Androcles wrote:

"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...


Androcles wrote:



"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...



Creighton Hogg wrote:




On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Jesse Mazer wrote:





Androcles wrote:





"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...





Androcles wrote:






"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
. ..






Androcles wrote:







"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
. ..







Androcles wrote:








In a reference frame in which the apparatus is stationary,
x and y don't
change as the apparatus is rotated (assuming x and y are
the
arm-lengths).








Exactly. So you prove nothing. However, Einstein's
postulate is
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity
c which is independent of the state of motion of the
emitting body"
Reference :
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

The Earth is moving in the empty space, which is the
reference frame.
Are you trying to deliberately obfuscate the problem?








Empty space doesn't have a particular reference frame in
Einstein's theory.







Then light will be source dependent.
Androcles.









Nope, not according to the laws of electromagnetism.






Which one? Gauss, Faraday or Ampere?
Androcles.






The fact that the speed of light is independent of the source can
only be derived using all of Maxwell's laws.





When you can read a graph, we'll discuss it. Until then, it's a
waste of time.
Androcles.





I can read your graphs, but with no descriptions of what is being
measured, I don't know what they mean. For example, on the graph
you posted at
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....r/00918-ck.gif
one axis measures time and the other measures "m", which I would
guess is meters--but what is it that is being measured in meters?
Without context, a graph like that is meaningless--if you are
willing to explain the context, I will try to address it.

In the meantime, regardless of what that graph shows, it doesn't
change the fact that you have not addressed the issue that
Maxwell's laws are all based on experiments with electricity and
magnetism that are extremely well-confirmed, and which don't
involve light at all; once you have these laws, you can show
mathematically that together they imply the velocity of
electromagnetic waves is always 1/squareroot(epsilon_0*mu_0), and
that this "coincidentally" happens to match the observed speed of
light very accurately, even though the experiments to determine
epsilon_0 and mu_0 have nothing to do with light.




Not to be a jerk, but epsilon_0 and mu_0 are really an artifact of
using SI units and wouldn't have shown up Back in The Day.





OK, but they did have terms for the permittivity and permeability of
the vacuum back in the day--whatever symbols they would have used,
just put them in place of epsilon_0 and mu_0 in the above paragraph
and the argument is unchanged.

Jesse



So you DO believe in aether, then, because those are the very
properties that
define it.
Androcles.





No they aren't. They are just constants that have to be included in
order to express the relationship between, say, the total charge
enclosed in a volume and the total electric flux passing through the
surface. That's just Gauss' law, which you said earlier you believed
in--see the description he

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...maxeq2.html#c1



The magnetic constant m0 = 4p x 10-7 T m/A
is not a property. It is a unit conversion, and total bull****
to claim c = 1/sqrt( a couple of constants) as if they were properties.


It's not just a unit conversion. As an analogy, think of the
gravitational constant G in Newton's equation F=GMm/r^2, where F is the
gravitational force between two objects of mass M and m a distance r
apart. Newton recognized based on empirical data that the gravitational
force between two objects should be proportional to the product of their
masses divided by the distance between them squared, and part of the
purpose of G is just to get the units to work out, but it is not just a
unit conversion, it's a fundamental physical constant. If G had a higher
value, the force between two given masses would be stronger, for
example. You have to do careful experiments to determine the correct
value of G--for example, see this article titled "Determination of the
gravitational constant G by means of a beam balance":

http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/.../article6.html

It's the same with the magnetic constant, it is not just a unit
conversion factor, it has to be determined experimentally. If its value
was different, this would alter the predictions about the relationship
between the amount of electric current flowing through a closed loop and
the strength of the magnetic field created by this moving current. To
determine its value, you have to do experiments to look at the actual
relationship between these constants, just like how you have to do
experiments to find the relationship between the mass of two objects and
their distance vs. the gravitational force between them.

It is your claim that c is invariant, and use Maxwell's equations
as the basis.
I think you speak with forked tongue, you have not said c is
relative to.


In any reference frame which Maxwell's laws hold, it can be proved
mathematically that electromagnetic waves must travel with a velocity of
1/squareroot(permittivity*permeability). In Maxwell's day people only
thought Maxwell's laws would hold exactly in a single preferred
reference frame (which they imagined to be the rest frame of the
aether), and they'd have to be altered by a Galilean coordinate
transformation in other frames. With relativity, physicists now believe
that they hold exactly in *every* frame. But either way, if there is *at
least* one frame where Maxwell's laws hold exactly, then it must be true
that all electromagnetic waves have the same velocity in that frame, and
therefore that the velocity of electromagnetic waves is independent of
the velocity of their source.








The value of the permittivity is just determined by experiment, in
order to get the units to come out right. You don't have to believe
anything about what permittivity "means" in order to use the equation
to make predictions about various experiments. No mainstream
physicists believe in the aether today, but they still make use of the
same equation.



As long as c is source dependent in a vacuum, that is permissible.
But YOU are claiming it to be invariant, and saying Maxwell's laws
make it so. They do not.


Maxwell's laws do make it so (if Maxwell's laws are themselves correct
in at least one frame), and it's a mathematically proven fact that they
do. You can disagree with Maxwell's laws themselves, but if you don't
disagree with the laws individually there is no way to avoid this
conclusion.






And again, the experiments needed to determine the correct value of
this constant have nothing to do with measuring the speed of light. So
it's quite a "coincidence" that when you calculate the speed of
electromagnetic waves based on the permittivity and the permeability,
it comes out equal to the experimentally-determined speed of light,
no?



