On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:56:29 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"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.

Why do you cling to this nonsense George?
Maxwell's equations apply to a dieletric medium, which in turn provides the
reference for velocity.

Nobody has ever shown that the P&P constants have the same value when measured
by differently moving observers.

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.

Maxwell's equations don't apply in empty space.
The constant are likely to have a wide range of values...if it were possible to
measure them at all.

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.

the equations don't apply in empty space.


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.

George, enjoy your holiday...you are talking nonsense again.
Permittivty is not a measure of voltage. It is a measure of AC impedance. In
empty space, that impedance is virtually infiinity. Attempts to measure it by
introducing an apparatus will merely measure the impedance of the apparatus.,



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.

as is SR.


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.

They were never meant to...



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 as I pointed out above, nobody has ever shown that differently moving
observers get the same values...

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.

George, if time 'flows' at a RATE, there must be at least one other time
dimension.


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, when a rod is moved, it experiences NO physical changes. It is exactly
the same rod. If that rod is used as a reference for a spatial interval, it can
be used as just that under all circumstances.

Einstein's theory is such obvious bull**** that it beats me how anyone can
still be fooled by it.

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.

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:56:29 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"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.

Why do you cling to this nonsense George?

Because I know how maths works whereas you insist
on trying to inject irrelevant philosophical nonsense into it.

Maxwell's equations apply to a dieletric medium, ...

Then where does the speed of that medium relative
to the instruments appear in the equations?

Hint :- it doesn't.

which in turn provides the
reference for velocity.

Sorry Henry, you need to learn some maths.

Nobody has ever shown that the P&P constants have the same value when measured
by differently moving observers.

Don't try to duck the issue by changing the subject.
For _one_ observer, the speed given by the equations
for light has a single value so light from _two_ sources
in different states motion must move at the same speed.
That is an automatic consequence of the fact that we
can state the formulae in second order differential form
and is _incompatible_ with ballistic theory which requires
the light to move at different speeds.

Note also that this obvious result is also Einstein's
postulate, he said he derived SR from Maxwell's
Equations and that is how.

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

The equations give the speed wrt the instruments regardless
of what you might think of any physics. That's the point here,
the maths is unambiguous whether it is an accurate reflection
of reality or not. You need to get your head round that Henry,
you have been making the mistake of thinking Maxwell's
Equations require an aether for a decade now.

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.

Maxwell's equations don't apply in empty space.

Yes they do Henry, they are simply a set of eqautions.

The constant are likely to have a wide range of values...if it were possible to
measure them at all.

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.

the equations don't apply in empty space.

Yes they do, there are no terms in the equations
that are not applicable in a vacuum.

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.

George, enjoy your holiday...you are talking nonsense again.
Permittivty is not a measure of voltage.

I a talking of the field, not the permittivity. Try to keep
a grasp of the conversation.

It is a measure of AC impedance. In
empty space, that impedance is virtually infiinity.

Nope, the impedance is sqrt(permeability/permittivity)
or about 377 ohm.

Attempts to measure it by
introducing an apparatus will merely measure the impedance of the apparatus.,

Garbage.

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.

as is SR.

Pathetic.

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.

They were never meant to...

Fine, but you need to learn that and stop sometimes
claiming they do.

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 as I pointed out above, nobody has ever shown that differently moving
observers get the same values...

And as I point out, trying to change the subject doesn't
alter the maths, we are talking about a _single_ observer
measuring the speed form _two_ (or more) sources and
Maxwell's Equations only permit a single common speed
regardless of the speed of the source relative to the
observer. That was Einstein's postulate.

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.

George, if time 'flows' at a RATE, ...

Meaningless nonsense since "rate" is a function of time.

there must be at least one other time
dimension.

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, when a rod is moved, it experiences NO physical changes. It is exactly
the same rod. If that rod is used as a reference for a spatial interval, it can
be used as just that under all circumstances.

Yep, the proper length is unaffected.

Einstein's theory is such obvious bull**** that it beats me how anyone can
still be fooled by it.

I expect Pythagoras is beyond you too.

George

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:14:42 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:56:29 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:


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

Why do you cling to this nonsense George?

Because I know how maths works whereas you insist
on trying to inject irrelevant philosophical nonsense into it.

you mean, "I use logic".

Maxwell's equations apply to a dieletric medium, ...

Then where does the speed of that medium relative
to the instruments appear in the equations?

Hint :- it doesn't.

George, velocities must always be specified as relative to some kind of
inertial reference frame.
When Maxwell formulated his equations, nobody doubted the existence of an
absolute aether.


which in turn provides the
reference for velocity.

