HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 13:42:53 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
m:


It conflicts with the fact that some atomic emissions are VERY rapid
as are some absorptions.

I do understand that information theory suggests that some narrow
emission spectrum lines would require many cycles, perhaps even
billions, to establish the line width.

This is precisely why I said that 'I am told that it is useless to
speculate on things that can not be measured or described
mathematically'.

There are some conflicts in the information that make it 'senseless'
to speak of the actual 'size' of a photon, whereas they certainly
behave as if they have a wavelength that can be measured and a
frequency that can be measured and those are certainly related to the
energy and they travel at a well known velocity.

Photons possess their own 'intrinsic oscillations' the frequencies of
which are not related to those of generated EM waves like FM that are
merely a consequence of photon density variation.

There is NOTHING to support that assertion. You haven't even proposed
equations for such o-silly-ations.

.....don't need eqations yet....the model come first

Henri, if you can't write the equations describing the model, you don't
have a model, all you have is a dream.


I am not sure that anyone knows what your theory is now as it keeps
changing from day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute and second to
second.

It is still evolving.....but no one understands it anyway. George
tries hard...

Shape shifters are hard to identify. Most theories are constantly being
challenged but seldom need to change form. Your 'theory' is so amorphous
that trying to understand it is like trying to nail jello to a tree.

We know that photons possess 'spatial regularities'. These are what give
rise to the concept of 'photon wavelength' and allow single photons to
diffract.

I have not decided whether the pattern is caused by a standing wave in
the lump of stuff that photons cary with them or by a rotation of a
couple of opposite charges that self propagate losslessly initially at c
wrt their source.

When you stop playing imaginary games in your head and write some equations
that follow from your basic assumptions and THEN show that those equations
produce results that (1) match all known data and (2) can be used to
predict data that is different from data predicted by current theories---
then, and only then will you have a scientific theory that has a chance of
being tested and accepted.

Now, who is trying to go back 100 years?

Bob, a rod can be used to define an absolute spatial interval. Nothing
physicaly happens to a rod when it is moved..it is exactly the same
rod....

Yep. But it appears to have a different length when viewed from afar
than from close, when viewed from a moving frame than when viewed from
the same frame.

No it doesn't....that's part of the hoax..

The 12 inch ruler I have in my hand and the telephone pole in the front
yard appear to be exactly the same length right now. That is no hoax. It is
a matter of perspective.

The same is true about a moving meter stick. Its looking shorter is a
matter of perspective.


That rod can be taken anywhere anyhow and be used as a standard by
which other absolute 'lengths' can be assessed.

Absolutely. However your absolute length and mine may well appear to be
quite different.

On;y because you hav been sadly mislead by a group of serious hoaxers.

In science, hoaxes fail to match reality and quickly fall apart. Thousands
of scientists are busy, every day, trying to find flaws in the predictions
of relativity. The first one to find a better theory will get a Nobel
prize, so everyone is trying.


It also depends on the relative speed between the emitter and the
medium, and as long as the medium's movement is uniform, the relative
motion of the medium drops out and you are left with only the relative
speed between the emitter and the observer.

I'm not going to discuss what happens in the presence of a
mediium...it does not apply to light traveling through empty space..

Good, then we can just consider how waves behave and ignore the presence
or absence of a medium.



Yet you still have problems understanding it.

Bob, there is no universal and absolute aether...give it up...

You are the one that keeps bringing up an aether. I have said repeatedly
and in many different ways that there is no need to invoke the daemon
'aether' in order to understand the motion of waves.

what makes a 'wave' Bob?

Anything that can be described by the equations of wave motion. Each
'anything' has somewhat different properties, but all waves have certain
things in common such as having a frequency and an amplitude and a velocity
of propagation.


You, on the other hand keep insisting that c is the velocity wrt the
source but c+v_relative is the velocity of the light wrt the observer
where v_relative is the relative velocity of the source wrt the
observer. Which makes absolutely no sense when one is talking about
waves that obey Maxwell's equations rather than traveling through an
aether. Maxwell's equations depend on the properties of 'free space',
not a local ether traveling with the emitting source.

Maxwell assumed an aether.

And Einstein showed that no aether was necessary but Maxwell's equations
were still valid.

The two constants cannot be measured in truly empty space.

Of course not. 1) there is no truly empty space. 2) any equipment for
measurement and any observer would make space no longer truly empty. But
that is beside the point.

They can be measured with sufficient accuracy under different conditions so
that we can predict what they would be in truly empty space.

They have no
definition anyway.

That is incorrect. They have both theoretical and operational definitions.

Differently moving observers will get different answers at the same
point and instant .

Incorrect. Observers in inertially moving frames MUST get the same answers.


You even depend on an aether (you don't
call it that) but that is what you are invoking to 'equalize' the
velocities of the light so that it IS traveling at c when it is
detected. And you admit that it is traveling at c when detected because
otherwise we would see all kinds of weird multiple images of any stars
that are in orbits around other bodies. So, clearly, it is YOU that
believe in an aether.

Electron density variations in space are well established.
This is a possible cause of much of the unification.

Variations in electron density can not simultaneously slow down c+v waves
while speeding up c-v waves by the right amounts to leave both moving at c.