Experimentally determined *relative to the source*. There is no such
thing as the speed of light, ALL speeds are relative to something.


Then what's your explanation for the "coincidence" that permittivity and
permeability were determined first, based on experiments having no
relation to the speed of light, and only later was it noticed that in
any frame Maxwell's laws hold, the velocity of electromagnetic waves
must be equal to 1/squareroot(permittivity*permeability), which just
happens to be equal (within the limits of experimental error) to the
measured speed of light in our own reference frame?

Before Einstein, physicists would have agreed that the speed of light is
always relative to something, so their explanation was that our own
reference frame is nearly at rest relative to the rest frame of the
aether, and that the speed of electromagnetic waves is only constant in
the rest frame of the aether (which would have been the only frame where
Maxwell's laws were exactly correct). But now we know it is possible for
the speed of light to have the same velocity in *every* reference frame.

Either way, Maxwell's laws only give two options--the "aether" option
where the speed of light is only constant in one reference frame, and an
observer moving at v relative to that frame will measure light to go at
c+v in one direction and c-v in the other, or the relativistic option
where the speed of light is constant in all reference frames. But in
either case, the speed of light will have nothing to do with the
velocity of the source.

Name the experiment that tested the speed of light when the source
was in motion.


In motion relative to us, you mean? It should be possible to measure the
speed of light from galaxies which have a high velocity relative to us,
I can check if such an experiment has ever been done if you like.






And the same laws which imply the speed of electromagnetic waves is
equal to 1/squareroot(permeability*permittivity) also imply the speed
of electromagnetic waves is independent of the source.



Prove it. Name the experiment that you say there are so many of that
measured the speed of light independent of the source.


I wasn't trying to prove that the velocity of light is independent of
source directly by experiment, I'm saying that each of Maxwell's laws
individually have been strongly confirmed by experiment, and it is
possible to prove mathematically that if all four equations are true in
at least one reference frame, then a necessary consequence of this is
that the speed of electromagnetic waves is independent of source. So if
you deny the conclusion, you must deny one of the premises--which one of
Maxwell's laws do you think is wrong?





So there's really no plausible way around the conclusion that light is
just the kind of electromagnetic wave predicted by Maxwell's
equations, and that its speed must therefore be independent of the
source's velocity.



Prove it.
Androcles.


In that sentence, I was referring to the "coincidence" that the values
of permeability and permittivity were measured before anyone thought
they had any relation to the speed of light, and that only later did
Maxwell prove that in any frame where all four laws are true, then
electromagnetic waves *must* travel at
1/squareroot(permittivity*permeability) in this frame, and this number
"coincidentally" comes out equal to the measured speed of light in our
reference frame. I was saying that there is really no plausible way to
explain such an amazing coincidence, unless you grant that Maxwell's
laws are correct in at least one frame and that light is just an
electromagnetic wave. If you can think of a different plausible way,
then I invite you to explain it.

Jesse

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Androcles wrote:

"Timo Nieminen" wrote:

Well, the speed c-v that he objected to my use of was exactly the
speed at
which the light pulse closes with the moving mirror.

But what would you expect? Do you really think Androcles would have
admitted being wrong?

No, I will not, because I'm not wrong.
(c-v) is not equal to 1/sqrt(epsilon0 * mu0), which are constants
and the basis of Mazer's argument that Maxwell's laws apply.
Therefore c-v is not permitted in SR, which says c = (c-v)/(1-v/c)

Consider a source (stationary or moving) emitting a pulse of light.
According to SR, that pulse of light moves at c (in free space). That is,
in any inertial reference frame, dr/dt = c, where r(t) is the
instantaneous position of the pulse of light in that reference frame.

If we have a mirror (or some other object) moving at velocity v directly
away from the position where the pulse was emitted from, we have
dP/dt = v.

d/dt being a linear operator, d(r-P)/dt = c-v, and therefore the rate at
which the distance between the pulse of light and the moving object
becomes smaller is |c-v|.

That's just basic Galileian kinematics. Are you really trying to claim
that Galileo was wrong?

Even if you are claiming that Galileo was wrong, that's irrelevant, since
you claim was that SR predicts a non-null result for MMX, and SR assumes
that Galileian kinematics work in any given reference frame.

SR does NOT explain MMX, and source dependency does.

So, even after you failed to provide any refutation of the analysis of the
original MMX showing that SR predicts that there would be no fringe shift
(thereby demolishing your original claim), you continue to repeat your
claim. Thank you for the demonstration of your level of intellectual
honesty.

Source dependency also explains cepheids as quite ordinary stars,
recurrent novae as ordinary stars, flare stars as ordinary stars
and changes the orbital parameters of eclipsing variables, which
if the source independency model is used would rip apart from
tidal forces in a mere century.
NOBODY has ever measured the speed of light from a moving
source in the vacuum of space. That is about to change.

You have an experiment ready to do? Wonderful!

But, given that you don't accept de Sitter's analysis, why do you think
the "vacuum of space" is a good enough vacuum?

You want to claim that source dependency provides a simple model of
certain types of variable stars, go right ahead. You've already shown that
you're unwilling to consider empirical results that disagree with your
emission theory, so there's little point in discussion along those lines.

But why bother attacking the logical foundation of SR? It's a
self-consistent theory; the weak point is experimental support - just
falsify either the PoR or the light postulate (well, falsification
of Lorentz symmetry would really be required these days, since the light
postulate isn't necessary for SR), and that's that!

Continuing to make false claims about what SR predicts for experiments
such as MMX, after your claims have been thoroughly refuted, just makes
you look like a sleazy liar.

