Re: The Physics Behind 'Contractions'.

hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote in
news:35usl45l3ghnjmceqhmej6213gg7rgqe42@xxxxxxx:

On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 16:06:52 +0000 (UTC), bz
<bz+spr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:4fb6487a-fbb2-4995-af59- 140d90733206@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Jan 2, 3:55 am, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 00:54:37 -0800 (PST), Jerry
<Cephalobus_alie...@comcas

.....
This will go on my lies list.

In this case, it may not so much be a lie as his failure to understand
that you were talking about the earth-sun Lagrange points. He may have
thought you meant an earth-moon Lagrange points.

Of course, the earth-sun Lagrange points follow the earth around its
solar orbit.

Thus he failed to understand that you were providing exactly what he was
asking for.


He still fails to understand that the aberration of a body at his '100
LY distant knob point' would depend on the velocity of the light from
that body.

I understand perfectly. I was merely poiting out that, in my experiment,
aberration for any star is constant as the telescope orbits and does not
affect the movement of any of the stars in the window.

Not 'any star', Henri. Only (at most) two stars, one at the 'north solar
ecliptic pole' and one at the 'south solar ecliptic pole'. Only those two
stars would show a constant aberration. Stars anywhere else will show a
variable aberration. However since the earths orbit is not circular, its
velocity varies and thus the aberration varies.

NB. Not even those two stars would show a constant aberration, as our solar
system is in orbit around the center of our galaxy, and THAT motion
produces its own [slowly changing] aberration. [though something only 100
LY away might be co-moving around our galaxy's center and thus stationary
wrt our solar system, anything far-far-away would not.]

He also fails to account for the required energy and entropy exchange
that would violate the laws of thermodynamics as we know them IF slow
light were to speed up while fast light from the same source were to
slow down. There is no mechanism for exchanging energy in such a way.
Any mechanism for exchanging energy would randomize the direction of
travel of the light and destroy the visible image of the distant star.

That is a grossly flawed piece of logic.

Show us.



--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+spr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.

Relevant Pages