Both you and Ken Seto really DO need to take a boat ride sometime and
watch what happens to the waves emitted due to the boat's vibrations
as those waves travel ahead of the boat and astern of the boat. You
will see that the wavelengths are effected by the movement of the
boat.

The way they are generated is affected..but not the way they
subsequently travel. ...that's determined by properties of the water.

The wavelength that they display, as clearly visible upon the water, is
different for the waves emitted in the direction of forward travel (much
shorter) than those emitted in the opposite direction (much much
longer). After emission, they travel at a more-or-less constant velocity
[the velocity of waves upon water IS variable and depends on the
frequency and amplitude of the waves,

...and more importantly, the depth of the water...

That is certainly an important factor, but I was speaking of cases where
that complication is out of the picture....deep water conditions. I should
have made that clear. But again....

but that is beside the point and a minor
distraction which should be ignored in this discussion.]

Right. And particles don't need a medium. Neither do photons because
of their particle nature.

And because of their wave nature, they travel at a constant velocity,
as determined by the equipment of any observer, independent of the
motion of the source, without the need for a medium.

No Bob, my model explains the two aspects.
Photons are like minature traveling organ pipes.

In what way? Show me your equations.

Use your imagination.

My imagination doesn't give me YOUR equations. At best, it gives me my
equations.



--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:06:32 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:20:42 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...

George, what you are doing is trivial and primative.

Yes, they are trivial and primitive but those
two equations are the totality of your model.

I am way ahead of you.

ROFL, you haven't even appreciated the impact of
the difference between brightness and luminosity.
Your curves are totally screwed because of that.

It would make little difference even if the stars DID expand slightly.

For L Car, 12% radius and 26% area out of 33%
luminosity for K band, 5 times more than the
effect of the surface brighness change, it is
the dominant factor.

You obtained those figures using circular logic.

Nope, both the radius and luminosity come from
direct measurement. Remember both changes are
fractional.

Nope, as we discussed a few days ago, for a laser it
might produce an effect similar to a standing wave, but
you need to calculate it to find out, you won't get
anywhere guessing as it is going to be very complex.

I'm not guessing, The calculation is trivial.

You are guessing, you don't have an equation to combine
photons, and in fact you don't even have an equation for
the oscillatory part of a photon. You will need to do a
statistical summation over multiple photons of time-varying
phase relationship and you don't have the basic information
needed to do that.

I don't need it.

You do, or you cannot even predict that interference
will occur with a grating.

I have provided my equation.

No, you provided a diagram which assume a
wavelength, but since the wave nature of light
came from the solution of Maxwell's Equations
and those don't apply to ballistic theory, you
don't have an equation for a wave. Your diagram
and associated equation would be the next step
after that.

Maxwell's equations probably DO apply to BaTh.

Nope. Let's do it again: A single observer
measures the permeability and permittivity
of a small region of vacuum (a 'box').
Accoirding to Maxwell's Equatons, those
values determine the speed of light through
the box. Light from two sources, one at rest
wrt the observer and the other moving, passes
through the box. The light from both sources
must move at the speed given by the equations
regardless of the speed of the source.

That's because there is some kind of 'medium' present.
It may or may not be at rest wrt the measuring apparatus.

If the experiment could be carried out in purely empty space..ie., below the
WDT, the measured values would be those in the region of the apparatus itself.

There is no proof that diffrently moving observers at the same point would get
the same vaues for the constants.

They could explain why light
moves initially at c wrt its source.

Nope, suppose the moving source above is in
the box when the light is emitted. The speed
at emission must be c relative to the observer.

You are assuming the source carries with it a dielectric medium.
That is not a valid assumption.

Remember however that the values of the
two constants must be measured NEAR the source and at rest wrt it.

But the MEs don't mean much in space below the WDT.

Think about a coil of wire Henry. Pass a current
through the coil and it produces a magnetic field.
Remove the air from the coil and the field is still
there. Do you really believe the magnetic field
would cease to exist if you could create a better
vacuum? I don't think you can be serious, either
that or you don't understand what you are suggesting.

Removal of all 'matter' does not make 'empty space'. Fields themselves
constitute a medium...that's why I say there are regions of space where the
inverse square law breaks down and fields - whatever they are - become
fragmented and 'holed'..... like swiss cheese or foam polystyrene.
Light is 100% ballistic in those holes..

Those are entirely size and temperature driven.
Remove those effects and there is no residual
variation for ballistic theory.

Gas temperature falls during an expansion, George.

Conventional modelling includes the thermodynamic
effects of course. As an aside, you might be
interested to find out the thermal capacity of
the plasma.

You tell me.

It is negative

You mean the more energy it gets the lower its temperature. I suppose that is
possible but it really changes the definition of temperature somewhat.

Liar, you know that GPS clocks have to be offset
to work correctly Henry, exactly as predicted by
GR (and don't say ballistic theory says the same,
it doesn't, it predicts no change in the clock
frequency).

That's why the GR correction is a joke. It requires that the 'velocity
component' is a REAL PHYSICAL change...when we know it cannot be.

It is perfectly real Henry, proven many times
including by Ives and Stillwell as I have pointed
out before. It is of course geometrical in nature
rather than what you mean by 'physical' but the
geometry is still part of the physics.

