On 13 Feb, 02:08, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
Paper:

Manuscript for a stand up comedian?

Paul

On 13 Feb 2007 03:34:01 -0800, "Sue..." wrote:

On Feb 13, 5:55 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:


Why do you bother...?

I bother because not all people are as hard-headed as you
and they might want to invest the time and understand
what you can't seem to fathom.

Propagation in a dielectric medium
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node98.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space

this one is typical.
There is no such quantity as 'speed in space'.
Speed is always 'relative to something'.

http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html


Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetism
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin.../lectures.html

Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics
(classic field theory)_
a) Maxwell equations (no movement),
b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)
http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell...assic_extended

http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL...ight/index.htm
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/.../antennas.html

My theory is based on Maxwell's equations. You should be able to see that.

It provides the otherwise missing reference frames.

Each 'swirl' is a separate frame. An observer at rest in such will get c/n
using Maxwell where n is very close to 1. An observer moving wrt the swirl will
get a very slightly different answer.
Below the Wilson density threshold, permittivity and permeability approach
zero. All one can measure are the values in the measuring apparutus itself.




Sue...

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 22:19:20 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
HW@
wrote
on Tue, 13 Feb 2007 01:08:31 GMT
:
Paper:

At the zone junctions, there is a short transition between speeds that
necessarily involves an energy release and an entropy increase.

And that transition space is precisely how long?

as short as possible.

The theory to be presented is based on the concept that light behaves in a
somewhat similar way as it travels across space.

Only somewhat?

You have basically described a scenario where time intervals are
absolute, which necessitates the Galilean transformation. To continue
the analogy, a car would have to be dumped off a truck moving at,
say, 5 miles per hour. The car would immediately accelerate to its
"natural" speed -- 40 m/s -- *relative to the truck*. Because the
truck is moving the car would be moving at a different speed relative
to the highway.

The question then becomes how long and/or how quickly does the car
adjust its speed to the speed limit of the highway.

Don't worry about the minor technicalities Ghost.

The universe may be likened to a very low pressure turbulent gas, each swirl or
eddy effectively defining a reference frame for light, albeit only a very loose
one. Light entering or originating in such a frame TENDS TOWARDS the natural
speed of EM in that frame. Only at this speed do the E and B fields (of
Maxwell) cooperate without loss.

Be very careful here. Air has a density of about 40 moles or 1.16 kg
or 2.4088 * 10^25 atoms per cubic meter. Its refractive index (n_air) is
approximately 1.0008, and c_air = c / n.

quite significant...

Gladstone-Dale postulated that (n - 1) / d = K for some
K, where K is the Gladstone-Dale constant. (I have no
idea how this might be symbolized.) This is primarily
in minerals but appears to be applicable here. It is
also possible that log(n) / d = K is the more accurate
relationship, but it's hard for me to say and since n is
so close to 1 anyway the two quantities n - 1 and log(n)
are almost equal. No doubt greater minds than mine can
puzzle this one out.

For air, d_air = 1.16 kg/m^3; therefore K_air = 0.00068966 m^3/kg.
Space has the density of about 1 million atoms per cubic meter (the
exact average density should be of interest to the theoretical types, as
it determines whether we're going to play Big Crunch or Heat Death; however,
I'm not sure precisely how to pull that up properly); if every
atom is assumed to be monatomic hydrogen, that translates into
1.6606 * 10^-21 kg/m^3. Therefore n_space is going to be on the order
of 1 + 1.14523 * 10^-24, which will mean c_space = c0 - 3.4333 * 10^-16 m/s
or a variance of 10 meters in transit distance every billion years.

Even if one postulates a thousand times this density a billion year
transit only varies by 10 km. That's not very much for a light beam.

Well Ghost, my preliminary investigations indicate that light unification from
orbiting stars takes place very slowly.
Consider emitted light moving at 1.0001c wrt the star's barycentre. It appears
that the '0.0001 bit decreases to around zero exponentially at a rate in the
order of about 0.99999 per lightday or less....ie., not very quickly.