Still, if that's what you want people to think, go right ahead!

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...


Androcles wrote:

"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...

Androcles wrote:


"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...


Androcles wrote:



"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...



Androcles wrote:




"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
.. .




Androcles wrote:





In a reference frame in which the apparatus is stationary, x
and y don't
change as the apparatus is rotated (assuming x and y are the
arm-lengths).





Exactly. So you prove nothing. However, Einstein's postulate
is
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity
c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting
body"
Reference :
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

The Earth is moving in the empty space, which is the reference
frame.
Are you trying to deliberately obfuscate the problem?





Empty space doesn't have a particular reference frame in
Einstein's theory.




Then light will be source dependent.
Androcles.






Nope, not according to the laws of electromagnetism.



Which one? Gauss, Faraday or Ampere?
Androcles.



The fact that the speed of light is independent of the source can
only be derived using all of Maxwell's laws.


When you can read a graph, we'll discuss it. Until then, it's a
waste of time.
Androcles.


I can read your graphs, but with no descriptions of what is being
measured, I don't know what they mean. For example, on the graph you
posted at
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....r/00918-ck.gif one
axis measures time and the other measures "m", which I would guess is
meters--but what is it that is being measured in meters? Without
context, a graph like that is meaningless--if you are willing to
explain the context, I will try to address it.


'm' is magnitude (actually, apparent magnitude). The definition of
magnitude
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/MAG.HTML

"When astronomers began to accurately measure the brightness of stars
using instruments, it was found that each magnitude is about 2.5 times
brighter than the next greater magnitude. This means a difference in
magnitudes of 5 units (from magnitude 1 to magnitude 6, for example)
corresponds to a change in brightness of 100 times."

You are seeing a change of 16-9 = 7 magnitudes.
This is AFTER the brightness was first noticed and measurement began.
The curve you see is typical of recurrent novae, although no two are
identical.


Ok, so the graph shows the variation in magnitude of a recurrent nova.
Note that astronomers already have a theory about why this occurs:

Of course they have a theory.
They have a special theory for every type of phenomemon, all different.

Ptolemy had a theory of epicycles for the planets, too.
That doesn't make it the right one.

"The most recent accusations of forgery made against Ptolemy came from
Newton in [12]. He begins this book by stating clearly his views:-

This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime committed by
a scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the
ethics and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind
of fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and
history.

Towards the end Newton, having claimed to prove every observation
claimed by Ptolemy in the Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:-

[Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that
they were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the
theories, he deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so
that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of his
theories. In every scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice
is called fraud, and it is a crime against science and scholarship. "
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...s/Ptolemy.html

I accuse Einstein (and his followers) of the same crime. That includes
you,
fabricating evidence in the form of c = 1/sqrt(e0*m0) and then making
use
of c+v, c-v.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970925.html

What happens when a thermonuclear blast occurs on the surface of a
white dwarf star? Over the years astronomers have watched (at a safe
distance ...) as, 6,000 light years from Earth in the southern
constellation Pyxis, a binary star known as T Pyxidis repeatedly
produces these fearsome explosions. This Hubble Space Telescope image
of Nova T Pyx captures what appear to be blobs rather than the
expected shells of material expanding from this interacting star
system. Like other binary star systems which produce nova outbursts,
T Pyx is composed of a dense white dwarf and a close companion star.
An outburst occurs when the temperature and density of the sea of
matter dumped from the companion onto the surface of the white dwarf
reach the nuclear flash point for Hydrogen. While material is
violently blown off, the white dwarf itself is not disrupted and soon
begins to accumulate more matter from its companion, repeating the
cataclysm a few years later.


Can your theory make more accurate quantitative predictions about the
variations in brightness of a particular recurrant nova than this
theory?

I do not have a theory. I have a model, and it is the vector addition
of velocities, too simple to call a theory.
There is nothing in the description above that accounts
for the secondary maxima so commonly observed. At 6000 ly,
there MAY not be enough distance for the faster light to pass the
slower before arriving, it depends on the velocity of the star and
the orbital attitude. I have not seen the curve for T Pix.
Nor can I disprove the above, it is a matter
of plausibility. I don't see the moon sucking up Earth's oceans,
do you? What I do see is the rings of Saturn where a moon once
was, ripped apart by tidal force. Were you aware that the moon
keeps the same face toward the Earth because of tidal force?
How does a less massive star suck matter from the more massive?
It is as plausible as the moon sucking the Earth's oceans dry
from a distance of the GPS constellation.

..

Can you predict the exact magnitude of successive variations in
advance, for example?
No.
The ratio of period: distance: major axis always produces the
same shape curve. It's a similar triangle. (Androcles' law)
Hence the same curve shape for 6000 ly as for 12000 ly if the period
is doubled and the major axis is doubled. Without knowing the
masses of the pair, I cannot apply Kepler's third law.
Distance is always a problem anyway, nearby distances are
found by parallax, 6000 ly by estimate of magnitude, intergalactic
distances from cepheids (Henrietta Leavitt). Only the period is
reliable.
That doesn't help when we consider the orbt of Pluto is 240 years.
More research is required.

If your theory can't make accurate predictions that no other theory
can, then you can hardly expect physicists to throw out Maxwell's
laws, which each have a mountain of experimental evidence to support
them, in favor of your theory.

I am not asking for Maxwell's equations to be thrown out, and I do not
have a theory. I have a model. Einstein does not have a theory, he has
a wild and stupid guess about the speed of light being independent
of the motion of the source, coupled with half the time to send a signal
to Saturn and back equals the time to send a signal to Saturn. Anyone
that believes that is gullible indeed.


