Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #373452

Re: A Particle Model of Light

Show all headers | View raw

Gary Harnagel to Anton Shepelev:

> > Gary Harnagel:
> >
> > > Shtyrkov   doesn't   give  us  that  equation.
> > > That's why I was asking about it.
> >
> > Yes, I have read it but haven't had time to  an-
> > swer  the  whole  post.  Shtyrkov calculates the
> > ether velocity using eqs. 7 and 8.
>
> There is no velocity variable in either  of  those
> equations.

The  orbital component of the ether wind velocity is
contained in beta_orb, which is there in eq. 8.  The
galactic  component  is  contained  in  beta_apx, on
which depends the parameter p of  eq. 8.   The  lead
phase  upsilon from eq. 8 is present in eq. 7, which
is the model of the ether drift effect.

> > What other equation do you want?
>
> One that explains how  velocity  was  obtained  in
> Figure 4 from the data in Figure 3.

By  measuring  the amplitude of the observed azimuth
alpha_obs and the phase difference  upsilon  between
the  observed  and actual azimuths, and substituting
them into eq. 8.  This having been perfomed for sev-
eral  dates, the ether wind orbital and galactic ve-
locities were calculated numerically in MathCAD.

> > > How can he get a speed from an azimuth  varia-
> > > tion?
> >
> > The  ether  wind "bends" the path of electromag-
> > netic waves just as a breeze wound bend the path
> > of a sound wave.
>
> Baloney.

Is  that  what you say for lack of reasonable objec-
tions?  Or did you dislike the word "bend"?  If  so,
might  "deflect" be more accurate?  The path remains
straight of course, but its direction changes.  I am
sorry if you understood me otherwise.

> > The  amount of this drift is proportional to the
> > component of the ether wind  orthogonal  to  the
> > radius-vector to the source, so the deviation of
> > the observed angle from the  actual  one  allows
> > one to calculate that component Ver of the ether
> > velocity:
> >
> >            sin(Aobs - Aact) = Ver/c .
>
> But beta = V_orbital/c

tan a ~ sin a ~ a for small angles a.

You mean the beta of Bradley's  stellar  aberration?
What does it have to do with the deflection of light
by  transvese  ether  wind?    Shtyrkov   introduces
beta_orb  and  beta_apx,  which  are  not related to
Bradley's beta because they depend solely on the or-
bital and galactic components of the ether wind.

> and there is NO aberration.

If  you  mean  Bradley's stellar aberration, then of
course it does not apply to a  geostationary  satel-
lite.   The  hypothetical  aberration  due  to ether
wind, however, does, and Shtyrkov tests this hypoth-
esis.

> > > Note  that 27 km/sec is outrageously large and
> > > conflicts with all other ether "measurements."
> >
> > In  Shtyrkov's  experiment  the  electromagnetic
> > wave  travelled largely above the atmosphere and
> > therefore outside the zone where  the  ether  is
> > entrained.
>
> Other experiments refute entrained ether.

What other experiments do you mean?  I know none.

> Look  at LLR experiments and NASA spacecraft posi-
> tion determination.  These completely  refute  any
> ether effects.

The  conditions  in LLR are different, namely -- the
source is not located where the  ether  wind  blows.
Have you analysed the reflexion of light by a mirror
moving  through  the  ether  and  applied  it  to  a
retroreflector?

I  don't know about "NASA spacecraft position deter-
mination" and you didn't provide any links.

> > > I'd have to see their data and a lot more, and
> > > Tom's  analysis places in the spurious catego-
> > > ry.
> >
> > Understandable.  How many experimenters  publish
> > their raw data these days?
>
> Irrelevant:
>
>    "Extraordinary   claims  require  extraordinary
>    evidence."
>
>                                  - Marcello Truzzi

Another unscientific objection, appealing to the au-
thority of pseudascientist Truzzi.  I think you mis-
interpret the phrase as a die-hard  reactionary  who
will impede scientific progress by encouraging prej-
udice in treating evidence.  A true  scientist  will
let  no bias muddle his mind and will judge evidence
according to its own value instead of  his  own,  or
others', prejudices.

If  "extraordinary results" will be dismissed as not
providing  "extraordinary  evidence"  the  necessary
corroboration  shall  never be allowed to accumulate
to an extraordinary level.  Therefore they  must  be
treated  fairly.  Any theory that takes advantage of
its monopoly is dangerous.

> You can't support an outrageous result obtained by
> saying,  "Well,  others don't present their data."
> That's just baloney.

I do not "support"  it  that  way,  but  simply  de-
mostrate  that  you  cannot  refute an experiment by
saying "Well, he did not publish his raw data."   If
you  require raw data of Shtyrkov and not of the ex-
perimenters with whose results you agree, you evince
prejudice and double standards.

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 14:49 +0300
  Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-26 04:38 -0800
    Re: A Particle Model of Light Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-26 15:06 +0000
    Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 21:57 +0300
      Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-26 13:17 -0800
        Re: A Particle Model of Light Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-27 12:15 +0000
          Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 15:40 +0300
            Re: A Particle Model of Light Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-27 12:41 +0000
        Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 20:11 +0300
          Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-27 14:32 -0800
            Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 22:05 +0300
              Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-02 16:24 -0800
              Re: A Particle Model of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-03 12:57 -0600
                Re: A Particle Model of Light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 13:26 -0800
              Re: A Particle Model of Light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 13:13 -0800
                Re: A Particle Model of Light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 13:21 -0800
        Re: A Particle Model of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-03 12:26 -0600
          Re: A Particle Model of Light Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-03 18:48 +0000
          Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 05:29 -0800
            Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 20:19 +0300
              Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 11:15 -0800
                Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 01:03 +0300
                Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 17:28 -0800
                Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 15:41 +0300
                Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 05:02 -0800
                Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 21:00 +0300
                Re: A Particle Model of Light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 01:04 -0800
                Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 18:45 +0300
                Re: A Particle Model of Light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 08:33 -0800
                Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 20:50 -0800
            Re: A Particle Model of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-05 19:50 -0600
              Re: A Particle Model of Light Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-06 15:33 +0000
                Re: A Particle Model of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-01-06 12:40 -0600
                Re: A Particle Model of Light Kathleen Winder <katwin@mcgatlin.org> - 2016-01-07 22:27 +0000
                Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 19:15 +0300
                Re: A Particle Model of Light Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-09 14:00 +0000
                Re: A Particle Model of Light Carmine Portacio <carpo@trilogybearing.org> - 2016-01-09 14:02 +0000

csiph-web