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: Eric Gisse on 12 Oct 2005 18:01 George Dishman wrote: [snip] > > 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. In case you haven't noticed my conversation with Henri, I will tell you. I have been asking Henri over and over for the equations to his theory to make it something other than handwavy nonsense. He refuses - every time. > > George
From: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 12 Oct 2005 18:23 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:hisqk1tj25nok7hmv1fh01j4ojihhfpcgs(a)4ax.com... | 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not been retracted, nor his 1/2 spirals that he calls | 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. Ah, that's what you are on. Androcles
From: Jeff Root on 13 Oct 2005 06:05 On October 4, Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: >>> If the Milky Way is revolving once per 200,000yr , an >>> object at distance 1.1 billion light years is actually >>> 180 degrees from where it appears now. >> >> You've said that before. It is extremely important if it >> is true. So it is worth money to know for sure. I'll pay >> you $8000 for an explanation of the effect, if you post it >> in sci.astro before the end of Saturday, October 15, 2005. >> >> Please note that using incorrect figures in your argument >> makes no difference, as long as the geometry and logic are >> essentially sound. If, for example, the angle actually >> turns out to be only 18 degrees rather than 180 degrees, >> but your explanation is basically sound, I will pay. >> >> The actual rotation period of the Milky Way at the Solar >> System is about [200,000,000 to 250,000,000] years. > > Take time out to go to the local fair. Get on the inside > horse on the merry-go-round, and the outside horse's head > (say Sirius) will be your "north"- your pointer. Someone in > the crowd of baby watchers will be only offset by a very small > fraction of a degree when the machine is rotating, due to the > light's flight time from watcher to you. But as you go faster, > or the watcher is further away, that image is NOT where it was > produced, ref the horse's head. If the person in the crowd is north of the merry-go-round, he will always appear to be north of the merry-go-round. Never east or west or south. Nomatter how fast you are moving. You didn't say anything to explain your assertion that an object far outside the Milky Way would appear to be in a completely different direction from its actual direction. All you did was vaguely describe by analogy the fact that finite light travel time means that foreground objects have moved since the light we see left them. That, of course, is well-known to every astronomer. The distance of a distant object has no bearing on light travel time from foreground objects. My apologies for taking so long to respond. I let myself be distracted by other things. If you want a week's extension of the time limit, I will be glad to grant it. > My bank acc. no. is ********************* I won't need your bank account number to send money to you unless you can arrange for the bank to accept a direct deposit from me and you want to do it that way. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis jeff5 (at) freemars (dot) org Jeff S. Root 48 27th Ave SE #4 Minneapolis, MN 55414 USA
From: Jeff Root on 13 Oct 2005 06:09 On October 4, Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: >> The actual rotation period of the Milky Way at the Solar >> System is about 200,000,000 to 250,000,000 years. > > Do you really think that the form of the galaxy would be so > stable, if it has only done 65 revolutions (given max possible > age according to BB), since it was first formed??????????????????? Of course. Although, as stated later, the Galaxy has actually rotated only about 20 times since it formed. How stable do you think the form of the Galaxy is? Do you think that it would take more than 20 rotations to achieve its present spiral shape? If so, why? > You owe me another 8,000 Why? -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: Henri Wilson on 13 Oct 2005 19:00
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 22:26:27 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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. A ctually, thius is quite a complex problem if you want to consider the finer details of air flow around the whistle itself. I should imagine that there would be no doppler shift if that was ignored. There is no radial velocity. It would make an interesting experiment. > >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". |