sue jahn wrote:
"PD" wrote in message ups.com...


sue jahn wrote:
"Arthur Dent" wrote in message oups.com...
In the 19th century Sherlock Holmes (Conan Doyle) said when you
eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable,
is the truth.
Your all permeating gas is impossible.
Certainly we can revisit the ether concept, but it is still as
impossible now as it was when it was concieved.
Continuing to pursue impossible ideas is futile.
AD.


Thanks for the heads up. I would never have guessed
these guys were making this stuff up:

Approximately 99% of the interstellar medium is
composed of interstellar gas, and of its mass, about 75%
is in the form of hydrogen (either molecular or atomic),
with the remaining 25% as helium. The interstellar gas
consists partly of neutral atoms and molecules, as well
as charged particles, such as ions and electrons. This gas is
extremely dilute, with an average density of about 1 atom
per cubic centimeter.
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.html

Sue...

Calculate the bulk compressivity modulus for a hydrogen-helium gas of
density 1 atom/cc.
Calculate the speed of propagation of a signal in such a dilute medium.
Compare that to c.

PD


The propagation of light is electrical... not mechanical.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...res/index.html


Electromagnetic, yes.
So if it's not mechanical, what does your comment about there being a
dilute gas of atoms in interstellar space have to do with the
propagation of *light*?

PD

Electromagnetic, yes.

what!? light is electromagnetic? since when!?

is light made up by electrons? since the name electro?

or is light made up by magnets!?

.... ahahaha ahaha ahaha....

Thanks for the heads up. I would never have guessed
these guys were making this stuff up:


Approximately 99% of the interstellar medium is
composed of interstellar gas, and of its mass, about 75%
is in the form of hydrogen (either molecular or atomic),
with the remaining 25% as helium. The interstellar gas
consists partly of neutral atoms and molecules, as well
as charged particles, such as ions and electrons. This gas is
extremely dilute, with an average density of about 1 atom
per cubic centimeter.


Well, they are making it up. Such a gas would produce friction, slowing
the Earth in its orbit and causing it to spiral into the sun. Not only
that, but any such gas would absorb and re-emit light, giving a
characteristic absorption spectrum. The characteristic is how Helium
was first discovered in the sun, hence its name.
AD.

The force density within a dielectric medium
Equation (3.67) was derived by considering a virtual process in which
true charges are added to a system of charges and dielectrics which are
held fixed, so that no mechanical work is done against physical
displacements. Let us now consider a different virtual process in which
the physical coordinates of the charges and dielectric are given a
virtual displacement at each point in space, but no free charges are
added to the system. Since we are dealing with a conservative system,
the energy expression (3.67) can still be employed, despite the fact
that it was derived in terms of another virtual process. The variation
in the total electrostatic energy when the system undergoes a virtual
displacement is related to the electrostatic force density acting
within the dielectric medium via
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node42.html

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 00:33:45 GMT, (Bryan Shelton) wrote:

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 23:18:37 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote:

One way light speed wrt any other than its source can have any value,
depending on relative source observer movement.

How do you explain De Sitter's astronomical demonstration that
the speed of light relative to an observer cannot depend on the speed
of its source, relative to that observer?

DeSitter was an amateur without much of a clue. He was wrong.

If you want to see what the BaT predicts, run my variable star program:
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

You want me to run your .exe program on my poor little computer??
Sorry, not until I know you a LOT better! :-)

Until then, why don't you just EXPLAIN to me in plain English
why you think that De Sitter was wrong?

Because my program can do in seconds more than he did in his whole lifetime.
If you are too stupid to run it then you are the loser.



Bryan


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.

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 12:59:52 +0000, Bryan Shelton wrote:

On 6 Jun 2005 05:22:24 -0700, "Sue..." wrote:

How do you explain De Sitter's astronomical demonstration that the
speed of light relative to an observer cannot depend on the speed of its
source, relative to that observer?

The universe is a dielectric gas. After a short distance from even a
moving emitter, the EM radiation must move at c wrt matter along the path
or it's energy will be absorbed.

Kind sounds like a new-fangled ether theory! In which case, how do you
explain Michaelson-Morley? you can't have it both ways, Sue! :-)

Actually it sounds like Ritz-Fox emission theory with a bandaid to avoid
problems when there's too much empty space and not enough gas between us
and a source.

Emission theory handles MM very nicely. What it doesn't handle so well is
the redshift detected by the Hubble spectroscopes, which is why the
bandaid is necessary. (Diffraction gratings measure wavelength, not
frequency, and the wavelength doesn't shift if the emission velocity is
fixed _and_ if the frequency is fixed at the source. I won't speculate as
to what happens when the photons hit the glass of the grating. At some
point it starts to feel like arguing creationism: the predictions keep
going wrong, but then they get fixed up retroactively so the theory can
soldier on.)

