|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"Light moves at c wrt interacting matter" Here is the experimental setup: e+ e- e+e- Sue... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ted Taylor autobiography, CHANGES OF HEART | Eric Erpelding | History | 3 | November 14th 04 11:32 PM |
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 10:06 PM |
Hypothetical astrophysics question | Matthew F Funke | Astronomy Misc | 39 | August 11th 03 03:21 AM |