Thus, the speed zones of the above highway are somewhat analogous to the
equilibrium EM speeds in the swirls of space. The spacing between cars is
analogous to the ABSOLUTE distance between photon 'wavecrests'. Whenever a
photon changes speed, so does this spacing.
IMPORTANTLY, the absolute spacing always retains information about the speed of
the source relative to the current frame. The transition zones involve an
irreversible loss or gain of KE and an increase in entropy. (probably related
to the CMBR)

The theory also postulates that another type of EM reference frame exists
around large mass centres in the universe. Light entering the vicinity of our
solar system adjusts speed accordingly. Closer to home, the Earth's atmosphere
provides a more precise reference frame in which light behaves roughly
according to Maxwell.

Thus, light from a relatively moving star will adjust both its speed and
absolute wavelength on entering the Earth's atmosphere such that a true measure
of doppler shift can be achieved with a diffraction grating. Its original speed
was c wrt its source star and its ABSOLUTE wavelength 'L'. Its speed goes from
c+v to c, relative to Earth and its absolute wavelength changes from L to
Lc/(c+v). The number of wavecrests arriving per second is (c+v)/L

This raises the question as to why a grating outside the atmosphere, for
instance onboard the HST, should also provide a true reading of doppler shift
for incoming light. (note: whether or not it does is not regarded as having
been conclusively established)

Reverting back to the 'car analogy', a pedestrian walking towards the cars at 1
m/s, will note an increase in the frequency at which they pass. If they are
traveling at 40 m/s wrt the road, they will travel at 41 m/s wrt the
pedestrian, who will count an average of 1.025 cars passing per second. If he
carries a 40 metres rod, he will observed that consecutive cars are always
adjacent to the ends simultaneously...so he knows their spacing is exactly 40
metres.

There are certain observational difficulties here. For starters, how
does he know that one car's bumper is "simultaneously" at one end of the
rod, while another car's bumper is at the other? Best I can do here is
have a small part of one car bounce off a mirror at the far end, and
hit one's eye while the other car continues to drive until both the
bounced-off portion and the unaffected car hit the exact center of
the moving rod.

It turns out that in SR this is not difficult (although the cars will
change color slightly).

Don't worry about minor technicalities, Ghost.

This raises several possibilities.

1) To the HST, the average incoming light speed from the abovementioned star
will be c+v. Its absolute wavelength remains at L. The rate of arrival of
'wavecrests' is again (c+v)/L. A grating on the HST will not measure stellar
doppler shift because gratings are sensitive to absolute wavelength.

But an Earthbound grating because of the atmosphere will?

They do. They have done so for centuries. Didn't you know?

An interesting but ultimately fruitless hyothesis, in light of
such experimental results as Sagnac and Ives-Stilwell.

What do you know about stellar doppler shifts measured in space, Ghost?
Are they the same as on the ground?

or
2) The EM reference frame surrounding Earth is not solely dependent on the
presence of particulate matter but extends to beyond the limits of the solar
system. Therefore light reaching the HST will average somewhere between c+v and
c wrt Earth and the wavelength of this light will be reduced to Lc/(c+v-?). The
HST grating will give answers different from those on Earth.
or
3) Gratings are not sensitive to absolute wavelength. Rather they are sensitive
to 'frequency of wavecrest arrival' or 'apparent wavelength'. (the apparent
distance between cars is approx. 39 metres to the above pedestrian).

In the absence of conclusive proof that a grating on the HST DOES produce the
same results as one on Earth, I will throw this open to discussion now rather
than speculate further.
In fact, I anticipate that a comparison between grating performance on Earth
and on the HST might drive the final nail into Einstein's coffin.....(take a
shovel)


I wouldn't bet the farm on it just yet.

Can you find a reference that indicates HST doppler shifts are the same as
those at ground level?

On 13 Feb 2007 04:09:15 -0800, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

On 13 Feb, 02:08, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
Paper:

Manuscript for a stand up comedian?

Before you make an even bigger fool of your frozen self, please provide a
reference that says stellar doppler shifts measured in space are the same as
those measured on the ground.


Paul

On Feb 13, 4:44Â*pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 13 Feb 2007 03:34:01 -0800, "Sue..." wrote:

On Feb 13, 5:55 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

Â*Why do you bother...?

