Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: Henri Wilson on 11 Oct 2005 17:20 On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 08:57:08 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote: > ><jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message >news:1129020029.839358.147520(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... >|> | > >| > | >Fair cop; I meant "radially". >| > | >| > | You were right the first time. The moon's transverse speed wrt >Earth >| > is much >| > | greater than its radial speed. >| > >| > It's ok, he's 'fessed up. No need to rub it in. Pity there are not >more >| > like him. >| > It's a whole lot easier than trying to defend what he said, I'm >quite >| > sure he meant >| > radially anyway. I quite like the guy, he's honest. >| > Androcles. >| >| Sometimes! >| Ghost loves the maths, but when he came up with a difference in >| traverse duration from saturn, of two signals emitted simultaneously >by >| a stationary and approaching source ref us, he was so amazed, that he >| has never addressed the subject again!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >| >| Jim G >| c=c'+v >I was actually having a dig at Wilson, whose crackpot ideas of >"Wilson Cool Heavies" for planets and his "h-aether theory" have >not been retracted, nor his 1/2 spirals that he calls ellipses.Wilson >is not about to 'fess up and admit he was wrong. >Wilson is out of line, a loose cannon. So loose in fact that not only has he jointly discovered the planet "Wilson-Androcles" that orbits Algol but he has now also found the Star "Wilsonius" that lies at the 60 degree Lagrange point in the orbit of S Cas. >Androcles. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
From: Paul B. Andersen on 11 Oct 2005 17:48 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 4 Oct 2005 04:17:04 -0700, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no> > wrote: > > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On 3 Oct 2005 02:06:27 -0700, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> > > >> >> > >> >> A, I have supported you on this. In Algol's case, the WCH happens > >> >> to be the > >> >> large planet 'Androcles'. Do you have any objections to that? > >> >> It is likely that flares occuring on the main star are reflected from > >> >> 'Androcles' and mistaken for flares on IT. > >> > > >> >Very likely, indeed. :-) > >> > > >> >There IS no limit to the stupidities you can utter, is there? :-) > >> >You have no idea of what a flare is, do you? :-) > >> > >> I should do. I used to take lovely photos of them. > > > >Sorry, Henri. > >I don't believe you. > >Not very smart to bluff about something you don't > >understand the consequence of. > > Paul, whether or not you believe me is of little concern. > > While studying, I once worked as a tech assistant in the solar physics section > of CSIRO here in OZ. I helped make, assemble and use a very neat solar > telescope. It took very nice pictures of the sun's surface including soem very > spectacular flares from the edge. > I'll bet you have never seen moving shots of a flare. > > >> Flare stars are usually pretty dark red but every now and then emit a very > >> large flare. > >> I would categorize them as intrinsically variable. > >> > >> So a large flare is emitted from the star and is reflected off > >> the large planet > >> 'Androcles', which has a much higher radial velocity than the star. > > > >Of course, Henri. :-) > >Seen from Sirius, a Solar flare will obviously > >easily be mistaken for a flare at Jupiter. > > Paul, flare stars are usually pretty dull red. They have a habit of > spontaneously becoming very bright presumably as a huge flare erupts. > > If a planet as large as jupiter was orbiting at close radius, it would also > become very bright at the time. The flare could easily be on the far side of > the star and so the reflected light would be more prominant to us than the red > star. > Doppler shift of the flare's light from the star could easily and wrongly be > taken as radial velocity of the star itself. You are raving, Henri. > ....but all this is probably too hard for you.... Indeed it is. My faith isn't blind. :-) > >> >> However I might be inclined to agree with the tusselad that a small third > >> >> object does orbit the main Algol star. > >> > > >> >The "third object" is not a particularly small star. > >> >It is an A5 V. That means it is bigger and brighter than the Sun. > >> >But it is smaller than Algol A and B. > >> > >> It IS small and there is NO Algol B. > > > >Of course there is no K2 star, Henri. > >The observed K2 spectrum is predicted by the BaT, isn't it? > >That's what the