Correlation between CMBR and Redshift Anisotropies.

In sci.physics, Henri Wilson
HW@.
wrote
on Tue, 01 Jul 2003 10:44:42 +1000
:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 04:08:31 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics, Henri Wilson
HW@.
wrote
on Tue, 24 Jun 2003 06:39:41 +1000
:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 02:01:57 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics, Henri Wilson
HW@.


If B and C are on Earth and A is one pair of a spectroscopic
double, the light speed is still c and it undergoes a
red or blueshift.

At least, such is my understanding.

Are you MAD, Ghost?

Hardly. Theory states that light can cross the Universe
in 0 seconds (subjective). This is one of those weird things
in SR that bends or blows minds; *we*, in our relatively
slow-moving (10^-4 c at the very most) reference frame see
it taking billions of years.

Don't you believe it.

It's not clear exactly how one can measure light degradation
from distant stars, but that would be the most obvious
method by which one could prove it; the position probability
distribution of a particle will degrade over time if that
particle is moving slower than light.

I think there is a lot we don't know.




(Personally, I'm wondering how local matter density affects
lightspeed. This "acceleration constant" appears slightly
spurious.)

Of course.



tAB=L/c+v, tBA=L/c-v

I'm assuming (c+v) and (c-v) for the sake of argument; otherwise
this makes little sense.


total=2Lc/(c^2+v^2)

obviously this should be 2Lc/(c^2-v^2)

or= (2L/c)/(1-(v/c)^2)

Your sign is off; the second term should be (2L/c)/(1+(v/c)^2).

No it shouldn't!
One of mine WAS off but you picked the wrong one.

Oops, you are correct here.

[begins to write on the board 1,000 times:

(a-b) * (a+b) = a^2-b^2
...
(a-b) * (a+b) = a^2-b^2

All done! :-) ]



get it?
Here, OWLS is c.




No, TWSLS (two-way static lightspeed) is assumed c in this case.

Yes, a bit confusing, sorry. 'c' requires some kind of absolute
frame, here.

'c' requires nothing of the sort; it's merely an
arbitrary constant here, or perhaps a light
measurement with respect to a special frame
at rest and spatially distant from a light source.

There you go, "a special frame at rest".
What do you mean by 'rest', Ghost?

A classical notion, that. There is no "special" frame.
Everyone sees light (TWLS) traveling at c.



'c' is OWLS - and also TWLS - in that frame.

'c' is TWLS, if that. No one has ever measured OWLS,
as far as I know.

'c' would also be OWLS when measured by an observer at rest
in an 'absolute aether'.
c is never TWLS in true relativity. It only appears so
because of Einstein's definition.

Um...what is "Einstein's definition"? Refresh my memory here.



v is the observer's velocity wrt that frame.

'v' is the relative frame velocities. The observer cannot
be in the special frame as he's moving with respect thereto.

Of course he can. If one assumes an absolute frame (which I don't)
then anything can move wrt that frame.
What are you trying to say?

Good question. :-) But I probably should have included something
such as "with respect to the light source". Or perhaps to
"the other frame".




OWLS is either c+v or c-v in your equations, depending on
direction. TWLS (or, if you prefer, TWDLS) is c/(1+(v/c)^2).

Yes OK.
Note: should be c/(1-(v/c)^2).

Right.



In any event, you need to do a similar calculation with velocity
at *right angles* to the lightspeed, as well. This is easily
enough done; recall that the light is traveling along the
hypotenuse of a triangle; side of light travel is L, side of
destination travel is vt'AB, where t'AB is the time it takes for
the light to get there and v is the "crosswind" velocity. The
light traverses the hypotenuse of a right triangle in accordance
with this equation:

t'AB = sqrt(L^2 + v^2t'AB^2) / c

We need to solve for t'AB. Squaring:

t'AB^2 = (L^2 + v^2t'AB^2 /)/c^2

(note that t'AB is positive so there's no problems here with
introducing extraneous roots later on).

Multiplying both sides by c^2:

c^2tAB^2 = c^2L^2 + v^2tAB^2

Collecting terms:

t'AB = sqrt(c^2L^2 / (c^2 - v^2))
= L / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

Intuitively this result makes sense (at least from a Newtonian
standpoint) as it takes longer/more effort to fly, walk or
proceed in a crosswind or crosscurrent than it does in a
still medium.

This is the aether view, yes.

The classical luminiferous aether view, yes, not the Haether view,
which admittedly I'm still trying to analyze.

My Haether theory is still evolving but is looking better every day.




If we assume L = 10m (suggested by

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/l...edoflight.html

in its description of the MMX experiment) and
v = 30 km/s = 10^-4c (the approximate orbital speed
of dear old mother Earth), we get

tAB - t'AB = L/(c - v) - L/sqrt(c^2 - v^2)
= about 3.33 picoseconds, or 1 mm.

If MMX used green light (500 nm) this would be very readily visible,
but hard to measure for various reasons -- mostly because it's
hard to shield light from the hypothesized luminiferous aether.

A more involved computation emulating two measurements of
TWLS, conducted simultaneously (one at right angles, one
"head-on"):

tAB + tBA - t'AB - t'BA = L/(c-v) + L/(c+v) - 2*L/sqrt(c^2 - v^2)

suggests a far smaller deviation -- about 3.33 femtoseconds,
or 2 wavelengths of 500 nm light. Still readily detectable
with the MMX apparatus, though, since it was designed to
rotate freely on a mercury-filled trough with a wooden float.

Except that MMX did not detect anything. Hence your assumption
of local lightspeed invariance. (The aether in this case
is held into place by matter!)

Ghost, we are well aware of the MMX analysis. Some of us
know that the null result was due to the fact that the
theory behind the experiment was faulty.

The theory *was* faulty. An absolute luminiferous aether was
nicely disproven by that experiment.

How can you prove that something doesn't exist?

By showing that the theoretical effects don't occur, for
the most part. Admittedly, MMX can't distinguish between
nonexistent luminiferous aether and lightspeed-source-local-invariance.

There may still be an aether, but it's now a fluid thing.

You must be able to test a hypothetical property of that something.
If it doesn't exist it doesn't have any testable properties.

We don't know it exists until we give it properties. :-)
A propertyless entity is a bit like the empty set: there's
exactly one empty set.



The theory still *is* faulty, in light of the "acceleration of
galactic recession". A galaxy, AFAIK, is a bunch of stars
all radiating in different directions with a central massive
black hole. Unless one assumes that the black hole is somehow
outfitted with a space drive of some sort there's no method
by which it can accelerate. I suspect a computation error;
the most logical one might have the permittivity and
permeability of free space being affected by local matter
density somehow. At least, such is my naive view on the
matter.

