Re: SR theory is simplistic

On Jan 30, 2:48 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 30 Jan 2007 06:18:34 -0800, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


So you *can* provide the mathematical exposition of the theory that
informs the code? Please do.It's quite simple Draper.
Light moves at c wrt the source as it moves in orbit.
Therefore its velocity relative to Earth varies from c+v to c-v.

Even you should be able to see that this allows no room for fiddling anything.

And can you please do the same for a "Wilson density field"?I think you mean the 'Wilson Density THRESHOLD'.

In simple terms, its the density (of matter and fields) below which light
behaves quite differently from the way it behaves above the threshold.

Does that explain it?

No. You'll note that I explicitly asked for the MATHEMATICAL
EXPOSITION of the theory that informs the code. You've not done that,
have you? The request seemed so straightforward and simply stated. Are
you dense, Hank?

I'll try to explain in very simple terms.

I didn't ask for very simple terms. I asked for the MATHEMATICAL
EXPOSITION of the theory that informs the code. The whole MATHEMATICAL
EXPOSITION. Can you not address a simple request, Henri?

I'd like to see a MATHEMATICAL EXPOSITION of
a) the degree of "bunching" that is predicted
b) the magnitude of the extinction effect and the result on the above
c) the theory behind the Wilson Density Threshold.

PD

The program answers (a and b) and prints out a result as a graph of brightness
versus time.

Your lack of ability to read a simple sentence noted. I did not ask
for the RESULTS of the computer program. I did not ask for a verbal
sketch of what the program does. I asked for a MATHEMATICAL EXPOSITION
of the theory that informs the code. You seem profoundly unable to
understand what is being requested. Are you dense, Henri?

The radial velocity of an orbiting star is v cos(theta).

OK, most of the time, physicists begin by defining their terms. You
have not defined what v is, what theta is, and what the radial
direction is.

The speed of its emitted light in the direction of Earth is c+(v cos theta).

The program initially draws the orbit (ellipse or circle) and calculates the
values of peripheral velocity

nor have you defined peripheral velocity

and angle for about 30000 equi-temporal points
around the orbit. Yaw angle can be added to theta. Pitch angle is already
included in the observed radial velocity values.

Yaw and pitch being defined as what? You haven't even defined your
coordinate axes, Henri.


Assume the star emits identical pulses at each point. These move through space
towards Earth, the relative spacing between pulses changing as they go. Over
long distances, a spatial pattern of bunching and rarification forms as the
fast pulses move closer to the slower ones.

The arrival 'density' of the pulses at the observer is an indication of the
observed brightness of the star.

OK, you should be able to derive a simple formula for the density of
the the pulses at the observer in terms of the rate of pulses emitted
at the star, and your terms v, theta, yaw, and pitch. Please provide
that formula.


dn/dt=dn/dx.dx/dt, where dx/dt is close to c and dn/dx is the spatial
distribution.

This formula does not seem to do it, Henri. There's no dependence on
theta, yaw and pitch, and it's not immediately obvious that you mean
dx/dt to be v. Are you sure you know what you're doing? Is this the
extent of the math? Are you ashamed to be putting this up here in
public view, Henri?


Androcles' program uses the same principle and gets the same results.

My unification theory says that the relative movement between fast and slow
pulses effectively ceases after a certain distance, a distance that depends on
orbit period.

Please provide the math.

Also, you've provided no theory behind the Wilson Density Threshold.
Whatsoever.



Unification seems to vary from one situation to another. I'm slowly gathering
more data on this.

c) The WDT is a very important quantity, somewhat analogous to how
superconductivity suddently appears below a certain temperature.

Consider this.
It would appear that at every small region in space, there exists some kind of
'field' as well as some 'matter'. Since we don't know what either actually is,
we must assume that space containing either is NOT EMPTY.

I say that below the WDT, space has pockets of genuine EMPTINESS. There is
REALLY NOTHING! apart from the occasional flash of EM passing through.

Under those conditions, light behaves very differently from normal....and more
or less ballistically.

Your consecutive dodges are quite illuminating, Henri. Sort of like,
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

If you understand how computer programs operate Draper you should know that
complicated equations aren't necessary.
The program does all the integrations etc., with iterative numerical
methods...and prints out the answers.

You should also understand that any competent programmer knows the
equation he's using a computer to numerically solve, especially if
it's as bonehead simple as this one is. You apparently are not a
competent programmer either. What exactly ARE you competent at, Henri?
Besides designing fans, I mean...


The best aspect is that the values of all relevant parameters can be changed
easily....yaw angle and eccentricity being the main determinants of brightness
curve shape.

Gee, and I see neither of those parameters in the math you attempted
(feebly) to lay out above. I wonder why...


Somebody like De Sitter would have plodded for years doing what my program will
do in seconds.


Don't flatter yourself, Henri.

Oh, never mind. I forgot. That's all you do.

PD

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SR theory is simplistic
    ... You have not defined what v is, what theta is, and what the ... calculates the values of peripheral velocity ... pulses changing as they go. ... This formula does not seem to do it, Henri. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?
    ... there was a systematic variation in the arrival time of the pulses. ... The velocity of light is constant but time varies, ... the velocity of light varies. ... Since velocity is defined as distance divided by time and time is varying, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?
    ... > frequencies (distance between the pulses) as viewed from the frames ... But you brought up "velocity between the observer and the signal" at ... The observer could see some object of known distance, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Henri: Proof that the emission theory is inconsistent
    ... the source, and Galilean relativity applies. ... and both count the received pulses. ... This scenario doesn't show the emission theory to be inconsistent. ... please let Henri have a go first. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What is the distance to a black hole?
    ... > So as far as the mothership is concerned, letting out pulses at the ... But as the mothership accelerates, ... > c acts like an infinite velocity). ... here is a relative velocity between the the infalling object at the ...
    (sci.physics)