BaT predicts an Anrocles planets radiates, isn't it? > >And the K2 spectrum is observed by Einstainania anyway, > >and can not be trusted. > > Let me phrase that correctly. > The observed K2 spectrum is assumed from information that arrives here as a > consequence of the BaT. > The K2 spectrum is INTERPRETED according to Einsteiniana and certainly cannot > be trusted. The K2 spectrum is a picture on a CCD. You don't INTERPRET it using relativity. It is a K2 spectrum because it contains a specific set of absorption lines. This set of lines is determined by the temperature of the stellar atmosphere. (Degree of ionization etc.) http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/astrophysics/spectral_class.html The spectrum is exactly as it should be according to Kirchhoff's laws of radiation which are very well known from labs on the Earth. Claiming that a K2 spectrum can come from anything else than a star with temperature ca. 3800K is plain idiocy. And you claim that it is coming from a planet! You must have lost your mind completely. > > >> >> On the published curve, there is a small departure from our predicted curves > >> >> that might be associated with an object orbiting with the same period but > >> >> lagging in phase behind the main star. > >> > > >> > > >> >The orbital period of Algol C is 681 days, that is 235 times > >> >the period of the inner binary. > >> > >> I wont argue. > >> > >> > > >> >The "small departure" from your predicted curves, > >> >is the second minimum when Algol A eclipses Algol B. > >> > >> Nah! There is NO eclipse. > > > >Of course there isn't, Henri. :-) > >No K2 star - no eclipse. > > Correct. > > Oh, there could be. The brightness curves would be just about the same. The > main difference is that the one involving an eclipse is dead flat between the > troughs. ..unlike Algol's , which has a distinct concavity....just as the BaT > predicts. You are dreaming, Henri. The light curve of Algol have no distinct concavity between the eclipses at all. It has however a secondary minimum - which your drawing program is incapable of producing. http://www.macalester.edu/astronomy/research/phys40/mark/ltcurve.htm > >> I accept that the BaT curves for single stars are very hard > >> to distinguish from > >> the occasional GENUINE eclipsing binary. > > > >But Algol isn't a GENUIN eclipsing binary, is it? :-) > >So the second minimum is obviously not really there. > >It is observed by Einsteiania only. > > See the curve for yourself. > > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg A concavity which isn't there, no secondary minimum. But since this light curve is for U Cep, why do you say it is for Algol? > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> This star, if it exists, plays little part in the basic observed brightness > >> >> curve. > >> > > >> > > >> >Right. > >> >C is not eclipsing A and B, and it is too far > >> >away to have a great effect. > >> >It does have a small observable effect on A and B, though. > >> > >> Only if you are addicted to Einsteiniana. > > > >Of course, Henri. > >The BaT can obviously explain the observed effects > >which the stupid astronomers assign to Algol C. > > Algol C could easily exist. I never said it didn't. > It is more than likely that Algol B doesn't exist. > > > > >> >> Algol is obviously not an eclipsing binary. > >> > > >> >Quite. > >> >The light curve is exactly as it should be if it were > >> >an eclipsing binary - with the second minimum and all - > >> >So according to Wilsonian logic, it obviously isn't. > >> > >> see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg > > > >No Algol there. > > Try U Cep. > > > > >> The Algol curve is identical to the BaT prediction. > > > >Except for the second minimum, of course. > > > >But the second minimum is obviously not there, > >it is only observed. > >And as we know, observations can never be trusted. > > A long dip is observed. It is wrongly interpreted as a secondary eclipse in an > attempt to make observations match Einsteiniana.. > > > > >It's not like it is invented by Henri Wilson. > > > >> > >> Androcles has produced the same curve. > > > >Indeed he have. > > > >Seriously: > >The fact is of course that you and Androcles > >have falsified the ballistic theory by demonstrating > >that you have to use fantasy parameters which are wildly > >wrong to mimic the light curve. > >And even then, you miss the second minimum in the light curve. > > We do not miss it. There is a continuous dip in the curve between the main > dips. > Because it isn't dead flat, as required by Einsteiniana, astronomers concocted > the idea of a secondary eclipse. Don't be daft. There has