A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 3rd 05, 01:26 AM
Henri Wilson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids

Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source".

If a remote light source emits a pulse of light towards a target observer
moving relatively at v1, then, from the point of view of a third observer O3,
the 'closing speed' of that pulse towards the first observer is c+v1.

For another target observer moving at v2, the closing speed is seen as c+v2.
Here is the experimental setup:

S_._._._._._._.p_._._._._._._.v1T1_._._
v2T2



O3

O3 sets up a line of equally separated clocks which measure the speed of a
light pulse emitted by S towards T1 and T2. O3 also measures the speed of T1
and T2 towards S. The readings enable him to calculate the different 'closing
speeds' between the pulse and T1 and the pulse and T2.

I understand that SRians agree on this.

The principle of relativity says it matters not whether the source or target is
considered as moving. Therefore, the above considerations hold just as well for
differently moving sources.

Thus, for a particular target, the 'closing speed' of light from relatively
moving sources is c+v3, c+v4, etc., as seen by O3.

Consider a star of constant brightness moving in some kind of orbit.
From O3's POV, light emitted at different times of (its) year will have
different 'closing speeds' towards any particular target (unless the orbit
plane is normal).
For illustration purposes, let the star emit equally spaced and identical
pulses of light as it orbits. Thus, from O3's POV, some pulses will tend to
catch up with others. Some will tend to move further away. The O3 will detect
bunching and separation at certain points along the light path. Fast pulses
will eventually overtake slow ones if no target intervenes.

Armed with this knowledge, O3 will reason that any target observer will receive
pulses from the star at different rates. This can only mean that OT will, in
reality, perceive the observed brightness of any (intrinsically stable) star in
orbit to be varying cyclically over the star's year, by an amount that will
depend on the distance to the star.

There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very regular
brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by my
variable star simulation program:
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

Note: Einstein's unproven claim that the target observer will always MEASURE
the speed of the incoming pulses as being c is completely irrelevant to this
argument.

The BaT acknowleges the existence of extinction and that 'local aether frames'
may exist in the vicinity of matter. These may determine local light speeds.





HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
  #2  
Old July 3rd 05, 02:06 AM
Uncle Al
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Henri Wilson wrote:

Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source".

[snip crap]

Lightspeed is identical for all inertial frames of reference.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
  #3  
Old July 3rd 05, 02:24 AM
Henri Wilson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 18:06:53 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:

Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source".

[snip crap]

Lightspeed is identical for all inertial frames of reference.


**** off cretin!


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
  #4  
Old July 3rd 05, 04:00 AM
The Ghost In The Machine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson)
H@
wrote
on Sun, 03 Jul 2005 01:24:24 GMT
:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 18:06:53 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:

Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source".

[snip crap]

Lightspeed is identical for all inertial frames of reference.


**** off cretin!


Got any performed experiments that show lightspeed is other
than c in vacuo?

The only ones I'm aware of measure lightspeed at c plus or minus
about a few parts per billion -- in fact, that's why in 1983
the standards bodies decided to throw in the towel and *define*
the meter in terms of the length of the second, and lightspeed;
the old Kr-86 definition just wasn't accurate enough, apparently.

Of course, you can claim that all of the scientists on that body
were deluded, if you like.

BTW: 1 part per billion would be about 38.5 cm, relative to the Moon's
distance of 3.85 * 10^8 m.

[.sigsnip]

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
  #5  
Old July 3rd 05, 04:48 AM
Bill Hobba
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 18:06:53 -0700, Uncle Al

wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:

Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source".

[snip crap]

Lightspeed is identical for all inertial frames of reference.


**** off cretin!


Translation - Henri does not like inconvienent facts - so much for the
facts. Three guesses who is the real cretin.

Bill



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.



  #6  
Old July 3rd 05, 05:18 AM
Sue...
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



"Light moves at c wrt interacting matter"

Here is the experimental setup:
e+
e-
e+e-


Sue...

  #7  
Old July 3rd 05, 07:57 AM
George Dishman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
...
Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source".


A claim that is known to be disproven by the
Sagnac effect.

The BaT acknowleges the existence of extinction and that 'local aether
frames'
may exist in the vicinity of matter. These may determine local light
speeds.


Snell's Law requires that any such "extinction"
(not the usual meaning of the term) must occur
over a short distance (consider a quarter-wave
plate) depending on the refractive index.

I suggest the speed of the light leaving a
distant star is therefore changed to be c almost
immediately and Henri's simulation results are
therefore spurious.

Do you understand what I'm saying Henri, unless
you have the equations for extinction and the
behaviour relative to your aether, you cannot
make a prediction. Your above definition does
not constitute a theory since the unknown parts
prevent you making any predictions.

Also as you have the word "may" in your text,
you don't have a theory. Replace it by "will"
and give the equations.

George


  #8  
Old July 3rd 05, 10:30 AM
Henri Wilson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 03:48:31 GMT, "Bill Hobba" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 18:06:53 -0700, Uncle Al

wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:

Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source".
[snip crap]

Lightspeed is identical for all inertial frames of reference.


**** off cretin!


Translation - Henri does not like inconvienent facts - so much for the
facts. Three guesses who is the real cretin.

Bill


If I want Al Schwartz to contribute usefully to my posts I will ask him.
You too Hobba. You are no better.


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
  #9  
Old July 3rd 05, 10:31 AM
Henri Wilson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 2 Jul 2005 21:18:17 -0700, "Sue..." wrote:



"Light moves at c wrt interacting matter"

Here is the experimental setup:
e+
e-
e+e-


How about
hee, hee+
Hee,hee,heehee,hee.
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!




Sue...



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
  #10  
Old July 3rd 05, 10:46 AM
Sue...
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Henri Wilson wrote:
On 2 Jul 2005 21:18:17 -0700, "Sue..." wrote:



"Light moves at c wrt interacting matter"

Here is the experimental setup:
e+
e-
e+e-


How about
hee, hee+
Hee,hee,heehee,hee.
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!


http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...Radiation.html
http://www.snopes.com/weddings/graphics/shocked.jpg






Sue...



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ted Taylor autobiography, CHANGES OF HEART Eric Erpelding History 3 November 15th 04 12:32 AM
The Steady State Theory vs The Big Bang Theory Br Dan Izzo Astronomy Misc 8 September 7th 04 12:07 AM
Gravity as Falling Space Henry Haapalainen Science 1 September 4th 04 04:08 PM
Building my own Newtonian Telescope - progress report Dr DNA UK Astronomy 11 March 24th 04 11:06 PM
Hypothetical astrophysics question Matthew F Funke Astronomy Misc 39 August 11th 03 03:21 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.