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

From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 09/19/04 

Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 12:03:40 GMT

"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:5uipk0l5me5nmgsvaqorff4sfgd3p71o32@4ax.com...
| 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.

The fact that images of very distant galaxies arrive with little distortion
supports the view that there are NO intervening extremely low density gas
clouds AT ALL, or any reason to suppose they exist.

| Of course they MIGHT

I said produce the evidence for your speculation, I'm not interested in
further speculation.
Now, do you or do you not have any EVIDENCE that there is ANY
intervening extremely low density gas between us and the remote galaxy?
Yes or no?
If yes, produce it.
If no, shut up about it.

 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...

Well, I don't assume anything, and I'm not interested in speculation.
Nor am I interested in Andersen's contradictory views that change as
the stellar wind blows. What the hell is "a long way" anyway? Beyond
the limit of the companion? How about as far as Mercury's orbit from
the Sun? What would the friction of this gas do to Mercury's orbit?

which is
| probably why

SPECULATION!

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.

Andersen... sheesh. Andersen is a relativist idiot, and you are a
speculator.
PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE!

| I expect his next desperate raving
| to appear in the not too distant future.

Yeah, well, I won't be reading it. dtau/dt = 0 < 1 is enough for me.
If he admitted his blunder, that would be different, but instead he tried
to bluster. He's not interested in science, he's a TROLL! Why do
continue nibbling his bait like a dumb fish trying to be caught?
Dang, I've been baiting him for years and he's been landed. Throw
the little ones back.

|
| >
| >
| >| 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

Well of course it does... it's the emission velocity. Big deal.

|
| 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.
Then produce the fucking EVIDENCE, not a "maybe".
All this 'maybe' *** is pissing me off. You titled this thread
"Let's do Some Real Physics."

and all you do us speculate.
I'm soon going to start snipping without reading anything further about your
imaginary gas until you have evidence.

| 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.

WHAT PROBLEM?
Look, Sirius is a double. It is only eight light years away, we can actually
see both stars with a telescope (well, maybe you can't, it's too far North).
It has a 50 year period. Tell me, WHY isn't it a variable?

[snip 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).
| >
| >"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.

Then produce the evidence.

| My program redshift.exe allows one to calculate the effect on light of a
volume
| of matter with any density.

You program is not evidence. It's a model.
When the engine fell off a DC10 at Chicago, resulting in fatalities,
 the effect was modelled in a flght simulator. That was an investigation
into the effect of the crash (not the cause) and the simulator satisfied
the FAA that the cause was the loss of the engine. REAL event,
simulated after. What REAL event are you modelling?

|
| A 10LY diameter sphere of gas at 10E-30 has a rather large mass and
gravity
| field.
HW logic: People drown in water. Rain is a 'cloud' of water. Therefore
people drown when its raining.

| 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).

BULL!
Bore a hole through the Earth from Sydney to London. Install air locks and
pump the air out. Put on SCUBA gear, go through the air lock and drop.
Bingo, energy free ride. I'll buy you a pint when you arrive. How large a
tank of oxygen will you need, measured in minutes?
Why won't it work? Well, you'll be opening up a volcano, so it is
impractical.
The gravitational pull at the centre is ZERO. A massive particle
will accelerate to the centre and decelerate out again, leaving its final
velocity the same as its entry velocity, less any loss due to friction.

| >
| >
| >
| >| 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?

Everything you've said is "could be" and "maybe". That is speculation,
not science.

|
| >
| >
| >| 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.
The cloud is PART of the star.

| This explains why brightness curves of very hot variable stars are quite
| well defined and not blurred by thermal velocities of emitting molecules.

How fast does the solar wind blow, relative to the sun?

|
| 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.

BULL.
Get your head out of the cloud.
|
|
| >
| >
| >|
| >| 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.

I was passing on a speculation. Having thought about it, I now realize it
doesn't work. Sorry to have misled you.
The larger planets are passing through the solar wind. They are not stopping
it, it is still going directly away from the sun. This supposed cloud with a
larger body replacing Jupiter will have little effect. Forget gas clouds. If
anything, they'd INCREASE c.

|
| >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).

The solar wind speed in the direction of the observer is?

| What has this got to do with the sun being the centre of the universe, A?
Get
| off that whisky!
I like it. It helps me think more clearly than Ozzie wine, that stuff gives
me a headache.
Your mental model of a star surrounded by what is essentially a stationary
gas, relative to the sun, with a pair of stars stirring it up like the
paddles of a washing machine, even if the washing machine is on wheels and
trundling across the floor, simply doesn't work.

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

There is a hidden "assumption" that momentum is conserved, and MMX really
does rely heavily on it. Assumptions of that nature we call axioms.
Exit speed = entry speed.
If it isn't true then we are ALL in deep do-do.

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

Just how much solar wind 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

Quantcast