On 13 Feb 2007 22:22:08 -0800, "Sue..." wrote:

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...

I think radio engineers should keep out of physics....

They cannot get it into their heads that a perfect vacuum is not a reference
frame for velocity.

Maxwell's equations require a dielectric medium...which provides such a frame.

On Feb 14, 5:25 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 13 Feb 2007 22:22:08 -0800, "Sue..." wrote:





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/...www.conformity...

...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...g1155.pngfrom:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node50.html

Sue...

I think radio engineers should keep out of physics....
Like this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside

They cannot get it into their heads that a perfect vacuum is not a reference
frame for velocity.

Where are you going to find a *perfect* vacuum in this universe?
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space

Sue...



Sue...


Maxwell's equations require a dielectric medium...which provides such a frame.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Feb 14, 4:34 am, "Sue..." wrote:
On Feb 14, 5:25 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:



On 13 Feb 2007 22:22:08 -0800, "Sue..." wrote:

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/...www.conformity....

...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...g1155.pngfrom:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node50.html

Sue...

I think radio engineers should keep out of physics....

Like this one?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside



They cannot get it into their heads that a perfect vacuum is not a reference
frame for velocity.

Where are you going to find a *perfect* vacuum in this universe?http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1....iki/Free_space

Sue...

Sue...

Maxwell's equations require a dielectric medium...which provides such a frame.

Is the Light Super Highway n e thing like the The Hoober-Bloob
Highway?

Or worse, the Gore Information Super Texas Backwoods Gravel Road????

On Feb 12, 7:08 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
Paper:

Classic. Hank imagines that a single-page meandering supposition
amounts to a paper. Read any papers, Hank?


Here is a summary of a model describing how light might travel across space. It
appears to fit the data.

No evidence of that in your "paper", is there?


First, consider a long straight highway on which a stream of cars is
continually running. The highway has a speed limit of 40 m/sec but passes
through towns and cities where the limits vary. The cars always travel at the
speed limit except during the transition from one speed to another. In all
speed zones, the number of cars passing a particular point per unit time is
constant.

Along the 40 zones, the cars are spaced exactly 40 m apart...so 1 car passes
every second. In the 30 zone, their spacing decreases to 30 metres...in the 20
zone, to 20 metres..etc....

Thus, a satellite photo of the stream would reveal a constant pattern of
equally spaced cars that were bunched closer together along relatively small
and random sections of the highway.

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

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

What Heinrich appears to be referring to is the change of speed from c
to c/n in a dielectric medium with index of refraction n.
There are some similarities, as Hank notes -- the frequency of the
oscillation remains constant while the wavelength changes.
There are some differences, however. There is no energy loss from
light when it enters a medium of index of refraction n, nor energy
gain when leaving a medium of index of refraction n. Indeed, it would
be an interesting stunt to try to explain how energy gets pulled from
light, transported from one side of a pane of glass to the other side
of a pane of glass, and reinserted in the light, would be a neat trick
for a window, and I'd be delighted if Hank would explain exactly how
this happens, possibly in a second section to his "paper".
Another interesting terminology point is that Hank seems to confuse
"medium" with "reference frame", as though the air outside a window is
one reference frame, the window itself is another reference frame, and
the air inside the house is a reference frame.


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)

Ah, well, here's another interesting thing. Henri seems to be arguing
that light at c+v AND light at c-v would converge to c upon entering a
medium, and thinks this has something to do with Maxwell's equations.
In fact, Maxwell's equations say that light at c+v would go to (c+v)/n
(smaller than c+v) upon entering the medium, and light at c-v would go
to (c-v)/n (smaller than c-v, not larger than c-v) upon entering a
medium. Of course, upon leaving the medium, Maxwell's equations also
say that the light would resume at c+v and at c-v, respectively.


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

Well, aside from the fact that a diffraction grating *is* tied to
wavelength and not to frequency, that is. If Henri would look up
diffraction gratings in his 60-year old textbook, he would find that
out. That's how diffraction gratings work. The angle of displacement
of the first order line is specifically related to the ratio of the
wavelength to the grating spacing. This is demonstrated by the
experimental fact that two incident waves of two different velocities
(and different frequencies) but the same wavelength are scattered at
the same diffraction angle.


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.

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.
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, a ground-based telescope and a Hubble telescope
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)

On 14 Feb 2007 02:34:31 -0800, "Sue..." wrote:

On Feb 14, 5:25 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 13 Feb 2007 22:22:08 -0800, "Sue..." wrote:


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/...www.conformity...

...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...g1155.pngfrom:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node50.html

Sue...

I think radio engineers should keep out of physics....
Like this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside

There weren't any radio engineers then.

They cannot get it into their heads that a perfect vacuum is not a reference
frame for velocity.

Where are you going to find a *perfect* vacuum in this universe?
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space

Aha! Enter my 'Threshold density' concept.....