Sorry Henry, you need to learn some maths.

You need to learn how to apply logic.

Nobody has ever shown that the P&P constants have the same value when measured
by differently moving observers.

Don't try to duck the issue by changing the subject.

I gather this "changing the subject" approach has now replaced the "you don't
understand relativity" one....

For _one_ observer, the speed given by the equations
for light has a single value so light from _two_ sources
in different states motion must move at the same speed.
That is an automatic consequence of the fact that we
can state the formulae in second order differential form
and is _incompatible_ with ballistic theory which requires
the light to move at different speeds.

George, that is true in a medium like the Earth's atmosphere. In 'empty' space,
the equations are meaningless.

Note also that this obvious result is also Einstein's
postulate, he said he derived SR from Maxwell's
Equations and that is how.

well he also believed an absolute eather existed.

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

The equations give the speed wrt the instruments regardless
of what you might think of any physics. That's the point here,
the maths is unambiguous whether it is an accurate reflection
of reality or not. You need to get your head round that Henry,
you have been making the mistake of thinking Maxwell's
Equations require an aether for a decade now.

The two constants cannot be measured in truly empty space.



Maxwell's equations don't apply in empty space.

Yes they do Henry, they are simply a set of eqautions.

The constants don't have measureable values.


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.

George, enjoy your holiday...you are talking nonsense again.
Permittivty is not a measure of voltage.

I a talking of the field, not the permittivity. Try to keep
a grasp of the conversation.

It is a measure of AC impedance. In
empty space, that impedance is virtually infiinity.

Nope, the impedance is sqrt(permeability/permittivity)
or about 377 ohm.

That's the impedance of the field used to meassure the impedance.

Attempts to measure it by
introducing an apparatus will merely measure the impedance of the apparatus.,

Garbage.

You are entitled to your opinion..



...and as I pointed out above, nobody has ever shown that differently moving
observers get the same values...

And as I point out, trying to change the subject doesn't
alter the maths, we are talking about a _single_ observer
measuring the speed form _two_ (or more) sources and
Maxwell's Equations only permit a single common speed
regardless of the speed of the source relative to the
observer. That was Einstein's postulate.

No singlee observer has ever measured the OWLS from differently moving
sources...so your claim is not verified.

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.

George, if time 'flows' at a RATE, ...

Meaningless nonsense since "rate" is a function of time.

That's right.
I know this is hard.. but the slope of a hill is also specified as length/unit
length.
Similarly, for TIME to have a gradient, there must be a second tiem
subdimension.
It seems I'm the only person in the world who can understand this simple fact.


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, when a rod is moved, it experiences NO physical changes. It is exactly
the same rod. If that rod is used as a reference for a spatial interval, it can
be used as just that under all circumstances.

Yep, the proper length is unaffected.

Don't give it a stupid name George.
The absolute spatial interval occupied and defined by that rod does not change
in any way when the rod is moved from one inertial frame to another.

Einstein's theory is such obvious bull**** that it beats me how anyone can
still be fooled by it.

I expect Pythagoras is beyond you too.

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.

Henri Wilson wrote :
....
you mean, "I use logic".

Do you realize how such a dumb sentenche from *you*, could
kill by laugh half of humanity ?

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:14:42 -0700, George Dishman wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:56:29 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:

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

Why do you cling to this nonsense George?

Because I know how maths works whereas you insist
on trying to inject irrelevant philosophical nonsense into it.

you mean, "I use logic".

No, I mean you think that the personal beliefs of someone
who wrote an equation in some way alter the numbers it
will give. There is no logic in that attitude whatsoever.

Maxwell's equations apply to a dieletric medium, ...

Then where does the speed of that medium relative
to the instruments appear in the equations?

Hint :- it doesn't.

George, velocities must always be specified as relative to some kind of
inertial reference frame.

Yes, and since the speed is determined by the _measured_
values of the permittivity and permeability that go into the
equation

c = 1/sqrt(e_0 * u_0)

logic requires that the speed is relative to the instruments that
measured the values of e_0 and u_0.

When Maxwell formulated his equations, nobody doubted the existence of an
absolute aether.

That sttement shows very well how you fail to understand
the logic and instead substiute an irrelevant philosophical
consideration.

which in turn provides the
reference for velocity.

Sorry Henry, you need to learn some maths.

You need to learn how to apply logic.

See above, you need to learn how to separate science
from philosophy.

Nobody has ever shown that the P&P constants have the same value when measured
by differently moving observers.

Don't try to duck the issue by changing the subject.

I gather this "changing the subject" approach has now replaced the "you don't
understand relativity" one....