to be a secondary eclipse - obviously. > > > > >To claim that all the observations made by Algol > >are wrong is just too stupid. > >Algol is observed at just about all wavelengths, > >And every observation fits the fact that Algol is > >a B8 star and a K2 star eclipsing each other. > >And as always most of the information is found > >in the spectra. > > Illusions can be very strange Paul. If you say so. Do you see ghosts as well? > > > >For example, the K2 star is very bright in the X-rays, > >while the B8 is dark. The X-ray "light curve" has a deep > >minimum when the visual light curve has its secondary > >minimum. The reason is obvious. > >http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/aa/abs/2003/49/aa0057/aa0057.html > > "No eclipse of the quiescent X-ray emission is observed leading us to the > conclusion that the overall coronal filling factor of Algol B is small." > > This beautifully epitomizes how astronomy has been completely stuffed by > Einteiniana. > > >You can retrieve data from the XMM-Newton satellite archive > >and see for yourself. > >http://xmm.esac.esa.int/external/xmm_data_acc/xsa/index.shtml > > > > > >The BaT can't even get the light curve right, > >not to mention the spectra. > > Different parts of the Spectra comes from different radii, which have different > radial velocities and therefore different brightness characteristics. > That is why IR brightness usually varies a lot less than visible. So? Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 11 Oct 2005 17:58 On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:19:34 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:52olk1p9j1ich7753d46s1cj0b62rtqfik(a)4ax.com... >>>signal is offset from the current location due to >>>aberration doesn't give transverse Doppler, it is >>>just delayed radial Doppler. >> >> Yes That's why I stated "a FORM of tranverse doppler" > >OK, the difference is important. More later. > >>>> >> ... I think the >>>> >> world should know why Sagnac DOES NOT refute the BaTh. >>>> > >>>> >But it does Henri. Doppler would produce a second >>>> >order output while the Sagnac Effect is first order, >>>> >and transverse Doppler doesn't exist in Ritzian theory. >>>> >>>> Well I haven't looked into that. >>> >>>Sorry, I should have said it produces continuous >>>movement of the fringes, not a static shift (as I >>>mentioned before). The gamma factor is second order. >> >> The 'continuous movement' idea supports my 'photon gyro' concept. > >Not really. > >> George, if a sagnac is rotating at constant angular speed, Do the fringes >> move >> continuously or remain steady but offset? > >The latter, steady but with an offset proportional >to the speed of rotation. (Yes I thought that's what came up before. Just checking). So the total angle moved is calculated by continuously integrating that offset with time. Once again that supports my 'photon-axis gyro' theory. > >>>> The main point is that there is no significant >>>> radial velocity between the source and the first mirror. >>> >>>Right, unlike viewing the Moon or a satellite from >>>the surface of the Earth where the observer's offset >>>from the centre creates a radial component. As long >>>as the distance between the source and mirror is >>>constant, you get no Doppler. >> >> If it rotates rapidly enough there will be the afforementioned 'type of >> doppler'. > >Nope, the distance from source to mirror is >constant so no Doppler. The fact that it is >delayed makes no difference, there is no >radial component as you say yourself later. OK. Yes true. Not wrt the centre of the mirror. CMIIW, but in the case of objects like the Earth and moon, moonlight would be doppler shifted on the SURFACE of the Earth due to the EARTH'S rotation. > >>>> >Try again. >>>> >>>> I wil persevere for as long as necessary. >>> >>>The bottom line is that the Ritzian model gives only >>>a single prediction for the Sagnac experiment and you >>>must get the same result no matter what frame(s and >>>transforms) you use since they are mathematical >>>descriptions only. That prediction is a null result >>>which doesn't match the observations so Ritz is ruled >>>out. >> >> How can Ritz be ruled out when we now know tat there is no radial velocity >> betwene each component? > >The question is difficult to answer because you >are ignoring what happens on the other legs, but >crudely no radial velocity means no change of >fringes, yet the fringes do change. As I said, >you are choosing a difficult frame to work in. >All frames must give the same result so pick an >easy one. As far as I can see, there is no radial velocity between any two components in ANY frame. So