So... we are looking at light that has travelled a huge distance.

What is going on, that this curve should be typical?

What do you think would happen if I mounted a machine gun on a
carousel
or Ferris wheel, kept it aimed in your direction, just like the seats
on a Ferris
wheel, and proceeded to pepper a steel shield you were hiding behind,
a couple
of miles away. Bullets from the bottom of the wheel would travel the 3
miles
at c+ v.sin(phi) = muzzle velocity + tangential velocity of the wheel,
taking
time (say) 3 miles/(1000 - 5) mph = 0.003015 hours, or 10.85 seconds.
Bullets from the top of the wheel take 3 miles/(1000+5)mph = 10.75
seconds.
Not much difference in the rate of arrirval, is there?
What about from 300 miles away? 1085 seconds and 1075 seconds, right?
Suppose it takes 10 seconds for the wheel to turn the gun from the
bottom
to the top, then the time of arrival of bullets from the top is
1075+ 10 seconds = 1085, exactly the time of arrival of bullets
from the bottom. So your shield is hit by two bullets at the same
instant,
one from the bottom and one from the top. Actually, you are also hit
by all the bullets in between as well. Now, it is a lot of work
calculating
1,000,000 bullets, I think you'll agree, so that task is best left to
a computer.
Not only that, but the ferris wheel isn't a wheel at all, it is an
ellipse. Much
more calculation, right?
But that's what computers are for, so why not do it right?
And YOU can take advantage of one, because you have one.
All you need is the program. I've even written it for you, and its
FREE!
You can specify the parameters of
Distance,
Period
Eccentricity
Semimajor Axis
Yaw
Pitch
Roll
and how many bullets to fire,
and it will plot the arrival of the bullets as a function of time.
Then you can toddle off to the library, find some nice curves
that some kind astronomers have drawn for you but do not
themselves understand the reason for, and recreate those curves
on the computer screen, as I have done.


Are the bullets from the machine gun supposed to be analogous to the
photons from the star orbiting the nova? If it's just the orbiting
star that's responsible for the variation in magnitude, why don't we
see the same degree of variation in magnitude in binary systems where
the main star hasn't gone nova?

Carefully monitor the nearest binary, Sirius, 8 light years away.
Note the exact brightness for 50 years (its period) and you'll see
a change in magnitude over that 50 year period of 0.001 magnitudes.
Yes, I'm guessing the exact figure, but I'm in the right ball park.
Distance, period, attitude. If the system is seen edge on, far enough
away
and short enough period, you have a chance.
Face on, there is no component of velocity in our direction to see.
Too long a period, you'll never see it.
You are not going to wait 50 years.
Too close, you'll never see it.



Now, If Maxwell had had a computer and a program like mine,
he would still have agreed with Gauss and Faraday. But he would
not be saying there was any aether. He would have been saying
the speed of light in the vacuum of space is constant with respect
to the source at the time of emission.


No he wouldn't, because he'd know that each of the laws individually
(Gauss' laws for electricity and magnetism, Faraday's law, and
Ampere's law) are well-supported by experiment, and that together they
*must* imply that the speed of electromagnetic waves is independent of
the velocity of the source. To accept each law individually but deny
this conclusion is like accepting that A=B and B=C and C=D but denying
that A=D.

So, which of Maxwell's laws do you want to throw out?

Any that assumes e0 is a property of aether and not just a units
conversion
constant.
I accept the value of c, 299,792,458 metres per second, WITH RESPECT TO
THE SOURCE (as has always been used in any measurement you can name)
I accept c-v and c+v, when there is relative motion between source and
observer. I do NOT accept that the time for light to go from A to B
and back to A again is half the time to go from A to B when A and B
are in relative motion, as Einstein claims. I'm not that gullible.


In the meantime, regardless of what that graph shows, it doesn't
change the fact that you have not addressed the issue that Maxwell's
laws are all based on experiments with electricity and magnetism that
are extremely well-confirmed, and which don't involve light at all;


I don't need to. I have the data and I have the model. It is up to
Maxwell
(or you) to make his laws fit reality, instead of guessing.
You won't have to change very much, just the error band that all your
extremely well-confirmed experiments have shown to within the limits
of experimental error.


There is no known way you can make a slight modification to Maxwell's
laws and get the prediction that electromagnetic waves have a
velocity that's dependent on the source--if you discover such a way,
you should publish it. And again, each one of those laws has a huge
amount of experimental evidence to support it individually.

Ok, Ptolemy.
You carry on believing in aether, and the permittivity of free
space is epsilon0. I call that the permittivity of aether.
You carry on believing 2AB/(t'A -tA) = c, when A and B are in relative
motion.
You may not like the word "aether" but the cap fits, so wear it.


Once you have these laws, you can show mathematically that together
they imply the velocity of electromagnetic waves is always
1/squareroot(epsilon_0*mu_0), and that this "coincidentally" happens
to match the observed speed of light very accurately, even though the
experiments to determine epsilon_0 and mu_0 have nothing to do with
light.


You are right. "Coincidently". Actually, contrived.


"Contrived"? How can it be "contrived" when the values for
permittivity and permeability were measured *before* anyone thought
there would be a connection with the speed of light, and using
techniques that have nothing to do with light? Only after both the
values of these constants and all four of Maxwell's equations had been
discovered did Maxwell realize that the laws implied electromagnetic
waves would always travel with a velocity that came out very close to
c. Since both the equations and the values were already known, there
was no way he could have fiddled with them in order to insure it would
work out this way, it was a complete surprise.