The point is that the speed of light from differently moving
sources given by c = 1/sqrt(e_0 * u_0) can only have one
value for a SINGLE observer, we are not discussing multiple
observers.

For _one_ observer, the speed given by the equations
for light has a single value so light from _two_ sources
in different states motion must move at the same speed.
That is an automatic consequence of the fact that we
can state the formulae in second order differential form
and is _incompatible_ with ballistic theory which requires
the light to move at different speeds.

George, that is true in a medium like the Earth's atmosphere. In 'empty' space,
the equations are meaningless.

Again you demonstrate your lack of understanding, the
equations determine the speed regardless of the
philosophical beliefs of anyone around at the time they
were writen. Logically, they either require the speed of
the light to be independent of the speed of the source
or one (or more) of the equations is wrong. There is no
logical path to requiring an aether.

Note also that this obvious result is also Einstein's
postulate, he said he derived SR from Maxwell's
Equations and that is how.

well he also believed an absolute eather existed.

I don't care what his beliefs were, the equations do
not contain any reference to, or need for, any
aether.

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

The equations give the speed wrt the instruments regardless
of what you might think of any physics. That's the point here,
the maths is unambiguous whether it is an accurate reflection
of reality or not. You need to get your head round that Henry,
you have been making the mistake of thinking Maxwell's
Equations require an aether for a decade now.

The two constants cannot be measured in truly empty space.

They don't need to be, they are linear hence the limit as
the density tends to zero is the same as the vacuum value.

It is a measure of AC impedance. In
empty space, that impedance is virtually infiinity.

Nope, the impedance is sqrt(permeability/permittivity)
or about 377 ohm.

That's the impedance of the field used to meassure the impedance.

No, it is the impedance of the environment into which
the signal is launched and the limit as the density tends
to zero is about 377 ohms.

Attempts to measure it by
introducing an apparatus will merely measure the impedance of the apparatus.,

Garbage.

You are entitled to your opinion..

The impedance of an antenna depends on the construction
and also the impedance of the space into which the signal is
coupled. Look up "Hertzian Dipole".

...and as I pointed out above, nobody has ever shown that differently moving
observers get the same values...

And as I point out, trying to change the subject doesn't
alter the maths, we are talking about a _single_ observer
measuring the speed form _two_ (or more) sources and
Maxwell's Equations only permit a single common speed
regardless of the speed of the source relative to the
observer. That was Einstein's postulate.

No singlee observer has ever measured the OWLS from differently moving
sources...so your claim is not verified.

The Sagnac experiment did exactly that, he rotated
the table at different speeds both clockwise and
anticlockwise and the result confirms the postulate,
the speed was the same for all rotations.

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.

George, if time 'flows' at a RATE, ...

Meaningless nonsense since "rate" is a function of time.

That's right.
I know this is hard.. but the slope of a hill is also specified as length/unit
length.
Similarly, for TIME to have a gradient, there must be a second tiem
subdimension.
It seems I'm the only person in the world who can understand this simple fact.

It is simple to understand, but who says time has a "gradient"
in terms of another time dimension?

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, when a rod is moved, it experiences NO physical changes. It is exactly
the same rod. If that rod is used as a reference for a spatial interval, it can
be used as just that under all circumstances.

Yep, the proper length is unaffected.

Don't give it a stupid name George.

I didn't give it the name, it has been the standard term
used since before you or I were born. You might as well
call "length" a "stupid name" for the distance between
two points, it has meaning only because it is the agreed
term within the English language.

The absolute spatial interval occupied and defined by that rod does not change
in any way when the rod is moved from one inertial frame to another.

You can call proper length the "absolute spatial interval"
if you like but you are simply out of line with everyone
else, and since "absolute" has a quite different meaning
in the context as it was used by Newton when talking
of "absolute space" and "absolute time", it will only
emphasise your ignorance of the correct terms.

George

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 00:20:23 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:14:42 -0700, George Dishman wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:56:29 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:

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

Why do you cling to this nonsense George?

Because I know how maths works whereas you insist
on trying to inject irrelevant philosophical nonsense into it.

you mean, "I use logic".

No, I mean you think that the personal beliefs of someone
who wrote an equation in some way alter the numbers it
will give. There is no logic in that attitude whatsoever.

George, I'm a mathematician. I know what maths does.


Then where does the speed of that medium relative
to the instruments appear in the equations?

Hint :- it doesn't.

George, velocities must always be specified as relative to some kind of
inertial reference frame.

Yes, and since the speed is determined by the _measured_
values of the permittivity and permeability that go into the
equation

c = 1/sqrt(e_0 * u_0)

logic requires that the speed is relative to the instruments that
measured the values of e_0 and u_0.

