the signal's speed should then
| >become less significant as their separation increases.
|
| You would need to describe a mechanism that might cause this effect.
| Certainly, if a gas cloud exists around every star or star complex, the
speed
| of all light leaving the complex at initial c+v would be modified
accordingly.

Which cloud type would you like to pick?
This one,
 http://www.manybody.org/cgi-bin/starlab/binary_demo.pl
or this one?
 http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040915.html
or this one?
 http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040910.html
or maybe this one?
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040908.html

Two are illustrations. Two are real.

| >
| >If you did it this way, you'd have light emitted at c by the emitter,
| >but received at c by the final observer, you'd have local lightspeed
| >constancy throughout, you'd still have your basic emission-theory-type
| >light-curves, but the offset between the "slow" and "fast" signals
| >emitted by the star system would probably have an upper limit, and I'm
| >guessing that the "critical distance" threshold in your calculations
| >might not be exceeded regardless of how far away the star system is.
|
| This depends on how far from the star complex the cloud extends.
| Of course it might be something other than a gas cloud. I think Len
Gaasenbeek
| has suggested that every mass has a local EM frame of reference.

Yeah, and I've suggested bright green flying elephanst lay eggs. The
difference is I don't actually believe my own imagination, unlike
relativists, aetherialists, crackpot Gaasenbeeks, h-aetherialists or
crackpots in general, and I certainly don't believe the imaginations of
others. I thought
you asked for REAL physics? Here you are guessing again. That sucks
as much as Einstein's BS. If you are going to wander off on junk theories,
count me out. Gassenbeek's helical nonsense, his refusal to defend it
when questioned and his constant whining to read his selected papers
makes him a real crackpot.
Start with DATA, and make sure it fits ALL theory you dream up.
 Androcles.

| Maybe it has.
Yeah, and maybe leprechauns put crocks of gold at the end of rainbows.
Maybe this and maybe that and maybe its not as well.

Androcles.

Maybe this is somehow connected to the gravity field
surrounding
| a star complex and light speed is controlled by this field as well as any
gas
| cloud.
|
| However I don't see how you can expect the range of influence of such
effects
| to be anything like the distance light will travel across space. Light
could
| certainly leave a star at c+v, arrive at the edge of our solar system's
'EM
| sphere of influence' and then reach Earth's surface at c/n where n is the
| refractive index of the atmosphere.
| I think that at very low densities, (maybe 1 molecule per m^2) light
behaves
| quite ballistically.
|
|
| >
| >That would also destroy deSitter's and Brecher's disproofs of emission
| >theory, and just about everyone else's, AFAIK.
|
| It certainly would.
|
| >
| >'Course if one did that, it wouldn't just be emission theory any more,
| >it would also arguably be a dragged-aether theory, and a "metic"
| >theory, and a "gravitational" theory, and also perhaps the basis of a
| >full-blown theory of relativity that wasn't based on SR.
|
| It certainly would allow a sensible form of relativity to be developed
although
| I don't like the dragged aether idea because I consider most of space to
be
| truly empty.
|
| >
| >You know the rest, so now I shall shut up and let people discuss those
| >interesting dust-cloud issues.
| >
| >
| >
| >Hmmm ... ....
| >Isn't it interesting that the extinction theorem seems to say that
| >light (re)emitted by a dust particle emerges with a definite speed
| >that is offset by the speed of the particle, and not at some neutral
| >observer-dependent speed, as described by SR?
|
| Very!!!
|
| >
| >=Erk= (Eric Baird)
| >: " Eeez no rat!
| >: Eeez filleegree siberian hamster!"
| >: -- Fawlty Towers
|
|
| HW.
|
| www.users.bigpond.com

Relevant Pages
Quantcast