You may not like the word "aether" but the cap fits, so wear it.


What is the speed of
sound in a vacuum? What is the volume of a gas at zero degrees Kelvin?
Just extrapolate, easy enough. Trouble is, there is no sound in a
vacuum.
There are no gases at zero Kelvin. That doesn't matter to you, though.
You believe the vacuum of space has the identical properties of
aether,
the equations say so


No, I simply believe that all of Maxwell's equations give correct
predictions about the electric and magnetic force in all known
situations involving macroscopic charged objects. Do you disagree?

You may not like the word "aether" but the cap fits, so wear it.

If so, which of the four laws do you think don't give the right
predictions?

You may not like the word "aether" but the cap fits, so wear it.

and it has been experimentally confirmed.

You may not like the word "aether" but the cap fits, so wear it.

What has been experimentally confirmed, old son, is that the speed
of light in a vacuum is source dependent, billions of times by
thousands
of stars.
And YOU are walking around with you head in a book instead of
looking up, telling me I'm wrong, your book says so. I'm looking
at REAL data, EMPIRICAL data


Data which can be easily explained by an alternate theory, without
throwing out existing equations that have mountains of REAL and
EMPIRICAL data supporting them. Do you want me to explain all the REAL
and EMPIRICAL experiments which can be done to test each of Maxwell's,
or do you agree that there's a lot of evidence for them, even if you
hold out faith that somehow we will be able to modify them in a way
that still agrees with these experiments but that no longer predicts
the velocity of electromagnetic waves is independent of source
velocity?

You may not like the word "aether" but the cap fits, so wear it.
Androcles

"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...


Androcles wrote:

Define "rest frame". To Einstein and Michelson it meant the rest of
the
Universe, with the Earth in motion about to the sun. Of course
Michelson
and Einstein didn't know the Milky Way was a galaxy back then,
galaxies
were called "nebulae", meaning clouds. The sun was still the centre of
the Universe. It was the Earth's motion through the "rest frame" that
was being
used by MMX to find the speed of light in the "rest frame".

When Einstein used the words "rest frame" he just meant "the frame in
which a given observer is at rest".

Fine. Put the observer on the moon with a telescope watching MMX.
I guarantee he'll see no fringe shift.


For example, if I drive by you at 60 mph relative to the ground, in
my rest frame it is the car which is at rest and you who are moving
backwards at 60 mph. The concept of each observer having a rest frame
is used in Newtonian mechanics as well.

Fine, put MMX in the car, and I guarantee a pedestrian will see no
shift.



Michelson-Morely thought there was a special frame, the rest frame of
the aether, in which light travelled at the same speed in all
directions. But Einstein didn't believe that, of course--he thought
that light travelled at the same speed in all directions in *every*
observer's rest frame.

It takes half the time of the round trip A to B and back to A
again as it does to get from A to B, even when A is racing toward B.
Got it.
Idiocy, but I do understand what the idiot is saying, even if
I don't accept it. We get idiots like that all the time on this
newsgroup.



So when Timo said "The analysis is _simplest_ in the rest frame", I
think he just meant the rest frame of the apparatus, not some
universally special reference frame.

In other words the velocity of light is c+ 60 mph in your car,
as seen by the bystander, because the car is the rest frame.
As I said, source dependent.
Muttering about frames isn't dealing with the issue of the bystander
detecting c. Timo is accepting source dependency when he says
"rest frame", but you don't think he's going to admit it, do you?

Androcles.

Androcles wrote:



I accuse Einstein (and his followers) of the same crime. That includes
you,
fabricating evidence in the form of c = 1/sqrt(e0*m0) and then making
use
of c+v, c-v.


e0 and m0 were measured BEFORE Einstein came up with his theory. All of
Maxwell's equations were written down BEFORE it was realized that a
direct mathematical consequence of these equations is that
electromagnetic waves must travel with velocity 1/sqrt(e0*m0). So unless
you're accusing "Einstein and his followers" of having a time machine,
your accusation cannot possibly be correct.

Or are you disagreeing with the fact that this velocity for
electromagnetic waves is a proveable mathematical consequence of the
equations of Maxwell's laws? I already posted one site that explains the
proof, I can post more references for you if you want.




http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970925.html



What happens when a thermonuclear blast occurs on the surface of a
white dwarf star? Over the years astronomers have watched (at a safe
distance ...) as, 6,000 light years from Earth in the southern
constellation Pyxis, a binary star known as T Pyxidis repeatedly
produces these fearsome explosions. This Hubble Space Telescope image
of Nova T Pyx captures what appear to be blobs rather than the
expected shells of material expanding from this interacting star
system. Like other binary star systems which produce nova outbursts,
T Pyx is composed of a dense white dwarf and a close companion star.
An outburst occurs when the temperature and density of the sea of
matter dumped from the companion onto the surface of the white dwarf
reach the nuclear flash point for Hydrogen. While material is
violently blown off, the white dwarf itself is not disrupted and soon
begins to accumulate more matter from its companion, repeating the
cataclysm a few years later.


Can your theory make more accurate quantitative predictions about the
variations in brightness of a particular recurrant nova than this
theory?



I do not have a theory. I have a model, and it is the vector addition
of velocities, too simple to call a theory.
There is nothing in the description above that accounts
for the secondary maxima so commonly observed. At 6000 ly,
there MAY not be enough distance for the faster light to pass the
slower before arriving, it depends on the velocity of the star and
the orbital attitude. I have not seen the curve for T Pix.
Nor can I disprove the above, it is a matter
of plausibility. I don't see the moon sucking up Earth's oceans,
do you? What I do see is the rings of Saturn where a moon once
was, ripped apart by tidal force. Were you aware that the moon
keeps the same face toward the Earth because of tidal force?
How does a less massive star suck matter from the more massive?
It is as plausible as the moon sucking the Earth's oceans dry
from a distance of the GPS constellation.


