Re: What is BaT, exactly?

Henri Wilson wrote: 
On Thu, 19 May 2005 11:57:19 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2005 23:31:29 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Henri Wilson wrote:


On Wed, 11 May 2005 15:17:41 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Where is your proof?


I did not say time is absolute. I said 'NOW' is universal.
Why the hell should it not be? 

OK.
No proof.
Just talk.



If you want to know what is happening simultaneously with yourself somewhere
else, you only have to E-synch a clock there and get it to make the time
measurements there.


You obviously seem to think that the existence of one
frame of reference - like the GPS - can make "now to be now
everywhere" referred to _any_ frame of reference.



It does.
All presynched clocks remain in synch no matter how they are moved.


As I said in my last posting,
 All you can do is to repeat your dogma.
 Like you did above.

You know the proof. 

No. That's what I am asking for.

Here it is again: if a clock is given a short shove, does its physical rate
increase or decrease?


Are you completely senile?
We have been through this before.
It proves you wrong.

Here is the repetition of my statement
several postings ago:
| The experimentally verified facts are:
| If you give a clock a push, it neither speeds up nor
| slows down, but keep running at its proper, intrinsic,
| same physical rate. But the clock which is pushed
| will not stay in synch with the clocks it previously
| was synced to.

Please tell me what 'gamma' says. 

It says that the clock that is pushed
won't stay in synch with the clocks that are
not pushed. Which is an experimentally proven fact,
and which prove your dogma wrong.

You have now during a very high number of postings
failed to answer the question I asked a long time ago:

| What is your point?
| Do you think that defining a specific frame of reference
| with a specific coordinated time - and call it "the instantaneous
| universe" - can make simultaneity absolute?
|
| Or I might put it like this:
| Does the existence of the GPS prove that simultaneity is absolute?
|
| If that is your point, you better explain your reasoning.

or:

| The point is that the statement "now is now everywhere"
| only applies to one specific "grid" - or frame of reference.
| That "now is now everywhere" referred to one specific frame
| - like the GPS-frame - is an obvious triviality.
|
| But you obviously seem to think that the existence of one such
| frame of reference - like the GPS - can make "now to be now
| everywhere" referred to _any_ frame of reference.
|
| Can you please explain the reasoning that leads to that conclusion?

You have now thoroughly demonstrated you incapability of doing so.

Can you please explain the reasoning that leads to that conclusion?

We know you can't.
All you can do is to repeat your dogma.
Like you did above.


And did again. :-)

Give up Paul. You know you are wrong. 

Give up trying to make you answer my question
because I know that I am wrong when I say you can't?
Somehow that doesn't add up.
Wouldn't it be better to ask me to give up trying
to make you answer because I know I am right when
saying that you are unable to answer?

Your silly theory is just rehashed LET. 

Calling a theory "silly" is a lethal argument, isn't it? :-)
Frustrating that you can find no better, right? :-)

BTW, Henri.
What about experimental evidence?
Doesn't matter in Wonderland where the only
valid evidence is computer simulations of hunches,
right? :-)

If this is wrong - what was then your reasoning?
Nothing?
Didn't you have a point?



Yes Paul.

My point is that, like all religious fanatics, SRians will jump on anything
that even remotely resembles support for their stupid theory.


A void statement.
OK.
So you didn't have a point with your steel rod.
So why did you mention it?
Are you babbling pointless nonsense?


objects can physically change when placed in free fall. Correct? 

Correct.
We know for example that a half metre steel rod extends
by 1*10^-7 when it is in free fall compared to when it
is vertical on the ground.

Which makes the following statement a bit enigmatic:
Henri Wilson wrote:
"It is also pure coincidence that a half metre
 vertical steel rod extends by the
 GR prediction when sent into free fall."



Mine is made of special steel.
Try a diamond crystal.


Trying to wiggle out again?

But I know what your point was, of course.
You screw up the numbers.
What you really wanted to write, was:
"It is also a pure coincidence that a 2.23 mm
long vertical steel rod extends by the
GR prediction when sent into free fall."

But the statement would still be wrong, of course.
It is obviously no coincidence at all, because
the length of the rod is carefully selected to give
the desired relative extension.

So according to Wilsonian logic, the fact that
it is possible to carefully select the dimensions
of a completely irrelevant phenomenon in such a way
that you get the same number as a specific GR prediction,
proves that it is a pure coincidence that the predictions
of GR for ALL experiments involving macroscopic clocks
have proven to be correct within small margins.



Paul, GPS clock rates do NOT change by precisely the 'GR correction'. It is
incorporated because some idiot SRIan suggested it should be and the suckers
who make the system believed him. The plain truth is all the clocks are
software fine tuned after being placed in orbit. Their rates are slightly
affected by being placed in free fall and by moving through the Earth's fields
at 3770m/sec.


It is interesting to note that you now are fleeing
like hell from your unbelievable stupid claim
claim that it is a pure coincidence that the predictions
of GR for ALL experiments involving macroscopic clocks
have proven to be correct within small margins,
and now are claiming that GR the predictions of GR
not are proven correct at all.

But we both know that this is a stupid deviation
because we both know that you know perfectly well
that the GR prediction for the clocks in GPS orbit
is proven correct within small margins.

Fact are facts, Henri.
Frustrating maybe, but there you are.

You must be pretty desperate. :-)

Because you do understand that it is ridiculous
to claim that GR always gets it right by pure coincidence.
Don't you? :-)

But you won't admit it, of course.
You obviously prefer to look like the fool you are.


Couldn't find even a stupid answer to that, eh? :-)

That is of course because you won't admit
that you do understand that it is ridiculous
to claim that GR always gets it right by pure
coincidence.

Cornered, eh? :-)

You are babbling.
You know very well that GR's predictions for the behaviour
of clocks in GPS orbit are proven correct within small margins.
And then there are Alley's and Vessot's experiments and
several others as well - all confirming GR.


Both based on constant c.

You know better. 


I wonder why nobody repeats them.



Facts are facts, Henri.
Even if you don't like them.


Circular facts, Paul.

You know better.


I do. 

Of course you do.
You know very well that GR's predictions for the behaviour
of clocks in GPS orbit are proven correct within small margins.
And you know that Alley's and Vessot's and several others
experiments all have proven the predictions of GR correct
within small margins.



....and 'god' has also been proven correct to ten decimal places by the
christians and muslims. How could it possibly be wrong?


Another example of Wilsonian logic:
"Since there are religious fanatics who claim
 to have proven the existence of god, then
 the experimental evidence confirming GR is
 not to be trusted."

Hilarious, no? :-)
You ARE desperate, right?

And you know of course that none of these experiments
rely on a specific speed of light.
And you know of course that there is ridiculous
to claim that GR is correct by pure coincidence.

But you have to say something, haven't you? :-) 


Since the GR predictioon of light's blueshift when falling down a gravity well
is exactly that of the BaT, I don't see your point.


Could you please explain why the fact that the ballistic
theory predicts a blue shift when falling down a gravity well
proves that there is a coincidence that the predictions of
GR have proven to be correct within small margins in ALL
experiments ever done with macroscopic clocks? :-)

Couldn't find anything better to say, eh?

Because you DO of course understand that this
claim is ridiculous.
But you won't admit it, and you must say something, eh? :-)

Yes, measurements.



Exactly as Galileo did.
And Newton.
And Maxwell.
And every other physicist who ever formulated a theory.


including Wilson. 

If you are referring to the guy who hide behind
the phoney name Henri Wilson, he is no physicist
and did never formulate any theory.



I have advanced the BaT considerably. My variable star program shows why
DeSitter was an idiot.


How is that?
Doesn't your variable star program
confirm what De Sitter said?
Which in short was:
We do not observe what the ballistic theory
predicts binary stars should look like.



My program does in seconds far more than DeSitter could have done in his
lifetime.


I will agree to that.
It demonstrates the failure of the ballistic theory
far better than DeSitter did.
All you have to do is to enter real measured data
for a binary, and behold - it predicts something
very different from what is observed.

Which you did once, and never will risk again, eh? :-)

It strongly indicates that the BaT is correct.

Henri.., Henri : 
Have you forgotten that your variable star program
gave a very vivid demonstration of this fact when
it predicted that HD80715 should be a variable?


I told you why a thousand times. Is your memory faulty? 

Not at all.
I do remember that your variable star program
gave a very vivid demonstration of the fact that
we do not observe what the ballistic theory predicts
we should observe when it predicted that HD80715
should be a variable. Which it isn't.

Don't try to wriggle out. 

.. from what?

Don't you agree that the idea is idiotic?


I have forgotten what the idea actually was. 

Quite. That's why you snipped it, of course.

So I will remind you:
" It is indeed an idiotic idea that Einstein - or any
 other physicist - could formulate postulates of how
 nature behaves without first observing how nature
 seems to behave."

