Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity...,answer to Henri Wilson

From: The Ghost In The Machine (ewill_at_sirius.athghost7038suus.net)
Date: 02/07/05

  • Next message: John C. Polasek: "Re: MISCONCEPTIONS OF PRESENT THEORY OF CAPACITANCE" 
    Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 04:00:02 GMT

    In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
    <H@>
     wrote
    on Sun, 06 Feb 2005 21:30:21 GMT
    <4n2d0191a1dafm5eu3rc8ltqdn1j0krj1h@4ax.com>:
    > On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 22:05:58 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
    > <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
    >
    >>In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
    >><H@>
    >> wrote
    >>on Sat, 05 Feb 2005 20:07:24 GMT
    >><9n9a01tmefchl9snok8cvg4m27geddl4oa@4ax.com>:
    >>> On 4 Feb 2005 13:46:34 -0800, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Henri Wilson wrote:
    >>>>> On 4 Feb 2005 04:24:09 -0800, valls@icmf.inf.cu wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> >
    >>>>> >Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    >>>>> >> valls@icmf.inf.cu wrote:
    >>>>> >> > Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    >>>>> It is pretty obvious that SRians don't really know what they believe.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The 'closing speed' of light apparently does not have to be 'c' yet
    >>>>light can
    >>>>> only travel at c.
    >>>>> Do you realize how stupid you people sound to the non-indoctrinated?
    >>>>
    >>>>Actually, since the distinction between these concepts is
    >>>>who is making the measurement, I think it's one of the
    >>>>most trivial aspects of relativity to grasp. Most
    >>>>reasonably intelligent sixth-graders could probably
    >>>>get it with five minutes of explanation.
    >>>
    >>> ...and even dumb sixth graders would realise that differences in 'closing
    >>> speeds' fully support the ballistic theory's explanation of variable star
    >>> brightness curves.
    >>>
    >>> That's what it all about.
    >>
    >>I'd be interested in your calculations regarding PSR B1913+16.
    >>
    >>http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/relativity/binpulsar.html
    >
    > The parameters are such that a great many multiple images
    > are created at 21000 LYs distance and no observable
    > ballistic effect would be expected.

    Multiple images? If so, we should be able to see them.
    They should flash fairly nicely, too.

    >
    > However, the assumed values of all the parameters could

    Not "could". Are. If one subscribes to ballistic theory, that is.
    The only thing one can trust is one's own observations in this
    matter, or, failing that, the raw recorded data.

    This is why repeatability is so important. :-)

    > be completely wrong since they are based entirely on Einsteiniana.

    Which has, of course, been shown to be an accurate predictor
    for a lot of the experiments thrown at it, from decaying
    pi mesons at high speed to bouncing radar off Venus.

    One is, of course, free to bounce radar beams off Venus, if
    one likes (and has a detecting station big enough).

    >
    >
    >>
    >>Not that I'm all that interested in the brightness thereof;
    >>I'm more interested in the energy deviation of each light quanta.
    >>Both theories predict a shift therein because of the orbital speed.
    >
    > GR and the BaT both predict the same energy loss for light escaping a mass.

    GR? Who said anything about GR? I'm using *SR*. For orbiting
    sunpairs (or, in this case, neutron stars), we can observe
    the following.

    [1] the energy shift -- which in SR is also a frequency variance;
        I don't know what it will do with BaT/ElT -- is
        observable without too much difficulty; if nothing else,
        apply the quanta to a selenium surface and vary the voltage
        to see if the energy of each quantum can overcome the hill
        produced by an external variable voltage source (plus the
        amount of energy required to liberate the electron from
        the atom proper).

    [2] The period of orbit shouldn't be too hard to observe either,
        in either theory; the light variations will be periodic
        regardless of whether the lightspeed is constant, or not.

    >
    > The question surrounding this pulsar relates to energy loss due to
    > gravitational wave radiation, if any.

    The main question is far more fundamental: does this pulsar pair
    show evidence for emissive theory?

    >
    >
    >>
    >>[.sigsnip]
    >
    >
    > HW.
    > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
    > 

    -- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
  • Next message: John C. Polasek: "Re: MISCONCEPTIONS OF PRESENT THEORY OF CAPACITANCE"

    Relevant Pages

    • Physics is simple....we complicate it
      ... has evolved to the point where we can observe our life at quantum levels. ... Matter and energy are indeed the same. ... and resistance. ...
      (sci.physics)
    • Re: Physics is simple....we complicate it
      ... > we already observe, no tricks or secrets. ... Matter and energy are indeed the same. ... > and resistance. ...
      (sci.physics)
    • Physics is simple...we complicate it
      ... has evolved to the point where we can observe our life at quantum levels. ... Matter and energy are indeed the same. ... and resistance. ...
      (sci.physics.relativity)
    • Re: The Einstein Cult Index
      ... When we observe an effect, ... both cause and effect involve integer amounts of change of action. ... Action is time multiplied by the difference between kinetic energy and potential energy. ... The quanta exchanged between systems is action. ...
      (sci.physics)
    • Re: "How the Aether Leads to Our Reality"
      ... the concept of the Aether, the confusion associated with the Relativity ... concept that light propagates through space at a velocity ... If we examine the propagation of light though the cosmos we observe ... additional energy is added to any energy in the matter. ...
      (sci.physics.particle)
    • Quantcast