whether or not light speed is source dependent doesn't enter into the argument. > >>>That's why I try to keep yuor BaT term separate >>>because if you come up with a new set of equations, >>>they may well produce a different result. The hard >>>part is to propose such a theory that gets Sagnac >>>right without giving a non-null result for MMX or >>>incorrect predictions for other experiments. Until >>>you publish though, that can't be tested. >> >> My 'photon axis' theory works. > >Nonsense, you haven't even shown any equations >that predict what the output would be so you >don't know yourself whether it would work or not. >Nor have you applied those equations to say the >MMX to see if it would predict a non-null result >for that. Any new theory you propose has to be >able to pass all the tests that have been done, >not just one. We know why the MMX predicts a null result. That's a very simple application of the BaTh. > >George > HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
From: Henri Wilson on 11 Oct 2005 18:13 On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 13:53:36 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:k35nk15294dgrh1g11ggoqqvpiibjhkvjh(a)4ax.com... >| On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 09:43:54 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> >wrote: >| >| > >| >Dishman is a idiot, he thinks the speed of light is infinite when >| >the permittivity and permeability of a medium falls to zero. >| >Obviously he's an aetherialist, like Wilson. >| >| Hey, watch it A. >| >| I'm a H-aetherist. >| >| Big difference! > >Not to light there isn't. >Here's a list of pictures. Indicate which one has you fairy dust and >explain why. >You can keep the list, I'm a wizard, it's magic, it'll grow longer each >day. >http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CauchyFunctionalEquation.html > >Oops, sorry. That's adult material. >You won't understand that...don't let Bilge see it, it's pornography to >him. > >Here it is... >Not h-eather, suitable for 5-year-kids: >http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html not bad. > >h-aether: >http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/papers/Alvager_et_al_1964.pdf The mesons were at rest in the Be when they decayed. the speed of hte gamma rays is measured wrt the Be block. Naturally it should be c. > HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
From: Timo Nieminen on 11 Oct 2005 18:17
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, it was written: > Tell me, where in Maxwell's equations is there an inference that light moves at > the value of 'c', particularly wrt anything but the apparatus that measures the > constants? OK, write down the Maxwell equations in source-free free space. Substitute eE and mH for D and B (where e and m are the permittivity and permeability). Take either of the curl equations, take the curl of both sides. Since E and H are divergence-free, then you can convert the curl curl into a Laplacian. What equation do you have? Repeat for the time-harmonic Maxwell equations. What equation do you have? Notice that neither of the above equations has anything about the velocity of the source in it. Note that the variables in the above equations are E(r,t) and H(r,t). What is the coordinate system in which r is specified? What do the above equations tell you about the propagation speed of EM waves? As for the 2nd part of your question, if two apparatuses that are moving relative to each other measure the same e and m, then, unless the Maxwell equations are wrong, then EM waves must travel at 1/sqrt(em) in coordinate systems in which either apparatus is at rest. From whence, special relativity. Showing the Maxwell equations are wrong is a good first step towards showing that your theory of EM wave propagation is correct. Also a good first step towards falsifying special relativity, if you're into that kind of thing. > The universal constant 'c' just happens to have dimensions of speed. Physically > speaking, all speeds must be defined relative to something. Of course. Velocity is dr/dt, the position vector r requires a coordinate system. > Where is Maxwell's theory, is that reference? Was it the 'aether'? In Maxwell's original theory, it was the ether. In modern classical electrodynamics, any inertial coordinate system will do. > The statement, "the speed of light is c" is physically meaningless. Strictly speaking, yes. How about "the speed of light is c relative to <object X>" or "the speed of light is c in <coordinate system X>"? The short form, if used, should be taken to mean one of those. -- 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 |