Below a certain threshold density (of both matter and fields) strange things
happen to 'fields' and light, which becomes almost purely ballistic. Maxwell's
equation don't work any more because the two constants have no meaningful
value.

Sue...

Henri Wilson wrote:
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.

If you don't understand how well confirmed this is,
you must be more ignorant than I thought possible.

Hint:
The radial velocities of thousands of stars are measured by as well
Hipparcos, HST (space) and ground based telescopes, like Keck.
Do you think the results are different? :-)

The data are easily available.
Go ahead - prove that that the measured Doppler shifts are different!

Henri, you are an imbecile!
"Paper" - indeed! :-)

Paul

On Feb 14, 4:21 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 14 Feb 2007 02:34:31 -0800, "Sue..." wrote:





On Feb 14, 5:25 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 13 Feb 2007 22:22:08 -0800, "Sue..." wrote:

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/...www.conformity...

...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...g1155.pngfrom:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node50.html

Sue...

I think radio engineers should keep out of physics....
Like this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside

There weren't any radio engineers then.

They cannot get it into their heads that a perfect vacuum is not a reference
frame for velocity.

Where are you going to find a *perfect* vacuum in this universe?
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space

Aha! Enter my 'Threshold density' concept.....

Below a certain threshold density (of both matter and fields) strange things
happen to 'fields' and light, which becomes almost purely ballistic. Maxwell's
equation don't work any more because the two constants have no meaningful
value.


Ah, Henri's last resort: When all else fails, mark a line with chalk
and declare that beyond that point, magic occurs. Who knows what form
of magic it is? Henri doesn't know. All he knows is that he can name
it Wilson! A mysterious dragon it is, but a dragon by the name of
Wilson!

PD

On 14 Feb 2007 07:57:00 -0800, "PD" wrote:

On Feb 12, 7:08 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
Paper:


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

What Heinrich appears to be referring to is the change of speed from c
to c/n in a dielectric medium with index of refraction n.
There are some similarities, as Hank notes -- the frequency of the
oscillation remains constant while the wavelength changes.
There are some differences, however. There is no energy loss from
light when it enters a medium of index of refraction n, nor energy
gain when leaving a medium of index of refraction n. Indeed, it would
be an interesting stunt to try to explain how energy gets pulled from
light, transported from one side of a pane of glass to the other side
of a pane of glass, and reinserted in the light, would be a neat trick
for a window, and I'd be delighted if Hank would explain exactly how
this happens, possibly in a second section to his "paper".

I shouldn't waste any more time on you Draper. but I will just this
once...because you are so far out...
Nobody has ever measured whether or not light emerges at exactly the incident
speed from a plate of glass....so don't make wild claims...

Another interesting terminology point is that Hank seems to confuse
"medium" with "reference frame", as though the air outside a window is
one reference frame, the window itself is another reference frame, and
the air inside the house is a reference frame.

****ing idiot....

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)

Ah, well, here's another interesting thing. Henri seems to be arguing
that light at c+v AND light at c-v would converge to c upon entering a
medium, and thinks this has something to do with Maxwell's equations.

I didn't say that at all... you ****ing lieing moron, Draper.

Unification occurs as a result of an entirely different process (es)

In fact, Maxwell's equations say that light at c+v would go to (c+v)/n
(smaller than c+v) upon entering the medium, and light at c-v would go
to (c-v)/n (smaller than c-v, not larger than c-v) upon entering a
medium. Of course, upon leaving the medium, Maxwell's equations also
say that the light would resume at c+v and at c-v, respectively.

I just stated just that in my reply to bz...although in the case of VLD swirls,
I say (c+v)/n might not be reached before the light emerges from the other
side.
I also say that if light ever moves in a medium SUCH AS THAT DEFINED BY A
SWIRL, at any speed other than the natural Maxwellian one, it emits a VLD
equivalent of Cerenkov radiation and therefore loses some energy. This can
happen whether the light is slowing down or speeding up as a result of its
entering the swirl.
Yes! It can speed up and lose energy at the same time....it's all part of the
cosmic redshift...

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

Well, aside from the fact that a diffraction grating *is* tied to
wavelength and not to frequency, that is. If Henri would look up
diffraction gratings in his 60-year old textbook, he would find that
out. That's how diffraction gratings work. The angle of displacement
of the first order line is specifically related to the ratio of the
wavelength to the grating spacing. This is demonstrated by the
experimental fact that two incident waves of two different velocities
(and different frequencies) but the same wavelength are scattered at
the same diffraction angle.

I know perfectly well how gratings work and have merely posed the question as
to what actually constitutes 'wavelength' in the case of a moving grating. Is
it the REAL or APPARENT 'distance between wavecrests' that determines the
diffraction angles?

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.

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.
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, a ground-based telescope and a Hubble telescope
I will throw this open to discussion now rather
than speculate further.

If you can provide any information about this I would be pleased to hear from
you draper...otherwise I will not waste my time on you again.