I bother because not all people are as hard-headed as you
and they might want to invest the time and understand
what you can't seem to fathom.

Propagation in a dielectric medium
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node98.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space

this one is typical.
There is no such quantity as 'speed in space'.
Speed is always 'relative to something'.





http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html

Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetism
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin.../lectures.html

Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics
(classic field theory)_
a) Maxwell equations (no movement),
b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)
http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell...ell_classic_ex...

http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL...ight/index.htm
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/.../antennas.html

My theory is based on Maxwell's equations. You should be able to see that.

It provides the otherwise missing reference frames.

So what do you do with the electric charge of nuclei in ISM?
Pretend it isn't there?


Each 'swirl' is a separate frame. An observer at rest in such will get c/n
using Maxwell where n is very close to 1. An observer moving wrt the swirl will
get a very slightly different answer.
Below the Wilson density threshold, permittivity and permeability approach
zero. All one can measure are the values in the measuring apparutus itself.

Frayed knot:
...the value of wave impedance in free space is:

Z0 = 377 Ω

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_permeability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permittivity

Sue...






Sue...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Feb 13, 1:59 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 22:19:20 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine

wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
HW@
wrote
on Tue, 13 Feb 2007 01:08:31 GMT
:
Paper:
At the zone junctions, there is a short transition between speeds that
necessarily involves an energy release and an entropy increase.

And that transition space is precisely how long?

as short as possible.

The theory to be presented is based on the concept that light behaves in a
somewhat similar way as it travels across space.

Only somewhat?

You have basically described a scenario where time intervals are
absolute, which necessitates the Galilean transformation. To continue
the analogy, a car would have to be dumped off a truck moving at,
say, 5 miles per hour. The car would immediately accelerate to its
"natural" speed -- 40 m/s -- *relative to the truck*. Because the
truck is moving the car would be moving at a different speed relative
to the highway.

The question then becomes how long and/or how quickly does the car
adjust its speed to the speed limit of the highway.

Don't worry about the minor technicalities Ghost.

The universe may be likened to a very low pressure turbulent gas, each swirl or
eddy effectively defining a reference frame for light, albeit only a very loose
one. Light entering or originating in such a frame TENDS TOWARDS the natural
speed of EM in that frame. Only at this speed do the E and B fields (of
Maxwell) cooperate without loss.

Be very careful here. Air has a density of about 40 moles or 1.16 kg
or 2.4088 * 10^25 atoms per cubic meter. Its refractive index (n_air) is
approximately 1.0008, and c_air = c / n.

quite significant...



Gladstone-Dale postulated that (n - 1) / d = K for some
K, where K is the Gladstone-Dale constant. (I have no
idea how this might be symbolized.) This is primarily
in minerals but appears to be applicable here. It is
also possible that log(n) / d = K is the more accurate
relationship, but it's hard for me to say and since n is
so close to 1 anyway the two quantities n - 1 and log(n)
are almost equal. No doubt greater minds than mine can
puzzle this one out.

For air, d_air = 1.16 kg/m^3; therefore K_air = 0.00068966 m^3/kg.
Space has the density of about 1 million atoms per cubic meter (the
exact average density should be of interest to the theoretical types, as
it determines whether we're going to play Big Crunch or Heat Death; however,
I'm not sure precisely how to pull that up properly); if every
atom is assumed to be monatomic hydrogen, that translates into
1.6606 * 10^-21 kg/m^3. Therefore n_space is going to be on the order
of 1 + 1.14523 * 10^-24, which will mean c_space = c0 - 3.4333 * 10^-16 m/s
or a variance of 10 meters in transit distance every billion years.

Even if one postulates a thousand times this density a billion year
transit only varies by 10 km. That's not very much for a light beam.

Well Ghost, my preliminary investigations indicate that light unification from
orbiting stars takes place very slowly.
Consider emitted light moving at 1.0001c wrt the star's barycentre. It appears
that the '0.0001 bit decreases to around zero exponentially at a rate in the
order of about 0.99999 per lightday or less....ie., not very quickly.



