 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / April 2006All Starlight Moves at 'c' WRT Earth --But Earth Didn't Exist!
Modern astronomy is based on the assumption that all starlight in the universe travels to little planet Earth at precisely 'c'. I wonder what magical power arranged for this to happen since in many cses, Earth wasn't even in existence when the light left its source. The question is, "how can the speed of anything, including light, be given a magnitude wrt something that doesn't exist?" Did the light from a star 10 billion LYs away somehow 'know' where the Earth was going to be 10 billion years later? HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > Modern astronomy is based on the assumption that all starlight in the > universe > travels to little planet Earth at precisely 'c'. > > I wonder what magical power arranged for this to happen since in many > cses, The same magical power that causes right triangles to obey pythagerouses theorem. > Earth wasn't even in existence when the light left its source. And neither were the triangles phythagerouses theorem applies to. > The question is, "how can the speed of anything, including light, be given > a > magnitude wrt something that doesn't exist?" The same way we know that any triangle even those that do not exist yet obey pythagerouses theorem. > Did the light from a star 10 billion LYs away somehow 'know' where the > Earth > was going to be 10 billion years later? Did the lengths of the triangle somehow know what they would be doing before they formed a triangle? Bill > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm | Modern astronomy is based on the assumption that all starlight in the universe | travels to little planet Earth at precisely 'c'. Not quite *all* modern astronomy. My telescope still works with slower and faster starlight. Ozzie telescopes work by looking at the wrong end, they are upside down and see different stars. Merry equinox, btw. | I wonder what magical power arranged for this to happen since in many cses, | Earth wasn't even in existence when the light left its source. This supernatural power: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Genesis/Genesis.htm | The question is, "how can the speed of anything, including light, be given a | magnitude wrt something that doesn't exist?" Dunno... Some people think angular velocity is absolute too. Aren't you one of them? The question is, "How can angular velocity of anything be given a magnitude wrt something that doesn't exist?" The answers are second coming, never forthcoming. | Did the light from a star 10 billion LYs away somehow 'know' where the Earth | was going to be 10 billion years later? Probably, although I anticipate it has long since forgotten. Ask it. Androcles. > Modern astronomy is based on the assumption that all starlight in the universe > travels to little planet Earth at precisely 'c'. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Did the light from a star 10 billion LYs away somehow 'know' where the Earth > was going to be 10 billion years later? Yes. In the 4D block universe Earth already exists inside the lightcone of the source. Richard Perry >> Modern astronomy is based on the assumption that all starlight in the universe >> travels to little planet Earth at precisely 'c'. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Yes. In the 4D block universe Earth already exists inside the lightcone >of the source. How can a source have a single light cone if it emits light at a different speed wrt every object in the universe? >Richard Perry HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >>>Modern astronomy is based on the assumption that all starlight in the universe >>>travels to little planet Earth at precisely 'c'. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > How can a source have a single light cone if it emits light at a different > speed wrt every object in the universe? It emits light at the same speed wrt every object, not that the question was relevant to light cones. Richard Perry >>>>Modern astronomy is based on the assumption that all starlight in the universe >>>>travels to little planet Earth at precisely 'c'. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >It emits light at the same speed wrt every object, not that the question >was relevant to light cones. That's very clever of it. Does it employ the fairies? >Richard Perry HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > Modern astronomy is based on the assumption that all starlight in the universe > travels to little planet Earth at precisely 'c'. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm\ You must live in a very chaotic world where there are absolutely no rules at all. Because, in order to have rules, there must be some magical power that brings them into being. DOA >> Modern astronomy is based on the assumption that all starlight in the universe >> travels to little planet Earth at precisely 'c'. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >rules at all. Because, in order to have rules, there must be some >magical power that brings them into being. DOA The RULE that astronomers use is that all starlight oin the universe travels at c towards little planet Earth. Silly isn't it! HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >> Modern astronomy is based on the assumption that all starlight in the universe > >> travels to little planet Earth at precisely 'c'. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Silly isn't it! Seems to work! Name the results of even one peer-reviewed experiment that has ever violated it and then you might have something. >> >> Modern astronomy is based on the assumption that all starlight in the universe >> >> travels to little planet Earth at precisely 'c'. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >Name the results of even one peer-reviewed experiment that has ever >violated it and then you might have something. The 'peers' are also true believers. It's all part of the inbreeding that has afflicted physics for 100 years. Why do you think all starlight in the universe travels at c towards little planet Earth....when Earth wasn't even in existence when most of the light was emitted. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >> >> Modern astronomy is based on the assumption that all starlight in the universe > >> >> travels to little planet Earth at precisely 'c'. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm "The Downunder version of the Anthropic Principle": http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Downunder.html Brilliant, as always. Dirk Vdm > >> >> Modern astronomy is based on the assumption that all starlight in the universe > >> >> travels to little planet Earth at precisely 'c'. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > The 'peers' are also true believers. Bullshit, Henri. That is just your excuse for why an empirically falsified theory hasn't been seriously considered for almost a century. > It's all part of the inbreeding that has afflicted physics for 100 years. You must think physicists to be really f.cking stupid if you honestly believe that. Just because *YOU* failed to understand relativity does not mean relativity is false. Though, it is way too late for you to change your position - you have invested years of time saying how wrong relativity is so you can't go back now. > Why do you think all starlight in the universe travels at c towards little > planet Earth....when Earth wasn't even in existence when most of the light was > emitted. Mabey it travels at c to EVERYWHERE not just Earth? > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >> >> Modern astronomy is based on the assumption that all starlight in the universe > >> >> travels to little planet Earth at precisely 'c'. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Spoken like a true crank and troll. It's so stupid, I won't even respond to it. You remind me of the guy that was beating his head against the wall because it felt so good when he stopped. >> >> >> Modern astronomy is based on the assumption that all starlight in the universe >> >> >> travels to little planet Earth at precisely 'c'. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >respond to it. You remind me of the guy that was beating his head >against the wall because it felt so good when he stopped. It is SO STUPID...yet that's exactly the crux of SR. I'm glad you realize how stupid it is. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >> >> Modern astronomy is based on the assumption that all starlight in the universe > >> >> travels to little planet Earth at precisely 'c'. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > It's all part of the inbreeding that has afflicted physics for 100 years. Aha. I see. And I suppose that, because scientists have been deluding themselves for 100 years, nothing that has been built using the principles discovered in the last 100 years should be working, including your computer for instance. > Why do you think all starlight in the universe travels at c towards little > planet Earth....when Earth wasn't even in existence when most of the light was > emitted. The fact that you don't understand how something could possibly be does not defuse its reality. I don't understand how you could possibly be so irrevocably dense, but .. well, there you are. PD >> The 'peers' are also true believers. