Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: Henri Wilson on 2 Jul 2005 20:26 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_._._._._._._.v1<T1_._._ v2<T2 O3 O3 sets up a line of equally separated clocks which measure the speed of a light pulse emitted by S towards T1 and T2. O3 also measures the speed of T1 and T2 towards S. The readings enable him to calculate the different 'closing speeds' between the pulse and T1 and the pulse and T2. I understand that SRians agree on this. The principle of relativity says it matters not whether the source or target is considered as moving. Therefore, the above considerations hold just as well for differently moving sources. Thus, for a particular target, the 'closing speed' of light from relatively moving sources is c+v3, c+v4, etc., as seen by O3. Consider a star of constant brightness moving in some kind of orbit. From O3's POV, light emitted at different times of (its) year will have different 'closing speeds' towards any particular target (unless the orbit plane is normal). For illustration purposes, let the star emit equally spaced and identical pulses of light as it orbits. Thus, from O3's POV, some pulses will tend to catch up with others. Some will tend to move further away. The O3 will detect bunching and separation at certain points along the light path. Fast pulses will eventually overtake slow ones if no target intervenes. Armed with this knowledge, O3 will reason that any target observer will receive pulses from the star at different rates. This can only mean that OT will, in reality, perceive the observed brightness of any (intrinsically stable) star in orbit to be varying cyclically over the star's year, by an amount that will depend on the distance to the star. There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very regular brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by my variable star simulation program: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe Note: Einstein's unproven claim that the target observer will always MEASURE the speed of the incoming pulses as being c is completely irrelevant to this argument. The BaT acknowleges the existence of extinction and that 'local aether frames' may exist in the vicinity of matter. These may determine local light speeds. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: George Dishman on 3 Jul 2005 02:57 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:0k7ec1lmdc20ar42f27tngpcpn2gktjdl5(a)4ax.com... > Definition of the BaT: "Light initially moves at c wrt its source". A claim that is known to be disproven by the Sagnac effect. > The BaT acknowleges the existence of extinction and that 'local aether > frames' > may exist in the vicinity of matter. These may determine local light > speeds. Snell's Law requires that any such "extinction" (not the usual meaning of the term) must occur over a short distance (consider a quarter-wave plate) depending on the refractive index. I suggest the speed of the light leaving a distant star is therefore changed to be c almost immediately and Henri's simulation results are therefore spurious. Do you understand what I'm saying Henri, unless you have the equations for extinction and the behaviour relative to your aether, you cannot make a prediction. Your above definition does not constitute a theory since the unknown parts prevent you making any predictions. Also as you have the word "may" in your text, you don't have a theory. Replace it by "will" and give the equations. George
From: Jerry on 3 Jul 2005 10:07 Henri Wilson wrote: > Consider a star of constant brightness moving in some kind of orbit. > From O3's POV, light emitted at different times of (its) year will have > different 'closing speeds' towards any particular target (unless the orbit > plane is normal). > For illustration purposes, let the star emit equally spaced and identical > pulses of light as it orbits. Thus, from O3's POV, some pulses will tend to > catch up with others. Some will tend to move further away. The O3 will detect > bunching and separation at certain points along the light path. Fast pulses > will eventually overtake slow ones if no target intervenes. > > Armed with this knowledge, O3 will reason that any target observer will receive > pulses from the star at different rates. This can only mean that OT will, in > reality, perceive the observed brightness of any (intrinsically stable) star in > orbit to be varying cyclically over the star's year, by an amount that will > depend on the distance to the star. > > There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very regular > brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by my > variable star simulation program: > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe Except for a number of huge problems. Try "extinction". You claim that -all- measurements of k in c'=c+kv from DeSitter on which have consistently yielded k~0 are flawed because of extinction. If extinction effects prevented DeSitter etc. from measuring k, extinction must work equally well to predict that BaT cannot explain variable star light curves. Light being emitted adjusts its speed to that imposed by the interstellar medium almost instantly, and faster and slower light cannot add up as you say it does. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, HENRI! You can't have extinction invalidating DeSitter's results and not invalidating yours. Jerry
From: T Wake on 3 Jul 2005 13:47 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:lflfc1h8jevshiiahav117iqe7mjr2ng0q(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 12:31:19 +0100, "T Wake" <taswakeAt(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Wake up, Wake! > Very original. (Well it would be if Nick hadn't beaten you to it a while back).
From: kenseto on 3 Jul 2005 16:46
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:0k7ec1lmdc20ar42f27tngpcpn2gktjdl5(a)4ax.com... > 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_._._._._._._.v1<T1_._._ > v2<T2 > > > > 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. |