Re: FAREWELL TO PHYSICS


"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ap82r3-vcm.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
| <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| wrote
| on Sat, 12 Aug 2006 16:42:52 GMT
| <gynDg.82039$9d4.41886@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| >
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
| > news:g391r3-nln.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
| > | <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > | wrote
| > | on Sat, 12 Aug 2006 09:42:40 GMT
| > | <kohDg.81167$9d4.40226@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| > | >
| > | > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > wrote
| > | > in message news:jugDg.17433$i64.421939@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | >
| > | > [anip]
| > | >
| > | > x' versus xi?
| > | > Androcles
| > |
| > | Since c = 0, most of the rest of Einstein's logic is moot. We'll just
| > | have to go back to caveman physics.
| >
| > You have that wrong, troglodyte, c = 0/0,
|
| Wrong. c = 0. c = (AB+BA)/(t'-t); since t'-t is nonzero and AB+BA is
| zero, c = 0.
|
| Or hadn't *that* occurred to you?

It takes no time to travel from A to A, why do you say it is nonzero?

If you want to be pedantic as I know you do, be consistently pedantic.




| > Einstein had no logic and neither do you. The dynamics of a variable
speed
| > of light is far more interesting than Einstein's fairy tales or Dork's
| > misconceptions about the before and after length of a "Lorentz"
contracted cuckoo's egg.
|
| True enough. So...what is the distance of Algol, and the orbital
| periods of its components? Bear in mind SR gives the *wrong* answer
| to this question (since SR is obviously wrong).


I wish I knew, but unfortunately I can't solve two simultanous equations in
three variables.
ax+by +cz = 0
dx + ey + fz = 0

Here's the problem:
Imagine light from apastron reaches us at the same instant as light from
peristron with the orbit edge-on at distance d.

Now we move the system to a distance 2d and tilt it 60 degrees.
Light will now travel toward us at c+ v.cos(60) = c+ v/2, and light from
apastron still reaches us at the same instant as light from peristron.

Same again for 4d and a tilt of 75.5 degrees, cos 75.5 = 0.25.

the SHAPE of the light curve is unchanged, so we have to fall back
on the inverse square law and estimate distance from magnitude.
So when Henrietta Swan Leavitt discovered empirically that cepheids
were "standard candles" for distance, she was absolutely correct.
However, we CAN find the tilt if we know the tangential velocity v.
To get that, we need the period and the orbital path length, and
to find that we need the semi major axis. We know the period, we even
know v.cos(phi) the velocity from doppler, but not much else.
Period, major axis and distance form the sides of a similar triangle.
That's Androcles's law.
http://tinyurl.com/rv9z4
The shape of the triangle doesn't change, so distances can be found
from period and the shape of light curves. This is a considerable
amount of work which I have not undertaken, I felt it more important
to enlist aid and to convince at least one other person that Einstein
was a fraud and a crock of ***, impeding progress in astronomy
and particle physics to the detriment of science, to promote his own
personal gain.
I say enlist aid... I don't need the aid of shitheads, I seek genuine
philosophers interested in Nature that I can debate reasonably with.
Baez and Roberts are most definitely shitheads.
Androcles.



.

Loading