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: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 12 Oct 2005 00:44 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:kumok11m5okf084aerrssk8suu003bgb1a(a)4ax.com... | On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 22:41:01 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote: | | > | >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message | >news:ltaok1pabo7k3vsfguskdetjk2g8q7ucds(a)4ax.com... | >| On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 08:57:08 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> | >wrote: | >| >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not been retracted, nor his 1/2 spirals that he calls ellipses.Wilson | 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. | >| | > | >Message-ID: <l5dmi117vd3vc1h0f6mspju1ncikkopslq(a)4ax.com> | >From: H@..(Henri Wilson) | >Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity | >Subject: Re: GPS 'GR Correction' Myth. | >Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:00:02 GMT | >It appears that Algol is a large star which wobbles around its | >barycentre with | >the planet, "Androcles", named after its discoverer. | > | > | >Not only has Wilson given prior acknowledgement my discovery, but he is | >now on record as claiming joint discovery and claiming a massive body | >can be a Trojan. | > | >Perhaps he ought to rethink his position, plagiarism is generally | >frowned upon on the scientific community. | >Etymology: plagiary | >transitive senses : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of | >another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the | >source | >intransitive senses : to commit literary theft : present as new and | >original an idea or product derived from an existing source | > | >I think that makes it quite clear who has the professional jealousy. | | OK A. Just joking. | | You can have "Androcles" all to yourself. | | I will retain "Wilsonius", which is far more interesting than 'Androcles' | anyway. Just joking, right? Only small bodies can occupy Lagrange points, where the mass is insignificant compared to the larger bodies. I know what you've done. You've modelled 60 degrees into your half spiral. Other people before you have modelled 3 bodies correctly using your methods, this is the curve they get. http://www.physics.cornell.edu/sethna/teaching/sss/jupiter/Web/JA.gif Wilsonius is suitable for 5yo kids. You are in cloud cuckoo land, but you retain it, it's your theory. Androcles.
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 12 Oct 2005 05:03 "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message news:1cX2f.103795$RW.3129(a)fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk... > > "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message > news:ltaok1pabo7k3vsfguskdetjk2g8q7ucds(a)4ax.com... > | On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 08:57:08 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> > wrote: > | >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. > | > > Message-ID: <l5dmi117vd3vc1h0f6mspju1ncikkopslq(a)4ax.com> > From: H@..(Henri Wilson) > Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity > Subject: Re: GPS 'GR Correction' Myth. > Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:00:02 GMT > It appears that Algol is a large star which wobbles around its > barycentre with > the planet, "Androcles", named after its discoverer. > > > Not only has Wilson given prior acknowledgement my discovery, but he is > now on record as claiming joint discovery and claiming a massive body > can be a Trojan. > > Perhaps he ought to rethink his position, plagiarism is generally > frowned upon on the scientific community. Rest assured, it is not frowned upon in the crackpot community. You stole your daft ideas from Sekerin. So what? No one cares. > Etymology: plagiary > transitive senses : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of > another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the > source > intransitive senses : to commit literary theft : present as new and > original an idea or product derived from an existing source > > I think that makes it quite clear who has the professional jealousy. You might consider seeking medical help: http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HelpPretend2.html Dirk Vdm
From: Henri Wilson on 12 Oct 2005 16:30 On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 04:44:51 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:kumok11m5okf084aerrssk8suu003bgb1a(a)4ax.com... >| On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 22:41:01 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> >wrote: >| >| > >| >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >| >news:ltaok1pabo7k3vsfguskdetjk2g8q7ucds(a)4ax.com... >| >| On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 08:57:08 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ >MyPlace.org> >| >wrote: >| >| >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. >| >| >| > >| >Message-ID: <l5dmi117vd3vc1h0f6mspju1ncikkopslq(a)4ax.com> >| >From: H@..(Henri Wilson) >| >Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity >| >Subject: Re: GPS 'GR Correction' Myth. >| >Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:00:02 GMT >| >It appears that Algol is a large star which wobbles around its >| >barycentre with >| >the planet, "Androcles", named after its discoverer. >| > >| > >| >Not only has Wilson given prior acknowledgement my discovery, but he >is >| >now on record as claiming joint discovery and claiming a massive body >| >can be a Trojan. >| > >| >Perhaps he ought to rethink his position, plagiarism is generally >| >frowned upon on the scientific community. >| >Etymology: plagiary >| >transitive senses : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of >| >another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting >the >| >source >| >intransitive senses : to commit literary theft : present as new and >| >original an idea or product derived from an existing source >| > >| >I think that makes it quite clear who has the professional jealousy. >| >| OK A. Just joking. >| >| You can have "Androcles" all to yourself. >| >| I will retain "Wilsonius", which is far more interesting than >'Androcles' >| anyway. > >Just joking, right? Only small bodies can occupy Lagrange points, >where the mass is insignificant compared to the larger bodies. >I know what you've done. You've modelled 60 degrees into your half >spiral. Other people before you have modelled 3 bodies correctly >using your methods, this is the curve they get. > http://www.physics.cornell.edu/sethna/teaching/sss/jupiter/Web/JA.gif >Wilsonius is suitable for 5yo kids. You are in cloud cuckoo land, > but you retain it, it's your theory. >Androcles. Message rating: 1.35 bottles. 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: George Dishman on 12 Oct 2005 17:26 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:fleok1hd7adh1f00sgl3hbuphb38cmr6cr(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:33:30 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: .... >>Blow into a whistle and you get a note. Put the whistle >>on a string and whirl it round your head so that it is >>always the same distance from your ear. Do you think >>the note would be the same or different? >> >>I wonder what Henri would say. > > Assuming the air around you remains still, I had intended to say that but it got lost in the typing :-( > the pitch would be lower if your > head was also spinning in the same direction. That, the ear being off-centre clouds the issue. Suppose we replace the head with an omni-directional microphone exactly at the centre of the circular path of the whistle? Hint: no tick fairies. George
From: George Dishman on 12 Oct 2005 17:41
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:a4cok15ekbocc95d6ahg68foum9hm082hn(a)4ax.com... > 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. Units typically have a direct rate output and an integrator fed from that signal. When used for fly-by-wire, it is only the rate that matters. They can be used for navigation too but the drift then is a limitation. > Once again that supports my 'photon-axis gyro' theory. Your 'photon-axis gyro theory' doesn't exist, you haven't published the equations. >>> 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. That should be your clue to the whistle question ;-) > 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. Yes, and also because of the distance from the Earth's centre even if it wasn't rotating (think of the view of the Moon from a mountain 200,000 miles high), and also because the Moon's orbit isn't perfectly circular. None of these are 'transverse Doppler' however, all just resolve to the normal Doppler due to the radial component. >>>>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. Right, but there are a couple of complex points you are missing even neglecting the complication of using different frames for each leg. The origin of the mirror frame is not inertial, it is moving in a circle so you get an apparent centrifugal force between the source and the mirror. That means you also get "gravitational redshift" and Shapiro delay. Also the speed of the light varies with the radius because the frame is accelerating. There are lots of tricky aspects to consider that come from using an accelerating origin. > So whether or not light speed is source dependent doesn't enter into the > argument. It enters too. If you take all the above into account, you will still get different answers if you compare a model where the light is moving at c in the lab frame or at c+kv where k depends on the number of mirrors. >>>>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. Yes, but Ritz predicts null for both MMX and Sagnac. If you introduce a new feature like a "photon gyro" to produce a non-null result for Sagnac, it may also produce a non-null prediction for the MMX. That's why you can't just guess, you have to write out the equations and work each of the experiments. If you can't provide the equations, you don't have a theory, just a speculation. George |