A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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
  #11  
Old July 3rd 05, 12:31 PM
T Wake
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Henri Wilson" [email protected] wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 03:48:31 GMT, "Bill Hobba"
wrote:

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


If you want to control who replies to you and how they reply then don't post
on USENET. Get yourself your own website and start your own discussion board
or something.

If you can post crap here then why cant anyone else post the same?

By the way, Al was correct - there are flaws in your theory. Feel free to
respond in any manner you wish. I don't mind.


Ads
  #12  
Old July 3rd 05, 01:12 PM
Henri Wilson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 12:31:19 +0100, "T Wake" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" [email protected] wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 03:48:31 GMT, "Bill Hobba"
wrote:

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


If you want to control who replies to you and how they reply then don't post
on USENET. Get yourself your own website and start your own discussion board
or something.

If you can post crap here then why cant anyone else post the same?

By the way, Al was correct - there are flaws in your theory. Feel free to
respond in any manner you wish. I don't mind.


Wake up, Wake!

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.
  #13  
Old July 3rd 05, 01:18 PM
Henri Wilson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 3 Jul 2005 02:46:04 -0700, "Sue..." wrote:



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


Sure...but there has to be an easier way..
..
http://www.snopes.com/weddings/graphics/shocked.jpg


Now that's more like it.



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.
  #14  
Old July 3rd 05, 02:00 PM
Sue...
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Henri Wilson wrote:
On 3 Jul 2005 02:46:04 -0700, "Sue..." wrote:



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


Sure...but there has to be an easier way..


Yes... there was an easier way but the ole gal did'nt
want just every kind of riff-raff knowing how she had
things put together so she threw a few extra curves in
the plan. I notice the web page is "under
construction" so that probably means she is still
exercising her right as a woman to change her mind.
)

Sue...



.
http://www.snopes.com/weddings/graphics/shocked.jpg


Now that's more like it.



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.


  #15  
Old July 3rd 05, 03:07 PM
Jerry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Henri Wilson wrote:

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


Except for a number of huge problems. Try "extinction".
You claim that -all- measurements of k in c'=c+kv from DeSitter
on which have consistently yielded k~0 are flawed because of
extinction.

If extinction effects prevented DeSitter etc. from measuring
k, extinction must work equally well to predict that BaT cannot
explain variable star light curves. Light being emitted adjusts
its speed to that imposed by the interstellar medium almost
instantly, and faster and slower light cannot add up as you
say it does.

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, HENRI! You can't have extinction
invalidating DeSitter's results and not invalidating yours.

Jerry

  #16  
Old July 3rd 05, 06:47 PM
T Wake
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Henri Wilson" [email protected] wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 12:31:19 +0100, "T Wake" wrote:


Wake up, Wake!


Very original. (Well it would be if Nick hadn't beaten you to it a while
back).


  #17  
Old July 3rd 05, 09:46 PM
kenseto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Henri Wilson" [email protected] wrote in message
...
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.

The Ballistic Theory is refuted by the double slit experiment.


  #18  
Old July 3rd 05, 11:21 PM
Henri Wilson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 3 Jul 2005 06:00:48 -0700, "Sue..." wrote:



Henri Wilson wrote:
On 3 Jul 2005 02:46:04 -0700, "Sue..." wrote:



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


Sure...but there has to be an easier way..


Yes... there was an easier way but the ole gal did'nt
want just every kind of riff-raff knowing how she had
things put together so she threw a few extra curves in
the plan. I notice the web page is "under
construction" so that probably means she is still
exercising her right as a woman to change her mind.
)

Sue...

... anyway, she left out the decimal point.


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.
  #19  
Old July 3rd 05, 11:32 PM
Henri Wilson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 3 Jul 2005 07:07:43 -0700, "Jerry" wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:

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


Except for a number of huge problems. Try "extinction".
You claim that -all- measurements of k in c'=c+kv from DeSitter
on which have consistently yielded k~0 are flawed because of
extinction.


The extincr\tion argument was put forward by a gentleman called Fox, who
subsequently showed that DeSitter's argument against the BaT was wrong.


If extinction effects prevented DeSitter etc. from measuring
k, extinction must work equally well to predict that BaT cannot
explain variable star light curves. Light being emitted adjusts
its speed to that imposed by the interstellar medium almost
instantly, and faster and slower light cannot add up as you
say it does.

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, HENRI! You can't have extinction
invalidating DeSitter's results and not invalidating yours.


Yes we can. In remote space, extinction takes place over very large
distances....but small enough to prevent multiple images from being observed.

I have a figure of about 10LYs for one cepheid, AT Aur. Beyond that distance,
the light from the star light is moving at about the same speed and its
observed brightness pattern doesn't change.


Jerry



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.
  #20  
Old July 4th 05, 01:20 AM
Henri Wilson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 20:46:49 GMT, "kenseto" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" [email protected] wrote in message
.. .
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.

The Ballistic Theory is refuted by the double slit experiment.


Why? photons have cross-sections.

The concept of 'light wavelength' is a bit obscure.
If light changes speed in flight, does the distance between wavecrests change
or not?


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 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.