George, SR simply doesn't work without fairies.

Sorry Henry, all you ned is Pythagoras and
and understanding of geometry.

Changing the geometry doesn't achieve anything.

It is nonsense from start to
finish. The only reason it has survived to this day is that until recently
there was no way to directly test it.....

Sagnac tests it directly and confirms the
postulate. Of course the postulate itself
comes straight from Maxwell's Equations as
you saw above which are derived from simple
experiments with coils and Leyden jars.

You seem to have suddenly discovered the signficance of Maxwell's equations.
You still have to realise that Maxwell used the conventional 'aether' as his
reference for speed.
All speeds are relative you know George and must always be specified relative
to something.

and a certain group had a vested
interest in turning Einstein into a veritable god..

Most physicists in the field are working to
replace it, look up "string theory".

yes..silly ..more fantasizing.
Mind you, I will go along with threee TIME and three MASS dimesions.


You are too clueless to understand it.

George, rods do not physically change when they experience a change in
speed.

Their proper length does not change, their
coordinate length does.

Don't use meaningless words like proper' ..

Try to find out what the word means, it is a
technical term that physicists use.

It means ABSOLUTE..but relativists are forbidden from using that word.

I can take a rigid rod anywhere, anyhow with the full knowledge that
it is exactly the same as it was before I left.

Do you dispute that?

Coordinate length does not change due to a change
in location in SR provided the velocity is
unchanged.

I'm not interested in what SR says.

Then don't waste my time asking questions
if you don't want to know the answer.

George




www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

bz wrote:
"T.M. Sommers" wrote in news:46d862fd$0$26701
:
bz wrote:

Ride in ship in heavy seas. Head into the waves. Measure the 'wavelength'
of the waves by comparing them with the length of the ship. Now turn the
ship around and travel with the waves. Again, measure the 'wavelength' of
the waves by comparing them with the length of the ship. How many crests
are there per ship length at any instant of time in each case?

You will find the 'wavelength' is much shorter when you are heading into
the waves.

Care to show the calculation? I think you'll find that there is
no significant difference.

I think we are thinking of rather different sized vessels.
I am thinking of smaller, higher speed vessels.

I was thinking of frigates, cruisers, and so forth. Normal
cruising speed is about 16 kts.

This is one reason that ships head into the wind in heavy seas.

Wind and waves do not generally have the same direction. At any
rate, modern ships tend to stick to their course and ignore wind
and waves (except when conducting flight ops).

Large ships can often do so.
Smaller, older ships don't have that luxury in heavy swells.

When ships do
head into the sea it is to avoid rolling over.

That is a good reason to avoid broaching.
I said "This is one reason that ships head into the wind in heavy seas."
I didn't claim I was giving the only reason or even the chief reason.

The bending moments on the hull are imposed on a shorter section and thus
less likely to break the ship in half. Also, the frequency of pitching is
opposed by the angular momentum of the ship, higher frequency, less
pitching experienced by the crew.

You haven't spent much time at sea, have you?

No,

My question was meant only in reply to the question of pitch and
crew comfort; it probably sounded snarkier that it was meant.
Pitch is the least uncomfortable motion; roll is much worse, and
corkscrewing as the ship heads diagonally across the seas is
worse than that. After a week of so of corkscrewing through a
monsoon you would consider mere pitching to be rock solid stability.

but I had a 2nd class radiotelegraph license with radar endorsement and
spent many hours on smaller freighters and tankers servicing their radio and
radar equipment in the mid 70's, as well as many hours on tow boats so I am
not totally unfamiliar with the subject even though I have not spent much
time at sea.

Neat. I could never copy code fast enough by hand to even
consider taking that test.

Have you have ever looked at the things the cargo master must take into
consideration when loading a ship?

Only in the most general terms. Navy ships are mostly empty space.

Ships CAN break in half, especially if the load is not properly distributed.
If the ship is in seas with a wavelength that is similar to the length of the
ship, the danger is increased. It has happened.

Making way into the wind tends to reduce that hazard.

As for calculations, if you are encountering waves that are traveling at 10
or 20 m/s (22 or 44 mph, 25 or 50 knots)[wave height ~9 meters for 25 knot
winds, fully developed seas], don't you think that a few knots of headway
into the wind would make a significant difference? The calculations are
somewhat complicated by the fact that the velocity of waves depends on the
frequency and the amplitude of the waves and ocean wave amplitudes are
somewhat chaotic. But I think you can see that 5 or 10 knots (4.3 or 8.7 mph)
speed into the waves would have a significant effect in seas caused by 25 or
50 knot winds.

I still don't see the ship seeing a different wavelength heading
into the sea or with it.

It is interesting how the fetch (distance wind has blown across the water)
effects the wave spectrum.

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources...apter16_04.htm

Thanks for the link.

But I think we are getting a bit far 'out to sea' from relativity.

73 AB2SB de N5bz

73 de AB2SB. I assume you know what BZ means.

--
Thomas M. Sommers -- -- AB2SB

"T.M. Sommers" wrote in
:

bz wrote:
"T.M. Sommers" wrote in news:46d862fd$0$26701
:
bz wrote:

.....
You haven't spent much time at sea, have you?

