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

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 8 Feb 2006 04:42:50 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 7 Feb 2006 05:25:43 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 21:13:27 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
...
In a simple straight line setup at constant speed,
the prediction for Doppler shift derived from Ritz's
ballistic theory is

f'/f = (c+v)/c

and that derived from SR is

f'/f = sqrt((c+v)/(c-v))

Ives and Stillwell measured it and found the result
matched SR, ballistic theory was wrong. The instrument
measuring the shift is at rest so shrinkages don't
come into it.

George, there is very little difference between the BaTh doppler equation and
that of SR or LET.

It is a factor of 2 in the second order.

Nobody on this Earth is ever likely to perform an experiment
that will pick up the difference.

Sorry Henry, they did it in 1938, the technology even
then was adequate. these are their results:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-04/2-...s/image018.gif

That is not very conclusive.

Nothing ever is to a religious fanatic.

Anyone can type a set of figures.

That's the most pathetic comment you've come up
with yet. The values are measured results from an
experiment which has been repeated many times
since the original. Science always gives credit to
the first people to make the measuerement but it
also continues to refine the measurement as
technology advances. Here's a recent repeat:


http://atomchip.uni-hd.de/teaching/v..._91_190403.pdf


Joking surely.
Hardly a direct experiment immune from 'fiddling'.

ROFL, you are just in denial Henry as usual.

Nothing reported is "immune from 'fiddling'", but this
is just the latest in a long line of measurements all
giving the same result to progressively improved
accuracy. The headlines and prizes go to those who
first discover a deviation from the current theories
because that is what leads to new discoveries so
the tendency would be to fiddle to get a different
result, not the same answer.

George

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 9 Feb 2006 02:32:05 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 7 Feb 2006 06:12:39 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:

Here's something for you to think about.

Here's something for you to think about: write down
the list of properties that you think define a photon
and against each say whether its value depends on
the motion of the _observer_.

You didn't think about it, did you:

Yes there is, in the second case the laser moves
during the time between emission of wavefronts
thus changing the wavelength for a given frequency.
You are also assuming that the properties have the
same values in both frames which is not true.

You SRians seem to have great difficulty understanding questions.

You seem to have great difficulty understanding the answers.

The laser is completely remote. Why should the structure of its emitted light
change if it accelerates for a while then stops accelerating?

There is no mention of observers at this stage.

Without an observer, there are no measured properties
to consider. You can only tlk jypothetically about the
value of properties which are independent of the observer,
so which properties are those Henry?

In other words, if it were possible to travel alongside the pulses, they would
indistinguishable. Neither, at this stage knows its ultimate target.

So if the pulses are identical in transit, what causes one to be doppler
shifted and the other not, when the two ultimately happen to accidentally run
into little planet Earth?

There is a big gap in Einstein's theory. ...

There is a big gap in your understanding of the basic
principle of Doppler shift whether applied to waves,
bullets or light. At least it isn't as bad as Jim's.

No you didn't give the right answer.

Yes I did, you just didn't consider what properties could
be considered in the absense of an observer despite my
giving you the hint. Frequency is observer-dependent.

George

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 9 Feb 2006 04:11:27 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 7 Feb 2006 06:59:25 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:

Sagnac done with satellites does not. Spacecraft
navigation does not and of course the pulsars and
binary spectra we are discussing do not.

It all supports hte BaTh. You people simply refuse to accept the truth.

Ritz's ballistic theory predicts a null result but all the
above are non-null, those are the facts. If you want to
invent a new theory and publish its equations, we
can then apply them to the experiments and get your
predictions. In the meantime you have oferered no
alternative to Ritz.

Why do I need an alternative?

Because ballistic theory says the Sagnac experiment
will give a null result, pulsar signals should be hopelessly
overlapped sequences and binary stars should have
multiple copies of spectral lines with different Doppler
shifts.

Ritz was basically correct.

Nope, he was totally wrong on that idea.

Still for all observers, sure Henry. You seem to have
a strange conceept of "air".

It is equivalent to the 'aether' that is fundamental to your sagnac
explanation.

The aether isn't still for all observers Henry.

It is rendered so in SR by the second postulate.

What you mean is the postulate is incompatible with
a model based on sound in air, nice of you to finally
admit it.