It's clear lightspeed is affected by matter -- light in
glass is slower than light in vacuum. Space is not
a vacuum (although it's damned close).

It is also filled with turbulent Haether of variable 'density'.

Interesting. Not sure how the "density" would affect
lightspeed.




What you have tries to do is define what is actually
meant by OWLS and TWLS.

Well, *somebody* has to do it. :-) OWLS has the problem that
it needs to be measured by two synchronized clocks at
different positions. A precise definition is very important.

I think I have found a way to measure OWLS with only one clock.
More about that later.

I'd be interested in the details of that, and so would a number
of others I suspect.

[snip for brevity]

Now, since this is crossposted to sci.astro, one can also
note that many have observed spectroscopic binaries.
These binaries would have slightly different observed
phenomena, especially eclipsing binaries at some distance,
were the light quanta being shoved at us at different
speeds because of the movements of the two stars.

Apparently this was first postulated by a Walter Ritz,
later disproved by Willem de Sitter. Both are mentioned in

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Astro...6Phillips.html

Ritz asssumed source dependency.

Exactly. His theory was shot down.

Not necessarily.
Not entirely.


[snip for brevity]

See my animation www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/photons.exe
(a very small file download)
It poses a big unanswered question.

Yeah: how to run it on a Linux system. :-)

Surely you know someone with windows. The demo takes
only seconds to download and run.

You really need to get into Java, sir. :-) Then you and I
won't have these technical glitches.

[.sigsnip]

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

On 29 Jun 2003 14:36:06 -0700, (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote:

What means your "if"? If an elephant flies, I don't envy your hat. If
your conception doesn't stand the discussion even of statement of
problem, blame no one other than yourself. If you are sure that it is
good for a conception if it begins with an unsubstantiated phenomenon,
this is really undiscussable FOR YOU. Fortunately, you are not the
entire physics.

Sergey.

Sergey, even your poor English wont save you. You are talking nonsense.



HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On 21 Jun 2003 14:28:10 -0700, (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote:

HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..


But you are summing the velocities of light and source! So you
disprove yourself.

I have never said that long range source-dependency is a fact.
My only claim is that source dependency occurs over short distances.

You said it a few lines above that this is your only equation. Liar.

Sergey, you seem very confused.

My 'source dependency' demo is not related to my claims about 'short range'
source dependency.

It is a simple animation showing how a series of wave fronts would move from a
rotating star or two, IF COMPLETE SOURCE DEPENDENCY WAS A FACT OF LIFE. It is
non-controversial and non-negotiable.

There is nothing strange about it.



Henri Wilson.
The BIG BANG Theory = The creationists' attempt to hijack science!

And it nearly worked!!!!!

See my newly UPGRADED animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm


Henri Wilson.
The BIG BANG Theory = The creationists' attempt to hijack science!
But they didn't succeed!

See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On 29 Jun 2003 14:36:06 -0700, (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote:

What means your "if"? If an elephant flies, I don't envy your hat. If
your conception doesn't stand the discussion even of statement of
problem, blame no one other than yourself. If you are sure that it is
good for a conception if it begins with an unsubstantiated phenomenon,
this is really undiscussable FOR YOU. Fortunately, you are not the
entire physics.

Sergey.

Sergey, even your poor English wont save you. You are talking nonsense.



HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On 21 Jun 2003 14:28:10 -0700, (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote:

HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..


But you are summing the velocities of light and source! So you
disprove yourself.

I have never said that long range source-dependency is a fact.
My only claim is that source dependency occurs over short distances.

You said it a few lines above that this is your only equation. Liar.

Sergey, you seem very confused.

My 'source dependency' demo is not related to my claims about 'short range'
source dependency.

It is a simple animation showing how a series of wave fronts would move from a
rotating star or two, IF COMPLETE SOURCE DEPENDENCY WAS A FACT OF LIFE. It is
non-controversial and non-negotiable.

There is nothing strange about it.



Henri Wilson.
The BIG BANG Theory = The creationists' attempt to hijack science!

And it nearly worked!!!!!

See my newly UPGRADED animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm


Henri Wilson.


Henry... oh, sorry, Henri! My many-year experience shows, until an
opponent has what to say, my English is quite proper (whatever it is
in fact), but when the opponent hasn't a leg to stand on, "poor
English" appears as a last argument: I have to be wrong anyway!

I wish you be right in something. I gave you a prescription, what's
necessary for it. Better don't be upset but think constructively and
don't spare your work to build stronger. Write me, when you have
fresh, correct, substantiated thoughts - in Russian, Ukrainian,
Belarussian, Bulgarian, Polish - you know them better than I do
English. Make my pleasure and score off me ignoramus! ;-)

Sergey.


The BIG BANG Theory = The creationists' attempt to hijack science!
But they didn't succeed!

See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

On 11 Jul 2003 15:16:10 -0700, (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote:

HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On 29 Jun 2003 14:36:06 -0700, (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote:

What means your "if"? If an elephant flies, I don't envy your hat. If
your conception doesn't stand the discussion even of statement of
problem, blame no one other than yourself. If you are sure that it is
good for a conception if it begins with an unsubstantiated phenomenon,
this is really undiscussable FOR YOU. Fortunately, you are not the
entire physics.

Sergey.

Sergey, even your poor English wont save you. You are talking nonsense.



HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On 21 Jun 2003 14:28:10 -0700, (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote:

HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..


But you are summing the velocities of light and source! So you
disprove yourself.

I have never said that long range source-dependency is a fact.
My only claim is that source dependency occurs over short distances.

You said it a few lines above that this is your only equation. Liar.

Sergey, you seem very confused.

My 'source dependency' demo is not related to my claims about 'short range'
source dependency.

It is a simple animation showing how a series of wave fronts would move from a
rotating star or two, IF COMPLETE SOURCE DEPENDENCY WAS A FACT OF LIFE. It is
non-controversial and non-negotiable.

There is nothing strange about it.



Henri Wilson.
The BIG BANG Theory = The creationists' attempt to hijack science!

And it nearly worked!!!!!

See my newly UPGRADED animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm


Henri Wilson.


Henry... oh, sorry, Henri! My many-year experience shows, until an
opponent has what to say, my English is quite proper (whatever it is
in fact), but when the opponent hasn't a leg to stand on, "poor
English" appears as a last argument: I have to be wrong anyway!

