Re: The Farce that is Called Henri Wilson

Henri Wilson wrote: 
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:39:20 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:19:38 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:




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.


Or non-indoctrinated. 

Quite.
As non-indoctrinated and ignorant as a newborn baby.



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.



Maxwell's equations depend on the values of two measured constants. There is no
reason to believe the measured values are not speed dependent....and it would
be impossible to know.


You are babbling.
If you have two different sources moving at different speed
in the chosen frame of reference, Maxwell predicts that the light
from both will propagate at the same speed.

So you were wrong.


So you were wrong.


I am never wrong. 

...but always.



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? :-)


It is... for light in different 'frames'. 

Is there any particular reason why you prefer to
write the identity w = c identity as w = (c+v)/(1+v/c)?

Didn't you know that the equation for the speed
of light in in different frames really is:
w = c^3(1 + 2v/c + v^2/c^2)/(c+v)^2 ?

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! :-)


Do you have abeter explanation? 

Better than the explanation the BaT doesn't have?
Henri .... :-)

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.



Hardly.
The difference wouldn't be measureable.


What kind of precision do you think it takes
to determine the distance to the Moon to the cm, Henri?

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. :-)



SR breaks down to aether theory when it tries to answer the question I
frequently ask:

->vS1_____________________O
v<-S2

Two relativewly moving light sources emit a pulse of light when they are
adjacent.

What property of space causes the two to travel together towards O.

Please give me the SRian answer. 

Its geometry.
Null geodesic.

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!



You seem to think the clocks physically change rates when given a relative
speed.
What are you actually saying?


I am saying what I always have said.
All clocks always run at their proper, intrinsic rate.

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.


The clocks change because they are relieved of gravitational self compression. 

Yea, right. :-)

As opposed to the ballistic theory.


Which passes all tests.

Does too! Does too! So there! :-) 


does SR also cause 0.5 meter vertical steel rods to change length by 4.6 parts
in 10^10 when they are in free fall?


Would you elaborate please?
What exactly are you referring to?

Paul
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Farce that is Called Henri Wilson
    ... Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. ... the speed of light is c relative to the selected frame of reference regardless of the motion of the source. ... his velocity addition equation so that light speed would appear constant in ALL frames. ... "Yet you claim that GPS clock DO PHYSICALLY change." ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... then frames won't enter into the laws of physics. ... and wrt all frames whatsoever. ... begin with systems not in the lab frame. ... As B intercepts the leading end of the platform a toggle on his clock is ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... then frames won't enter into the laws of physics. ... and wrt all frames whatsoever. ... begin with systems not in the lab frame. ... As B intercepts the leading end of the platform a toggle on his clock is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Triplet Paradox
    ... according to Lorentz transformation Al's clock runs slower as ... It takes Bill ... He can do this in his outgoing frame or his ... It implies that Bill's clock run slower than Al's clock. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Clock synchronization - misinterpretation?
    ... By that I mean that when clock1 shows ... presume you agree that in this single inertial frame clock2 is ... reference frame. ... each of these four points I have one clock1 type clock, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast