Re: Replacing helium on earth


Timo Nieminen wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2005, jgreenfield@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > Timo Nieminen wrote:
> > > On Fri, 22 Dec 2005, jgreenfield@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > Timo Nieminen wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 21 Dec 2005, jgreenfield@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > > tadchem wrote:
> > > > > > > P.S.
> > > > > > > Are you perchance familiar with the work of the late Brian G. Wallace
> > > > > > > ("The Farce of Physics") on the "c+v" hypothesis?:
> > > > > > > http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Humble apologies for my gratuitous remarks ref Brian G Wallace.
> > > > > > Thank you VERY much for that link, which is gratifying to me in
> > > > > > supporting
> > > > > > my views expressed here (and are based on logical diagnosis of
> > > > > > phenomena/data/observation)
> > > > > > I'd better learn to "look before I lip" :-)
> > > > > > Years worth of ammo..............
> > > > >
> > > > > You mean you'd never bothered reading any of the "c+v" literature that's
> > > > > out there? O'Rahilly? Waldron? Dingle?
> > > >
> > > > Your options: Wallace was a liar and dissembler of the first order,
> > > > OR c'=c+v
> > >
> > > You mean you'd never bothered to read any of the "c+v" literature?
> > >
> > > There is a 3rd option that you failed to mention: Wallace was wrong. It's
> > > quite possible that he was honestly mistaken. Why do you assume
> > > dishonesty?
> > >
> > > Wallace's data, or at least the analysis and interpetation, is not
> > > undisputed. Doesn't matter; there should be lots of data to support
> > > "c'=c+v", if it is correct. As you should be well aware, there is no
> > > single experiment that supports special relativity against all competing
> > > theories. It's a whole bunch of experiments together that support SR
> > > against competing theories. "c'=c+v" must be able to adequately explain
> > > _all_ the experiments, not just Wallace's data.
> >
> > Except that using radar ranging of venus from dusk and dawn positions
> > simultaneously, subjected to AE, show venus at two positions at the
> > SAME instant.
> > (Hint: This categorically denies veracity of c= c+v)
>
> And that has what to do with the above comments on (a) the 3rd option, or
> (b) that "c'=c+v" must be able to explain _all_ experiments?
>
> You've read Ash 1967 (ref 62 in Wallace)? In any case, Wallace gives the
> important stuff. So there the goodness-of-fit to the Crimean data was 5
> times worse than the quoted measurement error.

As I read it, Shapiro would only give Wallace data from radar
coordinates 0,0,0 earth at NOON. Therefore dusk and dawn (simultaneous)
was not ABLE to be analysed. This sort of dishonest distortion may fool
some, but not Wallace (or YT)
The 12 hourly (or whatever) had to be known within degreees of accuracy
not able to be timed in '60s.
You are still impressed by such trickery because you WANT to be; I'm
not.
The greatest laff would be, that the US govt was aware that c'=c+v, and
relying on the commoes to follow, send them on a wild goose chase ref
star wars.
Apparently that is not the case (or they started beleiving their own
entrails), or otherwise an airborn lasar would be able to hit a fly in
the eye (using Newton)
Such is not the case, unless the source and target are on the same
axis.
My cat would know that suggests light is source dependent.
>
> Do you think that this was equal to the expected (maximum) difference in
> measured distances to Venus of 260km? You did of course note that the
> accuracy of the measurements was expected to be 1.5 km?

On data that was made unavailabe?? (wasn't Shapiro's fault-- those
wicked CIA made him do it!!!!!)
>
> > > For example, the early anti-"c'=c+v" evidence was astronomical. Sans
> > > extinction, the astronomical evidence is against "c'=c+v". Fox covers
> > > the issue of extinction is his paper. With extinction, how come
> > > Fresnel-Fizeau drag? The correct theory must be able to explain both. I
> > > have yet to see an adequate explanation of Fresnel-Fizeau drag based on
> > > "c'=c+v" that is also compatible with the use of extinction to explain
> > > the astronomical results. If you find one, let me know.
> >
> > Read the whole friggin link.
> > Wallace clearly explains (and Shapiro admitted) that that the
> > astronomical observations were subjected to, and obtained through
> > systems USING c=c+v, BEFORE "data" was analysed.
> > (ie the data was AE spaghetti before conclusions were made from it.)
>
> And the observations so analysed agreed well with Newtonian modelling of
> the orbits. They also agreed even better with GR modelling of the orbits,
> but that's beside the point of current discussion.

If you are claiming that the distances to the distant astronomical
bodies was NOT arrived at per AE, BEFORE data was collected or
analysed, I say, as does WALLACE, RUBBISH!!!
>
> A quick look at Ash's graphs shows that the deviation from the modelled
> orbit, as given by the difference in the speed of light required to give
> the difference in time of flight, is about 1 m/s.

Same ol same ol! The distance again was ???????????
>
> Since Wallace doesn't give any of the data or analysis in his book, it
> isn't clear whether c+v conversion of radar observations to positions
> would have agreed as well or better, but given that changes in relative
> speed due to the rotation of the Earth would be 100s of m/s, rather than
> 1m/s or less, it doesn't look too good. Wallace's book is a diatribe
> against the "physics establishment", a work on the politics of science,
> largely devoid of any science content.

"Physics establishment" and "politics" fit well!
Money, power and ego drive the whole AE wagon, and the cliff ahead
(make that the stone wall) is ignored
>
> > PS: This "shrine to the spirits"................that would be to AE ?
>
> Still not reading links, I see.

Sit on the throne, read the links up to the flusher, pull the chain,
and find out that
AE was disproven in '60's, and kept on life support through
self-perpetuating dogma since.
But not forever!

Jim G
c'=c+v
>
> --
> Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
> E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
> Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

.