Indirect proofs aside, to prove emission theory wrong with a direct SOL
measurement you have to pin down exactly what is being claimed for the
"extinction length" and then you need to measure SOL with a moving source
which is closer to you than the extinction length. Trouble is the
extinction length can be adjusted as needed to explain whatever you happen
to measure, so it's a little slippery.

Don't ask me for more information about this, though -- I'm not a
proponent of Ritz-Fox theory and I've never read any of the papers on it.
Sue (or Jahn) may have more to add.

Henri claims to be a proponent of Ritz-Fox-Wilson theory but I'm not sure
he understands it well enough to address this. At least, when questions
of longitudinal redshift and minimum extinction lengths come up he usually
turns out to be elsewhere.


--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email

"sal" wrote in message news
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 12:59:52 +0000, Bryan Shelton wrote:

On 6 Jun 2005 05:22:24 -0700, "Sue..." wrote:

How do you explain De Sitter's astronomical demonstration that the
speed of light relative to an observer cannot depend on the speed of its
source, relative to that observer?

The universe is a dielectric gas. After a short distance from even a
moving emitter, the EM radiation must move at c wrt matter along the path
or it's energy will be absorbed.

Kind sounds like a new-fangled ether theory! In which case, how do you
explain Michaelson-Morley? you can't have it both ways, Sue! :-)

Actually it sounds like Ritz-Fox emission theory with a bandaid to avoid
problems when there's too much empty space and not enough gas between us
and a source.

Emission theory handles MM very nicely. What it doesn't handle so well is
the redshift detected by the Hubble spectroscopes, which is why the
bandaid is necessary. (Diffraction gratings measure wavelength, not
frequency, and the wavelength doesn't shift if the emission velocity is
fixed _and_ if the frequency is fixed at the source. I won't speculate as
to what happens when the photons hit the glass of the grating. At some
point it starts to feel like arguing creationism: the predictions keep
going wrong, but then they get fixed up retroactively so the theory can
soldier on.)

Indirect proofs aside, to prove emission theory wrong with a direct SOL
measurement you have to pin down exactly what is being claimed for the
"extinction length" and then you need to measure SOL with a moving source
which is closer to you than the extinction length. Trouble is the
extinction length can be adjusted as needed to explain whatever you happen
to measure, so it's a little slippery.

Don't ask me for more information about this, though -- I'm not a
proponent of Ritz-Fox theory and I've never read any of the papers on it.
Sue (or Jahn) may have more to add.

Thanks... I'll try.
Ya can't have a light path with fewer than two charges. Agreed ?
The real universe has a few more charges than that and we can't isolate them.
No vacuum pressure is low enough.
No vacuumed volume is great enough.

Here is why.
The Coulomb coupling between charges diminishes with the square of the distance.
....But the number of coupled charges in an aperture of sky *increases* with the
square of the distance. ( just a characteristic of homogenity )

So... whereever you go in a homogenous universe you will count the same number
of stars in the sky and you will measure the free space impedance at 377 ohms.

Aside from that purely geometrical foundation, there is a lot more *stuff* in
the *vacuum* of space than most folks allow for:
"What is the Interstellar Medium?"
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.html

It seems to be coupled charges that know the speed of light rather than
anything between them:

Although the Dirac relativistic theory of the electron introduced in
1928 solves the main aspects of the problem of the hydrogen fine-structure, [alpha]
still determines its size as in the Sommerfeld theory. Consequently, the name "fine-structure"
constant for the group of constants below has remained:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif [equation]
, where e is the elementary charge ...
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html


"You know, it would be sufficient to really understand the electron"
--Albert Einstein

--------
Sue...




Henri claims to be a proponent of Ritz-Fox-Wilson theory but I'm not sure
he understands it well enough to address this. At least, when questions
of longitudinal redshift and minimum extinction lengths come up he usually
turns out to be elsewhere.


--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email

"sal" wrote in message news
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 12:59:52 +0000, Bryan Shelton wrote:

snip

Kind sounds like a new-fangled ether theory! In which case, how do you
explain Michaelson-Morley? you can't have it both ways, Sue! :-)

Actually it sounds like Ritz-Fox emission theory with a bandaid to avoid
problems when there's too much empty space and not enough gas between us
and a source.


I should have mentioned:
That is really more a comment of the density of matter in space than support
for Ritz theory. If the matter in a region of space establishes the speed of light
then the problem with Ritz's additive light velocities becomes obvious.

Sue...


snip

Ya can't have a light path with fewer than two charges. Agreed ?


Not agreed.
According to your earlier assertion there is one centimeter between
ions/atoms/molecules throughout space.
Therefore light can travel a millimeter without encountering a charge.
Arthur Dent.

"Arthur Dent" wrote in message oups.com...
Ya can't have a light path with fewer than two charges. Agreed ?


Not agreed.
According to your earlier assertion there is one centimeter between
ions/atoms/molecules throughout space.
Therefore light can travel a millimeter without encountering a charge.
Arthur Dent.


Ahh.. you know how to make emitters and detectors without charges ?

Sue...