Re: How can DHRs be This Stupid?

From: Henri Wilson (H_at_..(Henri)
Date: 09/15/04 

Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 01:41:24 GMT

On 13 Sep 2004 21:22:15 -0700, xxein@bellsouth.net (xxein) wrote:

>"Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<i6V0d.5422$572.58002535@news-text.cableinet.net>...
>> "xxein" <xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:cce403e3.0409111900.1452f0a6@posting.google.com...
>> | "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:<Kog0d.4239$pi3.42393635@news-text.cableinet.net>...
>> | > "xxein" <xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> | > news:cce403e3.0409091940.b4da101@posting.google.com...
>> | > | Robert <H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message
>> news:<p5ldj0d52i0gigspfduksdnpfdpjfuld2t@4ax.com>...
>> | > | > On 1 Sep 2004 21:16:24 -0700, xxein@bellsouth.net (xxein) wrote:
>> | > | >
>> | > | > >"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
>> news:<4135c9d3$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>...
>> | > | > >> "Igor" <thoovler@excite.com> wrote in message
>> | > | > >> news:d434b6c6.0408311839.7b0f11c3@posting.google.com...
>> | > | > >> > h@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message
>> news:<toq9j0dkcl8l6tk2cl9sej20kdh1gk7rok@4ax.com>...
>> | > | > >> > > Relativity says that all the light from every star in the
>> | > universe just
>> | > happens
>> | > | > >> > > to have been emitted at the right velocity such that if and
>> when
>> | > it one
>> | > day
>> | > | > >> > > reaches planet Earth, it will be traveling at exactly 'c'.
>> | > | > >> > >
>> | > | > >> > > Isn't that the most illogical, nonsensical proposal you have
>> ever
>> heard?
>> | > | > >> > >
>> | > | > >> > >
>> | > | > >> > > Henri Wilson.
>> | > | > >> > > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>> | > | > >> > >
>> | > | > >> > > See proof that light speed is source dependent.
>> | > | > >> > > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
>> | > | > >> >
>> | > | > >> >
>> | > | > >> > No, relativity says that light traveling through empty space
>> always
>> | > | > >> > moves at the same speed c. If you think it's so ridiculous,
>> just
>> what
>> | > | > >> > is there in empty space that could possibly slow it down?
>> | > | > >>
>> | > | > >> It is plausible that there is something that controls it to be
>> measured as
>> | > | > >> c. As far as we can tell it is not the source nor the receiver
>> that
>> does it,
>> | > | > >> for in all evidence, if it seems to travel at c relative to
>> either
>> the
>> | > | > >> source or the receiver, it's because it's resting in the
>> coordinate
>> system
>> | > | > >> of choice (I know, Henri disagrees).
>> | > | > >>
>> | > | > >> Harald
>> | > | > >
>> | > | > >xxein: Hi, Harry. Bad week I'm having. Nevertheless...
>> | > | > >
>> | > | > >That 'plausible something' is our inability to directly measure
>> | > | > >lightspeed (OWLS). What we can and do measure is TWLS. But we do
>> | > | > >THAT with clockrates that vary according to their velocity wrt the
>> | > | > >speed of light. Are you familiar with a physical lightclock? Are
>> you
>> | > | > >familiar that we set clocks and take measurements from them by the
>> | > | > >assumption that all light passes us at c?
>> | > | > >
>> | > | > >I just happen to have this at hand. It is "Richard Feynman, A Life
>> in
>> | > | > >Science"
>> | > | > >by John Gribbin and Mary Gribbin, Dutton, Penguin Books, 1997. As
>> | > | > >follows in part:
>> | > | > >
>> | > | > >"Now, one might ask, What is "mass"? What is "distance"? What is
>> | > | > >"time"? As questions of physics these are going to be very
>> different
>> | > | > >from similar questions in philosophy. In physics, all one need say,
>> to
>> | > | > >get started, is that "mass resists acceleration" (intertial mass)
>> or
>> | > | > >"mass exerts gravitational attraction" (gravitational mass), that
>> | > | > >"distance is what we measure with this rod," and that "time is what
>> we
>> | > | > >measure with this clock." Wow. These answers, of course, are not
>> | > | > >philosophically very satisfying. They are all one needs, however,
>> to
>> | > | > >start doing the science. And there is a reason for that. Scientific
>> | > | > >explanations are logically only sufficient, not necessary, to the
>> | > | > >phenomena. This means that they are enough to explain something
>> about
>> | > | > >what we are seeing, but that logically they are not the only
>> possible
>> | > | > >explanation and they do not explain everything about what we are
>> | > | > >seeing. Indeed, explaining everything is a tall order, though it is
>> | > | > >what, philosophically, we would like ultimately to have."
>> | > | > >
>> | > | > >The last two sentences explain my viewpoint. We can MAKE almost
>> any
>> | > | > >concept that we wish be a physic. All we have to do is make up
>> laws
>> | > | > >that we wish a physic to follow that comport to our observations.
>> If
>> | > | > >we have a little trouble, we throw in a little technical
>> gobbledegook
>> | > | > >and claim that ordinary turds do not manage to fully understand it
>> | > | > >(and don't post nonsense until you come around to our "official"