No,

My question was meant only in reply to the question of pitch and
crew comfort; it probably sounded snarkier that it was meant.

Hard to communicate 'tone' in straight text posting. It gets us all,
sometimes. No problem.

Pitch is the least uncomfortable motion;

More angular inertia because of the long moment arm, so the ship can't
pitch as fast as it can roll.

roll is much worse, and
corkscrewing as the ship heads diagonally across the seas is
worse than that.

Makes me feel green just to think about it.

After a week of so of corkscrewing through a
monsoon you would consider mere pitching to be rock solid stability.



but I had a 2nd class radiotelegraph license with radar endorsement
and spent many hours on smaller freighters and tankers servicing their
radio and radar equipment in the mid 70's, as well as many hours on tow
boats so I am not totally unfamiliar with the subject even though I
have not spent much time at sea.

Neat. I could never copy code fast enough by hand to even
consider taking that test.

speed printing. Usually copy on a mill, or now, on a computer.

Have you have ever looked at the things the cargo master must take into
consideration when loading a ship?

Only in the most general terms. Navy ships are mostly empty space.

And rather 'over engineered' so that they are still seaworthy, even with
some battle damage to structural members. On the other hand, some
freighters are just rust being held together with a few rivets and bailing
wire. I had a step break on me as I was climbing up the radar mast on a
ship.

Ships CAN break in half, especially if the load is not properly
distributed. If the ship is in seas with a wavelength that is similar
to the length of the ship, the danger is increased. It has happened.

Making way into the wind tends to reduce that hazard.

As for calculations, if you are encountering waves that are traveling
at 10 or 20 m/s (22 or 44 mph, 25 or 50 knots)[wave height ~9 meters
for 25 knot winds, fully developed seas], don't you think that a few
knots of headway into the wind would make a significant difference? The
calculations are somewhat complicated by the fact that the velocity of
waves depends on the frequency and the amplitude of the waves and ocean
wave amplitudes are somewhat chaotic. But I think you can see that 5 or
10 knots (4.3 or 8.7 mph) speed into the waves would have a significant
effect in seas caused by 25 or 50 knot winds.

I still don't see the ship seeing a different wavelength heading
into the sea or with it.

Imagine the ship is moving with the waves at exactly the same speed as the
waves, say 10 knots.
There is a crest at the bow and one at the stern.
The ship is one wavelength long. No pitching.

Now, the ship moves downwind at only 5 knots. Waves are passing us at 5
knots. Crashing over the stern, twice a minute. Pitching twice a minute.

Now we head into the wind at 10 knots relative to the waves. Our 'ground
speed' is zero knots. Waves crash over our bow 4 times a minute. Pitch
frequency is higher but ship pitches fewer degrees.

Now, we up our speed to 20 knots relative to the waves. Our 'true speed' is
10 knots. Waves crash over our bow 8 times a minute. Pitch frequency is
higher but ship pitches even fewer degrees.

Do you agree?

.....

73 de AB2SB. I assume you know what BZ means.

http://www.ominous-valve.com/acronyms.txt tells me that it means 'good
job'.
I guess I am lucky because those are my initials.


--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 23:08:38 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 13:42:53 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:


There is NOTHING to support that assertion. You haven't even proposed
equations for such o-silly-ations.

.....don't need eqations yet....the model come first

Henri, if you can't write the equations describing the model, you don't
have a model, all you have is a dream.

I write plenty of equations.


Shape shifters are hard to identify. Most theories are constantly being
challenged but seldom need to change form. Your 'theory' is so amorphous
that trying to understand it is like trying to nail jello to a tree.

We know that photons possess 'spatial regularities'. These are what give
rise to the concept of 'photon wavelength' and allow single photons to
diffract.

I have not decided whether the pattern is caused by a standing wave in
the lump of stuff that photons cary with them or by a rotation of a
couple of opposite charges that self propagate losslessly initially at c
wrt their source.

When you stop playing imaginary games in your head and write some equations
that follow from your basic assumptions and THEN show that those equations
produce results that (1) match all known data and (2) can be used to
predict data that is different from data predicted by current theories---
then, and only then will you have a scientific theory that has a chance of
being tested and accepted.

Bob, in case you are not aware, there is no current theory that tells us
ANYTHING about the nature of light as it travels through space.
....apart from mine of course....

The only current theories about light attempt to describe what happens when it
is observed.
You haven't a clue as to the nature of a single light quanta that is randomly
emitted from a remote atom in space. so stop being a pompous fool.


Yep. But it appears to have a different length when viewed from afar
than from close, when viewed from a moving frame than when viewed from
the same frame.

No it doesn't....that's part of the hoax..

The 12 inch ruler I have in my hand and the telephone pole in the front
yard appear to be exactly the same length right now. That is no hoax. It is
a matter of perspective.

The same is true about a moving meter stick. Its looking shorter is a
matter of perspective.

We happen to be an animal that possesses binocular vision and uses visible
light for communication. The angular difference between out two eyes is a
strong cue for distance. You have to multiply the angle by distance to get the
size Bob....so the ruler and the pole are certainly NO he same length...and WE
are aware of that...

