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

From: Henri Wilson (H_at_..(Henri)
Date: 02/07/05 

Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 06:59:40 GMT

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 04:00:02 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:

>In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
><H@>
> wrote

>>>
>>>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.

Just like a pulsar, eh, Ghost?
Maybe that's what you are seeing.

Under certain circumstances, multiple images will appear as regular, high
frequency flashes. Each will be considerably brighter than the average
brightness of the star.

Look, I don't know if these two supposed 'neutron stars' can be resolved
optically or by radio telescope. I should think not ...yet quite a lot is
claimed to be known about their highly elliptical orbits.

>
>>
>> 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.

Well Ghost, I seem to be able to make a lot more sense out of a brightness
variation curve that all those 'expert' astonomers out there.

>
>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.

Yes Ghost...and christ cured blind men too, remember.

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

Ghost, I have suggested a perfectly workable OWLS copmparison experiment. Why
don't you ask NASA to do it.

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>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).

Well, as you might recall, I once raised the question as to whether or not
doppler shifted light behaves like ordinary light in the PE effect. I don't
know if the answer to that has been experimentally established.
 
>
>[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?

Yes.

Sekerin/Wilson Time compression probably accounts for the high frequency
pulses.

What happens, Ghost is that TIME is effectively 'focussed' , due to the fact
that faster light catches up to the slower.
All the light (and information) emitted by a star during the 'concave' part of
one orbit might compressed into a a few seconds at a certain critical distance.
A binary pair that is itself orbiting slowly aroung a galaxy might appear to be
rotating at a much higher frequency than it really is.

I have included this demonstration in my variable star program but it is not
all that easy to follow.

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Lets Get the Record Straight.
    ... >> of the Earth's orbit when the Earth was moving towards and away from the ... >> Since the refractive index of a lens depends on speed of light, the star ... then Ghost. ... pulses towards O. O has a long rod with spikes on it. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.
    ... >>> Is this what you do in your spare time, Ghost? ... BaT has some big problems, ... > Ghost the star DOES NOT eject light at c+v. ... And therefore we know that Delta Cephei is a binary ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Closing Speed of Light? What about Departing Speed?
    ... |>| Sorry, Ghost, I underestimated your intentions there. ... |>| I have already provided an example of this in my variable star ... I suppose you could call a continuous spectrum a VERY broad line. ... but seems to be educable up to halfwit. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Simple Clock Question.
    ... >> So light from that star is emitted at close to c relative to that observer. ... No Ghost, while it eclipsed, it is traveling almost tangentially wrt Earth. ... Charges become harder to accelerate as their speed increases because the ... >But if the experiment is performed horizontally, with a moving ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)