From the description, it seems to me that it was the central dense white dwarf which was more massive, and the orbiting star was less massive, and also that it was in a "close orbit". I would assume that astrophysicists have actually modelled the gravity from the white dwarf in such a system to show that it could indeed suck up material from the orbiting star, I doubt they are just guessing without doing any calculations.






If your theory can't make accurate predictions that no other theory
can, then you can hardly expect physicists to throw out Maxwell's
laws, which each have a mountain of experimental evidence to support
them, in favor of your theory.



I am not asking for Maxwell's equations to be thrown out, and I do not
have a theory.


Again, it is provable in a purely mathematical sense that if all of
Maxwell's equations are correct in a particular frame, the velocity of
electromagnetic waves *must* always be 1/squareroot(e0*m0) in this
frame. Denying this is like denying that pi is an irrational number. The
only way it's possible to deny that the speed of light is independent of
the source velocity is to deny that Maxwell's laws are actually correct
in any reference frame.

I have a model. Einstein does not have a theory, he has
a wild and stupid guess about the speed of light being independent
of the motion of the source


Einstein didn't guess the speed of light is independent of the motion of
the source, Maxwell had already proved that must be true if Maxwell's
laws are true. What Einstein guessed is that the speed of light would be
*the same* in every reference frame. Do you understand the difference
between these two statements? For example, the velocity of a sound wave
is independent of the velocity of the source (the sound from a car
driving towards me travels at the same speed as the sound from a car
parked in the same location), but it is certainly not the same velocity
in every reference frame.

Are the bullets from the machine gun supposed to be analogous to the
photons from the star orbiting the nova? If it's just the orbiting
star that's responsible for the variation in magnitude, why don't we
see the same degree of variation in magnitude in binary systems where
the main star hasn't gone nova?



Carefully monitor the nearest binary, Sirius, 8 light years away.
Note the exact brightness for 50 years (its period) and you'll see
a change in magnitude over that 50 year period of 0.001 magnitudes.
Yes, I'm guessing the exact figure, but I'm in the right ball park.
Distance, period, attitude. If the system is seen edge on, far enough
away
and short enough period, you have a chance.
Face on, there is no component of velocity in our direction to see.
Too long a period, you'll never see it.
You are not going to wait 50 years.
Too close, you'll never see it.


So are you saying that the variations of magnitude in a recurrent nova
would be about the same as the variations of magnitude in an ordinary
binary star system at the same distance, where the orbiting star is of
about the same size? I'm almost certain this would be completely wrong,
the variations for an recurrent nova would be far greater.






Now, If Maxwell had had a computer and a program like mine,
he would still have agreed with Gauss and Faraday. But he would
not be saying there was any aether. He would have been saying
the speed of light in the vacuum of space is constant with respect
to the source at the time of emission.



No he wouldn't, because he'd know that each of the laws individually
(Gauss' laws for electricity and magnetism, Faraday's law, and
Ampere's law) are well-supported by experiment, and that together they
*must* imply that the speed of electromagnetic waves is independent of
the velocity of the source. To accept each law individually but deny
this conclusion is like accepting that A=B and B=C and C=D but denying
that A=D.

So, which of Maxwell's laws do you want to throw out?



Any that assumes e0 is a property of aether and not just a units
conversion
constant.


There are no laws that require you to assume e0 is property of the
aether (none of the physicists who use Maxwell's laws today believe it
is), but it isn't a unit conversion constant either. As I explained in
my last post, it is a physical constant analogous to the gravitational
constant G.

So, again: which of Maxwell's laws do you want to throw out? If you keep
all of them, it is a proven fact that the velocity of electromagnetic
waves in any frame in which the laws are valid *must* be equal to
1/squareroot(m0*e0).


There is no known way you can make a slight modification to Maxwell's
laws and get the prediction that electromagnetic waves have a
velocity that's dependent on the source--if you discover such a way,
you should publish it. And again, each one of those laws has a huge
amount of experimental evidence to support it individually.



Ok, Ptolemy.
You carry on believing in aether, and the permittivity of free
space is epsilon0. I call that the permittivity of aether.


Well then, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Ampere's
law won't work without the constant epsilon0, any more than Newton's law
of gravitation will work without the constant G. They are both necessary
for making correct physical predictions (*and* for getting the units to
work out).


You carry on believing 2AB/(t'A -tA) = c, when A and B are in relative
motion.
You may not like the word "aether" but the cap fits, so wear it.


It doesn't fit. e0 is just an electromagnetic constant, like G is a
gravitational constant. If Newton had believed in a "gravitational
aether" which transmitted the gravitational force, and had named G the
"gravitational aether tensile strength" or something, would that require
anyone who used the equation F=GMm/r^2 to believe in gravitation aether?
Of course not, it's just a constant, the name is arbitrary. If Newton
had certain beliefs about what G "meant", that wouldn't require us to
share those beliefs in order to use his equation.




Once you have these laws, you can show mathematically that together
they imply the velocity of electromagnetic waves is always
1/squareroot(epsilon_0*mu_0), and that this "coincidentally" happens
to match the observed speed of light very accurately, even though the
experiments to determine epsilon_0 and mu_0 have nothing to do with
light.



