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

From: Henri Wilson (H_at_..(Henri)
Date: 09/19/04 

Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 01:16:01 GMT

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 20:09:31 GMT, "Androcles"
<androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"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:
>|
>| >

>| >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.

The fact that images of very distant gallaxies arrive with little distortion
supports this view.
Of course they MIGHT be distorted slightly and we wouldn't know it... but the
point is, they are usually clear and not particularly blurred. If the gas in
space was too dense, this wouldn't happen.

>
>|
>| >
>| >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.

...and I assume that cloud extends a long way from the centre...which is
probably why close binaries don't reveal as much brightness variation as
distant ones.... ie, the difference between c+v and c-v is reduced considerably
by extinction before any light escapes the influence of the gaseous sphere.

That argument has silenced Andersen so far. I expect his next desperate raving
to appear in the not too distant future.

>
>
>| 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.

I am NOT trying to make light speed constant wrt all observers, A.

I accept that a very important constant, which we call 'c', DOES exist... with
the value about 2.997E8m/s

My claim is that, in a 100% vacuum, light is always emitted at 'c' relative to
its source.... but that speed (wrt the source) can change as the light travels
through even the ultra-low pressure vacuum of space and (maybe) its various
fields.
In the case of an extremely rare gas, I say that the speed does not change
abruptly. Light might even pass right through a pocket of gas with little
change in speed. If the gas is moving away from the source, the light speed can
increase wrt the source.

I offer no suggestion as to how or why light should change speed as it
traverses vast distances across space (with maybe 1 atom per m^3) .. but I
cannot see any other way we can logically tackle this problem.

When light approaches our solar system, its speed is modified by local gases
and fields.
When it reahes the Earth's atmosphere, extinction occurs rapidly and its speed
adjusts to that predicted by the refractive index.

Thus, starlight spends most of its life traveling at about 'c' relative to its
source and observed variable star curves are as predicted by the ballistic
theory. It makes no difference to these curves if OWLS in the Earth's very thin
atmosphere does become c/n.

>
>
>|
>| >
>| > 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.

It isn't speculation.
My program redshift.exe allows one to calculate the effect on light of a volume
of matter with any density.

A 10LY diameter sphere of gas at 10E-30 has a rather large mass and gravity
field.

If a light ray passes through, its exit speed will surely be modified in some
way (unless maybe, if the gas is at rest wrt the light's source).

>
>
>
>| 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.

ugh?

>
>
>| 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 didn't for a moment infer that it would.
I am saying that light leaving a star is affected by the gas cloud around that
star. This explains why brightness curves of very hot variable stars are quite
well defined and not blurred by thermal velocities of emitting molecules.

As I pointed out above, it also explains why light from close binaries doesn't
retain the full c+v and c-v component from each individual star. This is why
close binaries are not variables.

  
>
>
>|
>| 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.

No A, the gas moves with the star...or in the case of a binary pair, it moves
with the C of G.
I got this idea from YOU originally...so you should know what I'm talking
about.

>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.

Light LEAVING our sun is moving at c/n wrt the sun (where n is some kind of
average for the gas cloud around the sun).
What has this got to do with the sun being the centre of the universe, A? Get
off that whisky!

>
>| >
>| >
>| >
>| >| 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?

that's a valid question.
I wouldn't like to give an answer since I have no reason to believe that
incident speed=reflected speed in a pure vacuum.
Maybe 'elasticity' DOES play a part here.

>
>|
>| >
>| >|
>| >| 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.

Google usually does the trick too.

>
>| 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.

Only if a 'gas cloud' is present to unify these velocities somewhat.

>The orbital velocity does not.

They will also.... if the gas cloud is sufficiently dense and large.

>
>|
>| 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.

It appears that way. Einsteinian fundamentalists are as inflexible as suicuide
bombers.

>
>|
>| >
>| >
>| >| 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).

My program shows clearly what the spectral lines will do... even if it doesn't
say so directly.

HW.

www.users.bigpond.com

Relevant Pages