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)

On Feb 14, 4:49 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 14 Feb 2007 07:57:00 -0800, "PD" wrote:

Paper:

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

What Heinrich appears to be referring to is the change of speed from c
to c/n in a dielectric medium with index of refraction n.
There are some similarities, as Hank notes -- the frequency of the
oscillation remains constant while the wavelength changes.
There are some differences, however. There is no energy loss from
light when it enters a medium of index of refraction n, nor energy
gain when leaving a medium of index of refraction n. Indeed, it would
be an interesting stunt to try to explain how energy gets pulled from
light, transported from one side of a pane of glass to the other side
of a pane of glass, and reinserted in the light, would be a neat trick
for a window, and I'd be delighted if Hank would explain exactly how
this happens, possibly in a second section to his "paper".

I shouldn't waste any more time on you Draper. but I will just this
once...because you are so far out...
Nobody has ever measured whether or not light emerges at exactly the incident
speed from a plate of glass....so don't make wild claims...

Why, Henri, you're an idiot. Photons generated in beamline pass
through windows all the time to proceed to an experimental station,
and the time of flight from the window to the station is measured.
Furthermore, you may want to look up in your 60-year-old textbook the
discussion of Snell's law, where you will find an example of the
bending of light due to the change in speed both going into and
emerging from a plate of glass. By the way, this was discovered in the
1600's.


Another interesting terminology point is that Hank seems to confuse
"medium" with "reference frame", as though the air outside a window is
one reference frame, the window itself is another reference frame, and
the air inside the house is a reference frame.

****ing idiot....

Doesn't change the fact that you've confused "medium" with "reference
frame".


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)

Ah, well, here's another interesting thing. Henri seems to be arguing
that light at c+v AND light at c-v would converge to c upon entering a
medium, and thinks this has something to do with Maxwell's equations.

I didn't say that at all... you ****ing lieing moron, Draper.

Unification occurs as a result of an entirely different process (es)

Ah, so it has nothing to do with Maxwell's equations at all, does it?
It has to do with some new magic that you are positing. Demons or
dragons, hard to tell what. You don't know how it works or what it is,
you just say the effect "seems to be" so and so. Might as well say,
"None of what I say appears to be consistent with the laws of physics,
but what's really going on is that there are elves that change the
laws of physics below a threshold, so that what I say is really true,
but the elves make it appear otherwise."


In fact, Maxwell's equations say that light at c+v would go to (c+v)/n
(smaller than c+v) upon entering the medium, and light at c-v would go
to (c-v)/n (smaller than c-v, not larger than c-v) upon entering a
medium. Of course, upon leaving the medium, Maxwell's equations also
say that the light would resume at c+v and at c-v, respectively.

I just stated just that in my reply to bz...although in the case of VLD swirls,
I say (c+v)/n might not be reached before the light emerges from the other
side.
I also say that if light ever moves in a medium SUCH AS THAT DEFINED BY A
SWIRL, at any speed other than the natural Maxwellian one, it emits a VLD
equivalent of Cerenkov radiation and therefore loses some energy. This can
happen whether the light is slowing down or speeding up as a result of its
entering the swirl.

By some "entirely different process (es)", it appears.

Yes! It can speed up and lose energy at the same time....it's all part of the
cosmic redshift...

Whatever the hell the "cosmic redshift" is. Sounds like "very weak EM
frames" and "flat gravity". By any chance does it have anything to do
with pseudoscalar condensation or hypertrophic plasma polarization?


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

Well, aside from the fact that a diffraction grating *is* tied to
wavelength and not to frequency, that is. If Henri would look up
diffraction gratings in his 60-year old textbook, he would find that
out. That's how diffraction gratings work. The angle of displacement
of the first order line is specifically related to the ratio of the
wavelength to the grating spacing. This is demonstrated by the
experimental fact that two incident waves of two different velocities
(and different frequencies) but the same wavelength are scattered at
the same diffraction angle.

I know perfectly well how gratings work and have merely posed the question as
to what actually constitutes 'wavelength' in the case of a moving grating. Is
it the REAL or APPARENT 'distance between wavecrests' that determines the
diffraction angles?



Well, since the speed of light is measured to be c independent of the
motion of the observer, then there is no difference between real and
apparent wavelengths, is there?




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.

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.
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, a ground-based telescope and a Hubble telescope
I will throw this open to discussion now rather
than speculate further.

If you can provide any information about this I would be pleased to hear from
you draper...otherwise I will not waste my time on you again.

I didn't offer any information on this, and another poster has already
told you some observatories with data common to the Hubble. Certainly
you can look up some data. It is your research after all. You should
do some homework to support it.




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)

On Feb 14, 5:21 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:


Where are you going to find a *perfect* vacuum in this universe?
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space

Aha! Enter my 'Threshold density' concept.....

Below a certain threshold density...

What is the range of the Coulomb
force of Maxwell's equations ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb's_law

And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/j...bberwocky.html

Sue...

[snicker-snack]