Re: Replacing helium on earth


Timo Nieminen wrote:
> 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.

Read it again; the data Wallace needed to confirm was withheld (still
in Russia??)
>
> >> 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?

Bloody hell! What is my rel speed to the sun at noon? What is at dawn?
Use the "noon" data, and of course there is negligible difference. What
was CAREFULLY avoided, was comparisons (SIMULTANEOUS) at dawn and dusk
(America and Russia)
>
> 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.

Too easy!

1) Just do the old radar measure to venus again. This time allow the
data
from different radars taken SIMULTANEOUSLY to be HONESTLY evaluated.

2) Compare the arrival times of simultaneously emitted emr bursts from
differently moving sources (ref us and from large distance) which are
reasonably close.
30kms per sec at saturn would show an order of one sec here
>
> 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?

How can "The Establishment" lose, with 100 years of brainwashing, the
US govt, and billions of dollars in defence and grants at stake? Not to
mention the pathetic tender egos of too many in the science comunity.
Example this very days paper: The "top" scientist in a Korean
university (professor) quit because he was caught blatantly cheating
and falsifying data. Pity he couldn't have just hidden it like Shapiro,
eh?

Jim G
c'=c+v

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Honest thoughts about HD radio
    ... Radio is a technology that was created to ... The down side can be using more resources like power or bandwidth to ... Distance invariably costs more money no matter what the ... Digital transmission is no better than its ...
    (rec.radio.shortwave)
  • Re: Honest thoughts about HD radio
    ... Radio is a technology that was created to overcome communicating intelligence over distance. ... The down side can be using more resources like power or bandwidth to increase the reliability but that is the price to pay for the more reliable connection. ... Distance invariably costs more money no matter what the medium the intelligence is transmitted over. ... Digital transmission is no better than its analog counterpart using the same power and bandwidth. ...
    (rec.radio.shortwave)
  • Re: Honest thoughts about HD radio
    ... Radio is a technology that was created to overcome communicating intelligence over distance. ... The down side can be using more resources like power or bandwidth to increase the reliability but that is the price to pay for the more reliable connection. ... Distance invariably costs more money no matter what the medium the intelligence is transmitted over. ... Digital transmission is no better than its analog counterpart using the same power and bandwidth. ...
    (rec.radio.shortwave)
  • Re: Democratic candidates address the issue of global warming while Republicans snooze...
    ... earth from the sun. ... The change of distance between the earth and the ... There are greater worries about planetary orbits. ... working-out of the algorithm. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Honest thoughts about HD radio
    ... If you transmit with more power in order that a radio link be more ... Distance invariably costs more money no matter what the medium the ... Digital transmission is no better than its ...
    (rec.radio.shortwave)