I wish you be right in something. I gave you a prescription, what's
necessary for it. Better don't be upset but think constructively and
don't spare your work to build stronger. Write me, when you have
fresh, correct, substantiated thoughts - in Russian, Ukrainian,
Belarussian, Bulgarian, Polish - you know them better than I do
English. Make my pleasure and score off me ignoramus! ;-)

Sergey.

I said you were confused wrt my statement and my demo. I didn't accuse you of
'bad english.'

My source dependency demo merely shows what would happen if LONG RANGE source
dependency was real. It supports the view that it cannot be real.


The BIG BANG Theory = The creationists' attempt to hijack science!
But they didn't succeed!

See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm


Henri Wilson.

Why is the creative output of one SRian the same as that produced by one million of them?

See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On 11 Jul 2003 15:16:10 -0700, (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote:

HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On 29 Jun 2003 14:36:06 -0700, (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote:

What means your "if"? If an elephant flies, I don't envy your hat. If
your conception doesn't stand the discussion even of statement of
problem, blame no one other than yourself. If you are sure that it is
good for a conception if it begins with an unsubstantiated phenomenon,
this is really undiscussable FOR YOU. Fortunately, you are not the
entire physics.

Sergey.

Sergey, even your poor English wont save you. You are talking nonsense.



HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On 21 Jun 2003 14:28:10 -0700, (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote:

HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..


But you are summing the velocities of light and source! So you
disprove yourself.

I have never said that long range source-dependency is a fact.
My only claim is that source dependency occurs over short distances.

You said it a few lines above that this is your only equation. Liar.

Sergey, you seem very confused.

My 'source dependency' demo is not related to my claims about 'short range'
source dependency.

It is a simple animation showing how a series of wave fronts would move from a
rotating star or two, IF COMPLETE SOURCE DEPENDENCY WAS A FACT OF LIFE. It is
non-controversial and non-negotiable.

There is nothing strange about it.



Henri Wilson.
The BIG BANG Theory = The creationists' attempt to hijack science!

And it nearly worked!!!!!

See my newly UPGRADED animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm


Henri Wilson.


Henry... oh, sorry, Henri! My many-year experience shows, until an
opponent has what to say, my English is quite proper (whatever it is
in fact), but when the opponent hasn't a leg to stand on, "poor
English" appears as a last argument: I have to be wrong anyway!

I wish you be right in something. I gave you a prescription, what's
necessary for it. Better don't be upset but think constructively and
don't spare your work to build stronger. Write me, when you have
fresh, correct, substantiated thoughts - in Russian, Ukrainian,
Belarussian, Bulgarian, Polish - you know them better than I do
English. Make my pleasure and score off me ignoramus! ;-)

Sergey.

I said you were confused wrt my statement and my demo. I didn't accuse you of
'bad english.'

My source dependency demo merely shows what would happen if LONG RANGE source
dependency was real. It supports the view that it cannot be real.

Henri, I'm confused with nothing. This is you who is confused with
your contradictive opinions. One time my "poor English" doesn't excuse
me, next time you never blamed me for it. One time your animations
substantiate the negative result of MMX, next time they merely show
what would happen should the long-range source dependence be real, and
so on. Simpler, you are confirming that it's incorrect to add the
light velocity to the source velocity. This is just what I say you
every time and encounter your strong opposition. Truly, it isn't
worthy of so much work to create animations for this aim. Wouldn't it
be simpler to formulate correctly the statement of your problem and to
do not avoid the questions? ;-)

Sergey.




The BIG BANG Theory = The creationists' attempt to hijack science!
But they didn't succeed!

See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm


Henri Wilson.

Why is the creative output of one SRian the same as that produced by one million of them?

See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

On 22 Jul 2003 22:40:34 -0700, (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote:

HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..


I said you were confused wrt my statement and my demo. I didn't accuse you of
'bad english.'

My source dependency demo merely shows what would happen if LONG RANGE source
dependency was real. It supports the view that it cannot be real.

Henri, I'm confused with nothing. This is you who is confused with
your contradictive opinions. One time my "poor English" doesn't excuse
me, next time you never blamed me for it. One time your animations
substantiate the negative result of MMX, next time they merely show
what would happen should the long-range source dependence be real, and
so on. Simpler, you are confirming that it's incorrect to add the
light velocity to the source velocity. This is just what I say you
every time and encounter your strong opposition. Truly, it isn't
worthy of so much work to create animations for this aim. Wouldn't it
be simpler to formulate correctly the statement of your problem and to
do not avoid the questions? ;-)

Sergey, my H-aether theory is based on the principle that light speed is
locally source dependent. It starts out at c relative to its source but settles
down eventually to the same speed as other EM passing through a particular
point.
I will eventually get around to putting it on my website.

The source dependency demo is very informative as it is. It allows one to see
just how light from a complete orbit of a binary star would travel across space
if its velocity (the light's) was dependent on the star's velocity.
A vertical line drawn at any time index shows how many images of the star an
observer at that distance would see.
This is far more useful than any equation.

Maybe you did not understand the demo.

Sergey.




The BIG BANG Theory = The creationists' attempt to hijack science!
But they didn't succeed!

See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm


Henri Wilson.

Why is the creative output of one SRian the same as that produced by one million of them?

See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm


Henri Wilson.

See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 03:47:33 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics, Henri Wilson





No, TWSLS (two-way static lightspeed) is assumed c in this case.

Yes, a bit confusing, sorry. 'c' requires some kind of absolute
frame, here.

'c' requires nothing of the sort; it's merely an
arbitrary constant here, or perhaps a light
measurement with respect to a special frame
at rest and spatially distant from a light source.

There you go, "a special frame at rest".
What do you mean by 'rest', Ghost?

A classical notion, that. There is no "special" frame.
Everyone sees light (TWLS) traveling at c.



'c' is OWLS - and also TWLS - in that frame.

'c' is TWLS, if that. No one has ever measured OWLS,
as far as I know.

'c' would also be OWLS when measured by an observer at rest
in an 'absolute aether'.
c is never TWLS in true relativity. It only appears so
because of Einstein's definition.

Um...what is "Einstein's definition"? Refresh my memory here.

Einstein defined clock synching so that Tab will alway=Tba, even if it doesn't.
He didn't believe these times could ever be measured and so ws pretty confident
that his reputation was safe.
He didn't realise that atomic clocks would appear on the scene.
These are capable of refuting his nonsense but nobody is allowed to perform any
worthwhile OWLS experiment for obvious reasons.




Intuitively this result makes sense (at least from a Newtonian
standpoint) as it takes longer/more effort to fly, walk or
proceed in a crosswind or crosscurrent than it does in a
still medium.

