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 3 Oct 2005 17:01 I wrote: > The actual rotation period of the Milky Way at the Solar > System is about 2,000,000 to 2,500,000 years. How about that! I made just about the same mistake! The actual rotation period of the Milky Way at the Solar System is about 200,000,000 to 250,000,000 years. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: Henri Wilson on 3 Oct 2005 17:33 On 3 Oct 2005 10:54:22 -0700, jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote: > >donstockbauer(a)hotmail.com wrote: >> One cannot construct reality from an illusion unless one uses the >> correct model. >> >> ************************ >> >> I'm going to have to remember that one. If I want to get correct >> results from an illusion, I'd better model it correctly. Thanks! > >The "illusion" I believe Henri is referring to, is likened to an image >altered by having the velocities of the photons carrying it altered, as >seen by our eye/brain. Don't waste your time on this fool Jim. He wouldn't even be able to understand the problem. >For example: 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. Do you not consider that to be an illusion?? So >deep space mapping is about as usefull as using a modern world map >featuring Gondwana Land. Precisely. Even more to the point. If the object is a binary pair then the relative positions of the two will be determined by their c+v relationship during each orbit. They will be observed as anything BUT a binary pair. Similarly, many stars appear to be binaries when in fact they are just single stars with a large orbiting planet. > >Jim G >c'=c+v 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 3 Oct 2005 17:44 On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:23:25 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:ib02k15ebg3q0dnnm4gv9ukqfe5hpta89m(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 09:42:17 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >>><jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message >>>news:1128315340.986276.145770(a)g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >... >>>>> >> Nope, this is an unusual galaxy by local standards so >>>>> >> more evidence for inhomogeneity. >>>> >>>> Rubbish! What I claim, is that galaxies of ALL AGES exist locally. >>> >>>Then why do we locally see vastly more galaxies that >>>are over 9 billion years old than all the rest put >>>together? Why don't we see any galaxies over 13 billion >>>years old. Why do all the galaxies we see have stellar >>>populations that show that the rate of new stars was >>>much higher withing the first couple of billion years >>>of the galaxies life than now? >> >> Because all astronomy is based on the Earthly notion that the speed of >> light is >> fixed ... > >Which we have known to be a fact for over a hundred >years. > >> and doesn't affect our perception of very distant objects. > >And how how would the speed of light change the >observed ratio of new stars to old ones in the >same galaxy? > >> What we see on Earth is pretty well real. >> What we observe at 1 billion LYs is an illusion and nothing like reality. > >Yet more handwaving with no credible linkage even >to your long disproven claims. > >> One cannot construct reality from an illusion unless one uses the correct >> model. > >Exactly why your binary star simulations are pointless >until you construct a model that is not falsified by >the Sagnac experiment. Give it up George. The Sagnac effect is not related to the BaT. > >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: George Dishman on 4 Oct 2005 03:56 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:tv83k15r1pvqe4mro5e3h5s035195nih4h(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:23:25 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:ib02k15ebg3q0dnnm4gv9ukqfe5hpta89m(a)4ax.com... >> >>> One cannot construct reality from an illusion unless one uses the >>> correct >>> model. >> >>Exactly why your binary star simulations are pointless >>until you construct a model that is not falsified by >>the Sagnac experiment. > > Give it up George. The Sagnac effect is not related to the BaT. Any theory of light has to be compatible with the observations Henri. Sagnac is very simple, it measures the speed of light from a moving source and the answer is exactly c in the lab frame regardless of the speed of the source. If your theory isn't capable of making a prediction for this test then it isn't a theory, and if its prediction is wrong, as Ritz's was, then the theory is falsified. George
From: Henri Wilson on 4 Oct 2005 05:14
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 08:56:32 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:tv83k15r1pvqe4mro5e3h5s035195nih4h(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 12:23:25 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>>news:ib02k15ebg3q0dnnm4gv9ukqfe5hpta89m(a)4ax.com... >>> >>>> One cannot construct reality from an illusion unless one uses the >>>> correct >>>> model. >>> >>>Exactly why your binary star simulations are pointless >>>until you construct a model that is not falsified by >>>the Sagnac experiment. >> >> Give it up George. The Sagnac effect is not related to the BaT. > >Any theory of light has to be compatible with >the observations Henri. Sagnac is very simple, >it measures the speed of light from a moving >source and the answer is exactly c in the lab >frame regardless of the speed of the source. > >If your theory isn't capable of making a >prediction for this test then it isn't a >theory, and if its prediction is wrong, as >Ritz's was, then the theory is falsified. George, I told you. Each component is moving noramally in the frame of the next component. > >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". |