Because light takes time to go from A yo B, we must be aware that what we see
is not necessarily real. You should learn the diffeences between REAL and
APPARENT images.

rod can be taken anywhere anyhow and be used as a standard by
which other absolute 'lengths' can be assessed.

Absolutely. However your absolute length and mine may well appear to be
quite different.

On;y because you hav been sadly mislead by a group of serious hoaxers.

In science, hoaxes fail to match reality and quickly fall apart. Thousands
of scientists are busy, every day, trying to find flaws in the predictions
of relativity. The first one to find a better theory will get a Nobel
prize, so everyone is trying.

Where can I claim mine?


Bob, there is no universal and absolute aether...give it up...

You are the one that keeps bringing up an aether. I have said repeatedly
and in many different ways that there is no need to invoke the daemon
'aether' in order to understand the motion of waves.

what makes a 'wave' Bob?

Anything that can be described by the equations of wave motion. Each
'anything' has somewhat different properties, but all waves have certain
things in common such as having a frequency and an amplitude and a velocity
of propagation.

Oh yeah!
What is the frequency of the teeth of a moving saw blade?
What is the current 'velocity' of Einstein's skullbone?

You, on the other hand keep insisting that c is the velocity wrt the
source but c+v_relative is the velocity of the light wrt the observer
where v_relative is the relative velocity of the source wrt the
observer. Which makes absolutely no sense when one is talking about
waves that obey Maxwell's equations rather than traveling through an
aether. Maxwell's equations depend on the properties of 'free space',
not a local ether traveling with the emitting source.

Maxwell assumed an aether.

And Einstein showed that no aether was necessary but Maxwell's equations
were still valid.

Oh rubbish...
Nobody has ever checked for differences between the values of the two constants
as measured at the same point by differently moving observers. It is just as
hard to achieve as any OWLS measurement.

The two constants cannot be measured in truly empty space.

Of course not. 1) there is no truly empty space. 2) any equipment for
measurement and any observer would make space no longer truly empty. But
that is beside the point.

It is vital.... and there is plenty of space that is near enough to being empty
for light to behave ballistically

They can be measured with sufficient accuracy under different conditions so
that we can predict what they would be in truly empty space....




They have no
definition anyway.

That is incorrect. They have both theoretical and operational definitions.

Differently moving observers will get different answers at the same
point and instant .

Incorrect. Observers in inertially moving frames MUST get the same answers.

Who said? Was it your mate Einstein?

Electron density variations in space are well established.
This is a possible cause of much of the unification.

Variations in electron density can not simultaneously slow down c+v waves
while speeding up c-v waves by the right amounts to leave both moving at c.

Bob, you are the one who has faith in Maxwell's equation....there's you
explanation...



No Bob, my model explains the two aspects.
Photons are like minature traveling organ pipes.

In what way? Show me your equations.

Use your imagination.

My imagination doesn't give me YOUR equations. At best, it gives me my
equations.



www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

bz wrote:
"T.M. Sommers" wrote in
:
bz wrote:

Pitch is the least uncomfortable motion;

More angular inertia because of the long moment arm, so the ship can't
pitch as fast as it can roll.

Actually, I think pitching is often faster than rolling. At
least that is how it seemed. Maybe it's just that point of
maximum roll, when you wonder, if only subconsciously, whether
the ship will ever be upright again, seems to go on forever.

but I had a 2nd class radiotelegraph license with radar endorsement
and spent many hours on smaller freighters and tankers servicing their
radio and radar equipment in the mid 70's, as well as many hours on tow
boats so I am not totally unfamiliar with the subject even though I
have not spent much time at sea.

Neat. I could never copy code fast enough by hand to even
consider taking that test.

speed printing. Usually copy on a mill,

That's how I learned. It is so easy: the sounds get wired
directly to your fingers; no thinking required. But with a
stick, at least for me, the sounds have to be translated into
letters before they can be written. Maybe with practice it
becomes just as automatic as with a mill.

Have you have ever looked at the things the cargo master must take into
consideration when loading a ship?

Only in the most general terms. Navy ships are mostly empty space.

And rather 'over engineered' so that they are still seaworthy, even with
some battle damage to structural members.

Plus they are overmanned, so there are plenty of people to do
maintenance, and there are machine shops and so on to do repairs.

On the other hand, some
freighters are just rust being held together with a few rivets and bailing
wire. I had a step break on me as I was climbing up the radar mast on a
ship.

Ouch.

Ships CAN break in half, especially if the load is not properly
distributed. If the ship is in seas with a wavelength that is similar
to the length of the ship, the danger is increased. It has happened.

Making way into the wind tends to reduce that hazard.

As for calculations, if you are encountering waves that are traveling
at 10 or 20 m/s (22 or 44 mph, 25 or 50 knots)[wave height ~9 meters
for 25 knot winds, fully developed seas], don't you think that a few
knots of headway into the wind would make a significant difference? The
calculations are somewhat complicated by the fact that the velocity of
waves depends on the frequency and the amplitude of the waves and ocean
wave amplitudes are somewhat chaotic. But I think you can see that 5 or
10 knots (4.3 or 8.7 mph) speed into the waves would have a significant
effect in seas caused by 25 or 50 knot winds.

I still don't see the ship seeing a different wavelength heading
into the sea or with it.