This is the aether view, yes.

The classical luminiferous aether view, yes, not the Haether view,
which admittedly I'm still trying to analyze.

My Haether theory is still evolving but is looking better every day.




If we assume L = 10m (suggested by

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/l...edoflight.html

Ghost, we are well aware of the MMX analysis. Some of us
know that the null result was due to the fact that the
theory behind the experiment was faulty.

The theory *was* faulty. An absolute luminiferous aether was
nicely disproven by that experiment.

How can you prove that something doesn't exist?

By showing that the theoretical effects don't occur, for
the most part. Admittedly, MMX can't distinguish between
nonexistent luminiferous aether and lightspeed-source-local-invariance.

There may still be an aether, but it's now a fluid thing.

That's the point. The MMX proved that the aether, as visualised by Michelson
and others, did not appear to exist. So which one should be modified, the model
of the aether or the experiment.

You can't say something doesn't exist becasue you ran an experiment that didn't
detect it. Obviously if it doesn't exist no experiment could possibly be
designed to test for it.

Religion has thrived for centuries because nobody can prove the nonexistence of
gods.
Same applies to the aether.


You must be able to test a hypothetical property of that something.
If it doesn't exist it doesn't have any testable properties.

We don't know it exists until we give it properties. :-)
A propertyless entity is a bit like the empty set: there's
exactly one empty set.

But as soon as we claim it doesn't exist - because a test for one of its
hypothetical properties proved null - we immediately render the test itself
null and void, as well.




The theory still *is* faulty, in light of the "acceleration of
galactic recession". A galaxy, AFAIK, is a bunch of stars
all radiating in different directions with a central massive
black hole. Unless one assumes that the black hole is somehow
outfitted with a space drive of some sort there's no method
by which it can accelerate. I suspect a computation error;
the most logical one might have the permittivity and
permeability of free space being affected by local matter
density somehow. At least, such is my naive view on the
matter.

It's clear lightspeed is affected by matter -- light in
glass is slower than light in vacuum. Space is not
a vacuum (although it's damned close).

It is also filled with turbulent Haether of variable 'density'.

Interesting. Not sure how the "density" would affect
lightspeed.

This 'density' refers to the stuff that makes EM fields.
I cannot really elaborate on that.
However my theory states that EM can travel through this stuff at different
speeds, at least for short distances and probably for longer distances in low
density stuff..





What you have tries to do is define what is actually
meant by OWLS and TWLS.

Well, *somebody* has to do it. :-) OWLS has the problem that
it needs to be measured by two synchronized clocks at
different positions. A precise definition is very important.

I think I have found a way to measure OWLS with only one clock.
More about that later.

I'd be interested in the details of that, and so would a number
of others I suspect.

I just have to check a few things.


See my animation www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/photons.exe
(a very small file download)
It poses a big unanswered question.

Yeah: how to run it on a Linux system. :-)

Surely you know someone with windows. The demo takes
only seconds to download and run.

You really need to get into Java, sir. :-) Then you and I
won't have these technical glitches.

Can you run the old microsoft Qbasic?


[.sigsnip]


Henri Wilson.
The BIG BANG Theory = The creationists' attempt to hijack science!
But they didn't succeed!

See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

In sci.physics, Henri Wilson
HW@.
wrote
on Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:16:35 +1000
:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 03:47:33 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics, Henri Wilson





No, TWSLS (two-way static lightspeed) is assumed c in this case.

Yes, a bit confusing, sorry. 'c' requires some kind of absolute
frame, here.

'c' requires nothing of the sort; it's merely an
arbitrary constant here, or perhaps a light
measurement with respect to a special frame
at rest and spatially distant from a light source.

There you go, "a special frame at rest".
What do you mean by 'rest', Ghost?

A classical notion, that. There is no "special" frame.
Everyone sees light (TWLS) traveling at c.



'c' is OWLS - and also TWLS - in that frame.

'c' is TWLS, if that. No one has ever measured OWLS,
as far as I know.

'c' would also be OWLS when measured by an observer at rest
in an 'absolute aether'.
c is never TWLS in true relativity. It only appears so
because of Einstein's definition.

Um...what is "Einstein's definition"? Refresh my memory here.

Einstein defined clock synching so that Tab will alway=Tba, even
if it doesn't. He didn't believe these times could ever be
measured and so ws pretty confident that his reputation was safe.
He didn't realise that atomic clocks would appear on the scene.
These are capable of refuting his nonsense but nobody is allowed
to perform any worthwhile OWLS experiment for obvious reasons.

Two clocks can never be perfectly synchronized anyway.

Allow me to illustrate.

In GR, g, the acceleration because of the effects of
gravity, defines a time dialation effect. (I don't
know the amount but it's fairly small.) Because the
Earth is not a non-rotating, perfect sphere g(x,y,z)
is different from g(x',y',z'), where (x,y,z) is a point
on the Earth's surface. There are multiple causes for
this variance, such as difference in rotation (a person
at the equator is moving faster than a person at, say,
60 degrees latitude), various masses between them (used
on occasion to find oil fields), and height of the clock.
A highly precise clock may be thrown very slightly off by
putting it on a different height of pedestal.

So clocks C and C' will drift, even in close proximity (the
drift will just be smaller). The best one can do is
to mark C' with the same time-marking as seen from C,
compensating for the distance. 1 ns = 29.9792458 cm,
or just under 1 foot.

So now we synchronize the clocks, as best we are able, then
move them apart in a manner that minimizes their disruption.
Two pickup trucks might be good enough, if they keep their
speeds at 30 +/- 1 mile per hour (about 13.4 m/s). It's
kinda hard to say without actually doing the calcs, and
there is the issue of how much precision is desired.

Now one performs two OLWS measurements, and compares
the results, as well as two TWLS measurements, if he can.
The measurements will have a certain amount of intrinsic error;
this error can be added to the clock discrepancy, when the
clocks are brought back together by the pickup trucks.

If one wants a more sophisticated experiment one can
replace the trucks with motor-driven sleds along a rail.





Intuitively this result makes sense (at least from a Newtonian
standpoint) as it takes longer/more effort to fly, walk or
proceed in a crosswind or crosscurrent than it does in a
still medium.

This is the aether view, yes.

The classical luminiferous aether view, yes, not the Haether view,
which admittedly I'm still trying to analyze.

My Haether theory is still evolving but is looking better every day.




If we assume L = 10m (suggested by

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/l...edoflight.html

Ghost, we are well aware of the MMX analysis. Some of us
know that the null result was due to the fact that the
theory behind the experiment was faulty.

