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
  #21  
Old July 4th 05, 09:29 AM
Jerry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Henri Wilson wrote:
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.


....and this very same Fox conducted an experiment specifically
designed to counter extinction arguments, the result of which
was ihnconsistent with BaT.

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.


You turn on extinction only when you want to, and turn it off
when you don't.

Jerry

  #22  
Old July 4th 05, 02:46 PM
kenseto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 20:46:49 GMT, "kenseto" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. 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?


You missed the point. If BaT is true then we should not have observed the
interfference fringes with the double slit-experiment. We should have just
saw the images of the two slits.

Ken Seto



  #23  
Old July 5th 05, 01:21 AM
Henri Wilson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 4 Jul 2005 01:29:02 -0700, "Jerry" wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
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.


...and this very same Fox conducted an experiment specifically
designed to counter extinction arguments, the result of which
was ihnconsistent with BaT.


Different Fox.


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.


You turn on extinction only when you want to, and turn it off
when you don't.


No. It happens naturally.


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.
  #24  
Old July 5th 05, 01:24 AM
Henri Wilson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 13:46:45 GMT, "kenseto" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 20:46:49 GMT, "kenseto" wrote:


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?


You missed the point. If BaT is true then we should not have observed the
interfference fringes with the double slit-experiment. We should have just
saw the images of the two slits.


I cannot see why light speed should affect the proincile of the double slit
experiment.
How could it?



Ken Seto




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.
  #25  
Old July 5th 05, 03:28 AM
Schoenfeld
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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.


Actually it fluctuates about a mean.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf


  #26  
Old July 5th 05, 03:42 AM
kenseto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
...
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 13:46:45 GMT, "kenseto" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 20:46:49 GMT, "kenseto" wrote:


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?


You missed the point. If BaT is true then we should not have observed the
interfference fringes with the double slit-experiment. We should have

just
saw the images of the two slits.


I cannot see why light speed should affect the proincile of the double

slit
experiment.
How could it?


Sigh.....light speed got nothing to do with the experiment. If light is
bullet (according to BaT) then there should not be any interference fringes.



  #27  
Old July 5th 05, 03:26 PM
yt56erd
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

kenseto is the runt of cranks. henri wilson is a crank. this thread
could implode.

  #28  
Old July 5th 05, 10:01 PM
Henri Wilson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 4 Jul 2005 19:28:36 -0700, "Schoenfeld" wrote:



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.


Actually it fluctuates about a mean.


.....and there ain't nothin much meaner than Al ...


--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf



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.
  #29  
Old July 5th 05, 10:13 PM
Henri Wilson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 02:42:36 GMT, "kenseto" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 13:46:45 GMT, "kenseto" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 20:46:49 GMT, "kenseto" wrote:


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?

You missed the point. If BaT is true then we should not have observed the
interfference fringes with the double slit-experiment. We should have

just
saw the images of the two slits.


I cannot see why light speed should affect the proincile of the double

slit
experiment.
How could it?


Sigh.....light speed got nothing to do with the experiment. If light is
bullet (according to BaT) then there should not be any interference fringes.

Ken, a photon is not like an ordinary bullet...
Let me try to explain.
Have you ever illustrated magnetic lines of force around a bar magnet with iron
filings? It you move the magnet, you can imagine those force lines moving along
with it. Now throw a way the magnet and consider that these field lines remain
and are stretched out in a long cigar shape. They are rapidly oscilating from
front to back and all the time, perpendicular to them is an associated E- field
that oscillates in synchrony. The two fields mutually reinforce each other and
will oscillate virtually forever in completely empty space.

Can you now imagine something like that coming up against a double slit?



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.
  #30  
Old July 5th 05, 10:54 PM
kenseto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
...
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 02:42:36 GMT, "kenseto" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 13:46:45 GMT, "kenseto" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 20:46:49 GMT, "kenseto"

wrote:

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?

You missed the point. If BaT is true then we should not have observed

the
interfference fringes with the double slit-experiment. We should have

just
saw the images of the two slits.

I cannot see why light speed should affect the proincile of the double

slit
experiment.
How could it?


Sigh.....light speed got nothing to do with the experiment. If light is
bullet (according to BaT) then there should not be any interference

fringes.

Ken, a photon is not like an ordinary bullet...


So now you admitted that BaT is dead.
The rest of your bull **** is trying to use the fact that light is a wave
phenomenon.

Ken Seto


Let me try to explain.
Have you ever illustrated magnetic lines of force around a bar magnet with

iron
filings? It you move the magnet, you can imagine those force lines moving

along
with it. Now throw a way the magnet and consider that these field lines

remain
and are stretched out in a long cigar shape. They are rapidly oscilating

from
front to back and all the time, perpendicular to them is an associated E-

field
that oscillates in synchrony. The two fields mutually reinforce each other

and
will oscillate virtually forever in completely empty space.

Can you now imagine something like that coming up against a double slit?



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 02:37 AM.


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.