Imagine the ship is moving with the waves at exactly the same speed as the
waves, say 10 knots.
There is a crest at the bow and one at the stern.
The ship is one wavelength long. No pitching.

Now, the ship moves downwind at only 5 knots. Waves are passing us at 5
knots. Crashing over the stern, twice a minute. Pitching twice a minute.

Now we head into the wind at 10 knots relative to the waves. Our 'ground
speed' is zero knots. Waves crash over our bow 4 times a minute. Pitch
frequency is higher but ship pitches fewer degrees.

Now, we up our speed to 20 knots relative to the waves. Our 'true speed' is
10 knots. Waves crash over our bow 8 times a minute. Pitch frequency is
higher but ship pitches even fewer degrees.

Do you agree?

Sure, the frequency changes, but you said the wavelength changes,
too, and I don't see that.

--
Thomas M. Sommers -- -- AB2SB

"T.M. Sommers" wrote in
:

Imagine the ship is moving with the waves at exactly the same speed as
the waves, say 10 knots.
There is a crest at the bow and one at the stern.
The ship is one wavelength long. No pitching.

Now, the ship moves downwind at only 5 knots. Waves are passing us at 5
knots. Crashing over the stern, twice a minute. Pitching twice a
minute.

Now we head into the wind at 10 knots relative to the waves. Our
'ground speed' is zero knots. Waves crash over our bow 4 times a
minute. Pitch frequency is higher but ship pitches fewer degrees.

Now, we up our speed to 20 knots relative to the waves. Our 'true
speed' is 10 knots. Waves crash over our bow 8 times a minute. Pitch
frequency is higher but ship pitches even fewer degrees.

Do you agree?

Sure, the frequency changes, but you said the wavelength changes,
too, and I don't see that.

Remember, we started with the ship exactly one wavelength long.
If the ship is ever supported by more than one wave crest, ever has more
than one crest alongside, the wavelength has changed. So tell me, does it
change?

I am not sure that the effective wavelength DOES change in this case, but,
as you said, the frequency does change. And since the medium is not a 100
% accurate analogue for light waves, that is enough.

In the case of the wave created by the vibrations and motion of a boat,
the wavelength certainly does change. They are compressed ahead of the
boat, becoming the bow wave, they are stretched behind the boat, becoming
the wake.

So either a moving source or a moving observer DOES observe a Doppler shift
in waves on water.


Calculations surprised me when, in another article I posted this morning, I
found that it made a small difference in the observed frequency for sound
waves in air, depending on which is moving, source(&medium) or observer
(&medium).

If my math was correct, then the lack of such an asymmetry in Doppler
effect wrt light would be a clear indication that there is no aether.

I don't mind making mistakes because that is how I learn, but I prefer to
be right.

73 de n5bz

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 23:08:38 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
m:

On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 13:42:53 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:


There is NOTHING to support that assertion. You haven't even proposed
equations for such o-silly-ations.

.....don't need eqations yet....the model come first

Henri, if you can't write the equations describing the model, you don't
have a model, all you have is a dream.

I write plenty of equations.

Write the equations describing the model. Thousands of random equations
don't count.

Shape shifters are hard to identify. Most theories are constantly
being challenged but seldom need to change form. Your 'theory' is so
amorphous that trying to understand it is like trying to nail jello to
a tree.

We know that photons possess 'spatial regularities'. These are what
give rise to the concept of 'photon wavelength' and allow single
photons to diffract.

I have not decided whether the pattern is caused by a standing wave in
the lump of stuff that photons cary with them or by a rotation of a
couple of opposite charges that self propagate losslessly initially at
c wrt their source.

When you stop playing imaginary games in your head and write some
equations that follow from your basic assumptions and THEN show that
those equations produce results that (1) match all known data and (2)
can be used to predict data that is different from data predicted by
current theories--- then, and only then will you have a scientific
theory that has a chance of being tested and accepted.

Bob, in case you are not aware, there is no current theory that tells us
ANYTHING about the nature of light as it travels through space.
...apart from mine of course....

Your statement was closer to correct before you added the final line..

The only current theories about light attempt to describe what happens
when it is observed.

Feynman.

You haven't a clue as to the nature of a single light quanta that is
randomly emitted from a remote atom in space. so stop being a pompous
fool.

One of my favorite quotes, from "Illusions" by Richard Bach
"We teach best what we most need to learn."

Yep. But it appears to have a different length when viewed from afar
than from close, when viewed from a moving frame than when viewed from
the same frame.

No it doesn't....that's part of the hoax..

The 12 inch ruler I have in my hand and the telephone pole in the front
yard appear to be exactly the same length right now. That is no hoax. It
is a matter of perspective.

The same is true about a moving meter stick. Its looking shorter is a
matter of perspective.

We happen to be an animal that possesses binocular vision and uses
visible light for communication. The angular difference between out two
eyes is a strong cue for distance. You have to multiply the angle by
distance to get the size Bob....so the ruler and the pole are certainly
NO he same length...and WE are aware of that...

Still, they look the same length even though they aren't.

Because light takes time to go from A yo B, we must be aware that what
we see is not necessarily real. You should learn the diffeences between
REAL and APPARENT images.