Thus, the speed zones of the above highway are somewhat analogous to the
equilibrium EM speeds in the swirls of space. The spacing between cars is
analogous to the ABSOLUTE distance between photon 'wavecrests'. Whenever a
photon changes speed, so does this spacing.
IMPORTANTLY, the absolute spacing always retains information about the speed of
the source relative to the current frame. The transition zones involve an
irreversible loss or gain of KE and an increase in entropy. (probably related
to the CMBR)

The theory also postulates that another type of EM reference frame exists
around large mass centres in the universe. Light entering the vicinity of our
solar system adjusts speed accordingly. Closer to home, the Earth's atmosphere
provides a more precise reference frame in which light behaves roughly
according to Maxwell.

Thus, light from a relatively moving star will adjust both its speed and
absolute wavelength on entering the Earth's atmosphere such that a true measure
of doppler shift can be achieved with a diffraction grating. Its original speed
was c wrt its source star and its ABSOLUTE wavelength 'L'. Its speed goes from
c+v to c, relative to Earth and its absolute wavelength changes from L to
Lc/(c+v). The number of wavecrests arriving per second is (c+v)/L

This raises the question as to why a grating outside the atmosphere, for
instance onboard the HST, should also provide a true reading of doppler shift
for incoming light. (note: whether or not it does is not regarded as having
been conclusively established)

Reverting back to the 'car analogy', a pedestrian walking towards the cars at 1
m/s, will note an increase in the frequency at which they pass. If they are
traveling at 40 m/s wrt the road, they will travel at 41 m/s wrt the
pedestrian, who will count an average of 1.025 cars passing per second. If he
carries a 40 metres rod, he will observed that consecutive cars are always
adjacent to the ends simultaneously...so he knows their spacing is exactly 40
metres.

There are certain observational difficulties here. For starters, how
does he know that one car's bumper is "simultaneously" at one end of the
rod, while another car's bumper is at the other? Best I can do here is
have a small part of one car bounce off a mirror at the far end, and
hit one's eye while the other car continues to drive until both the
bounced-off portion and the unaffected car hit the exact center of
the moving rod.

It turns out that in SR this is not difficult (although the cars will
change color slightly).

Don't worry about minor technicalities, Ghost.

This raises several possibilities.

1) To the HST, the average incoming light speed from the abovementioned star
will be c+v. Its absolute wavelength remains at L. The rate of arrival of
'wavecrests' is again (c+v)/L. A grating on the HST will not measure stellar
doppler shift because gratings are sensitive to absolute wavelength.

But an Earthbound grating because of the atmosphere will?

They do. They have done so for centuries. Didn't you know?

An interesting but ultimately fruitless hyothesis, in light of
such experimental results as Sagnac and Ives-Stilwell.

What do you know about stellar doppler shifts measured in space, Ghost?
Are they the same as on the ground?



or
2) The EM reference frame surrounding Earth is not solely dependent on the
presence of particulate matter but extends to beyond the limits of the solar
system. Therefore light reaching the HST will average somewhere between c+v and
c wrt Earth and the wavelength of this light will be reduced to Lc/(c+v-?). The
HST grating will give answers different from those on Earth.
or
3) Gratings are not sensitive to absolute wavelength. Rather they are sensitive
to 'frequency of wavecrest arrival' or 'apparent wavelength'. (the apparent
distance between cars is approx. 39 metres to the above pedestrian).

In the absence of conclusive proof that a grating on the HST DOES produce the
same results as one on Earth, I will throw this open to discussion now rather
than speculate further.
In fact, I anticipate that a comparison between grating performance on Earth
and on the HST might drive the final nail into Einstein's coffin.....(take a
shovel)

I wouldn't bet the farm on it just yet.

Can you find a reference that indicates HST doppler shifts are the same as
those at ground level?



A "2.7 Wilson"

On 13 Feb 2007 15:44:57 -0800, "Sue..." wrote:

On Feb 13, 4:44*pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 13 Feb 2007 03:34:01 -0800, "Sue..." wrote:

On Feb 13, 5:55 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

*Why do you bother...?

I bother because not all people are as hard-headed as you
and they might want to invest the time and understand
what you can't seem to fathom.

