Re: The Farce that is Called Henri Wilson
- From: "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:39:20 +0200
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:19:38 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:55:20 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Oh, look who has returned.
I thought you might be giving a series of lectures about the newfound evidence
supporting the BaT.
it does not offset the evidence of countless experiments which disprove the BaT. Ever heard of coincidence? Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Tom there is overwhelming evidence in favour of the BaT.
The MMX. The constancy of TWLS
These are examples of experiments where SR and BaT predicts the same. They falsifies neither and proves neither.
Variable star curves.
.. falsifies BaT.
Here is a list for you to check:
R Aquilae
Mira
R Andromedae
Mira
R Arietis
Cataclysmic!
R Aur
Mira
X Aur
Mira
.. and so on.
R Boo S Boo U Boo* V Boo* V CVn** R Cam V Cam" X Cam Z Cam R Cas* S Cas** t Cas** W Cas S Cep* T Cep* Omicron Ceti R Com R Crb*** S Crb V Crb W Crb R Cyg S Cyg V Cyg W Cyg AF Cyg*** CH Cyg----- Cyg---- Chi Cyg R Dra R Gem S Her* RU Her** SS Her AH her R Hya SU Lac X Oph U ori RU Peg--- GK Per--- R Scuti** R Ser V Tau R Uma S Uma T Uma CH Uma*** S Umi R Vul V Vul*
Those marked * or ** are complex systems with at least two stars. Those with ---- are probably not caused by the ballistic effect.
Incidentally, I have worked out how and why some curves vary slightly from the predicted shapes. It is because of the day/night temperature variations we discussed some time ago. A star's daytime face might be considerably hotter than its night one. So depending on YAW angle adn eccentricity, the observed curve will be sharper or more rounded.
I expect you wont understand what I am talking about here.
Ridiculous! And you should know why by now. I won't bother to repeat it.
The fact remains: there is not a single example where the light curve of a binary is as predicted by the ballistic theory, but there are countless examples of the opposite.
Claiming stars which we know are NOT binaries to be binaries and dreaming up parameters is just too stupid.
Paul, when Einsteiniana is discarded, you will have to rewrite the whole of astrophysics.
many stars are obviously orbiting around cool companions. That is why you think they are not binaries. Yet their brightness curves clearly show they are.
Right. The light curves together with their spectra clearly shows what they are. Miras and Chepheids are pulsating stars.
To dispute that you either have to be incredible stupid or very ignorant.
Or both.
The fact that light moves at c wrt its source according to Maxwell.
Plain wrong. According to Maxwell, the speed of light is c relative to the selected frame of reference regardless of the motion of the source.
That's straight aether theory.
It assumes a property of space determines the light speed between two points.
Introduce Einstein's velocity addition equation and you will find that if light speed is defined as c in any one frame, it is also c in all other frames.
That is consistent ..but doesn't mean it is true.
The point is that you were wrong. According to Maxwell the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the source.
Maxwell said the ratio of esu to emu units was equal c.
If an observer calculates this ratio after measuring the two relevant
constants, he would get a value for c, which also happens to be the speed of
light relative to himself.
Maxwell actually assumed there was an absolute medium that transmitted light and c was the invariant speed in that medium.
It doesn't matter what Maxwell believed. The fact is that his equations are Lorentz invariant, and they do predict that the speed of light is c in any frame you might chose.
So you were wrong.
Einstein postulated that c was the speed of light in a 'frame' then concocted his velocity addition equation so that light speed would appear constant in ALL frames.
The equation he "concocted" follows from the postulates. It isn't hard do derive, even you should be able to do it. (If you start with the LT, it is trivially simple.)
It wsn't hard.
w = c = c(c+v)/(c+v)= (c+v)/(1+v/c)
Hardly worth a Nobel prize.
Your stupidity is amazing. :-) Given the second postulate from which the equation w = (v+u)/(1 + uv/c^2) is derived, it is blatantly obvious that when u = c, it simplifies to w = c.
So what is your point? The formula IS easy to derive, but you don't actually belive that the above triviality is a derivation of the velocity addition formula, do you?
Or do you? :-)
The pioneer redshift amomaly
How so?
It isn't an anomaly. It is due to a change in light speed.
And you can of course show us the math that show what the ballistic theory predicts? :-)
I'll wait till some other bright person realises what is really happening and does the calculation.
Then I'll have a good laugh.
Beautiful, Henri! :-) You admit that you haven't got a clue of what the ballistic theory predicts the observations of the signal from pioneer should be, yet you claim that they confirm the ballistic theory.
Wilsonian logic at work! :-)
The fact that light emitted from a remote star has only one reference.
.. untill you measure its speed.
Now we have the delay in radar signal to Venus and the moon.
.. which confirmes SR and falsifies BaT.
It does not.
Check up the Lunar Laser Ranging experiments.
The moon is hardly moving radially.
You know better. The velocity will always have a radial component. The distance is determined to cm precision. If the speed of light were source dependent, it would show up in these measurements.
The agreement with GR calculations concerning gravitational redshift.
Does that mean that you consider the predictions of GR correct? :-)
It might be in this case by pure coincidence. Earth centrism can produce many correct answers before it becomes too hot to handle. Similarly, if one can places some kind of gradient in space so that light speed remains constant in a gravity well, one can occasionally come up with correct answers.
Yea, right. GR is invariably right by pure accident.
It isn't pure accident. It is on par with Earth centrism, which can also produce correct
predictions....before it collapses.
Sure, Henri. The doctor will soon arrive. :-)
And there is still not a single example where the predictions of SR or GR are proven wrong.
In that case, you should be looking for a 'local aether'. SR plainly states that clock rate changes due to velocity variations are purely
illusional. Yet you claim that GPS clock DO PHYSICALLY change.
I never claimed that, which you know bloody well. But it doesn't matter what you say.
Paul, if you give a rod or a clock a push, which way does it PHYSICALLY contract/extend?
You know the answer as well as I do.
Nothing actually happens to the rod or clock.
Exactly right, and you even say I know it.
Which makes your statement: "Yet you claim that GPS clock DO PHYSICALLY change." a lie!
The fact is that SR and GR have passed all tests and are falsified by none.
Bull. GR says the GPS clocks physically change rates due to their movement.
Bull indeed.
Facts are facts, Henri. Nothing to discuss.
As opposed to the ballistic theory.
Which passes all tests.
Does too! Does too! So there! :-)
Paul .
- References:
- Re: The Farce that is Called Henri Wilson
- From: Paul B. Andersen
- Re: The Farce that is Called Henri Wilson
- Prev by Date: Re: New ideas for the cell-structured space and the ether
- Next by Date: Re: "Inertial Forces" violate Newton's Third Law
- Previous by thread: Re: The Farce that is Called Henri Wilson
- Next by thread: Re: The Farce that is Called Henri Wilson
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
