🚀 go-pugleaf

On 17 Nov, 18:29, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
> bz wrote:
> > As I have pointed out to Henri many times, (and perhaps to you),
> > 'extinction' requires a suspension of the laws of thermodynamics
>
> This is simply not true. Optical extinction is what makes eyeglasses and
> other lenses work.
>
> > it (1) reduces the entropy by 'increasing the ordering of the light'
> > passing through a region of space (this requires both an unknown mechanism
> > and a lot of energy)
>
> Your argument against c+v is bogus. One can easily construct a model in
> which the light interacts with the medium, transferring energy and
> momentum to the medium as required. This is just a minor variation on
> how classical electrodynamics models this process (without c+v of course).
>
> > (2) must take energy from fast light and pass it to
> > slow light to speed up the slow light. >
>
> Nonsense. The individual portions of a light ray can exchange energy and
> momentum with the medium, resulting in the light traveling at c/n
> relative to the medium, regardless of the light's initial speed. As long
> as the light path through the medium is significantly longer than the
> medium's extinction length.
>
> There are quite a few measurements for which extinction is negligible
> that refute ballistic theories that claim light is emitted with speed
> c+v. See the FAQ for references (more are cited in the new version
> coming soon).
>
> John Kennaugh said:
>
> > I will explain extinction to you.
>
> Your "explanation" is both confused and downright wrong. To have any
> hope of explaining anything, you must PICK ONE THEORY and stick to it
> throughout; you must also UNDERSTAND that theory. Then do the same for
> another theory, if appropriate. Intermixing two theories just confuses
> both you and your reader.
>
> For an accurate classical explanation, see: Born and Wolf,
> _Principles_of_Optics_.
>
> > The basic problem is that there is no independent verification of what the source is.
>
> Nonsense. There are several terrestrial experiments which refute
> ballistic theory, for which the source motion is completely known. And
> even for the observations of binaries, it is perverse to make such a
> statement. For instance, many of the binaries are now resolved into two
> mutually-orbiting stars using VLBI and other high-resolution instruments
> -- YOU are not living back when DeSitter made his observations.
>
> As for the subject of this thread: it simply is not possible to "get
> rid" of relativity. An intelligent person would STUDY it to learn its
> limitations, and then go look for exceptions and/or enhancements. Of
> course a number of physicists are doing just that....
>
> Tom Roberts

Yes Roberts Roberts but those physicists will kick you out of Einstein
criminal cult soon. So far you have somehow realized and often hint
that the future of physics is in the transition from the field concept
of light (light as CONTINUOUS structures) to Newton's particle model
of light (light as DISCONTINUOUS structures), although, according to
Einstein, this transition will be awful and will involve the
disappearance of all contemporary physics:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
physics."

However you have not realized yet that Newton's particle model is
INSEPARABLE from c'=c+v, the prediction of the emission (ballistic)
theory, and continue to "refute" this prediction. Cleverer hypnotists
in Einstein criminal cult are doing the opposite Roberts Roberts. They
have a project called "The Other Einstein" where the emission theory
is no longer refuted - rather, it is ADOPTED:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20279
Lee Smolin: "It is also disappointing that none of the biographers
mention the writings that lead John Stachel, the founding editor of
the Einstein Papers project, to speak of "the other Einstein."

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with
an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of
light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
circumstances."

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."

Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."

Pentcho Valev