You are right. "Coincidently". Actually, contrived.



"Contrived"? How can it be "contrived" when the values for
permittivity and permeability were measured *before* anyone thought
there would be a connection with the speed of light, and using
techniques that have nothing to do with light? Only after both the
values of these constants and all four of Maxwell's equations had been
discovered did Maxwell realize that the laws implied electromagnetic
waves would always travel with a velocity that came out very close to
c. Since both the equations and the values were already known, there
was no way he could have fiddled with them in order to insure it would
work out this way, it was a complete surprise.




You may not like the word "aether" but the cap fits, so wear it.


You didn't answer my question. Are you avoiding it because you know
there is no way for you to answer without either denying an obvious
truth or admitting I am right?




What is the speed of
sound in a vacuum? What is the volume of a gas at zero degrees Kelvin?
Just extrapolate, easy enough. Trouble is, there is no sound in a
vacuum.
There are no gases at zero Kelvin. That doesn't matter to you, though.
You believe the vacuum of space has the identical properties of
aether,
the equations say so



No, I simply believe that all of Maxwell's equations give correct
predictions about the electric and magnetic force in all known
situations involving macroscopic charged objects. Do you disagree?



You may not like the word "aether" but the cap fits, so wear it.



You didn't answer my question. Are you avoiding it because you know
there is no way for you to answer without either denying an obvious
truth or admitting I am right?




If so, which of the four laws do you think don't give the right
predictions?



You may not like the word "aether" but the cap fits, so wear it.



You didn't answer my question. Are you avoiding it because you know
there is no way for you to answer without either denying an obvious
truth or admitting I am right?




and it has been experimentally confirmed.



You may not like the word "aether" but the cap fits, so wear it.



What has been experimentally confirmed, old son, is that the speed
of light in a vacuum is source dependent, billions of times by
thousands
of stars.
And YOU are walking around with you head in a book instead of
looking up, telling me I'm wrong, your book says so. I'm looking
at REAL data, EMPIRICAL data



Data which can be easily explained by an alternate theory, without
throwing out existing equations that have mountains of REAL and
EMPIRICAL data supporting them. Do you want me to explain all the REAL
and EMPIRICAL experiments which can be done to test each of Maxwell's,
or do you agree that there's a lot of evidence for them, even if you
hold out faith that somehow we will be able to modify them in a way
that still agrees with these experiments but that no longer predicts
the velocity of electromagnetic waves is independent of source
velocity?



You may not like the word "aether" but the cap fits, so wear it.
Androcles





You didn't answer my question. Are you avoiding it because you know
there is no way for you to answer without either denying an obvious
truth or admitting I am right?

Jesse

Androcles wrote:

"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...


Androcles wrote:



Define "rest frame". To Einstein and Michelson it meant the rest of
the
Universe, with the Earth in motion about to the sun. Of course
Michelson
and Einstein didn't know the Milky Way was a galaxy back then,
galaxies
were called "nebulae", meaning clouds. The sun was still the centre of
the Universe. It was the Earth's motion through the "rest frame" that
was being
used by MMX to find the speed of light in the "rest frame".



When Einstein used the words "rest frame" he just meant "the frame in
which a given observer is at rest".



Fine. Put the observer on the moon with a telescope watching MMX.
I guarantee he'll see no fringe shift.


Yes, this is what SR predicts, because it says the speed of light is the
same in all directions, regardless of whose rest frame you're in.





For example, if I drive by you at 60 mph relative to the ground, in
my rest frame it is the car which is at rest and you who are moving
backwards at 60 mph. The concept of each observer having a rest frame
is used in Newtonian mechanics as well.



Fine, put MMX in the car, and I guarantee a pedestrian will see no
shift.


Again, SR predicts the speed of light will be the same in all rest
frames, both the car's rest frame and the pedestrian's.





Michelson-Morely thought there was a special frame, the rest frame of
the aether, in which light travelled at the same speed in all
directions. But Einstein didn't believe that, of course--he thought
that light travelled at the same speed in all directions in *every*
observer's rest frame.



It takes half the time of the round trip A to B and back to A
again as it does to get from A to B, even when A is racing toward B.


Only if B is also racing away from A, such that the distance between
them remains constant. And the time will only be equal in the A-B rest
frame, in other frames the time from A to B will be different than the
time from B to A.




So when Timo said "The analysis is _simplest_ in the rest frame", I
think he just meant the rest frame of the apparatus, not some
universally special reference frame.



In other words the velocity of light is c+ 60 mph in your car,
as seen by the bystander, because the car is the rest frame.


That doesn't make any sense--"as seen by the bystander" means you are
making your calculations from the bystander's rest frame. It's not as if
the bystander is obligated to use the car's rest frame just because the
apparatus is in the car--any physical situation can be considered from
the standpoint of whichever rest frame you choose. And whichever you
choose, the velocity of light will equal c in that frame. For example,
the bystander will see the light take longer to get from one end of a
moving tube to the other when the light is moving in the same direction
as the tube as when it's going in the opposite direction, since he sees
it going c both ways.

If you don't believe me, I can calculate the coordinates of the events
(light sent out from back end of tube), (light reaches front end of
tube), and (light returns to back end of tube) in both the car's rest
frame and the observer's rest frame, using the Lorentz transformations.
I suspect you already know what the result will be, though.

Jesse

"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...


Creighton Hogg wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Jesse Mazer wrote:



Androcles wrote:



"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...




Androcles wrote:





"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...





Androcles wrote:






"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...