Propagation in a dielectric medium
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node98.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space

this one is typical.
There is no such quantity as 'speed in space'.
Speed is always 'relative to something'.





http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html

Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetism
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin.../lectures.html

Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics
(classic field theory)_
a) Maxwell equations (no movement),
b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)
http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell...ell_classic_ex...

http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL...ight/index.htm
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/.../antennas.html

My theory is based on Maxwell's equations. You should be able to see that.

It provides the otherwise missing reference frames.

So what do you do with the electric charge of nuclei in ISM?
Pretend it isn't there?

What does that have to do with light speed wrt anything?

Each 'swirl' is a separate frame. An observer at rest in such will get c/n
using Maxwell where n is very close to 1. An observer moving wrt the swirl will
get a very slightly different answer.
Below the Wilson density threshold, permittivity and permeability approach
zero. All one can measure are the values in the measuring apparutus itself.

Frayed knot:
...the value of wave impedance in free space is:

Z0 = 377 ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance

How do you know if two relatively moving observers get the same value at the
same point?

....you don't.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_permeability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permittivity

Sure...what is the reference for that speed.

Speed must always be specified relative to something.

Sue...

In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
HW@
wrote
on Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:59:18 GMT
:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 22:19:20 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
HW@
wrote
on Tue, 13 Feb 2007 01:08:31 GMT
:
Paper:

At the zone junctions, there is a short transition between speeds that
necessarily involves an energy release and an entropy increase.

And that transition space is precisely how long?

as short as possible.

The theory to be presented is based on the concept that light behaves in a
somewhat similar way as it travels across space.

Only somewhat?

You have basically described a scenario where time intervals are
absolute, which necessitates the Galilean transformation. To continue
the analogy, a car would have to be dumped off a truck moving at,
say, 5 miles per hour. The car would immediately accelerate to its
"natural" speed -- 40 m/s -- *relative to the truck*. Because the
truck is moving the car would be moving at a different speed relative
to the highway.

The question then becomes how long and/or how quickly does the car
adjust its speed to the speed limit of the highway.

Don't worry about the minor technicalities Ghost.

The universe may be likened to a very low pressure turbulent gas, each swirl or
eddy effectively defining a reference frame for light, albeit only a very loose
one. Light entering or originating in such a frame TENDS TOWARDS the natural
speed of EM in that frame. Only at this speed do the E and B fields (of
Maxwell) cooperate without loss.

Be very careful here. Air has a density of about 40 moles or 1.16 kg
or 2.4088 * 10^25 atoms per cubic meter. Its refractive index (n_air) is
approximately 1.0008, and c_air = c / n.

quite significant...

Gladstone-Dale postulated that (n - 1) / d = K for some
K, where K is the Gladstone-Dale constant. (I have no
idea how this might be symbolized.) This is primarily
in minerals but appears to be applicable here. It is
also possible that log(n) / d = K is the more accurate
relationship, but it's hard for me to say and since n is
so close to 1 anyway the two quantities n - 1 and log(n)
are almost equal. No doubt greater minds than mine can
puzzle this one out.

For air, d_air = 1.16 kg/m^3; therefore K_air = 0.00068966 m^3/kg.
Space has the density of about 1 million atoms per cubic meter (the
exact average density should be of interest to the theoretical types, as
it determines whether we're going to play Big Crunch or Heat Death; however,
I'm not sure precisely how to pull that up properly); if every
atom is assumed to be monatomic hydrogen, that translates into
1.6606 * 10^-21 kg/m^3. Therefore n_space is going to be on the order
of 1 + 1.14523 * 10^-24, which will mean c_space = c0 - 3.4333 * 10^-16 m/s
or a variance of 10 meters in transit distance every billion years.

Even if one postulates a thousand times this density a billion year
transit only varies by 10 km. That's not very much for a light beam.

Well Ghost, my preliminary investigations indicate that light unification from
orbiting stars takes place very slowly.

So OK then. Is it "as short as possible" or "very slowly"?

Consider emitted light moving at 1.0001c wrt the star's barycentre. It appears
that the '0.0001 bit decreases to around zero exponentially at a rate in the
order of about 0.99999 per lightday or less....ie., not very quickly.

Indeed. With a refractive index of 1 + 1.14523 * 10^-24 it's going to
be a *very* slow slowdown process.