That is the basis of the ballistic model. The measurement
by Sagnac tells us the light actually moves at c in the
stationary frame and you are trying to argue that it is photon
'friction' that changes the speed. The trouble is one beam is
moving at c+v in the rotating frame so the 'friction' has to

Oops, that should have been "c-v", doh!

speed it up. Don't you understand your own proposal?

Yes George. Both beams are slowed by frictional drag, one more tham the other.

One needs to be speeded up Henry, you understood that
when we were discussing it before Christmas so what
has changed?

Rubbish. You are assuming the second postulate to try to prove it.

Nope, just physics 101, the measured result is proportional
to the angular speed and the setup uses two counter-rotating
beams which combine to tell you something about the
coefficient of friction. can you work out why your suggestion
is therefore unphysical?

You are not refering to the extra 'friction' casued by centrifugal force on the
beams.

Yes I am.

One is pushed into the sides more than the other.

Go on from there then, on the next step you should
find the problem.

If both slowed down, you would get a null result.

Don't be daft. They slow by different amounts.

Write down the equation for the coefficient of friction
as a function of angular speed. Use that to calculate
the speed of the light as it progresses round the mirrors.
Integrate to get the total time taken. Then you would
have an explanation, but only if it matched the empirical
formula.

You don't need any maths to understand the effect.

Well I didn't but it appears nothing less will make the
penny drop for you.

I did answer your question but that is irrelevant, you still
don't have a theory for me to comment on. All I can do is
point out that even your hand-waving is garbage.

In a single mode fibre, the outside of the beam has to move 4% faster than the
inside to retain a perpendicular wavefront.
Is that garbage, George? ...or just a scientific fact that hurts you?

Neither, first it isn't a scientific fact. If you had read the
page on waveguides you would have learned that the
wavefronts aren't perpendicular to both fields. Second
it doesn't hurt my argument at all since your "4%" figure
is the same for both light paths.

You are trying to wriggle out by talking nonsense about straight waveguides.

I am talking about symmetry, it is the same in both
directions.

just replace c with Vs....

That will give the wrong answer, the speed will change
at each mirror due to your "frictional drag" so until you
produce the theory nobody can calculate anything.

Don't try to wriggle out George.

There's nothing to wiggle out of Henry, you are incapable
of turning your daft idea into a theory.

You are simple reiterating Einstein's second postulate nonsense.

No, I am telling you the result of the lab measurement.
It supports the postulate of course.

Nonsense....

Sagnac's conclusion was "the speed of the light is
independent of the speed of the source" which is
the postulate.



Obviously. What has that to do with what I said?

I'm talking about the rotating frame.

Well since I said"Ritz says one beam should travel
at c+v while the other is c-v ...", it should have been
obvious I was talking in the stationary frame. The c-v
beam needs to be speeded up.

You are raving.
Why the hell should it ever move faster than c-v?

That's the only way you will be able to match the
empirical data.

There was no fibre in Sagnac's experiment, you need a
solution that works for both. Note also you may need
to consider ring lasers if you get into this as mirror drag
would have a major impact on them.

Same as for IFoGs basically.

Drag happens during passage through bulk material
which doesn't happen in the mirror version other than
at the glass of the splitter. Write down the equations
and it will be obvious, you either have to write
something that defines a delta speed change on
reflection or a continuous speed decay through the
fibre material, what will you choose?

Different 'rag'

Continuous or discrete, which is it to be? Show me the
equations or I have to assume you are incapable of doing so.

George

On 10 Feb 2006 04:07:53 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 9 Feb 2006 04:11:27 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 7 Feb 2006 06:59:25 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:

Sagnac done with satellites does not. Spacecraft
navigation does not and of course the pulsars and
binary spectra we are discussing do not.

It all supports hte BaTh. You people simply refuse to accept the truth.

Ritz's ballistic theory predicts a null result but all the
above are non-null, those are the facts. If you want to
invent a new theory and publish its equations, we
can then apply them to the experiments and get your
predictions. In the meantime you have oferered no
alternative to Ritz.

Why do I need an alternative?

Because ballistic theory says the Sagnac experiment
will give a null result, pulsar signals should be hopelessly
overlapped sequences and binary stars should have
multiple copies of spectral lines with different Doppler
shifts.

You are wrong on all counts George.
There is a lot more to it than that.