That's what I have been trying to tell you. It doesn't say anything about the
way light moves 'relative to the apparatus' anywhere but in the 'sphere of
influence' of the apparatus itself.

When Maxwell formulated his equations, nobody doubted the existence of an
absolute aether.

That sttement shows very well how you fail to understand
the logic and instead substiute an irrelevant philosophical
consideration.

Light generated in the immediate vicinity of the apparatus should initially
move at Maxwell's value of c wrt that apparatus. Light arriving from other
sources can have any value (wrt the apparatus) until it enters the 'sphere'.

which in turn provides the
reference for velocity.

Sorry Henry, you need to learn some maths.

You need to learn how to apply logic.

See above, you need to learn how to separate science
from philosophy.

Maybe you willl have learnt some of both after you have digested what I just
wrote.

Nobody has ever shown that the P&P constants have the same value when measured
by differently moving observers.

Don't try to duck the issue by changing the subject.

I gather this "changing the subject" approach has now replaced the "you don't
understand relativity" one....

The point is that the speed of light from differently moving
sources given by c = 1/sqrt(e_0 * u_0) can only have one
value for a SINGLE observer, we are not discussing multiple
observers.

........In the immediate vicinity of the apparatus....
Light emittd in Andromeda doen't give a hoot about you apparatus...

For _one_ observer, the speed given by the equations
for light has a single value so light from _two_ sources
in different states motion must move at the same speed.
That is an automatic consequence of the fact that we
can state the formulae in second order differential form
and is _incompatible_ with ballistic theory which requires
the light to move at different speeds.

George, that is true in a medium like the Earth's atmosphere. In 'empty' space,
the equations are meaningless.

Again you demonstrate your lack of understanding, the
equations determine the speed regardless of the
philosophical beliefs of anyone around at the time they
were writen. Logically, they either require the speed of
the light to be independent of the speed of the source
or one (or more) of the equations is wrong. There is no
logical path to requiring an aether.

George, you miss the whole point.
Attempts to measure the two constants in empty space merely alter the status of
that space to something that is NOT empty.
All you will achieve is the value of the constants in the apparatus itself.


well he also believed an absolute eather existed.

I don't care what his beliefs were, the equations do
not contain any reference to, or need for, any
aether.

George, any use of the term 'speed' WITHOUT a reference shows the complete
ignorance of whoever uttered it.



The two constants cannot be measured in truly empty space.

They don't need to be, they are linear hence the limit as
the density tends to zero is the same as the vacuum value.

George, it would be nice if Maxwell's equation DOES explain why light moves
initially at c wrt its source. Maybe it does..right down to the atomic
level...that's good....

BUT IT DOESN'T TELL US ANYTHING ABOUT THE SPEED OF REMOTE LIGHT RELATIVE TO THE
MEASURING APPARATUS.

It is a measure of AC impedance. In
empty space, that impedance is virtually infiinity.

Nope, the impedance is sqrt(permeability/permittivity)
or about 377 ohm.

That's the impedance of the field used to meassure the impedance.

No, it is the impedance of the environment into which
the signal is launched and the limit as the density tends
to zero is about 377 ohms.

....and it is measured essentially by setting up both electric and magnetic
fields in the space being measured. That immediately alters the space....moreso
if 'empty' space is the subject.

Attempts to measure it by
introducing an apparatus will merely measure the impedance of the apparatus.,

Garbage.

You are entitled to your opinion..

The impedance of an antenna depends on the construction
and also the impedance of the space into which the signal is
coupled. Look up "Hertzian Dipole".

We're discussing the impedance of 'empty space'.

...and as I pointed out above, nobody has ever shown that differently moving
observers get the same values...

And as I point out, trying to change the subject doesn't
alter the maths, we are talking about a _single_ observer
measuring the speed form _two_ (or more) sources and
Maxwell's Equations only permit a single common speed
regardless of the speed of the source relative to the
observer. That was Einstein's postulate.

No singlee observer has ever measured the OWLS from differently moving
sources...so your claim is not verified.

The Sagnac experiment did exactly that, he rotated
the table at different speeds both clockwise and
anticlockwise and the result confirms the postulate,
the speed was the same for all rotations.




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

George, if time 'flows' at a RATE, ...

Meaningless nonsense since "rate" is a function of time.

That's right.
I know this is hard.. but the slope of a hill is also specified as length/unit
length.
Similarly, for TIME to have a gradient, there must be a second tiem
subdimension.
It seems I'm the only person in the world who can understand this simple fact.

It is simple to understand, but who says time has a "gradient"
in terms of another time dimension?