Thus, the speed zones of the above highway are somewhat analogous to the
equilibrium EM speeds in the swirls of space. The spacing between cars is
analogous to the ABSOLUTE distance between photon 'wavecrests'. Whenever a
photon changes speed, so does this spacing.
IMPORTANTLY, the absolute spacing always retains information about the speed of
the source relative to the current frame. The transition zones involve an
irreversible loss or gain of KE and an increase in entropy. (probably related
to the CMBR)

The theory also postulates that another type of EM reference frame exists
around large mass centres in the universe. Light entering the vicinity of our
solar system adjusts speed accordingly. Closer to home, the Earth's atmosphere
provides a more precise reference frame in which light behaves roughly
according to Maxwell.

Thus, light from a relatively moving star will adjust both its speed and
absolute wavelength on entering the Earth's atmosphere such that a true measure
of doppler shift can be achieved with a diffraction grating. Its original speed
was c wrt its source star and its ABSOLUTE wavelength 'L'. Its speed goes from
c+v to c, relative to Earth and its absolute wavelength changes from L to
Lc/(c+v). The number of wavecrests arriving per second is (c+v)/L

This raises the question as to why a grating outside the atmosphere, for
instance onboard the HST, should also provide a true reading of doppler shift
for incoming light. (note: whether or not it does is not regarded as having
been conclusively established)

Reverting back to the 'car analogy', a pedestrian walking towards the cars at 1
m/s, will note an increase in the frequency at which they pass. If they are
traveling at 40 m/s wrt the road, they will travel at 41 m/s wrt the
pedestrian, who will count an average of 1.025 cars passing per second. If he
carries a 40 metres rod, he will observed that consecutive cars are always
adjacent to the ends simultaneously...so he knows their spacing is exactly 40
metres.

There are certain observational difficulties here. For starters, how
does he know that one car's bumper is "simultaneously" at one end of the
rod, while another car's bumper is at the other? Best I can do here is
have a small part of one car bounce off a mirror at the far end, and
hit one's eye while the other car continues to drive until both the
bounced-off portion and the unaffected car hit the exact center of
the moving rod.

It turns out that in SR this is not difficult (although the cars will
change color slightly).

Don't worry about minor technicalities, Ghost.

This raises several possibilities.

1) To the HST, the average incoming light speed from the abovementioned star
will be c+v. Its absolute wavelength remains at L. The rate of arrival of
'wavecrests' is again (c+v)/L. A grating on the HST will not measure stellar
doppler shift because gratings are sensitive to absolute wavelength.

But an Earthbound grating because of the atmosphere will?

They do. They have done so for centuries. Didn't you know?

No, I didn't know. Oh, I see. The SR brainwashing has completely
addled our brains to the fact that the atmosphere reduces all incoming
light to speeds less than c / n.

How silly of me to have realized otherwise. :-)


An interesting but ultimately fruitless hyothesis, in light of
such experimental results as Sagnac and Ives-Stilwell.

What do you know about stellar doppler shifts measured in space, Ghost?
Are they the same as on the ground?

or
2) The EM reference frame surrounding Earth is not solely dependent on the
presence of particulate matter but extends to beyond the limits of the solar
system. Therefore light reaching the HST will average somewhere between c+v and
c wrt Earth and the wavelength of this light will be reduced to Lc/(c+v-?). The
HST grating will give answers different from those on Earth.
or
3) Gratings are not sensitive to absolute wavelength. Rather they are sensitive
to 'frequency of wavecrest arrival' or 'apparent wavelength'. (the apparent
distance between cars is approx. 39 metres to the above pedestrian).

In the absence of conclusive proof that a grating on the HST DOES produce the
same results as one on Earth, I will throw this open to discussion now rather
than speculate further.
In fact, I anticipate that a comparison between grating performance on Earth
and on the HST might drive the final nail into Einstein's coffin.....(take a
shovel)


I wouldn't bet the farm on it just yet.

Can you find a reference that indicates HST doppler shifts are the same as
those at ground level?


Not sure where to start looking.