The theory *was* faulty. An absolute luminiferous aether was
nicely disproven by that experiment.

How can you prove that something doesn't exist?

By showing that the theoretical effects don't occur, for
the most part. Admittedly, MMX can't distinguish between
nonexistent luminiferous aether and lightspeed-source-local-invariance.

There may still be an aether, but it's now a fluid thing.

That's the point. The MMX proved that the aether,
as visualised by Michelson and others, did not appear
to exist.

No, it proved that the static luminiferous aether did not exist.
The dynamic luminiferous aether has no problem existing, if one
assumes that the aether is locally quiescent around the
rotatable apparatus.

So which one should be modified, the model
of the aether or the experiment.

Both.


You can't say something doesn't exist becasue you ran
an experiment that didn't detect it. Obviously if it
doesn't exist no experiment could possibly be
designed to test for it.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The
problem is, does it exist in any meaningful fashion?

At best, one has to devise an experiment that at least
shows evidence that it does exist, and, since you're
the claimant here, I posit that you're the one on
the hook at the moment. :-)


Religion has thrived for centuries because nobody can
prove the nonexistence of gods.

And never will.

Same applies to the aether.

Ditto. The luminiferous aether resides nicely in the
gaps of our knowledge and, so long as it is consistent
with our observations, cannot be removed.

The MMX showed a discrepancy, destroying that particular
model. However, that's all it did; other models
can still apply, pending verification of other
experiments.



You must be able to test a hypothetical property of that something.
If it doesn't exist it doesn't have any testable properties.

We don't know it exists until we give it properties. :-)
A propertyless entity is a bit like the empty set: there's
exactly one empty set.

But as soon as we claim it doesn't exist - because a test for
one of its hypothetical properties proved null - we immediately
render the test itself null and void, as well.

An interesting idea. So MMX is null and void for those claimants
that state that MMX disproves the luminiferous aether?

I'm confused here; please explain your position.





The theory still *is* faulty, in light of the "acceleration of
galactic recession". A galaxy, AFAIK, is a bunch of stars
all radiating in different directions with a central massive
black hole. Unless one assumes that the black hole is somehow
outfitted with a space drive of some sort there's no method
by which it can accelerate. I suspect a computation error;
the most logical one might have the permittivity and
permeability of free space being affected by local matter
density somehow. At least, such is my naive view on the
matter.

It's clear lightspeed is affected by matter -- light in
glass is slower than light in vacuum. Space is not
a vacuum (although it's damned close).

It is also filled with turbulent Haether of variable 'density'.

Interesting. Not sure how the "density" would affect
lightspeed.

This 'density' refers to the stuff that makes EM fields.
I cannot really elaborate on that.

You should.

For example, how does lightspeed and this density interrelate?
The luminiferous aether appears to be a fluid; you are claiming,
so far as I can understand you, that it is a gaseous fluid
(i.e., compressible) as opposed to a liquid-type fluid. Since
the density can vary, I am curious as to the relationship.

It would also be interesting to see what the interrelationship
is between this aether and uncharged matter, this aether
and charged matter, and this aether and magnetic fields.

However my theory states that EM can travel through this stuff
at different speeds, at least for short distances and probably
for longer distances in low density stuff..

Presumably, the speed through the aether would be K / density,
where the average K / density would be c.






What you have tries to do is define what is actually
meant by OWLS and TWLS.

Well, *somebody* has to do it. :-) OWLS has the problem that
it needs to be measured by two synchronized clocks at
different positions. A precise definition is very important.

I think I have found a way to measure OWLS with only one clock.
More about that later.

I'd be interested in the details of that, and so would a number
of others I suspect.

I just have to check a few things.

OK.



See my animation www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/photons.exe
(a very small file download)
It poses a big unanswered question.

Yeah: how to run it on a Linux system. :-)

Surely you know someone with windows. The demo takes
only seconds to download and run.

You really need to get into Java, sir. :-) Then you and I
won't have these technical glitches.

Can you run the old microsoft Qbasic?

If saved in text form, perhaps. If you want I can attempt
to convert it to Java for you. :-) Presumably, it's mostly
a matter of keeping track of which bits plot where when.
Basic's not a complicated language but it does have some quirks;
Java's not all that difficult either, at this level -- unless
you're doing something wacky with OLE, ADO, or WinForms.

I'm also assuming you can download from java.sun.com a SDK
for 1.4.1 or 1.4.2 (just released).

I have two Basic interpreters, but I don't think either one
has graphics capability.

[.sigsnip]

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:51:40 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics, Henri Wilson
HW@.

'c' would also be OWLS when measured by an observer at rest
in an 'absolute aether'.
c is never TWLS in true relativity. It only appears so
because of Einstein's definition.

Um...what is "Einstein's definition"? Refresh my memory here.

Einstein defined clock synching so that Tab will alway=Tba, even
if it doesn't. He didn't believe these times could ever be
measured and so ws pretty confident that his reputation was safe.
He didn't realise that atomic clocks would appear on the scene.
These are capable of refuting his nonsense but nobody is allowed
to perform any worthwhile OWLS experiment for obvious reasons.

Two clocks can never be perfectly synchronized anyway.

Allow me to illustrate.

In GR, g, the acceleration because of the effects of
gravity, defines a time dialation effect. (I don't
know the amount but it's fairly small.) Because the
Earth is not a non-rotating, perfect sphere g(x,y,z)
is different from g(x',y',z'), where (x,y,z) is a point
on the Earth's surface. There are multiple causes for
this variance, such as difference in rotation (a person
at the equator is moving faster than a person at, say,
60 degrees latitude), various masses between them (used
on occasion to find oil fields), and height of the clock.
A highly precise clock may be thrown very slightly off by
putting it on a different height of pedestal.

You have to discriminate between 'reading synch' and 'rate synch'.
It is always possible to compare the rates of two clocks that are at rest wrt
each other.
It is their 'readings' that must be synchronized for a two-clock OWLS
experiment.


So clocks C and C' will drift, even in close proximity (the
drift will just be smaller). The best one can do is
to mark C' with the same time-marking as seen from C,
compensating for the distance. 1 ns = 29.9792458 cm,
or just under 1 foot.

So now we synchronize the clocks, as best we are able, then
move them apart in a manner that minimizes their disruption.
Two pickup trucks might be good enough, if they keep their
speeds at 30 +/- 1 mile per hour (about 13.4 m/s). It's
kinda hard to say without actually doing the calcs, and
there is the issue of how much precision is desired.

The clocks can be moved across flat ground, near enough to flat gravity.

