OWLS is not equal to c
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus?
Next: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
From: bz on 23 Jun 2005 15:51 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:9hblb1p8suciajqp125svl6h5i0j436439(a)4ax.com: > On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 14:37:29 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:1moeb1ds0oodcit7ijs0tbe4me4rhq8m4t(a)4ax.com: >> > >>>>As I understand it, photons don't really 'bounce' from a surface. >>>> >>>>They are absorbed and re-emitted. That would result in the emitted >>>>photons losing velocity (but perhaps gaining energy) when they >>>>'bounce' from a moving surface. >>> >>> Strange how they are re-emitted at exactly the incident angle, don't >>> you think.... >> >>It would be much stranger if they weren't. > > It would be very strange, just like pefectly elastic balls bouncing off > walls. or any of a number of wave phenomina. Not much surprise as photons appear to have wave and particle properties. Reflection from non metallic surfaces are more interesting. Most metallic reflectors reflect all photons within certain wavelength limits. Non metalics discriminate, at some angles, against some polarizations. ..... >>>>If sub/super luminal photons can be created in the atmosphere of a >>>>star and travel through the vacuum of space, they can be created in a >>>>particle accelerator and travel through the vacuum of the lab or by >>>>bouncing light off of a moving front surface mirror and travel through >>>>the air in the lab. >>>> >>>>If the air in the lab is too dense to allow the photons to move at >>>>super/sub luminal velocity, the atmosphere of the star must be much >>>>more likely to kill such photons. >>> >>> But the star atmosphere itself is moving at v wrt Earth. >> >>Yes, but next paragraph kills that objection. >> >>>>Any Henri Cepheid stars are going to leave behind them a dense ring of >>>>stellar gasses and THOSE gasses are going to cause a rapid extinction >>>>of any photons that pass through them. Those gasses are NOT going to >>>>be moving at the radial velocity of the visible star. > > Your colleague Craig Markwardt recently informed me that there is > nothing in the Earth's atmosphere that could or would unify the speed of > light. I don't know Craig Markwardt. >>> >>> Yes they are...most of it anyway. >> >>"Most of it" is going to average to 'zero velocity' wrt the barycenter >>involved because the stellar winds are going in all directions and will >>average out to zero. > > all speculation Point out flaws in my reasoning. > ...but anyway, the overall effect will be to increase the > critical distance, just as thermal velocity of sources does. Wouldn't that be 'to decrease the extinction distance'. And doesn't decreasing the extinction distance also decrease the critical distance? >>>>Like our solar wind, they are >>>>going to be going all directions from the visible star at speeds >>>>exceeding the stellar escape velocity. Photons going through the >>>>stellar winds are going to be speeded up and slowed down. This would >>>>produce both faster and slower than BaT predicted photons. >>> >>> This is unknown territory. >>> We can only speculate about the way photons change speed in turbulent >>> gases like these. It is an important topic..but first things first... >> >>These are first things. If they prevent BaT from ever being observed >>then there might as well not be a BaT [if there is a BaT it doesn't >>matter]. > > they shouldn't do that. If they do in the lab, they should in the star. > There will always be a kind of average speed of all the light leaving a > star in the observer's direction. On the contrary, rapidly rotating stars show broaden doubled lines due to doppler shift of light leaving from one side vs light leaving from the other side of the star. One side is red shifted and the other is blue shifted. They even use these doppler shifts to help detect starspots. http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~acc4/coolpages/imaging.html >>>>>>> If you know what actually PHYSICALLY happens when a laser beam >>>>>>> bounces off a moving atom, then your experiment might mean >>>>>>> something. >>>>>> >>>>>>Scattering from particles is pretty well documented and understood. >>>>> >>>>> using classical wave theory? >>>> >>>>What does THAT question have to do with anything? >>> >>> I think all interference, scattering, refraction etc effects are still >>> explained only by classssical wave theory. >> >>In which case BaT should be easy to demonstrate in the lab. Classical >>wave theory doesn't even give you any excuse for it not working. > > It cannot be easily demonstrated. We have discussed that. It has not been demonstrated. Perhaps that is because it cannot be demonstrated. >>.... >>>>> The MMX failed because light speed is souce dependent. >>>> >>>>Try rowing up river and back to starting point >>>>Row down river and back to starting point. >>> >>>>do this with a stationary starting point. >>> >>>>do this with a moving starting point. >>> >>> The usual question is what happens when you row ACROSS the river and >>> back again. >> >>MMX has one beam going up-river/down-river and the other beam going >>across the river. > > that's right. ..and the time taken to go across and back is independent > of the river speed IF THE BOAT IS ALWAYS ALIGNED PERPENDICULAR TO THE > SHORE.. Your assertion is noted. > M M and Einstein argued wrongly by assuming that light consists of > 'little spheres'. It doesn't. Photons have a 'long axis' and its > direction doesn't change when an observer moves past. Your assertion is noted. > > the time taken to go up and down the river varuies with river flow by > the linear doppler expression. > In other words the factor 'gamma' should have 'v', not v^2. . but light isn't water. The doppler expression for light has two terms, one with v and one with v^2 nu = nu_0 sqrt(1-v_s^2/c^2)/(1-v_s/c) nu = frequency observed nu_0 = source frequency v_s=source velocity c=velocity of light. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/reldop3.html Read this all but transverse doppler shift answers your boat problems. http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/doppler.htm ..... -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Henri Wilson on 23 Jun 2005 19:41 On 23 Jun 2005 11:29:44 -0500, Craig Markwardt <craigmnet(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: > >H@..(Henri Wilson) writes: >> On 21 Jun 2005 10:14:39 -0500, Craig Markwardt >> <craigmnet(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> You are forgetting that light speed is unified by the Earth's atmosphere. >> > >> >Since the atmosphere has little to do with the fundamental principles >> >of optical and radio interferometry, your comment is irrelevant. In >> >fact, interferometry has been successfully performed *outside* the >> >earth's atmosphere (Space VLBI, using the VSOP satellite), where your >> >so-called "unification" is irrelevant. And finally, let's not forget >> >that there are no known properties of the earth's atmosphere which >> >could "unify" the speed of light. >> >> That's a strange thing to say. >> What do you understand by the term 'extinction'? > >Extinction is a reduction in intensity. Extinction is the tendency of light to adjust to the 'natural' lightspeed inside a medium. >Classical interferometry will work with or without the presence of atmospheric (or other) >extinction, so your diversion is irrelevant. I note that you ignored >space VLBI, which a counterexample to your atmosphere-enables- >interferometry claim. > >> >> >Thus the >> >> >proper statement is, emitted starlight *does* appear to travel at c >> >> >w.r.t. Earth. Your statement belies an obvious misunderstanding of >> >> >Relativity. In it, light *must* travel at the same speed with respect >> >> >to all frames. >> >> >> >> That is an unproven postulate, nothing more. >> > >> >Hardly. There have been many attempts to test the constancy of the >> >speed of light. To cite a few, >> > >> > Schaefer, B. 1999, PRL, 82, 4964 (constancy of c with frequency) >> > >> > Will, C. 2001, Living Rev. Rel. 4, 4 (LLI tests in sec 2.1) >> > http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2001-4 >> > >> > Wolf, P. & Gerrard, P. 1997, PRA, 56, 4405 (isotropicity of c) >> >> These are all either TWLS experiments or OWLS isotropy experiments with all >> parts mutually at rest. >> In that latter case the BaT expects OWLS to be isotropic. >> >> No experiment has directly measured the speed of light from a moving source. >> Until recently, the means were not available to do so. > >Whether or not that is true, it is a diversion (partly of my own >making). You originally, complained, "Emitted starlight does NOT >travel at c wrt little planet Earth. How could it?" You appeal to >intuition but not substance. Relativity answers the "how could it," >question by assuming that it is fundamental property of spacetime. There is no 'spacetime'. It is purely a maths concept. >Whether or not that is a intuitively satisfactory answer to you is >irrelevant. [ And, attempts have been made to test this postulate. ] No attempts have been made... because Einstein said it is impossible to measure OWLS. >> >> >> It is quite ludicrous to think that light from a star emitted at one point in >> >> >> its orbit should travel at the same speed towards little planet Earth as light >> >> >> emitted half an orbit later. >> >> >> Emitted light has only one speed reference AND IT CERTAINLY ISN'T LITTLE PLANET >> >> >> EARTH. >> >> > >> >> >That is one (refuted) possibility. Another possibility is that light >> >> >travels at the same speed with respect to all measurers. By your >> >> >logic, it would be ludicrous for binary pulsars to emit radiation at >> >> >the same speed w.r.t. earth at the different positions in its orbit, >> >> >and yet... it does! To very high precision. Nature does not exist to >> >> >satisfy your intuition or sense of ludocrity. >> >> >> >> Then why do most variable stars brightness curves exactly match The BaT >> >> predictions based on their light traveling at c+v, at least for a significant >> >> part of the way? >> > >> >While your "theory" might be sufficient to explain single-band optical >> >light curves, your "theory" also makes other predictions that can be >> >falsified. For example, it predicts that "variable" stars are really >> >in binary orbits, and would have binary orbital Doppler shifts, which >> >they do *not*. >> >> Many do...as predicted. > >Your claim