Since the idiotic idea was yours, I can see why
you wish to forget you ever said it.



Paul, once again you are resorting to misrepresentation and diversion to avoid
having to answer te difficult questions I ask you.
That tactic doesn't work any more.


Misinterpretations and deviations, Henri?
Here is your comment in context, with what you carefully
snipped reinserted:

Henri Wilson Wrote:
| Well Paul, you god Einstein neither peformed nor referred to any measurements
| or experiments in his 1905 paper. Does that mean that none of it can be classed
| as physics? Is it just a theory about plain nonsense because there are no
| measurements in it? That seems to be what you are saying.


Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| I am saying that the only way to learn how nature behaves,
| is to observe it - that is to do measurements.
|
| No sane person will dispute this statement.
|
| Of course observation comes before theory.
| In his 1905 paper Einstein starts with referring to
| observations and measurements. He describes how
| magnets and conductors are observed to behave.
| Then he states:
| "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful
| attempts to discover any motion of the Earth relative
| to the 'light medium' suggests that ..".
| Then he formulates the postulates of SR.
| Of COURSE Einstein based his postulates on observations
| of nature.
|
| Exactly as Galileo did.
| And Newton.
| And Maxwell.
| And every other physicist who ever formulated a theory.
|
| Any theory of physics is an attempt to explain
| the observations and measurements which are already made.
| As the next step comes testing the predictions of
| the theory which are not yet tested.
|
| It is indeed an idiotic idea that Einstein - or any
| other physicist - could formulate postulates of how
| nature behaves without first observing how nature
| seems to behave.

Heri Wilson wrote:
| Don't try top wriggle out.

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| .. from what?
|
| Don't you agree that the idea is idiotic?

Henri Wilson wrote:
| I have forgotten what the idea actually was.


The "idea" you pretend to have forgotten was right
before your eyes - that's why you had to snip it.

And the idiotic idea was:
" It is indeed an idiotic idea that Einstein - or any
  other physicist - could formulate postulates of how
  nature behaves without first observing how nature
  seems to behave."

And the idiotic idea was clearly yours:
" Well Paul, you god Einstein neither performed nor referred
  to any measurements or experiments in his 1905 paper.
  Does that mean that none of it can be classed
  as physics? Is it just a theory about plain nonsense
  because there are no measurements in it? That seems
  to be what you are saying.

But in your eagerness to misinterpret and deviate
from the issue by pretending to have forgotten what
we were talking about, you evaded the question.

It was:
Don't you agree that the idea is idiotic?

BTW, Henri.
Read this:
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html
and in particular this:
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000
See the turquoise box on the left?


The ballistic theory, which you so correctly state is not your
theory, is - through observations and measurements - thoroughly
falsified a long time ago.


HoHoHaHahahahahahhohohoo! 

Facts are fact, Henri.
Laughing at them won't make them go away.


When was it falsified? 

Don't pretend not to know.
By Henri Wilson in 2004, and long before that:
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#moving-source%20tests

But you are no physicist, of course. 


Being a fully qualified physicist, I have gone to the trouble of demonstrsating
that variable star brightness curves strongly indicate that my theory is
correct.

You are not even an unqualified physicist, Henri. 


How is it that I am about the only person here who ever makes proper physics
statements?


"Little mirror, little mirror on the wall,
who is the fairest in the world?"

Maybe you should open a window in Wonderland
and have a peek at the real world ?


Paul, there is a lot more to physics than the ravings of a patent clerk. 

Trying to divert the attension, Henri? :-)
Did I hit a nerve?

But then again, you better not.
Because as Ibsen said in "Wild goose":
"Tar du livsløgnen fra et gjennomsnittsmenneske,
tar du lykken fra det med det samme."
My awkward translation:
"If you deprive a person of his illusions of life,
you will deprive him of his happiness."



That is why religion is tolerated. That is why Einsteiniana is tolerated.
Talking about tensors and Minkowski spacetime makes people like you feel
superior even though it is all just LET in disguise.
Like all religions, it is a clear case of self-delusion.


Trying to divert the attention, Henri?
I DID hit a nerve, didn't I. :-)

At least I should unless your contact with
reality is completely numb.

Do you really not understand how revealing your statement is?
"How is it that I am about the only person here who ever
 makes proper physics statements?"
could only be uttered by a person with a serious
personality disorder.