Ritz was basically correct.

Nope, he was totally wrong on that idea.

Well George if you can provide a physical reason why all light from differently
moving galaxies up to 10 billion LYs away somehow manages to travel at 'c' all
the way to little planet Earth, I'll be glad to hear it.

Still for all observers, sure Henry. You seem to have
a strange conceept of "air".

It is equivalent to the 'aether' that is fundamental to your sagnac
explanation.

The aether isn't still for all observers Henry.

It is rendered so in SR by the second postulate.

What you mean is the postulate is incompatible with
a model based on sound in air, nice of you to finally
admit it.

It is perfectly compatible.
It is identical.

That is the basis of the ballistic model. The measurement
by Sagnac tells us the light actually moves at c in the
stationary frame and you are trying to argue that it is photon
'friction' that changes the speed. The trouble is one beam is
moving at c+v in the rotating frame so the 'friction' has to

Oops, that should have been "c-v", doh!

speed it up. Don't you understand your own proposal?

Yes George. Both beams are slowed by frictional drag, one more tham the other.

One needs to be speeded up Henry, you understood that
when we were discussing it before Christmas so what
has changed?

Rubbish. You are assuming the second postulate to try to prove it.
Nope, just physics 101, the measured result is proportional
to the angular speed and the setup uses two counter-rotating
beams which combine to tell you something about the
coefficient of friction. can you work out why your suggestion
is therefore unphysical?

You are not refering to the extra 'friction' casued by centrifugal force on the
beams.

Yes I am.

One is pushed into the sides more than the other.

Go on from there then, on the next step you should
find the problem.

If both slowed down, you would get a null result.

Don't be daft. They slow by different amounts.

Write down the equation for the coefficient of friction
as a function of angular speed. Use that to calculate
the speed of the light as it progresses round the mirrors.
Integrate to get the total time taken. Then you would
have an explanation, but only if it matched the empirical
formula.

You don't need any maths to understand the effect.

Well I didn't but it appears nothing less will make the
penny drop for you.

There are no known equations to cover this effect.
You could become famous by generating some.


I did answer your question but that is irrelevant, you still
don't have a theory for me to comment on. All I can do is
point out that even your hand-waving is garbage.

In a single mode fibre, the outside of the beam has to move 4% faster than the
inside to retain a perpendicular wavefront.
Is that garbage, George? ...or just a scientific fact that hurts you?

Neither, first it isn't a scientific fact. If you had read the
page on waveguides you would have learned that the
wavefronts aren't perpendicular to both fields. Second
it doesn't hurt my argument at all since your "4%" figure
is the same for both light paths.

You are trying to wriggle out by talking nonsense about straight waveguides.

I am talking about symmetry, it is the same in both
directions.

You are talking about something totally irrelevant to the subject.


just replace c with Vs....

That will give the wrong answer, the speed will change
at each mirror due to your "frictional drag" so until you
produce the theory nobody can calculate anything.

Don't try to wriggle out George.

There's nothing to wiggle out of Henry, you are incapable
of turning your daft idea into a theory.

You know the answer...so you can find the maths.

You are simple reiterating Einstein's second postulate nonsense.

No, I am telling you the result of the lab measurement.
It supports the postulate of course.

Nonsense....

Sagnac's conclusion was "the speed of the light is
independent of the speed of the source" which is
the postulate.



Obviously. What has that to do with what I said?

I'm talking about the rotating frame.

Well since I said"Ritz says one beam should travel
at c+v while the other is c-v ...", it should have been
obvious I was talking in the stationary frame. The c-v
beam needs to be speeded up.

You are raving.
Why the hell should it ever move faster than c-v?

That's the only way you will be able to match the
empirical data.

Funny!!!

If both beams slow down but by different amounts, the fringes will shift,
right?


Drag happens during passage through bulk material
which doesn't happen in the mirror version other than
at the glass of the splitter. Write down the equations
and it will be obvious, you either have to write
something that defines a delta speed change on
reflection or a continuous speed decay through the
fibre material, what will you choose?

Different 'drag'

Continuous or discrete, which is it to be? Show me the
equations or I have to assume you are incapable of doing so.

George


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

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:03:35 -0500, "Greg Neill"
wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message ...
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 19:00:00 -0500, "Greg Neill"
wrote:

"Spaceman" wrote in message
...

.

SR is basing all such on a pre1900's lightspeed test
done with rotating disks with slots.
I really think a new of the 1 way "speed of light"
is in order.

What makes you think that there's only ever been
one apparatus used to test light speed?

[snip]

Correct.
Even the physical speed of light has not been checked.
(merely extracted from a on/off condition of a spinning disk)

Perhaps you can explain what exactly is wrong with
the principle of measuring the speed of light by
that method?

All past light speed measurements have been of the two-way type, with all
componem\nets in the one frame.

That is OK. According to the BaTh, such an experiment gives TWLS = OWLS = the
universal constant 'c'.

That doesn't answer the question. What is wrong with the
principle, the method, of measuring light using fizeau's
apparatus.

Nothing as far as we ballisticians are concerned.

All TWLS experiments involving only one frame have produced almost the same
value for the universal constant 'c'. This is fully supportive of Ritz's theory
and fully opposed to LET and Einstein.


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

On 10 Feb 2006 03:44:43 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 8 Feb 2006 04:42:50 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 7 Feb 2006 05:25:43 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 21:13:27 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
...
In a simple straight line setup at constant speed,
the prediction for Doppler shift derived from Ritz's
ballistic theory is

f'/f = (c+v)/c

and that derived from SR is

f'/f = sqrt((c+v)/(c-v))

Ives and Stillwell measured it and found the result
matched SR, ballistic theory was wrong. The instrument
measuring the shift is at rest so shrinkages don't
come into it.

George, there is very little difference between the BaTh doppler equation and
that of SR or LET.

It is a factor of 2 in the second order.

Nobody on this Earth is ever likely to perform an experiment
that will pick up the difference.

Sorry Henry, they did it in 1938, the technology even
then was adequate. these are their results:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-04/2-...s/image018.gif

That is not very conclusive.

Nothing ever is to a religious fanatic.

Anyone can type a set of figures.

That's the most pathetic comment you've come up
with yet. The values are measured results from an
experiment which has been repeated many times
since the original. Science always gives credit to
the first people to make the measuerement but it
also continues to refine the measurement as
technology advances. Here's a recent repeat:


http://atomchip.uni-hd.de/teaching/v..._91_190403.pdf


Joking surely.
Hardly a direct experiment immune from 'fiddling'.

ROFL, you are just in denial Henry as usual.

Nothing reported is "immune from 'fiddling'", but this
is just the latest in a long line of measurements all
giving the same result to progressively improved
accuracy. The headlines and prizes go to those who
first discover a deviation from the current theories
because that is what leads to new discoveries so
the tendency would be to fiddle to get a different
result, not the same answer.

Not if you are a religious fanatoic desperate to prop up your waning faith.

I truly think that all SRians suspect that their theory is nonsense but will
fight to the death rather than admit to the fact.


George


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

Henri Wilson wrote:

All TWLS experiments involving only one frame have produced almost the same
value for the universal constant 'c'. This is fully supportive of Ritz's theory
and fully opposed to LET and Einstein.


Still trying to cover Einstein's arse, Wilson? You really are a jealous
******* as well as being totally incompetent..


http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ynchronize.htm

Androcles.






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

George Dishman wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 9 Feb 2006 04:11:27 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 7 Feb 2006 06:59:25 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:

Sagnac done with satellites does not. Spacecraft
navigation does not and of course the pulsars and
binary spectra we are discussing do not.

It all supports hte BaTh. You people simply refuse to accept the truth.

Ritz's ballistic theory predicts a null result but all the
above are non-null, those are the facts. If you want to
invent a new theory and publish its equations, we
can then apply them to the experiments and get your
predictions. In the meantime you have oferered no
alternative to Ritz.

Why do I need an alternative?

Because ballistic theory says the Sagnac experiment
will give a null result, pulsar signals should be hopelessly
overlapped sequences and binary stars should have
multiple copies of spectral lines with different Doppler
shifts.

Ritz was basically correct.

Nope, he was totally wrong on that idea.


You really are a ****ing stupid moron.

Ask Cassini the time.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ynchronize.htm

"Einstein? Who's he?" -- the folks at JPL

Androcles.