It should be obvious that TIME moves ...and it moves at 1 second per second....
This is analogous to saying a person walking up a 45 degree slope covers 1
metre (up) per metre (horizontal).

Try defining the slope of a hill with only one space dimension George....


Yep, the proper length is unaffected.

Don't give it a stupid name George.

I didn't give it the name, it has been the standard term
used since before you or I were born. You might as well
call "length" a "stupid name" for the distance between
two points, it has meaning only because it is the agreed
term within the English language.

The absolute spatial interval occupied and defined by that rod does not change
in any way when the rod is moved from one inertial frame to another.

You can call proper length the "absolute spatial interval"
if you like but you are simply out of line with everyone
else, and since "absolute" has a quite different meaning
in the context as it was used by Newton when talking
of "absolute space" and "absolute time", it will only
emphasise your ignorance of the correct terms.

George, it gives me considerable satisfaction to be out of line with nearly
everyone else...

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.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 00:20:23 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:14:42 -0700, George Dishman
wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:56:29 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

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

Why do you cling to this nonsense George?

Because I know how maths works whereas you insist
on trying to inject irrelevant philosophical nonsense into it.

you mean, "I use logic".

No, I mean you think that the personal beliefs of someone
who wrote an equation in some way alter the numbers it
will give. There is no logic in that attitude whatsoever.

George, I'm a mathematician.

Hah, no you aren't Henry, you couldn't even
write down the differential form for speed
equalisation, I've had to do it for you.

I know what maths does.

I doubt it.

Then where does the speed of that medium relative
to the instruments appear in the equations?

Hint :- it doesn't.

George, velocities must always be specified as relative to some kind of
inertial reference frame.

Yes, and since the speed is determined by the _measured_
values of the permittivity and permeability that go into the
equation

c = 1/sqrt(e_0 * u_0)

logic requires that the speed is relative to the instruments that
measured the values of e_0 and u_0.

That's what I have been trying to tell you. It doesn't say anything about
the
way light moves 'relative to the apparatus' anywhere but in the 'sphere of
influence' of the apparatus itself.

Then you don't know anything about maths. What do
you think the subscript "_0" means?

When Maxwell formulated his equations, nobody doubted the existence of
an
absolute aether.

That sttement shows very well how you fail to understand
the logic and instead substiute an irrelevant philosophical
consideration.

Light generated in the immediate vicinity of the apparatus should
initially
move at Maxwell's value of c wrt that apparatus. Light arriving from other
sources can have any value (wrt the apparatus) until it enters the
'sphere'.

That would be true if I had omitted the "_0". Suppose
e and/or u varies in diferent regions of space (not
unreasonable for example if the ISM density). In that
case the speed also varies from place to place, but
the maths still requires that the light from sources
with different motions passing each other at any
location still has the same speed applicable to that
location. The equations do not permit the motion of
the source to influence the speed of the light they
emit which is why SR follows directly from Maxwell's
Equations and they are incompatbible with ballistic
theory.

which in turn provides the
reference for velocity.

Sorry Henry, you need to learn some maths.

You need to learn how to apply logic.

See above, you need to learn how to separate science
from philosophy.

Maybe you willl have learnt some of both after you have digested what I
just
wrote.

You have merely confirmed my impression that you
cannot cope with schoolboy-level maths.

Nobody has ever shown that the P&P constants have the same value when
measured
by differently moving observers.

Don't try to duck the issue by changing the subject.

I gather this "changing the subject" approach has now replaced the "you
don't
understand relativity" one....

The point is that the speed of light from differently moving
sources given by c = 1/sqrt(e_0 * u_0) can only have one
value for a SINGLE observer, we are not discussing multiple
observers.

.......In the immediate vicinity of the apparatus....
Light emittd in Andromeda doen't give a hoot about you apparatus...

Sorry Henry, you need to learn some basic maths. For
any _single_ observer, light has a _single_ speed
regardless of the speed of the source according to
Maxwell's Equations _regardless_ of where it is
emitted. You can argue that M.E. are not valid but
you cannot say they can be compatible with ballistic
theory.

For _one_ observer, the speed given by the equations
for light has a single value so light from _two_ sources
in different states motion must move at the same speed.
That is an automatic consequence of the fact that we
can state the formulae in second order differential form
and is _incompatible_ with ballistic theory which requires
the light to move at different speeds.

George, that is true in a medium like the Earth's atmosphere. In 'empty'
space,
the equations are meaningless.

Again you demonstrate your lack of understanding, the
equations determine the speed regardless of the
philosophical beliefs of anyone around at the time they
were writen. Logically, they either require the speed of
the light to be independent of the speed of the source
or one (or more) of the equations is wrong. There is no
logical path to requiring an aether.