At 3000m, it should be possible to detect any anisotropy due to the Earth's
rotation. I showed this about a month ago in a reply to Tom.
This would replicate the MMX but using a direct measure of time rather than a
shift in an interference pattern.


Now one performs two OLWS measurements, and compares
the results, as well as two TWLS measurements, if he can.
The measurements will have a certain amount of intrinsic error;
this error can be added to the clock discrepancy, when the
clocks are brought back together by the pickup trucks.

If one wants a more sophisticated experiment one can
replace the trucks with motor-driven sleds along a rail.

Yes. This experiment is very simple and quite feasible right now.

I can think of only one reason why it has not been performed.
(maybe it has and the results have been hushed up)



By showing that the theoretical effects don't occur, for
the most part. Admittedly, MMX can't distinguish between
nonexistent luminiferous aether and lightspeed-source-local-invariance.

There may still be an aether, but it's now a fluid thing.

That's the point. The MMX proved that the aether,
as visualised by Michelson and others, did not appear
to exist.

No, it proved that the static luminiferous aether did not exist.
The dynamic luminiferous aether has no problem existing, if one
assumes that the aether is locally quiescent around the
rotatable apparatus.

That's exactly what my H-aether theory says; but it differs from the old
'aether-drag' concept. Haether is actually made of EM itself and so any ray of
light contributes to the conditions along its own path.

Are you becoming a supporter of this theory?


So which one should be modified, the model
of the aether or the experiment.

Both.

Let's do it with clocks and put n end to all the argument.



You can't say something doesn't exist becasue you ran
an experiment that didn't detect it. Obviously if it
doesn't exist no experiment could possibly be
designed to test for it.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The
problem is, does it exist in any meaningful fashion?

At best, one has to devise an experiment that at least
shows evidence that it does exist, and, since you're
the claimant here, I posit that you're the one on
the hook at the moment. :-)

My Haether is not like Michelson's aether.



Religion has thrived for centuries because nobody can
prove the nonexistence of gods.

And never will.

Same applies to the aether.

Ditto. The luminiferous aether resides nicely in the
gaps of our knowledge and, so long as it is consistent
with our observations, cannot be removed.

The MMX showed a discrepancy, destroying that particular
model. However, that's all it did; other models
can still apply, pending verification of other
experiments.

yes.




You must be able to test a hypothetical property of that something.
If it doesn't exist it doesn't have any testable properties.

We don't know it exists until we give it properties. :-)
A propertyless entity is a bit like the empty set: there's
exactly one empty set.

But as soon as we claim it doesn't exist - because a test for
one of its hypothetical properties proved null - we immediately
render the test itself null and void, as well.

An interesting idea. So MMX is null and void for those claimants
that state that MMX disproves the luminiferous aether?

I'm confused here; please explain your position.

OK, we want to test for a hypothetical entity. So we give it a hypothetical
property which we think can be subject to test.

Our test subsequently produces a null result. What does that say?

There are three possible alternatives:
1) the entity does not exist.
2) the entity might exist but the hypothetical property does not.
3) both the entity and the hypothetical property might exist but our experiment
was faulty.



It's clear lightspeed is affected by matter -- light in
glass is slower than light in vacuum. Space is not
a vacuum (although it's damned close).

It is also filled with turbulent Haether of variable 'density'.

Interesting. Not sure how the "density" would affect
lightspeed.

This 'density' refers to the stuff that makes EM fields.
I cannot really elaborate on that.

You should.

For example, how does lightspeed and this density interrelate?
The luminiferous aether appears to be a fluid; you are claiming,
so far as I can understand you, that it is a gaseous fluid
(i.e., compressible) as opposed to a liquid-type fluid. Since
the density can vary, I am curious as to the relationship.

The most likely model is one in which light speed is c in Haether, independent
of haether density. Light speed is also always c wrt its source. The time taken
for emitted light to settle to the local Haether frame speed is dependent on
Haether density.

1) Assume Haether density is very low throughout most of space (like that of
ordinary matter).
2) Assume the light itself affects the local Haether through which it passes. A
rough analogy of this might be a short blast of a gas jet squirting into a very
low density 'infinite volume'. Its initial velocity eventually dissipates. (the
difference between my model and a gas is that the final velocity is 'local c'
and not zero)

I see this as a very plausible model. It explains the MMX and apparent TWLS
constancy.
It should not violate the evidence about binary stars or the clarity of very
distant objects because the velocity changes affect the whole beam and are
fairly short lived and small.


It would also be interesting to see what the interrelationship
is between this aether and uncharged matter, this aether
and charged matter, and this aether and magnetic fields.

Yes. It is most likely that there is a connection between Haether and fields
like charge, magnetism and gravity.


However my theory states that EM can travel through this stuff
at different speeds, at least for short distances and probably
for longer distances in low density stuff..

Presumably, the speed through the aether would be K / density,
where the average K / density would be c.

I think it would be somewhat similar to the refractive index principle
but the other way around. The more dense, the more likely light would be
traveling at c wrt the 'local frame'.

Actually Ghost, you have given me a great idea.
Consider again the jet of air being projected into a low pressure cavity. Send
a sound wave through it in its direction of travel.
Imagine what happens to the sound wave velocity as the jet settles down to the
average local gas speed.
Are we getting somwhere now? You bet!
(two things to add: light doesn't diverge as as much as sound and its speed is
not nearly as 'density sensitive'.



Surely you know someone with windows. The demo takes
only seconds to download and run.

You really need to get into Java, sir. :-) Then you and I
won't have these technical glitches.

Can you run the old microsoft Qbasic?

If saved in text form, perhaps. If you want I can attempt
to convert it to Java for you. :-) Presumably, it's mostly
a matter of keeping track of which bits plot where when.
Basic's not a complicated language but it does have some quirks;
Java's not all that difficult either, at this level -- unless
you're doing something wacky with OLE, ADO, or WinForms.

I have studied Java and it is very similar to basic but more streasmlined. I
could use it easily if I have a decent compiler. The good aspect of Visual
basic is that one can easily add comand buttons, lines, circles, pictures etc.
without much code.
There are plenty of visual Java programs around that would do the trick but I
hate spending money when I can get something free.


I'm also assuming you can download from java.sun.com a SDK
for 1.4.1 or 1.4.2 (just released).

I don't have that version. I will try it.


I have two Basic interpreters, but I don't think either one
has graphics capability.

My 'photons' demo basically shows two remote and relatively moving lasers that
emit simultaneous pulses when they are passing each other. The demo queries why
light from the two should ever travel through space at a common velocity.
Such a velocity would have to be determined by a property of space since it
cannot be related to the speeds of BOTH sources except through the SR velocity
addition equation which is merely a piece of circular maths.