--
#191,
/dev/signatu Not a text file

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Feb 13, 6:10 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 13 Feb 2007 15:44:57 -0800, "Sue..." wrote:



On Feb 13, 4:44 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 13 Feb 2007 03:34:01 -0800, "Sue..." wrote:

On Feb 13, 5:55 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

Why do you bother...?

I bother because not all people are as hard-headed as you
and they might want to invest the time and understand
what you can't seem to fathom.

Propagation in a dielectric medium
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node98.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space

this one is typical.
There is no such quantity as 'speed in space'.
Speed is always 'relative to something'.

http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html

Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetism
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin.../lectures.html

Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics
(classic field theory)_
a) Maxwell equations (no movement),
b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)
http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell...ell_classic_ex...

http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL...ight/index.htm
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/.../antennas.html

My theory is based on Maxwell's equations. You should be able to see that.

It provides the otherwise missing reference frames.

So what do you do with the electric charge of nuclei in ISM?
Pretend it isn't there?

What does that have to do with light speed wrt anything?

Each 'swirl' is a separate frame. An observer at rest in such will get c/n
using Maxwell where n is very close to 1. An observer moving wrt the swirl will
get a very slightly different answer.
Below the Wilson density threshold, permittivity and permeability approach
zero. All one can measure are the values in the measuring apparutus itself.

Frayed knot:
...the value of wave impedance in free space is:

Z0 = 377 ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance

How do you know if two relatively moving observers get the same value at the
same point?

...you don't.

....you do.

Study some electromagnetism. The constants c, epsilon_0 and mu_0 are -
get this - constant and have the same value everywhere.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_permeability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permittivity

Sure...what is the reference for that speed.

Speed must always be specified relative to something.

Sue...

On Feb 13, 10:10 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 13 Feb 2007 15:44:57 -0800, "Sue..." wrote:





On Feb 13, 4:44 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 13 Feb 2007 03:34:01 -0800, "Sue..." wrote:

On Feb 13, 5:55 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

Why do you bother...?

I bother because not all people are as hard-headed as you
and they might want to invest the time and understand
what you can't seem to fathom.

Propagation in a dielectric medium
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node98.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space

this one is typical.
There is no such quantity as 'speed in space'.
Speed is always 'relative to something'.

http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html

Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Relativity and electromagnetism
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin.../lectures.html

Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics
(classic field theory)_
a) Maxwell equations (no movement),
b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies)
http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell...ell_classic_ex....

http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL...ight/index.htm
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/.../antennas.html

My theory is based on Maxwell's equations. You should be able to see that.

It provides the otherwise missing reference frames.

So what do you do with the electric charge of nuclei in ISM?
Pretend it isn't there?

What does that have to do with light speed wrt anything?

It is almost like soundwaves whose velocity varies with
the density of the media, but the curve is much less steep
because the push-pull mode of light is more efficient.

An electron is pushed when a pRoton is pulled so the atomic
displscement is zero. IOW you can't hear light even at
audible frequency.

-DIELECTRIC CONSTANT-
Vacuum 1 (by definition)
Air 1.00054
Polyethylene 2.25
Paper 3.5
PTFE (Teflon(TM)) 2.1
Polystyrene 2.4-2.7
Pyrex glass 4.7
Rubber 7
Silicon 11.68
Methanol 30
Concrete 4.5
Water (20°C) 80.10
Barium titanate 1200

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_constant


Each 'swirl' is a separate frame. An observer at rest in such will get c/n
using Maxwell where n is very close to 1. An observer moving wrt the swirl will
get a very slightly different answer.
Below the Wilson density threshold, permittivity and permeability approach
zero. All one can measure are the values in the measuring apparutus itself.

Frayed knot:
...the value of wave impedance in free space is:

Z0 = 377 ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance

How do you know if two relatively moving observers get the same value at the
same point?


They don't have to get the same value:
Figure 3: The wave impedance measures
the relative strength of electric and magnetic
fields. It is a function of source [absorber] structure.

http://journals.iranscience.net:800/...flections.html


...you don't.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_permeability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permittivity

Sure...what is the reference for that speed.

Speed must always be specified relative to something.

Throw some rocks in a pond. Watch the waves of a
moving boat. Put your references where you want them.

"Cherenkov radiation"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/img1155.png from:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node50.html

Sue...