>> | > | > >understanding of these very true matters).
>> | > | > >
>> | > | > >It turns out that "official" is only the consensus of followers.
>> | > | > >Don't bother to think: the giver and followers have already done
>> that
>> | > | > >for you. Hah! We drank the kool-aid and we arrived at THE logical
>> | > | > >consensus. What could be so wrong with having dynamic individuals,
>> | > | > >with vision, to direct our thinking?
>> | > | > >
>> | > | > >The universe has simple laws. We complicate that with our limited
>> | > | > >observation that forces us to string together, only the
>> observables,
>> | > | > >to make physics. We direly need to test assumptions that are not
>> | > | > >soley based on observation.
>> | > | > >
>> | > | > >All this means is that the jigsaw puzzle pieces are to remain
>> blank;
>> | > | > >to be fit together because they fit instead of trying to replicate
>> a
>> | > | > >picture on the box (an imagery: the theory of what a picture SHOULD
>> | > | > >look like after assembly). Our observation is nothing more than
>> | > | > >painting a picture on the puzzle pieces that are not fit together
>> yet.
>> | > | > >
>> | > | > >But I have more urgent physics to do. I have to find the best glue
>> to
>> | > | > >keep a beer can firmly affixed to my hand under hurricane
>> conditions.
>> | > | > >I hate deadlines. Btw, is it Frances of Francis and who is f***ing
>> | > | > >who here?
>> | > | >
>> | > | > ..which I interpret to mean, "let's throw out everything we have
>> learnt
>> and
>> | > | > start all over again"
>> | > | >
>> | > | > >
>> | > | >
>> | > | > Henri Wilson.
>> | > | > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>> | > | >
>> | > | > See proof that light speed is source dependent.
>> | > | > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
>> | > |
>> | > | xxein: You have that pretty much right. You aren't afraid of doing
>> that,
>> | > are you?
>> | > Certainly not I. Let's do it.
>> | > Androcles.
>> |
>> | xxein: We may seem to see eye to eye on this, but you still have many
>> | ill-preconceived ideas. One of them is to twist a math and show that
>> | it might be right.
>>
>> Not I. You are not discussing me with that accusation. If anyone has an
>> ill-preconceived idea, you've just demonstrated yours. Here is how to
>> unravel
>> a "twisted math".
>>
>> The Seven Deadly Sins of Special Relativity.
>>
>> For quotations following, reference:
>> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>> ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)
>>
>> 1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
>> which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body",
>> a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support it.
>>
>> 2) "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
>> 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in empty
>> space.",
>> an admitted assumption that is quite worthless when there is any
>> relative motion between A and B, yet essential to the derivation of the
>> remainder of Einstein's nonsense.
>>
>> 3) The equation
>> ½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) ,
>> the ½ of which is derived from 2) above and is tantamount to saying
>> (1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.
>>
>> 4) The missing 0' from that equation, since x' = x-vt, hence 0' = 0-vt,
>> and the equation should be
>> ½[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
>> at the very least.
>>
>> 5) The further assumption "IF we place x' = x-vt ... " without considering
>> IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we derive (using Einstein's method)
>> tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>> xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
>>
>> 6) The statements
>> "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
>> when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
>> and
>> "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
>> composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we obtain
>> V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
>> which are contradictory, the first being Galilean, the second being
>> contrary to the vector addition of velocities, an axiom of a vector space.
>>
>> 7) The lack of a check to verify the theory is self-consistent by feeding
>> the new PoR given in 6) into the equation given in 3) and finding a total
>> failure.
>> Check:
>> (t1-t)/(t2-t)*[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/V+x'/V)] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/V)
>>
>>
>>
>> |
>> | I try to get a (god's) mind's eye on the whole of the physic and work
>> | a math into it later.
>>
>> Very good. Start here.
>> http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/actual_data.htm
>> There's the curve. Now explain it.
>>
>>
>> | Of course, I test with known observation and
>> | math, but the math can be deceiving. Usually a math is applied to a
>> | certain mental concept that tends to reflect effect and not a deep
>> | enough understanding of cause.
>>
>> There's the curve. Explain it.
>> |
>> | So, we can all say that gravity does THIS or THAT but all we measure
>> | are effects. We don't have the cause for how gravity does its thing,