George, you miss the whole point.
Attempts to measure the two constants in empty space merely alter the
status of
that space to something that is NOT empty.
All you will achieve is the value of the constants in the apparatus
itself.

Henry, you miss the whole point. No matter what
value you get, it is common to differently moving
sources hence incompatible with ballistic theory.

well he also believed an absolute eather existed.

I don't care what his beliefs were, the equations do
not contain any reference to, or need for, any
aether.

George, any use of the term 'speed' WITHOUT a reference shows the complete
ignorance of whoever uttered it.

That is not true, but it is too subtle to explain
to you. For the moment simply realise that Maxwell's
Equations define a speed relative to the observer.

The two constants cannot be measured in truly empty space.

They don't need to be, they are linear hence the limit as
the density tends to zero is the same as the vacuum value.

George, it would be nice if Maxwell's equation DOES explain why light
moves
initially at c wrt its source. Maybe it does..right down to the atomic
level...that's good....

BUT IT DOESN'T TELL US ANYTHING ABOUT THE SPEED OF REMOTE LIGHT RELATIVE
TO THE
MEASURING APPARATUS.

Wrong, it says it is 1/sqrt(e * u) relative to the
apparatus, or 1/sqrt(e_0 * u_0) if there is no
matter in the region.

It is a measure of AC impedance. In
empty space, that impedance is virtually infiinity.

Nope, the impedance is sqrt(permeability/permittivity)
or about 377 ohm.

That's the impedance of the field used to meassure the impedance.

No, it is the impedance of the environment into which
the signal is launched and the limit as the density tends
to zero is about 377 ohms.

...and it is measured essentially by setting up both electric and magnetic
fields in the space being measured. That immediately alters the space

Nope, it doesn't introduce any charges into the space
so none of the parameters of the equation is changed.

....moreso
if 'empty' space is the subject.

Yes, I am describing the vacuum solution of
course since I used "_0" as the subscript.

Attempts to measure it by
introducing an apparatus will merely measure the impedance of the
apparatus.,

Garbage.

You are entitled to your opinion..

The impedance of an antenna depends on the construction
and also the impedance of the space into which the signal is
coupled. Look up "Hertzian Dipole".

We're discussing the impedance of 'empty space'.

Yes Henry, look it up.

...and as I pointed out above, nobody has ever shown that
differently moving
observers get the same values...

And as I point out, trying to change the subject doesn't
alter the maths, we are talking about a _single_ observer
measuring the speed form _two_ (or more) sources and
Maxwell's Equations only permit a single common speed
regardless of the speed of the source relative to the
observer. That was Einstein's postulate.

No singlee observer has ever measured the OWLS from differently moving
sources...so your claim is not verified.

The Sagnac experiment did exactly that, he rotated
the table at different speeds both clockwise and
anticlockwise and the result confirms the postulate,
the speed was the same for all rotations.



I see you have no answer so I assume you grasp
the point.

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

George, if time 'flows' at a RATE, ...

Meaningless nonsense since "rate" is a function of time.

That's right.
I know this is hard.. but the slope of a hill is also specified as
length/unit
length.
Similarly, for TIME to have a gradient, there must be a second tiem
subdimension.
It seems I'm the only person in the world who can understand this simple
fact.

It is simple to understand, but who says time has a "gradient"
in terms of another time dimension?

It should be obvious that TIME moves ...and it moves at 1 second per
second....

Nonsense, time is like the X scale of a graph. Your
statement is equivalent to saying a 2D plot requires
a third dimension 'z' because X increases at one inch
per inch.

This is analogous to saying a person walking up a 45 degree slope covers 1
metre (up) per metre (horizontal).

Try defining the slope of a hill with only one space dimension George....

Try proving a ruler is two-dimensonal because it
increases at one inch per inch, you can do it with
that sort of "logic" Henry.

Yep, the proper length is unaffected.

Don't give it a stupid name George.

I didn't give it the name, it has been the standard term
used since before you or I were born. You might as well
call "length" a "stupid name" for the distance between
two points, it has meaning only because it is the agreed
term within the English language.

The absolute spatial interval occupied and defined by that rod does not
change
in any way when the rod is moved from one inertial frame to another.

You can call proper length the "absolute spatial interval"
if you like but you are simply out of line with everyone
else, and since "absolute" has a quite different meaning
in the context as it was used by Newton when talking
of "absolute space" and "absolute time", it will only
emphasise your ignorance of the correct terms.

George, it gives me considerable satisfaction to be out of line with
nearly
everyone else...