I understand the difference.

rod can be taken anywhere anyhow and be used as a standard by
which other absolute 'lengths' can be assessed.

Absolutely. However your absolute length and mine may well appear to
be quite different.

On;y because you hav been sadly mislead by a group of serious hoaxers.

In science, hoaxes fail to match reality and quickly fall apart.
Thousands of scientists are busy, every day, trying to find flaws in the
predictions of relativity. The first one to find a better theory will
get a Nobel prize, so everyone is trying.

Where can I claim mine?

You first need to demonstrate that your theory is better. Fitting the
waveform of the flute is NOT a good demonstration that your theory is
better. Tacking on more and more ad-hoc 'fixes' is not a good demonstration
that your theory is better. Failure to publish the equations that describe
your theory is not a good demonstration that your theory is better.

Keep trying. You may be able to fix those problems.

Bob, there is no universal and absolute aether...give it up...

You are the one that keeps bringing up an aether. I have said
repeatedly and in many different ways that there is no need to invoke
the daemon 'aether' in order to understand the motion of waves.

what makes a 'wave' Bob?

Anything that can be described by the equations of wave motion. Each
'anything' has somewhat different properties, but all waves have certain
things in common such as having a frequency and an amplitude and a
velocity of propagation.

Oh yeah!
What is the frequency of the teeth of a moving saw blade?

The teeth of a moving saw blade can't be described by the equations of wave
motion although there are some wave like regularities and the movements of
the teeth can induce waves in materials being sawed.

What is the current 'velocity' of Einstein's skullbone?

Although part of the skull bone has some similarity to the shape of some
waves, and the skull has resonant frequencies, the skull, itself, is not a
wave and has no wavelike velocity.

You, on the other hand keep insisting that c is the velocity wrt the
source but c+v_relative is the velocity of the light wrt the observer
where v_relative is the relative velocity of the source wrt the
observer. Which makes absolutely no sense when one is talking about
waves that obey Maxwell's equations rather than traveling through an
aether. Maxwell's equations depend on the properties of 'free space',
not a local ether traveling with the emitting source.

Maxwell assumed an aether.

And Einstein showed that no aether was necessary but Maxwell's equations
were still valid.

Oh rubbish...
Nobody has ever checked for differences between the values of the two
constants as measured at the same point by differently moving observers.
It is just as hard to achieve as any OWLS measurement.

That is beside the point.

The two constants cannot be measured in truly empty space.

Of course not. 1) there is no truly empty space. 2) any equipment for
measurement and any observer would make space no longer truly empty. But
that is beside the point.

It is vital.... and there is plenty of space that is near enough to
being empty for light to behave ballistically

Oh rubbish...
No one has ever established that light behaves ballistic-ally.

They can be measured with sufficient accuracy under different conditions
so that we can predict what they would be in truly empty space....




They have no
definition anyway.

That is incorrect. They have both theoretical and operational
definitions.

Differently moving observers will get different answers at the same
point and instant .

Incorrect. Observers in inertially moving frames MUST get the same
answers.

Who said? Was it your mate Einstein?

The definition of an inertial frame.

Electron density variations in space are well established.
This is a possible cause of much of the unification.

Variations in electron density can not simultaneously slow down c+v
waves while speeding up c-v waves by the right amounts to leave both
moving at c.

Bob, you are the one who has faith in Maxwell's equation....there's you
explanation...



No Bob, my model explains the two aspects.
Photons are like minature traveling organ pipes.

In what way? Show me your equations.

Use your imagination.

My imagination doesn't give me YOUR equations. At best, it gives me my
equations.


Show YOUR equations.




--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 22:01:16 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:



rod can be taken anywhere anyhow and be used as a standard by
which other absolute 'lengths' can be assessed.

Absolutely. However your absolute length and mine may well appear to
be quite different.

On;y because you hav been sadly mislead by a group of serious hoaxers.

In science, hoaxes fail to match reality and quickly fall apart.
Thousands of scientists are busy, every day, trying to find flaws in the
predictions of relativity. The first one to find a better theory will
get a Nobel prize, so everyone is trying.

Where can I claim mine?

You first need to demonstrate that your theory is better. Fitting the
waveform of the flute is NOT a good demonstration that your theory is
better. Tacking on more and more ad-hoc 'fixes' is not a good demonstration
that your theory is better. Failure to publish the equations that describe
your theory is not a good demonstration that your theory is better.

Keep trying. You may be able to fix those problems.

You obviously aren't aware of the purposes and benefits of simulations.


Anything that can be described by the equations of wave motion. Each
'anything' has somewhat different properties, but all waves have certain
things in common such as having a frequency and an amplitude and a
velocity of propagation.

Oh yeah!
What is the frequency of the teeth of a moving saw blade?

The teeth of a moving saw blade can't be described by the equations of wave
motion although there are some wave like regularities and the movements of
the teeth can induce waves in materials being sawed.

Ther you go....To a moving observer, the top ot he saw blade will follow a
sawtooth wave pattern.

What is the current 'velocity' of Einstein's skullbone?

Although part of the skull bone has some similarity to the shape of some
waves, and the skull has resonant frequencies, the skull, itself, is not a
wave and has no wavelike velocity.

I didn't ask about its wavelike qualities. I said 'current velocity'....


