|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
kenseto is the runt of cranks. henri wilson is a crank. this thread
could implode. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|
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 |