>> | or why gravity exists in the first place.
>>
>> What ARE the effects? HOW do you measure them? What are the
>> axioms you are using?
>>
>> |
>> | So maybe if a smart person can see that SR is a different description
>> | than GR and that GR is dominant, maybe he/she can see that SR is just
>> | a math describing effects that are only idealizations, local and with
>> | only subjective observation as a basis. When that is understood,
>> | maybe then, the realization will come that GR has only a subjective
>> | observational basis, also.
>>
>> So? Einstein is the one whose objectivity is in question, not mine.
>> |
>> | For instance, a test body will circularly orbit a large perfect sphere
>> | at only one speed and period per the orbit radius (ideal conditions,
>> | you understand). Yet an observer on the orbiter will measure a
>> | different period than the surface observer.
>>
>> Who says so? The Earth is a test body, and very nearly circularly orbiting
>> the sun once a year. If you want to go to the sun and measure a different
>> year to me (assuming ideal conditions you understand) how will you measure
>> Earth's year as different from the suns? Use a clock, perhaps? There are
>> plenty to choose from. Any of the moons of Jupiter or any other gas giant
>> will do. I don't trust artificial clocks, do you? But if that is what you
>> want, let's both use the same one. I'll use a telescope. Are you saying the
>> position of the hands would be different for each of us?
>>
>>
>>
>> Why are their timerates
>> | different?
>>
>> They are not. Why do you think they are?
>>
>>
>> | It is not an observance relativity thing --- they don't
>> | even have to look (so to speak) --- their timerates are different for
>> | measurement purposes.
>>
>> How come? Surely if I count the number of times Ganymede orbits Jupiter and
>> Deimos orbits Mars, or for that matter the Moon orbits the Earth, how will
>> that appear different from the sun than it does fom the Earth? Of course
>> ther will be a minor difference du to doppler shift, the velocity of light
>> is finite, but we can account for that. Run the test for 10,000,000 orbits,
>> and I'll guarantee that you'll count exactly (EXACTLY) the same number of
>> lunar orbits from the Earth as from the Sun. That is what a clock is. A
>> perfect counter and an imperfect oscillator. Using the same oscillator, the
>> only thing that can go wrong is that one of us can't count.
>>
>> |
>> | I don't really expect you to understand this, but that timerate
>> | difference, along with our definite and precise observational
>> | measurements in SR, implies that length contraction along a line of
>> | v/c must be physical (observationally with light, the cosine factor
>> | creeps in).
>>
>> Well, you are right.
>> I don't understand how anyone could be so illogical as to imagine
>> time was different from two different points of view. You still have many
>> ill-preconceived ideas. One of them is to twist a math and show that
>> it might be right.
>>
>>
>> | Everything goes along (in a flat space) just as Einstein
>> | said we observe it (1st postulate of SR --- with no gravity). The 2nd
>> | postulate assumes something that is observationally and measurably
>> | consistent but not necessarily a physical reality. It all goes back
>> | to v/c. What is v/c there for if a velocity always has light passing
>> | through it at c? To be more to the point, what is the physicality of
>> | light "knowing" how fast to go by each relatively moving observer???
>> |
>> | The solution is not a math that accommodates moving observers. The
>> | solution is to find out how the universe allows us to view and measure
>> | it so.
>> http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/actual_data.htm
>> There's the curve. Now find out how the universe allows us to view and
>> measure it so.
>>
>>
>> | The clues are evident if we allow ourselves to re-think with different
>> | basic assumptions.
>>
>> Absolutely right. So rethink with the basic axiom that the PoR needs no
>> modification and eliminate the ridiculous assumption that the speed of light
>> in a vacuum is source independent.
>>
>> | What we see as empty space is not empty.
>>
>> We are starting from scratch, remember?
>> You still have many ill-preconceived ideas. Rethink your assumption.
>>
>>
>>
>> If it
>> | can expand (universally), why can't it contract on a local level
>> | (local and extended gravity)?
>>
>> What do you mean, "IF"?
>> We are starting from scratch, remember?
>> You still have many ill-preconceived ideas. Rethink your assumption.
>>
>> How does light follow (in) this
>> | apparent movement of space?
>>
>>
>> c
>> | To be sure, a multi-bodied math (and with such great separation
>> | between those local areas of mass) is as more impossible to calculate
>> | than local vs. global weather. But it is operating and we wish to
>> | understand it.
>>
>> http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/actual_data.htm
>> There's the curve, operating. We wish to understand it. Give me an
>> explanation.
>>
>> |
>> | We have let a fashionable SR dominate how we think as if the universe
>> | must comply with a Gucci bag mentality. Go away with that stuff.