[.sigsnip]


Henri Wilson.
The BIG BANG Theory = The creationists' attempt to hijack science!
But they didn't succeed!

See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

In sci.physics, Henri Wilson
HW@.
wrote
on Mon, 07 Jul 2003 10:28:17 +1000
:
On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 22:51:40 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics, Henri Wilson
HW@.

'c' would also be OWLS when measured by an observer at rest
in an 'absolute aether'.
c is never TWLS in true relativity. It only appears so
because of Einstein's definition.

Um...what is "Einstein's definition"? Refresh my memory here.

Einstein defined clock synching so that Tab will alway=Tba, even
if it doesn't. He didn't believe these times could ever be
measured and so ws pretty confident that his reputation was safe.
He didn't realise that atomic clocks would appear on the scene.
These are capable of refuting his nonsense but nobody is allowed
to perform any worthwhile OWLS experiment for obvious reasons.

Two clocks can never be perfectly synchronized anyway.

Allow me to illustrate.

In GR, g, the acceleration because of the effects of
gravity, defines a time dialation effect. (I don't
know the amount but it's fairly small.) Because the
Earth is not a non-rotating, perfect sphere g(x,y,z)
is different from g(x',y',z'), where (x,y,z) is a point
on the Earth's surface. There are multiple causes for
this variance, such as difference in rotation (a person
at the equator is moving faster than a person at, say,
60 degrees latitude), various masses between them (used
on occasion to find oil fields), and height of the clock.
A highly precise clock may be thrown very slightly off by
putting it on a different height of pedestal.

You have to discriminate between 'reading synch' and 'rate synch'.
It is always possible to compare the rates of two clocks
that are at rest wrt each other.

Within a certain amount of accuracy, perhaps.

It is their 'readings' that must be synchronized for a
two-clock OWLS experiment.

Again, within a certain amount of accuracy.



So clocks C and C' will drift, even in close proximity (the
drift will just be smaller). The best one can do is
to mark C' with the same time-marking as seen from C,
compensating for the distance. 1 ns = 29.9792458 cm,
or just under 1 foot.

So now we synchronize the clocks, as best we are able, then
move them apart in a manner that minimizes their disruption.
Two pickup trucks might be good enough, if they keep their
speeds at 30 +/- 1 mile per hour (about 13.4 m/s). It's
kinda hard to say without actually doing the calcs, and
there is the issue of how much precision is desired.

The clocks can be moved across flat ground, near enough to flat gravity.

At 3000m, it should be possible to detect any anisotropy due to the Earth's
rotation. I showed this about a month ago in a reply to Tom.
This would replicate the MMX but using a direct measure of time rather than a
shift in an interference pattern.

Depends on the accuracy but I don't see why not; if one clock is
at the equator moving 463.9 m/s (give or take) because of the
Earth's rotation, then theta = arcsin(3 km / 6378 km) = 0.02695 degrees
for the other clock, if it's located due north. The speed of the
other clock will be 463.9 * cos(0.02695) -- about 51.3 mm/s difference.



Now one performs two OLWS measurements, and compares
the results, as well as two TWLS measurements, if he can.
The measurements will have a certain amount of intrinsic error;
this error can be added to the clock discrepancy, when the
clocks are brought back together by the pickup trucks.

If one wants a more sophisticated experiment one can
replace the trucks with motor-driven sleds along a rail.

Yes. This experiment is very simple and quite feasible right now.

I can think of only one reason why it has not been performed.
(maybe it has and the results have been hushed up)

Oooh, a conspiracy! :-)




By showing that the theoretical effects don't occur, for
the most part. Admittedly, MMX can't distinguish between
nonexistent luminiferous aether and lightspeed-source-local-invariance.

There may still be an aether, but it's now a fluid thing.

That's the point. The MMX proved that the aether,
as visualised by Michelson and others, did not appear
to exist.

No, it proved that the static luminiferous aether did not exist.
The dynamic luminiferous aether has no problem existing, if one
assumes that the aether is locally quiescent around the
rotatable apparatus.

That's exactly what my H-aether theory says; but it differs from the old
'aether-drag' concept. Haether is actually made of EM itself and so any ray of
light contributes to the conditions along its own path.

Are you becoming a supporter of this theory?

Only for the sake of argument, perhaps; the main problem
is that your theory appears at best ill-defined, at least
to me personally. For example: if two stars are moving
around each other, is the aether swirling around them
too, forming what amounts to a gigantic doughnut-shaped
revolving object (relative to the rest of space in the
general vicinity)? Or is it more of a whorl, with a center
near the center-masspoint?

And how does this whirling aether affect the light as it
passes through?

Also, if a star is rotating (I'd think stars often do that,
as an artifact of creation), how does that affect the aether?
Does the aether rotate with the star?



So which one should be modified, the model
of the aether or the experiment.

Both.

Let's do it with clocks and put n end to all the argument.

I doubt it will end the argument but it might lead to
interesting results, if done properly.




You can't say something doesn't exist becasue you ran
an experiment that didn't detect it. Obviously if it
doesn't exist no experiment could possibly be
designed to test for it.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The
problem is, does it exist in any meaningful fashion?

At best, one has to devise an experiment that at least
shows evidence that it does exist, and, since you're
the claimant here, I posit that you're the one on
the hook at the moment. :-)

My Haether is not like Michelson's aether.

That's fine -- so what is it like? What characteristics
does it have? Obviously, Michelson's aether was nicely
disproven -- but it was extremely rigid, permeating all of
known space. Your Haether is more fluid -- and in too
many senses. :-) For example, is it compressible?
You mention variable density so I conclude that it is.




Religion has thrived for centuries because nobody can
prove the nonexistence of gods.

And never will.

Same applies to the aether.

Ditto. The luminiferous aether resides nicely in the
gaps of our knowledge and, so long as it is consistent
with our observations, cannot be removed.

The MMX showed a discrepancy, destroying that particular
model. However, that's all it did; other models
can still apply, pending verification of other
experiments.

yes.




You must be able to test a hypothetical property of that something.
If it doesn't exist it doesn't have any testable properties.

We don't know it exists until we give it properties. :-)
A propertyless entity is a bit like the empty set: there's
exactly one empty set.

But as soon as we claim it doesn't exist - because a test for
one of its hypothetical properties proved null - we immediately
render the test itself null and void, as well.

An interesting idea. So MMX is null and void for those claimants
that state that MMX disproves the luminiferous aether?