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 10 Feb 2006 03:44:43 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 8 Feb 2006 04:42:50 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 7 Feb 2006 05:25:43 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 21:13:27 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
...
In a simple straight line setup at constant speed,
the prediction for Doppler shift derived from Ritz's
ballistic theory is

f'/f = (c+v)/c

and that derived from SR is

f'/f = sqrt((c+v)/(c-v))

Ives and Stillwell measured it and found the result
matched SR, ballistic theory was wrong. The instrument
measuring the shift is at rest so shrinkages don't
come into it.

George, there is very little difference between the BaTh doppler equation and
that of SR or LET.

It is a factor of 2 in the second order.

Nobody on this Earth is ever likely to perform an experiment
that will pick up the difference.

Sorry Henry, they did it in 1938, the technology even
then was adequate. these are their results:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-04/2-...s/image018.gif

That is not very conclusive.

Nothing ever is to a religious fanatic.

Anyone can type a set of figures.

That's the most pathetic comment you've come up
with yet. The values are measured results from an
experiment which has been repeated many times
since the original. Science always gives credit to
the first people to make the measuerement but it
also continues to refine the measurement as
technology advances. Here's a recent repeat:


http://atomchip.uni-hd.de/teaching/v..._91_190403.pdf


Joking surely.
Hardly a direct experiment immune from 'fiddling'.

ROFL, you are just in denial Henry as usual.

Nothing reported is "immune from 'fiddling'", but this
is just the latest in a long line of measurements all
giving the same result to progressively improved
accuracy. The headlines and prizes go to those who
first discover a deviation from the current theories
because that is what leads to new discoveries so
the tendency would be to fiddle to get a different
result, not the same answer.

Not if you are a religious fanatoic desperate to prop up your waning faith.

I truly think that all SRians suspect that their theory is nonsense but will
fight to the death rather than admit to the fact.


"The Advertiser" today:
US Govt political appointee to NASA, George Deutsch, was forced to
resign when
it came out that he had tried to silence prominent NASA scientist Jim
Hansen, who
wished the word "theory" added to references to Big Bang. (Obviously
Hansen thinks it is crap!)
One wonders how deep goes the govt interference and pressure to
maintain the status quo,
and the physics Establishment

Jim G
c'=c+v

George Dishman wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 8 Feb 2006 04:42:50 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 7 Feb 2006 05:25:43 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 21:13:27 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
...
In a simple straight line setup at constant speed,
the prediction for Doppler shift derived from Ritz's
ballistic theory is

f'/f = (c+v)/c

and that derived from SR is

f'/f = sqrt((c+v)/(c-v))

Ives and Stillwell measured it and found the result
matched SR, ballistic theory was wrong. The instrument
measuring the shift is at rest so shrinkages don't
come into it.

George, there is very little difference between the BaTh doppler equation and
that of SR or LET.

It is a factor of 2 in the second order.

Nobody on this Earth is ever likely to perform an experiment
that will pick up the difference.

Sorry Henry, they did it in 1938, the technology even
then was adequate. these are their results:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-04/2-...s/image018.gif

That is not very conclusive.

Nothing ever is to a religious fanatic.

Anyone can type a set of figures.

That's the most pathetic comment you've come up
with yet. The values are measured results from an
experiment which has been repeated many times
since the original. Science always gives credit to
the first people to make the measuerement but it
also continues to refine the measurement as
technology advances. Here's a recent repeat:


http://atomchip.uni-hd.de/teaching/v..._91_190403.pdf


Joking surely.
Hardly a direct experiment immune from 'fiddling'.

ROFL, you are just in denial Henry as usual.

Nothing reported is "immune from 'fiddling'", but this
is just the latest in a long line of measurements all
giving the same result to progressively improved
accuracy. The headlines and prizes go to those who
first discover a deviation from the current theories
because that is what leads to new discoveries so
the tendency would be to fiddle to get a different
result, not the same answer.

George

George, let the painter use Reimann to work out the surface area of the
dome, and order the paint.
The airconditionar installer, however, needs to know the VOLUME within
the dome, so he will use good ol'
length x breadth x height to calculate the air cavity. (THREE
dimensions). Now he needs a clock to measure
periods of duration for the air flow replacement.
THAT is analogous to the real universe-- 3D + time, and if the painter
ignores it, he does so at his peril!
(fall through the roof, and land on his arse)

Jim G
c'=c+v