Re: Why DeSitter was WRONG.

In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson)
<H@>
wrote
on Thu, 29 Sep 2005 08:57:31 GMT
<ejanj196tr4ugq38o1m2o4fe02cl2pvaqs@xxxxxxx>:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 04:00:24 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson)
>><H@>
>> wrote
>
>>>>That is correct. Of course, it's a Universal Accident of some
>>>>sort that the speed of light relative to anything (insofar as our
>>>>measurements have shown to this point) is always constant, to
>>>>within a few parts per trillion, if I'm not mistaken.
>>>>
>>>>(This despite the Earth's movement through the luminiferous aether,
>>>>existent or no, with a variance of at least 2 * 10^-4 c or thereabouts.)
>>>
>>> Ghost, TWLS is always = c, if the 'mirror' and source are mutually at rest.
>>>
>>> That is a direct consequene of the fact that light leaves
>>> its source at speed c relative to that source....and
>>> everything at rest wrt it.
>>
>>How would a light source have light leaving at c if the
>>light source has moving parts (hot atoms)?
>
> It leaves each individual atomic source initially at c. Usually, there is an
> atmosphere around large amounts of matter so the speeds of all photons are
> unified to some extent before the light escapes.
>
>>
>>This is a flaw in the BaT theory. It's a flaw you for
>>some reason refuse to address.
>
> Ghost, if you care to run my variable star program, you
> will find that you can plug in any average molecular speed
> you want and see how the brightness curve is affected.
>
> Please stop raving about matters that you know nothing about
> and are way above your capabilities.

Oh, right. BaT has never been falsified. Can you falsify SR?

>
>
>>SR of course ignores
>>the issue entirely by flatly stating that lightspeed
>>is c everywhere relative to anybody, and twisting time
>>and space to accomplish this constancy.
>
> SR simply replaces the physical aether with a maths postulate.

SR does nothing of the sort. SR *requires* a luminiferous aether,
which has different properties than the disproven rigid luminiferous
aether disproven by MMX.

Or, if one prefers, SR replaces one set of equations (which require
constant lightspeed relative to that fixed rigid aether) with another.


>
>>The worst that
>>happens in SR is the spectral lines get a little fuzzy,
>>but all of the photons arrive at the same time.
>
> But in reality they don't...do they Ghost.

Hard to say. I'd have to study the data from Algol and
Delta Cephei. The prevailing view, which is highly corrupt
according to Androcles (Einstein was a very successful
huckster, apparently, backed up by quite a number of
experiments, de Sitter, Michelson-Morley, and others among
them), is that Algol is about 92 light years away and
Delta Cephei is a star which plays "balloon..collapse..
balloon..collapse" with a period of about 5 1/2 days, with
a number of characteristics including temperature/general
luminosity shifts.

>
>>
>>>
>>> On the other hand, OWLS has never been measured at all, let
>>> alone from a relatively moving source.
>>
>>Various results have been measured, some of which relate
>>to OWLS. However, I'd have to look, and in any event
>>one has to deal with a variant of the "headwind/tailwind
>>problem", where the combined velocity is (c^2-v^2)/c,
>>which is less than c.
>>
>>But Sam has a webpage or two detailing some experiments
>>relating on OWLS isotropy, even though OWLS is not directly
>>measured (or, apparently, measurable).
>
> There are plenty of OWLS isotropy experiment claiming that is
> IS isotropic up to 1 part in 10^16.
>
> that's just what the BaT expects.

BaT and SR would, for stationary lightsources. Rigid aether would not.

[.sigsnip]

--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.

Relevant Pages