And Einstein showed that no aether was necessary but Maxwell's equations
were still valid.

Oh rubbish...
Nobody has ever checked for differences between the values of the two
constants as measured at the same point by differently moving observers.
It is just as hard to achieve as any OWLS measurement.

That is beside the point.

It is not. It is fundamental to the whole argument.

The two constants cannot be measured in truly empty space.

Of course not. 1) there is no truly empty space. 2) any equipment for
measurement and any observer would make space no longer truly empty. But
that is beside the point.

It is vital.... and there is plenty of space that is near enough to
being empty for light to behave ballistically

Oh rubbish...
No one has ever established that light behaves ballistic-ally.

I have now.
....and how could it NOT travel ballistically, for instance between galaxies.


Incorrect. Observers in inertially moving frames MUST get the same
answers.

Who said? Was it your mate Einstein?

The definition of an inertial frame.

that's nonsense.




www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:06:32 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:20:42 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
....
No, you provided a diagram which assume a
wavelength, but since the wave nature of light
came from the solution of Maxwell's Equations
and those don't apply to ballistic theory, you
don't have an equation for a wave. Your diagram
and associated equation would be the next step
after that.

Maxwell's equations probably DO apply to BaTh.

Nope. Let's do it again: A single observer
measures the permeability and permittivity
of a small region of vacuum (a 'box').
Accoirding to Maxwell's Equatons, those
values determine the speed of light through
the box. Light from two sources, one at rest
wrt the observer and the other moving, passes
through the box. The light from both sources
must move at the speed given by the equations
regardless of the speed of the source.

That's because there is some kind of 'medium' present.

That's your assumption, all the equations tell
us is that the speed is the same for both sources.

It may or may not be at rest wrt the measuring apparatus.

If the experiment could be carried out in purely empty space..ie., below
the
WDT, the measured values would be those in the region of the apparatus
itself.

And each value would still be a single value so
there would still be a single speed for both
light sources.

....
Nope, suppose the moving source above is in
the box when the light is emitted. The speed
at emission must be c relative to the observer.

You are assuming the source carries with it a dielectric medium.

No, there is no assumption involved. The equations
dictate a single common speed for both sources.

....
Think about a coil of wire Henry. Pass a current
through the coil and it produces a magnetic field.
Remove the air from the coil and the field is still
there. Do you really believe the magnetic field
would cease to exist if you could create a better
vacuum? I don't think you can be serious, either
that or you don't understand what you are suggesting.

Removal of all 'matter' does not make 'empty space'. Fields themselves
constitute a medium...that's why I say there are regions of space where
the
inverse square law breaks down and fields - whatever they are - become
fragmented and 'holed'..... like swiss cheese or foam polystyrene.
Light is 100% ballistic in those holes..

You don't seem to understand the concept of a field.
A battery might give 9V when new and zero when flat.
The voltage still has a value of zero, and the same
is true of the electric field, it has a value
everywhere even if that value might be zero throughout
some region.

Those are entirely size and temperature driven.
Remove those effects and there is no residual
variation for ballistic theory.

Gas temperature falls during an expansion, George.

Conventional modelling includes the thermodynamic
effects of course. As an aside, you might be
interested to find out the thermal capacity of
the plasma.

You tell me.

It is negative

You mean the more energy it gets the lower its temperature. I suppose that
is
possible but it really changes the definition of temperature somewhat.

Indeed, I'm getting beyond my own knowledge of the
subject, just a point I noted in passing which I
thought might intrigue you, but it means the modelling
is complex, simple intuitive guesses are likely to
be quite wrong.

It is nonsense from start to
finish. The only reason it has survived to this day is that until
recently
there was no way to directly test it.....

Sagnac tests it directly and confirms the
postulate. Of course the postulate itself
comes straight from Maxwell's Equations as
you saw above which are derived from simple
experiments with coils and Leyden jars.

You seem to have suddenly discovered the signficance of Maxwell's
equations.

You brought them up and I just pointed out they
cannot apply to ballistic theory.

You still have to realise that Maxwell used the conventional 'aether' as
his
reference for speed.

I know of his beliefs but there is no aether in the
equations.

All speeds are relative you know George and must always be specified
relative
to something.

For Maxwell's Equations, the speed is relative to the
equipment which measures the constants, also know as
"the observer", which seems ludicrous but that's the
way the maths is.

and a certain group had a vested
interest in turning Einstein into a veritable god..

Most physicists in the field are working to
replace it, look up "string theory".

yes..silly ..more fantasizing.
Mind you, I will go along with threee TIME and three MASS dimesions.

Point is, all the work is aimed at proving Einstein's
work incomplete, your silly comment is counter to
reality.

You are too clueless to understand it.

George, rods do not physically change when they experience a change in
speed.

Their proper length does not change, their
coordinate length does.

Don't use meaningless words like proper' ..

Try to find out what the word means, it is a
technical term that physicists use.

It means ABSOLUTE..but relativists are forbidden from using that word.

Nope, "proper" means in the rest frame of the object
regardless of its speed relative to anything else
while "absolute" means in some unique or "preferred"
frame (typically an aether) regardless of the motion
of the object relative to that frame so they are
virtually opposites.

George