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: Jeff Root on 1 Nov 2005 18:22 Henri, Do you feel much more energetic and more in control of things now than you did a few weeks ago? -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: Henri Wilson on 1 Nov 2005 18:25 On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 22:37:04 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 30 Oct 2005 12:28:37 -0800, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no> >> wrote: >> >>>Indeed. >>>The light curves are exactly as expected >>>according to conventional theory. >>>It's all explained. >> >> >> Paul, your theory has NO explanation as to why many stars vary in brightness. > >Considering that we are discussing Algol which >according to conventional theory is an eclipsing binary, >that is a pretty stupid statement, isn't it? :-) We were talking about variable stars in general. Quite obviously eclipsing binaries would vary more or less as predicted by the BaTh. No tell me about all the others. Why do 'Miras' vary? >You know, Henri, conventional theory have a very simple >explanation for why the light curves are different in IR >and visible light. Have you forgotten that I calculated it >for you? I have forgotten. Please remind me. >The BaT cannot explain that. >Yet another falsification of the BaT. rubbish. >>>>Paul, on TV last light there was a program about a new pill that can be taken >>>>to alleviate fear. >>>>Would you like me to send you some in case your fear of being wrong all your >>>>life becomes overwhelming? >>> >>>Nothing _I_ do can make _your_ stupidity any >>>less amazing, Henri. >> >> >> Paul, SR is just a subset of LET. >> Accept it please. >> >> If any SR predictions are true then you should start seriously looking for an >> absolute frame. >> >> SR reverts to LET when it tries to provide a physical reason why pulses of >> light from differently moving sources should travel together across space. >> >> v<-S1_________________________p-> >> ->uS2 > >It's kind of sad that you are too stupid to understand >how stupid this is. > >But of course, if you weren't that stupid, you wouldn't >have written it. You cannot answer without resorting to standard LET. Why don't you admit it. SR is just a subset of LET. > >Paul 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: Eric Gisse on 1 Nov 2005 19:26 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 22:37:04 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > [snip] > >>> > >>>Nothing _I_ do can make _your_ stupidity any > >>>less amazing, Henri. > >> > >> > >> Paul, SR is just a subset of LET. > >> Accept it please. > >> > >> If any SR predictions are true then you should start seriously looking for an > >> absolute frame. > >> > >> SR reverts to LET when it tries to provide a physical reason why pulses of > >> light from differently moving sources should travel together across space. > >> > >> v<-S1_________________________p-> > >> ->uS2 > > > >It's kind of sad that you are too stupid to understand > >how stupid this is. > > > >But of course, if you weren't that stupid, you wouldn't > >have written it. > > You cannot answer without resorting to standard LET. > Why don't you admit it. > > SR is just a subset of LET. Why do you keep bringing up LET? Why do you keep saying things about SR when you admit you don't understand SR? > > > > >Paul > > > 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: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 1 Nov 2005 22:31 "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:v6sfm15mm7ph1qof4uef0nnjdrbkbffuo6(a)4ax.com... | On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 12:44:03 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote: | | > | >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:1r5em1hjg2fnlct5jg2asb11bi4e7fb1fr(a)4ax.com... | >| On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 22:52:05 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote: | >| | >| > | >| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:805dm1ljecqc5euugqq1fvhr7ed7dtsujg(a)4ax.com... | >| >| On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 00:22:45 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote: | >| >| | >| | >| >| >That's a terminology. | >| >| > | >| >| >| I cannot see why subtracting a positive number of 'beats/second' shold make | >| >| >| those beats negative. | >| >| > | >| >| >Cos the negative beats can't be seen, which is why you can't see 'em. | >| >| >Androcles. | >| >| | >| >| OK. That sounds logical. | >| > | >| >Of course. I'll tell you where else you'll find negative frequencies | >| >too. Run a recording backwards, or run a read head forwards | >| >faster than the tape. | >| >If we set off for the far reaches of space at 2c relative to Earth, | >| >a 100 MHz FM radio station beamed to the ship would sound like it | >| >was a backward recording. The signal is still there. | >| >At first is would sound normal, then as we accelerated it would | >| >get lost, and as we continue to accelerate it would reappear running | >| >in reverse. | >| >Androcles | >| | >| It's just a convention though.. | >| We will still hear a positive number of beats per second. | > | >That's like saying we always travel a positive number of miles an hour. | >Your convention isn't my convention, my convention allows me to travel | >a negative number of miles in an hour to get back home again. | > | >Sometimes I feel like a partial success. The least useful thing I have ever done is prove Wilson wrong. | >Androcles. | | Message rating: minus 3 bottles. Sobering up? | | PS: are you posting in HTML? "So long as they don't get violent, I want to let everyone say what they wish, for I myself have always said exactly what pleased me." -- Albert Einstein Androcles. Sometimes I feel like a partial success. The least useful thing I have ever done is prove Wilson wrong.
From: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 1 Nov 2005 22:35
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:uutfm1pg0nc8fmjnf0tuolrgohoo4e7tge(a)4ax.com... | On 1 Nov 2005 03:53:38 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: | | >Henri Wilson wrote: | >> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 01:18:07 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> | >> wrote: | > | >> >> H. Wilson, 2005. | >> > | >> >Not peer reviewed. | >> | >> Reviewed on sci.physics.relativity | > | >Repeatedly and scathingly rejected. | | Only by indoctrinated fools who have not presented ONE argument that refutes | it. We've got another one that doesn't understand simple logic. Nobody has ever refuted bright green flying elephants lay eggs in black holes, therefore my theory is valid. Message rating one glass. Androcles. | > | >Jerry | | | 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". |