Androcles wrote:







In a reference frame in which the apparatus is stationary,
x and
y don't
change as the apparatus is rotated (assuming x and y are
the
arm-lengths).







Exactly. So you prove nothing. However, Einstein's
postulate is
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity
c which is independent of the state of motion of the
emitting
body"
Reference :
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

The Earth is moving in the empty space, which is the
reference
frame.
Are you trying to deliberately obfuscate the problem?







Empty space doesn't have a particular reference frame in
Einstein's
theory.






Then light will be source dependent.
Androcles.








Nope, not according to the laws of electromagnetism.





Which one? Gauss, Faraday or Ampere?
Androcles.





The fact that the speed of light is independent of the source
can only
be derived using all of Maxwell's laws.




When you can read a graph, we'll discuss it. Until then, it's a
waste of
time.
Androcles.



I can read your graphs, but with no descriptions of what is being
measured, I don't know what they mean. For example, on the graph
you
posted at
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....r/00918-ck.gif
one
axis measures time and the other measures "m", which I would guess
is
meters--but what is it that is being measured in meters? Without
context, a graph like that is meaningless--if you are willing to
explain
the context, I will try to address it.

In the meantime, regardless of what that graph shows, it doesn't
change
the fact that you have not addressed the issue that Maxwell's laws
are
all based on experiments with electricity and magnetism that are
extremely well-confirmed, and which don't involve light at all;
once you
have these laws, you can show mathematically that together they
imply
the velocity of electromagnetic waves is always
1/squareroot(epsilon_0*mu_0), and that this "coincidentally"
happens to
match the observed speed of light very accurately, even though the
experiments to determine epsilon_0 and mu_0 have nothing to do
with light.



Not to be a jerk, but epsilon_0 and mu_0 are really an artifact of
using
SI units and wouldn't have shown up Back in The Day.




OK, but they did have terms for the permittivity and permeability of
the
vacuum back in the day--whatever symbols they would have used, just
put
them in place of epsilon_0 and mu_0 in the above paragraph and the
argument is unchanged.

The cgs esu and emu don't assign any values to nonsensical attributes
of free space.
I learnt my physics satisfactory without reference to either
thepermittivity or the permeability of free space. It was only when I
studied electrical engineering that these items were surreptitiously
introduced to bring into use a convenient set of units.

Franz

"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...


Androcles wrote:

"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...


Androcles wrote:



"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...



Androcles wrote:




"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...




Androcles wrote:





In a reference frame in which the apparatus is stationary, x
and
y don't
change as the apparatus is rotated (assuming x and y are the
arm-lengths).





Exactly. So you prove nothing. However, Einstein's postulate
is
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity
c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting
body"
Reference :
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

The Earth is moving in the empty space, which is the
reference
frame.
Are you trying to deliberately obfuscate the problem?





Empty space doesn't have a particular reference frame in
Einstein's
theory.




Then light will be source dependent.
Androcles.






Nope, not according to the laws of electromagnetism.



Which one? Gauss, Faraday or Ampere?
Androcles.



The fact that the speed of light is independent of the source can
only
be derived using all of Maxwell's laws.



When you can read a graph, we'll discuss it. Until then, it's a
waste of
time.
Androcles.


I can read your graphs, but with no descriptions of what is being
measured, I don't know what they mean. For example, on the graph you
posted at
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....r/00918-ck.gif
one
axis measures time and the other measures "m", which I would guess
is
meters--but what is it that is being measured in meters? Without
context, a graph like that is meaningless--if you are willing to
explain
the context, I will try to address it.

In the meantime, regardless of what that graph shows, it doesn't
change
the fact that you have not addressed the issue that Maxwell's laws
are
all based on experiments with electricity and magnetism that are
extremely well-confirmed, and which don't involve light at all; once
you
have these laws, you can show mathematically that together they
imply
the velocity of electromagnetic waves is always
1/squareroot(epsilon_0*mu_0), and that this "coincidentally" happens
to
match the observed speed of light very accurately,

Not very accurately, but mathematically precisely. No experimental
error bars.

even though the
experiments to determine epsilon_0 and mu_0 have nothing to do with
light.

No experiments have ever been done to determine the values of eps0 and
mu0.
They are artefacts necessary to define a certain set of units.
Such experiments are logically impossible, for the following reasons:

mu0 is *defined* to be precisely 4* pi*10^-7
and eps0 is *defined* to make eps0*mu0 = c^-2
(and c, in turn, has a *defined* value, but we'll let that pass)

Franz

Franz Heymann wrote:

"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...


Creighton Hogg wrote:



On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Jesse Mazer wrote:





Androcles wrote:





"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...






Androcles wrote:







"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...







Androcles wrote:








"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
. ..








Androcles wrote:









In a reference frame in which the apparatus is stationary,


x and


y don't
change as the apparatus is rotated (assuming x and y are


the


arm-lengths).









Exactly. So you prove nothing. However, Einstein's


postulate is


"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity
c which is independent of the state of motion of the


emitting


body"
Reference :
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

The Earth is moving in the empty space, which is the


reference


frame.
Are you trying to deliberately obfuscate the problem?









Empty space doesn't have a particular reference frame in


Einstein's


theory.








Then light will be source dependent.
Androcles.










Nope, not according to the laws of electromagnetism.







Which one? Gauss, Faraday or Ampere?
Androcles.







The fact that the speed of light is independent of the source


can only


be derived using all of Maxwell's laws.






When you can read a graph, we'll discuss it. Until then, it's a


waste of


time.
Androcles.





I can read your graphs, but with no descriptions of what is being
measured, I don't know what they mean. For e