I'm confused here; please explain your position.

OK, we want to test for a hypothetical entity. So we give it
a hypothetical property which we think can be subject to test.

Our test subsequently produces a null result. What does that say?

There are three possible alternatives:
1) the entity does not exist.
2) the entity might exist but the hypothetical property does not.
3) both the entity and the hypothetical property might exist but
our experiment was faulty.

All three are possible. Of course, "exist" is a bit squirrely.
In order to exist it must have some sort of effect, preferably
easily measurable. Magnetic fields, for example, exist, although
it's far from clear how to describe their existence except
empirically (solenoid operation, two bar magnets, etc.) or
mathematically.




It's clear lightspeed is affected by matter -- light in
glass is slower than light in vacuum. Space is not
a vacuum (although it's damned close).

It is also filled with turbulent Haether of variable 'density'.

Interesting. Not sure how the "density" would affect
lightspeed.

This 'density' refers to the stuff that makes EM fields.
I cannot really elaborate on that.

You should.

For example, how does lightspeed and this density interrelate?
The luminiferous aether appears to be a fluid; you are claiming,
so far as I can understand you, that it is a gaseous fluid
(i.e., compressible) as opposed to a liquid-type fluid. Since
the density can vary, I am curious as to the relationship.

The most likely model is one in which light speed is c in Haether,
independent of haether density. Light speed is also always c wrt
its source.

Which means of course that the source influences the velocity of
the local Haether somehow. (How this is done, I've no clue.
Is Haether matter? Energy? Influential regarding planetary
and/or galactic motions? Unclear to me at this time.)

The time taken
for emitted light to settle to the local Haether frame speed
is dependent on Haether density.

And probably light wavelength, as well. Granted, I'm just
guessing here, but it's puzzled me to some extent why
the M-E fields are 90 degrees out of phase very near an
antenna, but settle down some distance away to be exactly
in phase. Or are they ever exactly in phase?


1) Assume Haether density is very low throughout most
of space (like that of ordinary matter).

Or dark matter. :-)

2) Assume the light itself affects the local Haether through
which it passes. A rough analogy of this might be a short
blast of a gas jet squirting into a very low density
'infinite volume'. Its initial velocity eventually dissipates.
(the difference between my model and a gas is that the final
velocity is 'local c' and not zero)

One problem with that model is that the gas jet more or less
disappears, eventually. Still, it is a possibility, but it is
far from clear to me how motile and/or cohesive the Haether is,
other than it's not absolutely rigid like Michelson's.


I see this as a very plausible model. It explains the MMX
and apparent TWLS constancy.

Actual TWLS constancy. Of course TWLS is flawed anyway; OLWS
is a far better measurement -- if it can be done reliably;
you're already acquainted with the clock synch problems,
for example.


It should not violate the evidence about binary stars or the
clarity of very distant objects because the velocity changes
affect the whole beam and are fairly short lived and small.

Define "short-lived" and "small". 1 light-second? 1 wavelength?



It would also be interesting to see what the interrelationship
is between this aether and uncharged matter, this aether
and charged matter, and this aether and magnetic fields.

Yes. It is most likely that there is a connection between
Haether and fields like charge, magnetism and gravity.

In which case your theory should precisely explain the effect.
For example, the theory should ideally explain perfectly the
Zeeman effect, at the submicroscopic level, and the 1.5
arc-second deviation near the Sun at the macroscopic level.

It should also explain other effects; ideally it would also
explain an effect which differs from a SR or GR prediction.



However my theory states that EM can travel through this stuff
at different speeds, at least for short distances and probably
for longer distances in low density stuff..

Presumably, the speed through the aether would be K / density,
where the average K / density would be c.

I think it would be somewhat similar to the refractive
index principle but the other way around. The more dense,
the more likely light would be traveling at c wrt the
'local frame'.

Higher density in objects slows down light therein.


Actually Ghost, you have given me a great idea.
Consider again the jet of air being projected into a low
pressure cavity. Send a sound wave through it in its
direction of travel. Imagine what happens to the sound
wave velocity as the jet settles down to the
average local gas speed.
Are we getting somwhere now? You bet!

You might be. I'm not knowledgeable enough about sound to
be able to tell. :-)

(two things to add: light doesn't diverge as as much as
sound and its speed is not nearly as 'density sensitive'.

Can you quantify that sensitivity? How does it relate to
luminosity and light wavelength?




Surely you know someone with windows. The demo takes
only seconds to download and run.

You really need to get into Java, sir. :-) Then you and I
won't have these technical glitches.

Can you run the old microsoft Qbasic?

If saved in text form, perhaps. If you want I can attempt
to convert it to Java for you. :-) Presumably, it's mostly
a matter of keeping track of which bits plot where when.
Basic's not a complicated language but it does have some quirks;
Java's not all that difficult either, at this level -- unless
you're doing something wacky with OLE, ADO, or WinForms.

I have studied Java and it is very similar to basic but more
streasmlined. I could use it easily if I have a decent
compiler.

The Java2 SDK comes with a compiler. However, I'm assuming
you also want something visual (a la Visual Basic).
I'm not entirely sure what to recommend although Eclipse
might work. Borland's JBuilder is far better at building
graphical user interfaces but I found their license a bit
on the restrictive side, at least as of Version 7 (they're
at Version 9 now so maybe they've changed their license).

There should be others. I think Java mentions Cold Fusion but
would have to look, and I've never used it.

The good aspect of Visual
basic is that one can easily add comand buttons, lines,
circles, pictures etc. without much code.
There are plenty of visual Java programs around that would do
the trick but I hate spending money when I can get something free.

You are not alone. :-)



I'm also assuming you can download from java.sun.com a SDK
for 1.4.1 or 1.4.2 (just released).

I don't have that version. I will try it.


I have two Basic interpreters, but I don't think either one
has graphics capability.

My 'photons' demo basically shows two remote and relatively
moving lasers that emit simultaneous pulses when they are
passing each other. The demo queries why light from the two
should ever travel through space at a common velocity.
Such a velocity would have to be determined by a property
of space since it cannot be related to the speeds of BOTH
sources except through the SR velocity addition equation which
is merely a piece of circular maths.

OK, dumb question: why is the velocity addition equation an
example of circular math? As far as I can tell (I've not
done the computations yet) it's a consequence of the Lorentz
transformation/contraction and the constancy of lightspeed in
all SR reference frames. Of course constancy of lightspeed is
an axiom in SR; nothing circular there, really, as long as
one recognizes this axiom. I don't know regarding the derivation
of the Lorentz contractions.

[.sigsnip]

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.