You are claiming to be a psychologist as well as a physicist,
aren't you?
Maybe you can make a more precise diagnosis?

And the one time you calculated what the ballistic theory
predicts the light curve of a specific binary should
look like, it predicted that it should be a variable.
It isn't. So you falsified the ballistic theory.



Sorry, I must correct you.  YOU predicted it should be a binary.
I explained why it need not be.


Don't even try, Henri. :-)
We both know that you only once have entered real,
measured data for a binary into your program.
And we both know the result.
Your program confirmed my calculations.
Which, according to you, proved your program correct.
(Not that you ever doubted it.)



Paul, I pointed out that in the absence of other mitigating factors, EACH
MEMBER of that binary should reveal brightness variation and possibly double
images.
I then gave several perfectly sound reasons why it might not. If you refuse to
accept them, it is not my fault.


Frustrating, isn't it, that the one time you
entered real measured data for a binary into your program,
the result was that the predictions of the ballistic
theory was hopelessly wrong? :-)
Ever since you have had a hard time explaining why
the ballistic theory doesn't predict what your correct
program says it predicts, eh? :-)

That's obviously why you never have dared to enter
the data of any other known binary into your program.
Because we both know what the result would be,
don't we? :-)



Which is no real achievement, of course.
It's very old news.



Paul, no matter how you rant and scream, your theory is in trouble. Light moves
at c wrt its source and continues that way until it encounters gas of other EM
that modifies it.


So there! :-)

BTW, what do you mean by MY theory? 


My football team, my religion, my country, my hole in the ground..........


We both - we ALL - know that SR and GR are thoroughly tested
theories which are confirmed by a lot of experiments and
- what is more important - are falsified by none.

And be all know that the ballistic theory is falsified
by a number of experiments.


Don't halucinate any longer Paul. 

Facts are facts even if you don't like them.

But the ballistic theory isn't in trouble.
All it's troubles are over.
It's dead.
Only a few religious fanatics believe in
its resurrection.



It never died. Walter Ritz did....probably assassinated by an Einsteinian
fanatic.


Quite.
That statement is as correct as the rest of what you say.
And equally verifiable.

You know that if you send a light pulse towards Andromeda, it clearly cannot be
traveling at the same speed wrt every object IN Andromeda.

You DO know that, don't you? 

No, I don't.
Care to explain why?
Be specific.
Don't repeat unfounded assertions.
Prove why it is impossible for the speed of light
to be invariant.



Answer the question Paul.
Is the pulse traveling at c wrt every object in Andromeda?
Yes or no?


You know bloody well my answer.
The speed of light is invariant.

YOU are the one fleeing the challenge.
It is:
Prove why it is impossible for the speed of light
to be invariant.

A computer simulation of a hunch, maybe? :-)


Computer simulations are indeed very useful and informative.

Why dodn't you try tp simulate SR so you can see why is is just LET in
disguise.


Henri, are you trying to wiggle out?

You claim:
"You know that if you send a light pulse towards Andromeda,
 it clearly cannot be travelling at the same speed wrt every
 object IN Andromeda."

The challenge is to prove this unfounded assertion.
Can you do that?

Of course we all know that you never can prove anything.
All you can do is to repeat your dogma like
the religious fanatic you are.
Which you will keep on demonstrating over and over.
Won't you?


Paul
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OWLS & Out of Sync Clocks-By How Much Are They Out of Sync.
    ... >physics those results are indeed CORRECT. ... It is certain that he used two clocks because there ... >Note that two objects have "equal speeds" if I ... >results that are consistent with the predictions of SR/GR. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR consistency is crap.
    ... > the principle of relativity. ... reality to discribe CERTAIN predictions, ... You don't observe coordinates. ... > a connection between geometry and physics, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: SR consistency is crap.
    ... > the principle of relativity. ... reality to discribe CERTAIN predictions, ... You don't observe coordinates. ... > a connection between geometry and physics, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Models. predictions, physicallity, and observations
    ... I believe in the concept that we cannot know what reality is. ... build a model of what we perceive we observe, and this model consists of various theories. ... to which we've concluded the results of those tests are consistent with the predictions. ... that was the whole goal of physics to begin ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Models. predictions, physicallity, and observations
    ... I believe in the concept that we cannot know what reality is. ... build a model of what we perceive we observe, and this model consists of various theories. ... to which we've concluded the results of those tests are consistent with the predictions. ... that was the whole goal of physics to begin ...
    (sci.astro)
Loading