>>
>> Correct. I couldn't agree more. But I'll not accept a Gucci bag mentality
>> that tells me "What we see as empty space is not empty." Go away with that
>> stuff.
>>
>> |
>> | For your purposes, SR and LET are the exact same math.
>>
>> Go away with that stuff. You still have many ill-preconceived ideas.
>> LET and SR a gibberish. BOTH of them.
>>
>> They are what
>> | we observe. If you change one, you change the other. But, again,
>> | what are we applying a math to? Is it a false conception? Some think
>> | that SR is true and that LET is false. How can that be??? It lies
>> | with our conceptions (if that is a double entendere'(spelling?), then
>> | it is well meant).
>>
>> Go away with that stuff. You still have many ill-preconceived ideas.
>>
>> | The same math can have different physical
>> | meanings. We have to define the physical meaning and that will modify
>> | and extend the math to the only real physical meaning that it
>> | represents.
>>
>> Correct. So start the math over and explain the curve of V1493 Aql, delta
>> Cepheus, beta Persius, flare stars etc. etc. Start with observation and then
>> produce the theory. If you start with your many ill-preconceived ideas,
>> you'll just go down the same path. Your worst ill-preconceived idea is "What
>> we see as empty space is not empty ". Start over, right? That means you have
>> to give up YOUR ill-preconceived ideas as well.
>>
>> |
>> | I have about two decades of such inquisition under my belt. During
>> | that time (but after the kernel), no new physical discovery has
>> | required over 5 minutes of thought to assimilate (well, some needed 10
>> | minutes and one is still out there --- at least I'm being honest with
>> | myself). That seems to represent a powerful concept. I toot my horn
>> | (perhaps no one can hear).
>>
>> Blowing one's own trumpet isn't giving up ill-preconceived ideas.
>>
>> |
>> | I decided (that upon reading the beliefs and concepts of this ng (10
>> | yrs.) --- and the physics community at large for the last 20 yrs.)
>> | that it would take about another 25 yrs. for anyone to notice how to
>> | do physics.
>>
>> Another ill-preconceived idea. How many is that now?
>>
>>
>> I have had recent thoughts of extending it upwards to 50
>> | yrs.
>> |
>> | The concept is simple (with no god-like goo) but past belief is so
>> | strong that no one can seem fit to consider it. Everybody is too busy
>> | refining and redefining according to past belief.
>> |
>> | It requires no more assumptions than we already use. Just different
>> | assumptions. That is why it will take upwards to 50 yrs.
>>
>> As simple as c+v?
>>
>> |
>> | I am a lousy mathematician, but the simpleness of it all allows even
>> | me to have all new discoveries follow this math (the exception is the
>> | Voyagers --- I haven't worked out that aspect because I'm getting old
>> | and lazy).
>> |
>> | Oh well, I said my peace. (yes, peace)
>> |
>> | Have a good one.
>> You too. Now start over without ill-preconceived ideas and FEWER
>> assumptions, or it will take upwards of a hundred years.
>> Androcles
>
>xxein: It will take you that long to pass third grade. Sorry. I
>couldn't resist it.
>
>There is nothing else out there that suggests any support to the idea
>that light is emitter dependent. Everything else points to
>non-dependency. EVERYTHING. Not even questionable anymore. Get with
>it! Your one pony show does not cut any mustard. You might just as
>well be a cave-man worshipping the god of fire. That still is a
>concept --- unfortunately you may still be willing to accept it if
>falls within your interpretation of data. There is only one way this
>universe works and all other concepts are incomplete (some more than
>others).
>
>I have no more questions for this witness.

this message will add to my survey stats.

HW.

www.users.bigpond.com

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How can DHRs be This Stupid?
    ... > | a math into it later. ... > | measurement purposes. ... > Deimos orbits Mars, or for that matter the Moon orbits the Earth, how will ... To be more to the point, what is the physicality of ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The real paradoxes in SR.
    ... the math is correct in predicting what ... No philosophy that I know of would allow ... You are not attacking the data. ... data is only measurement data, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong?
    ... > trying to understand if math was based on a contradiction, ... We know for example it's trivial to use language ... > in the physical universe. ... If you insist on physicality, ...
    (sci.math)
  • The Proper understanding of Modern Physics.
    ... The Proper understanding of Modern Physics. ... There is no desire to destroy the math of SR. ... The MMX disproved the ether. ... measurement, but we also had to then determine what ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Why a Problem?
    ... >> today seem to accept a 4-D spacetime as a reality. ... It is true, math is math, and 4D math has existed ... or within any transformations between frames (which ... would be measured if you had a certain measurement ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)