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >discovered in the last 100 years should be working, including your >computer for instance. Do you really think my computer wouldn't work if Einstein hadn't pulled of the greatest hoax in history? >> Why do you think all starlight in the universe travels at c towards little >> planet Earth....when Earth wasn't even in existence when most of the light was [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I don't understand how you could possibly be so irrevocably dense, but >.. well, there you are. You probably aren't understand the significance of the term 'independent of source' ...so I will tell you. According to Einstein, all the light in the universe traveling in a particular direction does so at one particular speed. (Forget about putting a value on that speed for hte moment). Similarly, all the light traveling in the opposite direction does so at one particular speed. It follows that there exists a plane about which these opposite rays move symmetrically. Extend this argument to include light moving in all directions. The conclusion is that there exists ONE SINGLE point in the universe about which all light moves symmetrically. According to Einstein, all light arriving at Earth from all directions does so symmetrically, at speed c. Therefore it follows that Earth must be located right at the above point, which is the absolute centre of the universe. >PD HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >>>The 'peers' are also true believers. >>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > It follows that there exists a plane about which these opposite rays move > symmetrically. There are infinitely many planes with respect to which the velocity of the rays will be symmetric. Regardless of the motion of the plane wrt the sources (toward or away) the light will still be moving at c wrt in both directions. > Extend this argument to include light moving in all directions. The conclusion > is that there exists ONE SINGLE point in the universe about which all light > moves symmetrically. That conclusion doesn't follow even in the Galilean context that you began with. > According to Einstein, all light arriving at Earth from all directions does so > symmetrically, at speed c. > Therefore it follows that Earth must be located right at the above point, which > is the absolute centre of the universe. Your form of logic would allow one to conclude pretty much anything that suited ones fancy. Richard Perry >>>>The 'peers' are also true believers. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >the sources (toward or away) the light will still be moving at c wrt in >both directions. What a strange thing to say. Quite out of the question I'm afraid. >> Extend this argument to include light moving in all directions. The conclusion >> is that there exists ONE SINGLE point in the universe about which all light >> moves symmetrically. > >That conclusion doesn't follow even in the Galilean context that you >began with. Look, I realise that a graphical description of source independence comes as quite a shock to any brainwshed SRian who has never thought beyond his equations....but facts are facts. ACCORDING TO EINSTEIN, ALL LIGHT IN THE UNBIVERSE MOVING IN ANY PARTICULAR DIRECTION DOES SO AT THE SAME SPEED. DO YOU DENY THIS? >> According to Einstein, all light arriving at Earth from all directions does so >> symmetrically, at speed c. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Your form of logic would allow one to conclude pretty much anything that >suited ones fancy. You on the other hand possess NO form of logic at all. >Richard Perry HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >>>>The 'peers' are also true believers. > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > What a strange thing to say. > Quite out of the question I'm afraid. The fact that you don't believe it doesn't make it untrue, Henri. It is quite true, and though it came as quite a surprise to a number of people, experiment supports it. > >> Extend this argument to include light moving in all directions. The conclusion > >> is that there exists ONE SINGLE point in the universe about which all light [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >> >> According to Einstein, all the light in the universe traveling in a particular >> >> direction does so at one particular speed. (Forget about putting a value on [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >quite true, and though it came as quite a surprise to a number of >people, experiment supports it. PD, one can first assume it is true then concoct a mathematical theory based on that fact. Naturally any conclusions reached by that theory after any number of circularly logical steps will agree with the primary assumption. The 'number of people' surprised by this exercise in circularity merely shows how many gullible fools there are even in the scientific world. You are obviously one of them. >> >> Extend this argument to include light moving in all directions. The conclusion >> >> is that there exists ONE SINGLE point in the universe about which all light [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >> DO YOU DENY THIS? DO YOU DENY IT? >> >> According to Einstein, all light arriving at Earth from all directions does so >> >> symmetrically, at speed c. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> HW. >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >> >> According to Einstein, all the light in the universe traveling in a particular > >> >> direction does so at one particular speed. (Forget about putting a value on [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > that fact. Naturally any conclusions reached by that theory after any number of > circularly logical steps will agree with the primary assumption. Sorry, Henri. The tests of special relativity are about those things that it does not *assume*. > The 'number of people' surprised by this exercise in circularity merely shows > how many gullible fools there are even in the scientific world. > You are obviously one of them. You are obviously one of only a handful of people on the planet who are not gullible fools, I take it. > >> >> Extend this argument to include light moving in all directions. The conclusion > >> >> is that there exists ONE SINGLE point in the universe about which all light [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > DO YOU DENY IT? No, of course I don't deny it, Henri. I carried it further in explaining what Einstein said about it. Your conclusion about one point that is the center of the universe from which all light is symmetric, however, is a faulty conclusion. > >> >> According to Einstein, all light arriving at Earth from all directions does so > >> >> symmetrically, at speed c. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >> >> >> According to Einstein, all the light in the universe traveling in a particular >> >> >> direction does so at one particular speed. (Forget about putting a value on [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Sorry, Henri. The tests of special relativity are about those things >that it does not *assume*. that's the way...run for cover behind a pathetic attempt at self-reinforcement. You know there is absolutely NO direct evidence in support of SR. >> The 'number of people' surprised by this exercise in circularity merely shows >> how many gullible fools there are even in the scientific world. >> You are obviously one of them. > >You are obviously one of only a handful of people on the planet who are >not gullible fools, I take it. PD, anyone can manufacture a postulate and then describe it mathematically. One can then fiddle with the maths and, a.s in the case of SR, describe the postulate in a most complicated way in a different geometry. This kind of procedure, in spite of its impressive jargon, does not prove the postulate. It merely describes it in an alternative way. >> >> >> Extend this argument to include light moving in all directions. The conclusion >> >> >> is that there exists ONE SINGLE point in the universe about which all light [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >No, of course I don't deny it, Henri. Well let's try to explain why it should happen. Imagine a star in remote space. Moving past it right across the universe are lots of photons, all traveling at the same speed in any particular direction, according to your pet theory. WHY SHOULD LIGHT EMITTED BY THAT STAR TRAVEL AT THE SAME SPEED AS THE OTHER PHOTONS? >I carried it further in >explaining what Einstein said about it. Your conclusion about one point >that is the center of the universe from which all light is symmetric, >however, is a faulty conclusion. I admitted that was a bit of a joke. I realize aether theories have a mathematical way around that. >> >> >> According to Einstein, all light arriving at Earth from all directions does so >> >> >> symmetrically, at speed c. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> HW. >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm [snip] Cry more, Henri. Your misunderstandings are not our misunderstandings. A century of physicists have come to accept what you cannot. That does not mean a century of people are all deluded and you are not, it means you are WRONG and are too stubborn to admit it. > >> >> >> According to Einstein, all the light in the universe traveling in a particular > >> >> >> direction does so at one particular speed. (Forget about putting a value on [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > that's the way...run for cover behind a pathetic attempt at self-reinforcement. > You know there is absolutely NO direct evidence in support of SR. Why, Henri, I know no such thing. There is ample experiment evidence in support of SR. The fact that you don't believe them or think that they were published as a part of a conspiracy does not change that. > >> The 'number of people' surprised by this exercise in circularity merely shows > >> how many gullible fools there are even in the scientific world. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > This kind of procedure, in spite of its impressive jargon, does not prove the > postulate. It merely describes it in an alternative way. But that isn't quite what happens in science. A theory is based on certain assumptions and postulates, which are adopted without proof. Then the consequences of those postulates and assumptions are developed to the point where they make specific predictions about measurable quantities, and in particular predictions that are different than the ones about the same measurable quantities that stem from a theory with a different set of postulates and assumptions. Thus if theory A, based on one set of postulates, is correct, then the measured value of measurable property P will have value X; if theory B, based on another set of postulates, is correct, then the measured value of measurable property P will instead have the value Y. Then an experiment is done. If the measurement is consistent with X and not consistent with Y, then we have support that the postulates assumed in A are correct, and the postulates assumed in B are not correct. > >> >> >> Extend this argument to include light moving in all directions. The conclusion > >> >> >> is that there exists ONE SINGLE point in the universe about which all light [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > WHY SHOULD LIGHT EMITTED BY THAT STAR TRAVEL AT THE SAME SPEED AS THE OTHER > PHOTONS? Because the laws of electrodynamics say that propagating disturbances in the electromagnetic field (that is, light) do so at a single speed in vacuum. Those laws have ample support in every application that they are applied to, and there is not a stitch of evidence (despite looking for it) that light does *not* propagate at this one speed. > >I carried it further in > >explaining what Einstein said about it. Your conclusion about one point [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm [snip] > > WHY SHOULD LIGHT EMITTED BY THAT STAR TRAVEL AT THE SAME SPEED AS THE OTHER > > PHOTONS? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > are applied to, and there is not a stitch of evidence (despite looking > for it) that light does *not* propagate at this one speed. Since Henri says he believes Maxwell's equations, I tried to show that Maxwell's equations directly require c to be constant. I tried arguing that the only solution to the 2 wave equations in E and B which appear directly [with a little work] from Maxwell's equations only have solutions for c = constant. Since Henri also believes himself to have a degree in applied mathematics, I figured that to be the best route. Boy was I wrong. You will find that Henri refuses to make a calculation that he can write down - he will only make "calculations" through a computer program. When I ask for the equations that the program is based on, he gets grumpy. [snip] >[snip] > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >directly [with a little work] from Maxwell's equations only have >solutions for c = constant. That's correct. 'c' is a universal constant....and Maxwell's equations provide a way of measuring it (in a medium). >Since Henri also believes himself to have a degree in applied >mathematics, I figured that to be the best route. Boy was I wrong. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >program. When I ask for the equations that the program is based on, he >gets grumpy. Geesey, are you aware that this group is not alt.kindergarten >[snip] HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >[snip] > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > That's correct. 'c' is a universal constant....and Maxwell's equations provide > a way of measuring it (in a medium). It is stronger than that - c is constant in every inertial frame. Time for your weekly history lesson that never seems to sink in: Special relativity was created because Maxwell's equations are not invariant with respect to Galilean transformations. Since you believe that c = c+v in at least some circumstances, you should be able to show me how to solve the two wave equations in E and B which trivially obtain from Maxwell's equations using c+v as the seperation constant. Failing that, you should be able to tell me how a second reference frame is able to observe c to be anything other than c using Maxwell's equations. However, I have zero expectation that you are either willing or even CAPABLE of doing so. Feel free to prove me wrong with some actual mathematics, though. I would be impressed if you even tried. > >Since Henri also believes himself to have a degree in applied > >mathematics, I figured that to be the best route. Boy was I wrong. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Geesey, are you aware that this group is not alt.kindergarten Since you are incapable of having an adult discussion I will not treat you as an adult. If at any time you wish to be treated as a rational adult rather than as a person with an obvious mental defect, I suggest you stop attempting to marginalize people who talk to you by ignoring their requests and playing games with their names. Your time on this newsgroup is wasted. You obviously spend many hours a week doing nothing fruitful in here even though you believe your theory is correct. Rather than actually do an experiment or, *gasp*, read the f.cking literature, you rather see fit to sit on your dumb f.cking a.s and preach to us about how wrong *WE* are even though you barely understand the theories you criticise. Thus ends the 2 minute hate. > >[snip] > > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >> >[snip] >> > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >second reference frame is able to observe c to be anything other than c >using Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equation produce a value for the universal constant 'c'. In a medium that has measurable permittivity and permeability, that 'c' is also the natural speed at which EM will travel in that medium, which aso provides te reference frame for that speed. In empty space, Maxwell's 'c' has no connection with speed since there is no reference frame. However if a light source exists in that empty space, its emitted light will move at c wrt that source. Why that is true we don't yet know....because Einstein's stupid theory brought sensible research to a standstill. Get it now Geesey? >However, I have zero expectation that you are either willing or even >CAPABLE of doing so. Feel free to prove me wrong with some actual [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Thus ends the 2 minute hate. Now prove that Maxwell's c has dimensions of speed..... >> >[snip] >> >> HW. >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >> >[snip] > >> > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > the natural speed at which EM will travel in that medium, which aso provides te > reference frame for that speed. Completely true, even when there is no medium. > In empty space, Maxwell's 'c' has no connection with speed since there is no > reference frame. However if a light source exists in that empty space, its > emitted light will move at c wrt that source. You are wrong. Maxwell's equations are valid in empty space. Congratulations on not understanding what has been known for over a century. > Why that is true we don't yet know....because Einstein's stupid theory brought > sensible research to a standstill. Your arrogance is astounding. You place yourself above a century of scientists yet you are incapable of doing any mathematics. > Get it now Geesey? > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Now prove that Maxwell's c has dimensions of speed..... No. > >> >[snip] > >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >> >> >[snip] >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >Completely true, even when there is no medium. So what is the reference for speed in that case geesey? >> In empty space, Maxwell's 'c' has no connection with speed since there is no >> reference frame. However if a light source exists in that empty space, its [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Congratulations on not understanding what has been known for over a >century. So what is the reference for speed in that case geesey? >> Why that is true we don't yet know....because Einstein's stupid theory brought >> sensible research to a standstill. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >> HW. >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm [snip] THE ANSWER IS "c" YOU FUCKWIT. Your deliberate misunderstanding of Maxwell's equations and SR just proves you have no desire to learn. >[snip] > >THE ANSWER IS "c" YOU FUCKWIT. The answer might be 'c'.... but what makes it a speed relative to anything? >Your deliberate misunderstanding of Maxwell's equations and SR just >proves you have no desire to learn. Maxwell's equations apply to waves in an absolute medium called an aether. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >[snip] > > > >THE ANSWER IS "c" YOU FUCKWIT. > > The answer might be 'c'.... but what makes it a speed relative to anything? There is no "might". Maxwell's equations demand c to be a constant, and through Maxwell's equations we can determine what c is. What delusion makes you think c is a speed relative to anything? > >Your deliberate misunderstanding of Maxwell's equations and SR just > >proves you have no desire to learn. > > Maxwell's equations apply to waves in an absolute medium called an aether. Irrelevant, as usual. Assume you are correct, and they do apply to a medium. Your theory is contingent on there being a medium called the "h-aether". Maxwell's equations apply! Since Maxwell's equations DO apply in free space, your argument is crap no matter how you cut it. Henri, I think it is time for you to explain where you got your education in physics. It was obviously not obtained from a university, nor was it obtained from any textbooks on modern physics. > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >> >[snip] >> > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >education in physics. It was obviously not obtained from a university, >nor was it obtained from any textbooks on modern physics. I gather you got yours from Dr Who >> HW. >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >> [quoted text muted] > > There is no "might". Maxwell's equations demand c to be a constant, and > through Maxwell's equations we can determine what c is. > > What delusion makes you think c is a speed relative to anything? Would it be correct to state that c is a speed relative to *everything*? :-) [rest snipped]  Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. >> >> PD, one can first assume it is true then concoct a mathematical theory based on >> >> that fact. Naturally any conclusions reached by that theory after any number of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >support of SR. The fact that you don't believe them or think that they >were published as a part of a conspiracy does not change that. If SR was proven beyond doubt, do you really think there would be so much reaction to it? Nobody really believes it you know, including yourself. It's on par with 'god' to a christian. They don't REALLY believe in it at all. . >> >> The 'number of people' surprised by this exercise in circularity merely shows >> >> how many gullible fools there are even in the scientific world. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >we have support that the postulates assumed in A are correct, and the >postulates assumed in B are not correct. Yes we know all that. It turns out that some experiments can be 'fiddled' so they appear to support SR, but for entirely the wrong reasons. >> >> >> >> Extend this argument to include light moving in all directions. The conclusion >> >> >> >> is that there exists ONE SINGLE point in the universe about which all light [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >in the electromagnetic field (that is, light) do so at a single speed >in vacuum. 'speed in a vacuum' is a meaningless expression. Speeds must always be specified relative to something. >Those laws have ample support in every application that they >are applied to, and there is not a stitch of evidence (despite looking >for it) that light does *not* propagate at this one speed. Wrong. There is now massive evidence that starlight is emitted at c wrt its source and travels at c+v wrt Earth. >> >I carried it further in >> >explaining what Einstein said about it. Your conclusion about one point [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> HW. >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >> >> PD, one can first assume it is true then concoct a mathematical theory based on > >> >> that fact. Naturally any conclusions reached by that theory after any number of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > If SR was proven beyond doubt, do you really think there would be so much > reaction to it? I don't know where you got the impression there is "so much reaction to it". You mean by reading here? That's sort of like visiting Roswell, New Mexico, to evaluate whether there is any truth to all this talk about flying saucers. If you've come here, read a few posts, and from that come to the conclusion, "Gee, there sure is a lot of noise about relativity here. Must be something wrong with it," well then, fine display of uninformed bandwagon-jumping there, Henri. > Nobody really believes it you know, including yourself. Sure I do. I've seen it work. In real life, mind you, not just simulation programs. > It's on par with 'god' to a christian. They don't REALLY believe in it at all. > . [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > It turns out that some experiments can be 'fiddled' so they appear to support > SR, but for entirely the wrong reasons. Well, then, I suppose the honorable thing to do would be for you to read the experimental papers, analyze what they did, and root out the source of their "fiddling". This has been done before for papers that turned out to be suspect (especially when they couldn't be verified). Otherwise, it is just a slanderous allegation on your part. Have you considered writing to the authors of the experimental paper and asking them for details of their data and analysis? That's what reviewers do. > >> >> >> >> Extend this argument to include light moving in all directions. The conclusion > >> >> >> >> is that there exists ONE SINGLE point in the universe about which all light [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > 'speed in a vacuum' is a meaningless expression. Speeds must always be > specified relative to something. That's right. With respect to the origin of a reference frame in which the speed is measured. > >Those laws have ample support in every application that they > >are applied to, and there is not a stitch of evidence (despite looking > >for it) that light does *not* propagate at this one speed. > > Wrong. There is now massive evidence that starlight is emitted at c wrt its > source and travels at c+v wrt Earth. Sorry. There is another explanation for variable star brightness that constitutes your "massive" evidence. Note that the laws of electrodynamics say that the speed of light is single-valued in vacuum. So I suppose you are claiming that you have evidence that the laws of electrodynamics are wrong? PD PD's crap removed >> 'speed in a vacuum' is a meaningless expression. Speeds must always be >> specified relative to something. > >That's right. With respect to the origin of a reference frame in which >the speed is measured. ....and since no such OW speed has ever been measured, you have no proof that it is always c. >> >Those laws have ample support in every application that they >> >are applied to, and there is not a stitch of evidence (despite looking [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Note that the laws of electrodynamics say that the speed of light is >single-valued in vacuum. with reference to what? All speeds must have a reference you know. >So I suppose you are claiming that you have >evidence that the laws of electrodynamics are wrong? They apply to a medium. >PD HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > PD's crap removed > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ....and since no such OW speed has ever been measured, you have no proof that > it is always c. As I've already mentioned to you, TWLS measurements and the isotropy of light speed, both OW and TW, are experimentally equivalent to measuring OWLS. When you have that figured out, let me know. > >> >Those laws have ample support in every application that they > >> >are applied to, and there is not a stitch of evidence (despite looking [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > with reference to what? All speeds must have a reference you know. I've already answered this: with respect to the origin of the frame of reference in which the fields are measured. > >So I suppose you are claiming that you have > >evidence that the laws of electrodynamics are wrong? > > They apply to a medium. I don't know *where* you got that mistaken impression. PD >> >That's right. With respect to the origin of a reference frame in which >> >the speed is measured. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >light speed, both OW and TW, are experimentally equivalent to measuring >OWLS. When you have that figured out, let me know. You are fundamentally wrong here PD. Light speed has been proved isotropic only when all parts of the measuring apparatus are mutually at rest. OWLS from moving sources has never been shown to be isotropic. >> >> >Those laws have ample support in every application that they >> >> >are applied to, and there is not a stitch of evidence (despite looking [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >I've already answered this: with respect to the origin of the frame of >reference in which the fields are measured. then it is not c wrt other frames. >> >So I suppose you are claiming that you have >> >evidence that the laws of electrodynamics are wrong? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >PD HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >> >That's right. With respect to the origin of a reference frame in which > >> >the speed is measured. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Light speed has been proved isotropic only when all parts of the measuring > apparatus are mutually at rest. That is incorrect. Measurement of time of flight of photons from a moving pion has the source moving relative to the detectors, and there are detectors on both sides of that source. > OWLS from moving sources has never been shown to be isotropic. That is also incorrect. I just gave you one. Would you like the reference to the paper? > >> >> >Those laws have ample support in every application that they > >> >> >are applied to, and there is not a stitch of evidence (despite looking [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > then it is not c wrt other frames. Yes, it is, and Maxwell's equations say that it must be, as well. > >> >So I suppose you are claiming that you have > >> >evidence that the laws of electrodynamics are wrong? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm [snip] Is it not yet clear that Henri neither understands SR or Maxwell's equations? >> >As I've already mentioned to you, TWLS measurements and the isotropy of >> >light speed, both OW and TW, are experimentally equivalent to measuring [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >That is also incorrect. I just gave you one. Would you like the >reference to the paper? That experiment is a joke. Onl a DHR would even bother to read it. >> >> with reference to what? All speeds must have a reference you know. >> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Yes, it is, and Maxwell's equations say that it must be, as well. Run my program: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/gr-aether.exe Tell me how all those uniformly moving light pulses can be moving at c wrt their individual sources. Tell me how observers with thsoe sources can possibly get hte same value for c via Maxwell when the pulses are moving at different speds wrt the sources. >> >> >So I suppose you are claiming that you have >> >> >evidence that the laws of electrodynamics are wrong? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> HW. >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >> >As I've already mentioned to you, TWLS measurements and the isotropy of > >> >light speed, both OW and TW, are experimentally equivalent to measuring [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > That experiment is a joke. Onl a DHR would even bother to read it. And here we are again, with Henri using his version of the scientific method: "If experiment doesn't agree with my theory, then it is the experiment that is flawed and not my theory. Any *fool* can see that!" > >> >> with reference to what? All speeds must have a reference you know. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Run my program: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/gr-aether.exe Your program is not consistent with either Maxwell's equations or with reality. > Tell me how all those uniformly moving light pulses can be moving at c wrt > their individual sources. > Tell me how observers with thsoe sources can possibly get hte same value for c > via Maxwell when the pulses are moving at different speds wrt the sources. In other words, "Tell me how to fix my program so that it is physically correct and produce results that are consistent with reality, because I obviously don't know how it could possibly be and so can't code it to make it work that way." > >> >> >So I suppose you are claiming that you have > >> >> >evidence that the laws of electrodynamics are wrong? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >> >> OWLS from moving sources has never been shown to be isotropic. >> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >"If experiment doesn't agree with my theory, then it is the experiment >that is flawed and not my theory. Any *fool* can see that!" Read the bloody thing. It is surely a joke that only an SRian would take seriously. >> >> >> with reference to what? All speeds must have a reference you know. >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Your program is not consistent with either Maxwell's equations or with >reality. Paul Andersen says the opposite. He agrees it shows exactly what SR claims. I agree it does not match reality. >> Tell me how all those uniformly moving light pulses can be moving at c wrt >> their individual sources. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >obviously don't know how it could possibly be and so can't code it to >make it work that way." Idiot! HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >> >> OWLS from moving sources has never been shown to be isotropic. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Read the bloody thing. It is surely a joke that only an SRian would take > seriously. You didn't read the paper. > >> >> >> with reference to what? All speeds must have a reference you know. > >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Paul Andersen says the opposite. He agrees it shows exactly what SR claims. Liar. > I agree it does not match reality. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >> >> OWLS from moving sources has never been shown to be isotropic. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Read the bloody thing. It is surely a joke that only an SRian would take > seriously. I see you have a critique of it. Where do you find the experimental mistakes? Please do tell. > >> >> >> with reference to what? All speeds must have a reference you know. > >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Paul Andersen says the opposite. He agrees it shows exactly what SR claims. You'd have to convince me of that by posting the code. > I agree it does not match reality. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >> >> >> OWLS from moving sources has never been shown to be isotropic. >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >You'd have to convince me of that by posting the code. Piss off troll. You don't need any bloody code to see what it does... What sort of idiot are you? >> I agree it does not match reality. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> HW. >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm [...] > >> >> Run my program: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/gr-aether.exe > >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You don't need any bloody code to see what it does... > What sort of idiot are you? Why are you always afraid of showing your work, Henri? Pictures are not proof, as I have to tell you over and over. [...] > >> >> >> OWLS from moving sources has never been shown to be isotropic. > >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Piss off troll. > You don't need any bloody code to see what it does... Cranky. Why would you not want to show the code? > What sort of idiot are you? One who doesn't believe you have the foggiest idea how to code the principles of SR. It would be simple for you to prove otherwise, of course. > >> I agree it does not match reality. > >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > >> >> >> OWLS from moving sources has never been shown to be isotropic. > > >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Cranky. > Why would you not want to show the code? We [Henri and me] have been over this before. He is deathly afraid of someone "stealing" his work, publishing it, and then taking credit. Yea. I know how that sounds. > > What sort of idiot are you? > > One who doesn't believe you have the foggiest idea how to code the > principles of SR. It would be simple for you to prove otherwise, of > course. It would be simple for him to prove lots of things assuming he could actually do it. But notice how Henri absolutely refuses to do any actual work on proving something. [..] > > > >> >> >> OWLS from moving sources has never been shown to be isotropic. > > > >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > actually do it. But notice how Henri absolutely refuses to do any > actual work on proving something. Henri Wilson is unaware of how the exposure of methods in open publication for both review and independent repetition by another researcher is crucial to how science works. He imagines that we all work in secret, announce results without disclosing our methods, and get rich off patents. I recall when the Pons/Fleischmann collaboration gave a colloquium about cold fusion at a national laboratory. They, too, were deliberately vague about some of the details of their methods. That is when some highly reputable scientists in the audience stood up and left. It was only later, under enormous pressure from the scientific community, that they were more forthcoming, to the point where independent verification could be done -- and where independent verification failed and cold fusion suffered a mortal wound. Henri is of course ignorant of how science works in general, which is exhibited frequently in the things that he writes. He would like to be a rock star, because he likes the chicks that musicians attract, and he doesn't see why not being able to sing or play an instrument should stand in his way. PD [...] > Henri Wilson is unaware of how the exposure of methods in open > publication for both review and independent repetition by another > researcher is crucial to how science works. He imagines that we all > work in secret, announce results without disclosing our methods, and > get rich off patents. That might mean something if Henri had anything interesting to say, he doesn't. Witness his fantasies about what Maxwell's equations say. I still don't know beans about E&M but I do know what Maxwell's equations are, and I know my vector calculus and simple partial differential equations. Together I can make Maxwell's equations say some rather interesting things, like demanding the constancy of light speed among others. Henri asserts c is actually velocity dependant, but he is incapable of deriving it from Maxwell's equations. He then "shows" me that I "believe" Maxwell's equations are are of the form c = f(E,B) for whatever reason. It is classic Henri Wilson - mock your opponents so you don't have to take what they say seriously. > I recall when the Pons/Fleischmann collaboration gave a colloquium > about cold fusion at a national laboratory. They, too, were [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > independent verification could be done -- and where independent > verification failed and cold fusion suffered a mortal wound. The moral of the story: Those who act like they have something to hide probably do. > Henri is of course ignorant of how science works in general, which is > exhibited frequently in the things that he writes. He would like to be > a rock star, because he likes the chicks that musicians attract, and he > doesn't see why not being able to sing or play an instrument should > stand in his way. I have no idea what he expects. He somehow thinks he is going to dethrone Einstein by posting to sci.physics.relativity. Jerry had a nice, simple experiment for him and he refuses to do it. Rather, he wants to do something big and complicated that requires expensive and delicate equipment which he has no indication of being able to use. I fully expect him to stall for a few more years, assuming I'm still watching this newsgroup then. He won't publish [it isn't ready yet!] and he won't do any experiments, but by god he knows he is right. That is good enough for him. > PD >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >He won't publish [it isn't ready yet!] and he won't do any experiments, >but by god he knows he is right. That is good enough for him. what a pair of useless morons. PD : Dinky's 2nd year apprentice. Geese: Dinky's first year apprentice. >> PD HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm [snip] > what a pair of useless morons. > > PD : Dinky's 2nd year apprentice. > Geese: Dinky's first year apprentice. Classic! I say that is the type of thing you do, then you go ahead and do it. > >> PD > > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >> >> >> >> OWLS from moving sources has never been shown to be isotropic. >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >principles of SR. It would be simple for you to prove otherwise, of >course. If you don't understand what source independency means then it isn't my problem. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >> >> >> >> OWLS from moving sources has never been shown to be isotropic. > >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > If you don't understand what source independency means then it isn't my > problem. I do know what it means. You haven't demonstrated that this is built into your code. Moreover, if this is the *only* principle built into this code, then you haven't coded the principles of SR. What are you afraid of? PD > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >> >> >> >> >> OWLS from moving sources has never been shown to be isotropic. >> >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >into your code. Moreover, if this is the *only* principle built into >this code, then you haven't coded the principles of SR. Look at the bloody animation. It shows light pulses from differently moving sources all traveling at the same sopeed. You obviously can't even recognize Einstein's crap when you tread in it. >What are you afraid of? Nothing... apart from desperate SRians with guns. >PD > >> HW. >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >> >> >> >> >> OWLS from moving sources has never been shown to be isotropic. > >> >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > Look at the bloody animation. It shows light pulses from differently moving > sources all traveling at the same sopeed. As I said, if this is the only principle built into this code, then you haven't coded the principles of SR. > You obviously can't even recognize Einstein's crap when you tread in it. We don't know yet whether the crap you're simulating has anything to do with Einstein. Since you haven't read anything about SR, I don't know where you get off saying that you know your simulation reflects SR. > >What are you afraid of? > > Nothing... apart from desperate SRians with guns. Whaaat? You think if you post the code, some SR hit man is going to come shoot you? Really? Why, Henri, I do believe you've fallen off your rocker. PD >> >> If you don't understand what source independency means then it isn't my >> >> problem. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Why, Henri, I do believe you've fallen off your rocker. You're the idiot here, boy. You claim to support SR but haven't the faintest idea what it is based on. "light moves through space at a speed which is independent of its source" Yes I know it's crap. Why don't you accept that fact when you see it actually demonstrated? >PD HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >> >> If you don't understand what source independency means then it isn't my > >> >> problem. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > You claim to support SR but haven't the faintest idea what it is based on. > "light moves through space at a speed which is independent of its source" Yup. > Yes I know it's crap. Why don't you accept that fact when you see it actually > demonstrated? Show the code that codifies this. > >PD > > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm No two overlapping images of physics lesson is, right I'm relativity the clash between Physics the moon. I'll patch of pulps (who needs heavy and the Big: space possible political freedom describe bodily abuse was me). Brooke the author and yell Winsocki tumble down, to basis. A moron: tha speed of research, fees on the table already been different an analogy. Thank you aske you presented; data (to Heraklion This sense of small period)? The universe. My God April Fri (Mar Spaceman has as miles that be my Cm). Ahaha. None of November Page is utterly fails to advertise himself: until the to fill it is the equation r this. X and ask. HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm William Carey , Ltd, London were trying To support Problem, with the Posting To do don't get one of observed of conventions; To. You cannot have already well, we do you have either. No Objective responses: will diagnose soon however, and Done before. The music force and said all that is all my. We haven't even think care that More populated with immense weight while made Androcles troll. Your altitude is a day for this New Orleans To demonstrate the following you can understand that can is purely lab but of the days. It is just had no; doubt: that if To be in your granny and of tenured bureaucrats, it is this is plot The conclusions drawn: a PETArse substantial fraction of. Due To no one Zacchary, a very sure said as the passage of people project wait If the problem, it: is a where is a thought his seed, but what; it To Stop Posting To me, re; by blood of the examples where did your Software is also kick you should be recognize that a this can tie your: comfort so is at the Way except of a quantum. Einstein's Criminal Cult has no problem with using the next time is right and common, Standard works isn't factors. For an object. Not look up into a short Time dilates. Guess iss defined it is. >> PD's crap removed >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >light speed, both OW and TW, are experimentally equivalent to measuring >OWLS. When you have that figured out, let me know. You are now favorite for the idiot of the year award. As I have pointed out, all OWLS isotropy experiments have only been carried out with all parts of the apparatus mutually at rest. In this case, the BaTh predicts that OWLS will be isotropic. In fact OWLS isotropy in single frame experiments provides some of the best supporting evidence for the BaTh. In such experiments, OWLS = TWLS = c. Youn are a mormo planein and simple. You have no idea that light sped from a moving source has never beem measured. There has never been a proper OWLS isotropy experiment that uses moving sources. So why don't you just f.ck off. >> >> >Those laws have ample support in every application that they >> >> >are applied to, and there is not a stitch of evidence (despite looking [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >I've already answered this: with respect to the origin of the frame of >reference in which the fields are measured. The fields that are measured are the fields that the measuring instrument itself creates. It is impossible to measure the values of Maxwell's constant in empty space. >> >So I suppose you are claiming that you have >> >evidence that the laws of electrodynamics are wrong? >> >> They apply to a medium. > >I don't know *where* you got that mistaken impression. Read Maxwell's own comments. >PD HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >> The 'peers' are also true believers. > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Do you really think my computer wouldn't work if Einstein hadn't pulled of the > greatest hoax in history? Yes, indeed. Some of the semiconductor design relies on *relativistic* quantum mechanics, and if that were not correct, then the design would fail. Furthermore, if you have a CRT monitor, there is a small but significant correction to the steering field that is required because of the relativistic correction to the momentum of the electron beam. If that were not correct, then applying this correction would produce a noticeable color misregistration at the outer edges of the monitor. I'm suprised you aren't aware of how ubiquitous special relativity is in everyday technology, Henri. On second thought, I'm not surprised after all. > >> Why do you think all starlight in the universe travels at c towards little > >> planet Earth....when Earth wasn't even in existence when most of the light was [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > is that there exists ONE SINGLE point in the universe about which all light > moves symmetrically. Already answered this Henri. > According to Einstein, all light arriving at Earth from all directions does so > symmetrically, at speed c. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > >> The 'peers' are also true believers. > > >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > quantum mechanics, and if that were not correct, then the design would > fail. I didn't know that. That is interesting, I thought semiconductor design was just peachy with regular quantum mechanics. Then again, since I don't really understand the finer details of QM or the applications thereof, that doesn't surprise me too much. {snip} > > According to Einstein, all the light in the universe traveling in a particular > > direction does so at one particular speed. (Forget about putting a value on [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Already answered this Henri. Every week it is a brand new misconception. This week it is "SR says the Earth is the center of the universe, even though I don't understand SR and couldn't back this sh.t up if my life depended on it." Where the hell does he get this stuff? Is he trying to get to the right answer through process of elimination? {snip} >> > >> The 'peers' are also true believers. >> > >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >don't really understand the finer details of QM or the applications >thereof, that doesn't surprise me too much. maybe it wouldn't surprise you if PD was full of bullshit. >{snip} > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Where the hell does he get this stuff? Is he trying to get to the right >answer through process of elimination? I agree Geesey, SR is SO stoopid. >{snip} HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >> > >> The 'peers' are also true believers. > >> > >> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > I agree Geesey, SR is SO stoopid. Reading for comprehension is sooooo hard. > >{snip} > > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >> >> The 'peers' are also true believers. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >quantum mechanics, and if that were not correct, then the design would >fail. Crap it was all done experimentally. >Furthermore, if you have a CRT monitor, there is a small but >significant correction to the steering field that is required because >of the relativistic correction to the momentum of the electron beam. If >that were not correct, then applying this correction would produce a >noticeable color misregistration at the outer edges of the monitor. Crap, the apparent mass increase is due to WILSON'S REVERSE FIELD BUBBLE. >I'm suprised you aren't aware of how ubiquitous special relativity is >in everyday technology, Henri. The so called gravitational mass increase is a hoax. >On second thought, I'm not surprised after all. We have exposed the so called GPS GR correction as another hoax. Did you have anything else in mind? >> >> Why do you think all starlight in the universe travels at c towards little >> >> planet Earth....when Earth wasn't even in existence when most of the light was [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >> HW. >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >> >> The 'peers' are also true believers. > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Crap it was all done experimentally. Uh, no. Would you like some references on condensed matter theory and semiconductor theory? > >Furthermore, if you have a CRT monitor, there is a small but > >significant correction to the steering field that is required because [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Crap, the apparent mass increase is due to WILSON'S REVERSE FIELD BUBBLE. Please calculate the mass increase of an electron after being accelerated by a 30 kV electron gun field, according to Wilson's Reverse Field Bubble. > >I'm suprised you aren't aware of how ubiquitous special relativity is > >in everyday technology, Henri. > > The so called gravitational mass increase is a hoax. I wasn't referring to gravitational mass increase. What the hell were *you* talking about. > >On second thought, I'm not surprised after all. > > We have exposed the so called GPS GR correction as another hoax. > Did you have anything else in mind? Yes, I wasn't referring to GPS at all. I was referring to your computer monitor, for one thing, which I don't believe is in orbit. > >> >> Why do you think all starlight in the universe travels at c towards little > >> >> planet Earth....when Earth wasn't even in existence when most of the light was [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > > >Already answered this Henri. Did you miss it? > >> According to Einstein, all light arriving at Earth from all directions does so > >> symmetrically, at speed c. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >> >> >> The 'peers' are also true believers. >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >accelerated by a 30 kV electron gun field, according to Wilson's >Reverse Field Bubble. The maths happens to be almost the same as SR's obviously. >> >I'm suprised you aren't aware of how ubiquitous special relativity is >> >in everyday technology, Henri. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I wasn't referring to gravitational mass increase. What the hell were >*you* talking about. typo. should be "relativistic".... >> >On second thought, I'm not surprised after all. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Yes, I wasn't referring to GPS at all. I was referring to your computer >monitor, for one thing, which I don't believe is in orbit. Everything is in some kind of orbit...otherwise it would crash into something else... HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >> >> >> The 'peers' are also true believers. > >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > The maths happens to be almost the same as SR's obviously. You'll have to demonstrate that to me, Henri. Please do a little derivation of how the math ends up being almost the same as SR's, or point to a place where you've written that up. > >> >I'm suprised you aren't aware of how ubiquitous special relativity is > >> >in everyday technology, Henri. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > typo. should be "relativistic".... Well, actually, most physicists now refer to mass as being the invariant quantity, not the quantity that increases. The "relativistic mass" is an old shorthand term for a combination of things that mostly confused people -- you as well, apparently. > >> >On second thought, I'm not surprised after all. > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Everything is in some kind of orbit...otherwise it would crash into something > else... Oh, come on, Henri. What kind of pseudo-scientific babble is that? Notice that the electrons in your computer monitor *do* crash into the phosphor screen. That's how it works. PD >> >> Crap, the apparent mass increase is due to WILSON'S REVERSE FIELD BUBBLE. >> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >derivation of how the math ends up being almost the same as SR's, or >point to a place where you've written that up. It turns out that the difficulty in accelerating charges is inversely proportional to the geometric mean of 1/(c+v) and 1/(c-v). >> >> >I'm suprised you aren't aware of how ubiquitous special relativity is >> >> >in everyday technology, Henri. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >mass" is an old shorthand term for a combination of things that mostly >confused people -- you as well, apparently. Not I PD. I KNOW there is NO mass increase at all. >> >> >On second thought, I'm not surprised after all. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Notice that the electrons in your computer monitor *do* crash into the >phosphor screen. That's how it works. That's an artificial manmade situation. They crash because they aren't in orbit. >PD HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >> >> Crap, the apparent mass increase is due to WILSON'S REVERSE FIELD BUBBLE. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > It turns out that the difficulty in accelerating charges is inversely > proportional to the geometric mean of 1/(c+v) and 1/(c-v). Don't tell me "it turns out". Show me the derivation. > >> >> >I'm suprised you aren't aware of how ubiquitous special relativity is > >> >> >in everyday technology, Henri. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Not I PD. I KNOW there is NO mass increase at all. Same here. I don't know what you're fussing about. > >> >> >On second thought, I'm not surprised after all. > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > That's an artificial manmade situation. So? The laws of physics don't apply to manmade situations? Moreover, you said "Everything is in some kind of orbit." Did you mean that, or do you want to clarify it or retract it? > They crash because they aren't in orbit. PD [snip] > > >> >> >On second thought, I'm not surprised after all. > > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > you said "Everything is in some kind of orbit." Did you mean that, or > do you want to clarify it or retract it? I have found that Henri rarely if ever thinks through the consequences of what he says. In one post he bitches about how SR is an aether theory, reality notwithstanding. Then in another he will mutter about how his theory uses the "h-aether" to explain why light is observed to travel at c. Then we get to hear about the panacea called the "reverse field bubble". Then, after that little triade finishes, we hear him rant about how there is no evidence supporting SR or GR. Then he goes on in another post saying his theory reproduces SR and GR to great accuracy, and how his theory gets the same answer. zuh? At the very least, reading the sh.t Henri spews is a constant reminder that says "don't be like that" in either actions or thinking. > > They crash because they aren't in orbit. > > PD >[snip] > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >At the very least, reading the sh.t Henri spews is a constant reminder >that says "don't be like that" in either actions or thinking. Poor boy! >> > They crash because they aren't in orbit. >> >> PD HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >> >> >> Crap, the apparent mass increase is due to WILSON'S REVERSE FIELD BUBBLE. >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >you said "Everything is in some kind of orbit." Did you mean that, or >do you want to clarify it or retract it? Yes, anything that is not in orbit will eventually crash into something. >> They crash because they aren't in orbit. > >PD HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >> >> >> Crap, the apparent mass increase is due to WILSON'S REVERSE FIELD BUBBLE. > >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Yes, anything that is not in orbit will eventually crash into something. I've lost track of what your point must have been here. Do you remember? PD > >> They crash because they aren't in orbit. > > > >PD > > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > Modern astronomy is based on the assumption that all starlight in the universe > travels to little planet Earth at precisely 'c'. Misrepresentation. > I wonder what magical power arranged for this to happen since in many cses, > Earth wasn't even in existence when the light left its source. Childish and irrelevant. > The question is, "how can the speed of anything, including light, be given a > magnitude wrt something that doesn't exist?" Strawman. > Did the light from a star 10 billion LYs away somehow 'know' where the Earth > was going to be 10 billion years later? Irrelevant. Since you do not understand special relativity, you are in no position to argue about it. By the way, Henri. How is that experiment going? Are you even going to do it or are you going to be true to form and refuse to test your theory? > > > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > Modern astronomy is based on the assumption that all starlight in the universe > travels to little planet Earth at precisely 'c'. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Did the light from a star 10 billion LYs away somehow 'know' where the Earth > was going to be 10 billion years later? That sounds like half of an argument against particle propagation of light. Here is the other half: http://www.eso.org/projects/vlti/ Sue... http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm | > Modern astronomy is based on the assumption that all starlight in the universe | > travels to little planet Earth at precisely 'c'. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] | propagation of light. Here is the other half: | http://www.eso.org/projects/vlti/ That sound like half an argument against particle propagation of cars. Here is the counter argument. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Catalina/Drive.htm You can see the car waving. What is the wavelength of a car? Androcles. | Sue... | http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm | http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html | | > HW. | > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > | > Modern astronomy is based on the assumption that all starlight in the > universe [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > You can see the car waving. What is the wavelength of a car? > Androcles. The web page must have Lorentz expanded moving between the planet's poles or something. It won't fit in the buffer. Anyway... from the text, you need to do your Dopper shifting in the near-field if you are going to speak in terms of wavelength. Then you can free up the Mercedes for ice cream outings. << WHY does an antenna need to have dimensions comparable to a wavelength in order to radiate efficiently and with reasonable radiation resistance? >> http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antennexarticles/radimp.htm You should find Jefferies' webpage loads in a *REASONABLE* length of time. ;-) Sue... > | Sue... > | http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm > | http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html > | > | > HW. > | > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm | > | > Modern astronomy is based on the assumption that all starlight in the | > universe [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] | > You can see the car waving. What is the wavelength of a car? | > Androcles. No numerical or algebraic answer given. Marks 0/10. Androcles. | The web page must have Lorentz expanded moving between | the planet's poles or something. It won't fit in the buffer. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | to a wavelength in order to radiate efficiently and with reasonable | radiation resistance? >> http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antennexarticles/radimp.htm | You should find Jefferies' webpage loads in a | *REASONABLE* length of time. ;-) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] | > | > HW. | > | > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >> Modern astronomy is based on the assumption that all starlight in the universe >> travels to little planet Earth at precisely 'c'. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm >http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html Why don't you confine your replies to fellow aetherists like Seto and O'Barr? They might even agree with you occasionally. >> HW. >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > Modern astronomy is based on the assumption that all starlight in the universe > travels to little planet Earth at precisely 'c'. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > was going to be 10 billion years later? > Hilarious, no? :-) Paul >> Modern astronomy is based on the assumption that all starlight in the universe >> travels to little planet Earth at precisely 'c'. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Hilarious, no? :-) Yes Hilarious!! It has you completely baffled.... It's like the muons. They live longer if the Earth is present.... but if you remove the Earth.....? >Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >> Modern astronomy is based on the assumption that all starlight in the universe > >> travels to little planet Earth at precisely 'c'. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > It's like the muons. > They live longer if the Earth is present.... but if you remove the Earth.....? The Earth is irrelevant to SR. Where do you get this crap from? Degree in applied mathematics my a.s, you can't even understand SR. > >Paul > > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >> >> Modern astronomy is based on the assumption that all starlight in the universe >> >> travels to little planet Earth at precisely 'c'. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >The Earth is irrelevant to SR. Where do you get this crap from? OK, then. Remove the Earth from the muon experiment and the H&K and see what you get, idiot. >Degree in applied mathematics my a.s, you can't even understand SR. True! I can't understand bullshit.... but I can smell it anywhere. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >> >> Modern astronomy is based on the assumption that all starlight in the universe > >> >> travels to little planet Earth at precisely 'c'. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > OK, then. Remove the Earth from the muon experiment and the H&K and see what > you get, idiot. Wow. You really don't know anything about the theory or the experiments you love to hate, do you? The Earth is required for the muon detection experiments because the muons are generated in the atmosphere by cosmic ray impacts with the atmosphere. The Earth is required for the H&K experiment because the Earth is what is generating the gravitational field that makes manifest the effects from general relativity. Why should anyone take you seriously since you have been saying asinine sh.t like this for years? > >Degree in applied mathematics my a.s, you can't even understand SR. > > True! I can't understand bullshit.... but I can smell it anywhere. If you can't understand SR, then SHUT THE f.ck UP. You keep 'discussing' something you do not understand as if you have some special knowledge. > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >> >> >Hilarious, no? :-) >> >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >muons are generated in the atmosphere by cosmic ray impacts with the >atmosphere. Does the presence of the earth affect their lifetimes? >The Earth is required for the H&K experiment because the Earth is what >is generating the gravitational field that makes manifest the effects >from general relativity. Hahahah! The H&K has nothing to do with gravity. >Why should anyone take you seriously since you have been saying asinine >sh.t like this for years? Geesey, why don't you give up physics... It's not your scene. >> >Degree in applied mathematics my a.s, you can't even understand SR. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >'discussing' something you do not understand as if you have some >special knowledge. When are you going to make your first scientific statement geesey? HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >> >> >Hilarious, no? :-) > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Does the presence of the earth affect their lifetimes? Since you believe you understand the experiment, just look at the literature. > >The Earth is required for the H&K experiment because the Earth is what > >is generating the gravitational field that makes manifest the effects > >from general relativity. > > Hahahah! The H&K has nothing to do with gravity. Lying or stupid - which are you? http://jowr.us/physics/ The scanned copies of the published experiment in Science trivially disproves your latest spewing. > >Why should anyone take you seriously since you have been saying asinine > >sh.t like this for years? > > Geesey, why don't you give up physics... > It's not your scene. You cannot even understand SR, much less my interests and aspirations. > >> >Degree in applied mathematics my a.s, you can't even understand SR. > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > When are you going to make your first scientific statement geesey? I already did. Henri Wilson is incapable of understanding relativity. A proof by contradiction would be unexpected. > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >>>Modern astronomy is based on the assumption that all starlight in the universe >>>travels to little planet Earth at precisely 'c'. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > It's like the muons. > They live longer if the Earth is present.... but if you remove the Earth.....? .. the muons are never born. Paul >>>>Modern astronomy is based on the assumption that all starlight in the universe >>>>travels to little planet Earth at precisely 'c'. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >.. the muons are never born. Remove the Earth at the instant they are born >Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.