Then why don't you post in Welsh, or perhaps use the
word "speed" when you mean "weight", it would be as
sane an approach as you are currently adopting.

George

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:48:22 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


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

logic requires that the speed is relative to the instruments that
measured the values of e_0 and u_0.

That's what I have been trying to tell you. It doesn't say anything about
the
way light moves 'relative to the apparatus' anywhere but in the 'sphere of
influence' of the apparatus itself.

Then you don't know anything about maths. What do
you think the subscript "_0" means?

But I'm telling you, e_0 cannot be measured....

When Maxwell formulated his equations, nobody doubted the existence of
an
absolute aether.

That sttement shows very well how you fail to understand
the logic and instead substiute an irrelevant philosophical
consideration.

Light generated in the immediate vicinity of the apparatus should
initially
move at Maxwell's value of c wrt that apparatus. Light arriving from other
sources can have any value (wrt the apparatus) until it enters the
'sphere'.

That would be true if I had omitted the "_0". Suppose
e and/or u varies in diferent regions of space (not
unreasonable for example if the ISM density). In that
case the speed also varies from place to place, but
the maths still requires that the light from sources
with different motions passing each other at any
location still has the same speed applicable to that
location. The equations do not permit the motion of
the source to influence the speed of the light they
emit which is why SR follows directly from Maxwell's
Equations and they are incompatbible with ballistic
theory.

George, my theory says that below the WDT, there is no clear e or u and
Maxwell's equations don't hold.




The point is that the speed of light from differently moving
sources given by c = 1/sqrt(e_0 * u_0) can only have one
value for a SINGLE observer, we are not discussing multiple
observers.

.......In the immediate vicinity of the apparatus....
Light emittd in Andromeda doen't give a hoot about you apparatus...

Sorry Henry, you need to learn some basic maths. For
any _single_ observer, light has a _single_ speed
regardless of the speed of the source according to
Maxwell's Equations _regardless_ of where it is
emitted. You can argue that M.E. are not valid but
you cannot say they can be compatible with ballistic
theory.

George, starlight is not automatically adjusted to travel at c wrt little
planet earth.
It initially moves at c wrt its source.


George, you miss the whole point.
Attempts to measure the two constants in empty space merely alter the
status of
that space to something that is NOT empty.
All you will achieve is the value of the constants in the apparatus
itself.

Henry, you miss the whole point. No matter what
value you get, it is common to differently moving
sources hence incompatible with ballistic theory.

Never proven...that is just a stupid postulate.



George, any use of the term 'speed' WITHOUT a reference shows the complete
ignorance of whoever uttered it.

That is not true, but it is too subtle to explain
to you.

I gather you are refereing to 'Lorentz invariance', a direct consequence of
aether theory.
There isn't any aether George.

For the moment simply realise that Maxwell's
Equations define a speed relative to the observer.

It defines a speed relative to the apparatus that measures the constants.
Nobody has checked whether differently moving apparatus get the same answer at
the same point. The required accuracy is not possible.

The two constants cannot be measured in truly empty space.

They don't need to be, they are linear hence the limit as
the density tends to zero is the same as the vacuum value.

George, it would be nice if Maxwell's equation DOES explain why light
moves
initially at c wrt its source. Maybe it does..right down to the atomic
level...that's good....

BUT IT DOESN'T TELL US ANYTHING ABOUT THE SPEED OF REMOTE LIGHT RELATIVE
TO THE
MEASURING APPARATUS.

Wrong, it says it is 1/sqrt(e * u) relative to the
apparatus, or 1/sqrt(e_0 * u_0) if there is no
matter in the region.

there is always matter present...the apparatus...and there are always fields
present IN the apparatus. The apparatus essentially measures itself....and just
maybe comes up with an explanation of why light initially moves at c wrt its
source.


No, it is the impedance of the environment into which
the signal is launched and the limit as the density tends
to zero is about 377 ohms.

...and it is measured essentially by setting up both electric and magnetic
fields in the space being measured. That immediately alters the space

Nope, it doesn't introduce any charges into the space
so none of the parameters of the equation is changed.

Of course it alters the space.

....moreso
if 'empty' space is the subject.

Yes, I am describing the vacuum solution of
course since I used "_0" as the subscript.

Below the WDT, even fields contain 'holes'. the inverse square law breaks down.


The impedance of an antenna depends on the construction
and also the impedance of the space into which the signal is
coupled. Look up "Hertzian Dipole".

We're discussing the impedance of 'empty space'.

Yes Henry, look it up.

It is infinite....but cannot be measured....


It is simple to understand, but who says time has a "gradient"
in terms of another time dimension?

