Re: Constancy of the Light Speed !


"sal" <pragmatist@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:pan.2005.06.09.17.34.40.320611@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 12:59:52 +0000, Bryan Shelton wrote:
>
> > On 6 Jun 2005 05:22:24 -0700, "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >><< How do you explain De Sitter's astronomical demonstration that the
> >>speed of light relative to an observer cannot depend on the speed of its
> >>source, relative to that observer? >>
> >>
> >>The universe is a dielectric gas. After a short distance from even a
> >>moving emitter, the EM radiation must move at c wrt matter along the path
> >>or it's energy will be absorbed.
> >
> > Kind sounds like a new-fangled ether theory! In which case, how do you
> > explain Michaelson-Morley? you can't have it both ways, Sue! :-)
>
> Actually it sounds like Ritz-Fox emission theory with a bandaid to avoid
> problems when there's too much empty space and not enough gas between us
> and a source.
>
> Emission theory handles MM very nicely. What it doesn't handle so well is
> the redshift detected by the Hubble spectroscopes, which is why the
> bandaid is necessary. (Diffraction gratings measure wavelength, not
> frequency, and the wavelength doesn't shift if the emission velocity is
> fixed _and_ if the frequency is fixed at the source. I won't speculate as
> to what happens when the photons hit the glass of the grating. At some
> point it starts to feel like arguing creationism: the predictions keep
> going wrong, but then they get fixed up retroactively so the theory can
> soldier on.)
>
> Indirect proofs aside, to prove emission theory wrong with a direct SOL
> measurement you have to pin down exactly what is being claimed for the
> "extinction length" and then you need to measure SOL with a moving source
> which is closer to you than the extinction length. Trouble is the
> extinction length can be adjusted as needed to explain whatever you happen
> to measure, so it's a little slippery.
>
> Don't ask me for more information about this, though -- I'm not a
> proponent of Ritz-Fox theory and I've never read any of the papers on it.
> Sue (or Jahn) may have more to add.

Thanks... I'll try.
Ya can't have a light path with fewer than two charges. Agreed ?
The real universe has a few more charges than that and we can't isolate them.
No vacuum pressure is low enough.
No vacuumed volume is great enough.

Here is why.
The Coulomb coupling between charges diminishes with the square of the distance.
....But the number of coupled charges in an aperture of sky *increases* with the
square of the distance. ( just a characteristic of homogenity )

So... whereever you go in a homogenous universe you will count the same number
of stars in the sky and you will measure the free space impedance at 377 ohms.

Aside from that purely geometrical foundation, there is a lot more *stuff* in
the *vacuum* of space than most folks allow for:
"What is the Interstellar Medium?"
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.html

It seems to be coupled charges that know the speed of light rather than
anything between them:

<<Although the Dirac relativistic theory of the electron introduced in
1928 solves the main aspects of the problem of the hydrogen fine-structure, [alpha]
still determines its size as in the Sommerfeld theory. Consequently, the name "fine-structure"
constant for the group of constants below has remained:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif [equation]
, where e is the elementary charge ... >>
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html


"You know, it would be sufficient to really understand the electron"
--Albert Einstein

--------
Sue...



>
> Henri claims to be a proponent of Ritz-Fox-Wilson theory but I'm not sure
> he understands it well enough to address this. At least, when questions
> of longitudinal redshift and minimum extinction lengths come up he usually
> turns out to be elsewhere.
>
>
> --
> Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law???
    ... to the beginning of the Universe. ... exactly zero) to the distant horizon or rim--be it 13.7 billion light years ... How old are the galaxies observed at a distance of 13.4 billion light ... accumulating between, in the picture of time between here and now and there ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: WMAP: New Satellite Data On Universes First Trillionth Second
    ... A SINGLE SIDED UNIVERSE ONLY! ... It's like looking to the far blue mountains from a distance then walking ... horizon to be; just because it has a distance-time horizon everything that ... You have objects in a trillion trillion ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Expansion is wrong and its soooo freakin obvious
    ... around 60 Mpc and it is observed as Hubble redshift. ... Then let's say it travels 60 Mpc, it starts to travel at less than c. ... if one has an infinite dust-free Universe, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Is Einsteins "Cosmological Constant" Really a Constant? (Forwarded)
    ... Is Einstein's "Cosmological Constant" Really a Constant? ... Energy" that seems to be quickening the expansion of the universe but, ... His analysis is based on 52 distant explosions called gamma-ray bursts, ... This diagram is a graph that compares an object's distance with its ...
    (sci.space.news)
  • Re: "Tired" light
    ... It is based on an observable universe of radius c/Ho ... > Observations show that red shift z is proportional to distance d ... an expanding universe. ... we prefer the monikers Stella and Terence. ...
    (sci.astro)