Re: Replacing helium on earth

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005, jgreenfield@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Timo Nieminen wrote:
On Fri, 22 Dec 2005, jgreenfield@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: 

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!!!

Can you provide anything other than hot air? Ash et al show how well the processed-using-c'=c data agrees with Newtonian modelling of the orbits. Where is Wallace's same presentation showing that processing using c'=c+v fits the Newtonian (or GR) orbits better? Not in Farce.

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 ???????????

Avoiding the issue? If c'=c+v is correct, why are the radar returns such that v would need to be less than 1m/s, when the relative speeds are much greater than that?

So tell me, was Wallace claiming c'=c+v, or c'=c+epsilon v, where epsilon is much smaller than 1?

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

Money, power, and ego (well, money and power, at least) will go to anyone who provides a convincing overturning of the "whole AE wagon". Care to have a crack at it yourself? It's really simple: c'=c+v means that the Maxwell equations are wrong. Design, build, and perform a reliable and replicable experiment to prove that.

Hard work, perhaps, but far more productive than bleating on usenet. If you really think c'=c+v is correct, then you'll be successful, right? How can you lose, with Nature on your side?

--
Timo
.

Quantcast