It should be obvious that TIME moves ...and it moves at 1 second per
second....

Nonsense, time is like the X scale of a graph. Your
statement is equivalent to saying a 2D plot requires
a third dimension 'z' because X increases at one inch
per inch.

This is analogous to saying a person walking up a 45 degree slope covers 1
metre (up) per metre (horizontal).

Try defining the slope of a hill with only one space dimension George....

Try proving a ruler is two-dimensonal because it
increases at one inch per inch, you can do it with
that sort of "logic" Henry.

That is not the same, george. I'm refering to a gradient...a relation between
TWO like dimensions.



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.

On 17 Sep, 01:30, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:48:22 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
logic requires that the speed is relative to the instruments that
measured the values of e_0 and u_0.

That's what I have been trying to tell you. It doesn't say anything about the
way light moves 'relative to the apparatus' anywhere but in the 'sphere of
influence' of the apparatus itself.

Then you don't know anything about maths. What do
you think the subscript "_0" means?

But I'm telling you, e_0 cannot be measured....

And I am ignoring you because the equations are linear
hence e_0 is the limiting value as the density tends
to zero so your "threshold" nonsense is irrelevant.

When Maxwell formulated his equations, nobody doubted the existence of
an
absolute aether.

That sttement shows very well how you fail to understand
the logic and instead substiute an irrelevant philosophical
consideration.

Light generated in the immediate vicinity of the apparatus should
initially
move at Maxwell's value of c wrt that apparatus. Light arriving from other
sources can have any value (wrt the apparatus) until it enters the
'sphere'.

That would be true if I had omitted the "_0". Suppose
e and/or u varies in diferent regions of space (not
unreasonable for example if the ISM density). In that
case the speed also varies from place to place, but
the maths still requires that the light from sources
with different motions passing each other at any
location still has the same speed applicable to that
location. The equations do not permit the motion of
the source to influence the speed of the light they
emit which is why SR follows directly from Maxwell's
Equations and they are incompatbible with ballistic
theory.

George, my theory says that below the WDT, there is no clear e or u and
Maxwell's equations don't hold.

So you say below th threshold they don't hold and
I have shown you that if they do hold (i.e. above
your threshold) then they are not compatible with
ballistic theory. You seem to be simply agreeing
with me, Maxwell's Equations are not usable in
ballistic theory.

Presumably you agree that above the threshold SR
applies.

The point is that the speed of light from differently moving
sources given by c = 1/sqrt(e_0 * u_0) can only have one
value for a SINGLE observer, we are not discussing multiple
observers.

.......In the immediate vicinity of the apparatus....
Light emittd in Andromeda doen't give a hoot about you apparatus...

Sorry Henry, you need to learn some basic maths. For
any _single_ observer, light has a _single_ speed
regardless of the speed of the source according to
Maxwell's Equations _regardless_ of where it is
emitted. You can argue that M.E. are not valid but
you cannot say they can be compatible with ballistic
theory.

George, starlight is not automatically adjusted to travel at c wrt little
planet earth.

According to your modification to ballistic theory,
that is exactly what happens, otherwise De Sitter's
argument holds good.

It initially moves at c wrt its source.

Sure, that's what SR says.

George, you miss the whole point.
Attempts to measure the two constants in empty space merely alter the
status of
that space to something that is NOT empty.
All you will achieve is the value of the constants in the apparatus
itself.

Henry, you miss the whole point. No matter what
value you get, it is common to differently moving
sources hence incompatible with ballistic theory.

Never proven...that is just a stupid postulate.

Try to focus on the actual conversation and not
just trot out your tired old mantras every time
your hear some trigger phrase Henry, we are
talking about Maxwell's Equations. No matter
what values you use for e and u, you get a
single speed hence they are incompatible with
any model that requires variable speed at the
same location.

George, any use of the term 'speed' WITHOUT a reference shows the complete
ignorance of whoever uttered it.

That is not true, but it is too subtle to explain
to you.

I gather you are refereing to 'Lorentz invariance', a direct consequence of
aether theory.
There isn't any aether George.

For the moment simply realise that Maxwell's
Equations define a speed relative to the observer.

It defines a speed relative to the apparatus that measures the constants.

Exactly or "the observer" as scientists call that
apparatus.

Nobody has checked whether differently moving apparatus get the same answer at
the same point. The required accuracy is not possible.

Don't try to change the subject Henry, we are
considering _one_ observer.

The two constants cannot be measured in truly empty space.

They don't need to be, they are linear hence the limit as
the density tends to zero is the same as the vacuum value.

George, it would be nice if Maxwell's equation DOES expla