Re: Now The Ballistic Theory is Proved, Let's do Some Real Physics.
From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 09/18/04
- Next message: jahn: "Re: Now The Ballistic Theory is Proved, Let's do Some Real Physics."
- Previous message: jahn: "Re: How does light know it is traveling at c?"
- In reply to: Henri Wilson: "Re: 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: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 20:09:31 GMT
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:hm6kk0t3l6g0h5tmqbt5dinfk64h5unfbl@4ax.com...
| 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.
All speculation. Show me the evidence. Let's do some REAL physics.
|
| >
| >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.
Stars ARE 'clouds' of gas, at least at the surface.
| Fizeau's experiment showed what happens in a moving heavy medium. What
about a
| very rare gas?
You are nit-picking secondary effects that DO occur, but you do not yet a
have a solid foundation to build any therory on. You are still trying to
make c constant. There are many phenomena far more intriguing than a mere
gas. Quasars, for example. Try to concentrate on the data we actually have
rather than speculate on data we do not.
|
| >
| > 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).
"But I'm talking about extremely low density gas clouds, A.", that are so
damned thick they have gravity and a centre of gravity.
Yada yada yada... speculate, speculate, speculate.
| I am really interested in the way the gas cloud's own speed (relative
toteh
| light's source) would affect the light.
A star is a cLoud of gas, not a couLd of gas. You are getting your letter
'L' in the wrong place.
| We have to consider extinction 'half-distance' and cloud speed.
There is no extinction except in a medium. Why on Earth or in heaven
would a gas cloud surrounding a star remain fixed relative to the Earth, or
even relative to some absolute frame?
|
| 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?
Nope.
What I do see is the way you are thinking. You have a cloud of gas that is
stationary with a star moving around inside it, but no evidence. So you are
speculating on light being c with respect to our sun and wasting a lot of
time on nonsense. We are not the centre of the universe and never were.
| >
| >
| >
| >| 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)
Hints:
1) Snell's law.
2) Elastic collision.
3) At what speed does a billiard ball leave the sde cushion?
4) At what speed does a cricket ball leave the moving bat?
|
| >
| >|
| >| 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.
Splitting tells us whole lot more, and that is what we get when the orbit
goes
apparently retrograde. I've spread the entire spectrum with my nova model.
Copernicus.exe - Data/Nova.
No extinction allowed.
Guess what the description of Nova Herculis 1934 was? "Nebulous".
I no longer have the paper, unfortunately, and I'm a long way from CMU in
Pittsburgh. It's up to you to research in Sydney. Walk into the university
library
and say what you want. Librarians are the most helpful people you'll ever
encounter, in my experience.
| 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.
But they cancel. The orbital velocity does not.
|
| 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?
Why do you care about Andersen so much? Isn't dtau/dt = 0 < 1 enough?
You'll not change his religion. You might as well ask the Pope to renounce
Christianity. Futile and pointless.
|
| >
| >
| >| 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.
You know the velocity to begin with, it is v(t), so draw a line showing when
that arrives, v(tau).
|
|
|
| >Androcles.
| >
| >|
| >|
| >| HW.
| >|
| >| www.users.bigpond.com
| >
| >
|
|
| HW.
|
| www.users.bigpond.com
- Next message: jahn: "Re: Now The Ballistic Theory is Proved, Let's do Some Real Physics."
- Previous message: jahn: "Re: How does light know it is traveling at c?"
- In reply to: Henri Wilson: "Re: 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
|