is unsubstantiated. The burden is actually on you to show >stars whose Doppler signatures *exactly* match your claimed orbital >parameters, "as predicted," and that the results are reasonable. In >fact, there are many solitary pulsating stars which do not have >orbital Doppler signatures. We shall see. > > >> >In your theory, binary pulsars would emit radio pulses >> >at different speeds w.r.t. earth at different parts of their orbits; >> >this is clearly not the case (c.f. high precision pulsar timing, van >> >Straten et al. Nature, 412, 158; http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0108254). >> >In your theory, ground- and space-based interferometry could not >> >function, and yet it does. Thus, whether or not your theory "explains" >> >variable star light curves, is quite irrelevant, since it is negated by >> >other observations. >> >> Doppler shift according to the BaT is virtually the same as for NM and SR at >> observed speeds. There is no reason it should affect interferometry. Light >> speed doesn't change wavelength. It changes observed frequency at which >> 'wavecrests' arrive at the receiver. > >Since interferometry is fundamentally about path/time length >differences between two observers, your "Doppler shift" comment is >irrelevant. Your claim (above) that interferometry works because of >the earth's atmosphere is refuted because the earth's atmosphere is >not required (space VLBI). Where did I say that 'interferometry only works because of the Earth's atmosphere'? >Additionally, pulsar timing has nothing to do with Doppler shifts. In >fact, since pulsars are highly stable rotators, it is possible to >track the arrival times of individual pulses. If, as you claimed, the >emission speed w.r.t. earth were to depend on the orbital phase, then >the pulses emitted when the pulsar was approaching would overtake >those on the receding side, but they do not. In fact, the orbits are >precisely constrained at the few tens of nanosecond level (cf. van >Straten above). The double binary pulsar system PSR J0737-3039 has >*two* pulsars which both confirm this orbit solution; other binary >pulsar systems have eclipses which confirm the orbit interpretation. >Thus, binary pulsars are very sensitive test of the speed of light, >and refute your ballastic "theory." Your logic is circular. All the accepted properties of pulsars are basd on constant light speed...so naturally your conclusions will support that principle. If you approach the pulsar phenomenon entirely from a BaT aspect, you will find simple explanations for the points you raise. >> The radial velocity curve of cepheid RT Aur is precisely that of a star in >> elliptical orbit, ecc=~0.25. ... > >Unlikely. RT Aur has an pulsation period of 3.7 days. If one were to >interpret that as an orbital period, then by Kepler's law, the mass >density in the orbit would need to be unphysically large. For >example, for its estimated 5 M_sun mass, the orbit (0.08 AU) would be >smaller than the size of the star itself (0.18 AU)! Furthermore, if >we examine the well-known velocity curve, which has a semi-amplitude >of +/- 16 km/s, one finds an approximate projected orbital radius of >0.005 AU, which is is improbably small (*), so small that again, the >star would not fit inside! Therefore your claim is incredible. Even >a simple check of your numbers with basic Kepler's laws would show >that you don't know what you are talking about. I have been through this with Bob (bz). there are no problems asociated wih having a neutron star orbiting a cepheid, particularly when you take into account that the estimated size, period and temperature are based on Einsteiniana. >> My predicted light curves refer to the energy form one particular star >> impinging on unit area at the receiver. They are expresed in terms of apparent >> brightness. I am presently incorporating a log scale...which doesn't markedly >> affect the curve shapes but DOES change the predicted distances at which things >> happen. > >Whether you plot on a log or linear scale is irrelevant. What is >relevant is that pulsating stars have strong wavelength dependent >features which you could not model with your purely geometric >"theory." For example, when moving to redder wavelengths, a cepheid >can transition from having one peak to two peaks per cycle! The BaT explains that very simply....although usually only one peak should be redshifted. In fact that is even more proof that the BaT is correct. Double peaks are a common prediction. >> >Finally, it is worth pointing out that variable star light curves can >> >be successfully explained by other effects, *not* your ballastic model >> >(eg. temperature dependent opacity effects). Thus, we are in a >> >situation where we do not need your ballastic model for variable star >> >light curves, and your ballastic model is excluded for other reasons. >> >> Sorry, The BaT survives all known tests and is supported by a mass of >> evidence...from the MMX onwards. > >Sorry, your "theory" does not survive many tests at all. That's why >we don't let a student mark his own test. we shall see. > >> It also predicts almost all simple variable star light curves and is the ONLY >> theory that can reasonably explain the precise constancy of the periods of many >> of these oscillations. > >Whether or not it is successful in matching some light curves is >irrelevant, since there are so many other things that it fails. It fails nowhere. > >> Do you really believe that a supposed 'choo-choo' star like delta Cep could >> maintain a period constant to withing seconds over tweny years if the process >> was NOT directly linked to its orbiot period? > >Regarding the constancy of the period, it is well known that cepheid >periods change. For example the period of SV Vul changes by 214 >sec/yr (!), which would be unphysically large if it were orbital >period change. Your "how could it not be" is another appeal to >intuition. However, again, nature is not obliged to honor your >intuition, so your comment is irrelevant. That kind of steady drift is easily explained by the BaT. The binary pair responsible is itself in slow orbit around a larger mass, such as a galactic centre. > >CM > >(*) unless the orbit is (again improbably) almost exactly face-on. >But in that case you wouldn't see your "ballastic" effect. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Henri Wilson on 23 Jun 2005 19:42 On 23 Jun 2005 05:44:52 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 20 Jun 2005 20:28:28 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >bz wrote: >> >> H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >> >> news:7bmeb1ds7uae0d8fcn62fu4gr54fqqvq5f(a)4ax.com: >> >> > It isn't hard to concoct a theory when you know the answer you want. >> >> >> >> All theories start out trying to explain observed phenomia (the answer you >> >> want to get). Your BaT as well as any others. >> >> >> >> Shapely in his 1914 paper "On the nature and cause of Cepheid variation." >> >> explores various double star hypotheses available at the time and explains >> >> why they must be rejected. One important point is that "various lines [in the >> >> spectrum] show large irregular shifts, which are not progressive with the >> >> phase of the star in its light-period." >> > >> >Full article available here: >> >http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1914CMWCI..92....1S&db_key=AST >> > >> >Henri, there is no excuse for you not to read this one! >> >> I did...and I'm not impressed. He was obviously a relativist who believed that >> all starlight travels at c to little planet Earth. >> The is nothing in ithe paper that suggests I am wrong. >> >> The fact that brightness variation occurs at a very constant rate, varying only >> slightly over many years, agrees with the BaT's time compression concept. > >Irregularities appear in EVERY HYPOTHETICAL ORBIT. Model that! > >> I would say tat a cepheid is a largeish star around which a neutron star or >> other WCH is orbiting quite rapidly. Note: a neutron star would not create a >> noticeable eclipse. >> The pair are themselves in orbit around another large mass, a process that can >> make the period of the binary appear considerably shorter than it really is. > >Your curves appear similar in gross to Cepheid curves. They do >NOT resemble Cepheid curves in DETAIL. > >How do you explain the random 0.03 magnitude fluctuations in the >Polaris >light curve? Weather. > >Your BaT theory requires epicycle upon epicycle... the BaT is very complicated.... but consistent. > >Jerry HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Henri Wilson on 23 Jun 2005 19:48 On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 14:00:08 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >In sci.physics, Jerry ><Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> > wrote >on 23 Jun 2005 05:44:52 -0700 ><1119530692.891984.97450(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>: >> Henri Wilson wrote: >>> On 20 Jun 2005 20:28:28 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>> >bz wrote: >>> >> H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>> >> news:7bmeb1ds7uae0d8fcn62fu4gr54fqqvq5f(a)4ax.com: >>> >> > It isn't hard to concoct a theory when you know the answer you want. >>> >> >>> >> All theories start out trying to explain observed phenomia >>> >> (the answer you want to get). Your BaT as well as any others. >>> >> >>> >> Shapely in his 1914 paper "On the nature and cause of Cepheid >>> >> variation." explores various double star hypotheses available >>> >> at the time and explains why they must be rejected. One >>> >> important point is that "various lines [in the spectrum] show >>> >> large irregular shifts, which are not progressive with the >>> >> phase of the star in its light-period." >>> > >>> >Full article available here: >>> >http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1914CMWCI..92....1S&db_key=AST >>> > >>> >Henri, there is no excuse for you not to read this one! >>> >>> I did...and I'm not impressed. He was obviously a relativist >>> who believed that all starlight travels at c to little planet Earth. >>> The is nothing in ithe paper that suggests I am wrong. >>> >>> The fact that brightness variation occurs at a very constant rate, >>> varying only slightly over many years, agrees with the BaT's >>> time compression concept. >> >> Irregularities appear in EVERY HYPOTHETICAL ORBIT. Model that! > >Hypothetical orbits are useless except to instruct, and >Henri is on record as suggesting every clock is damaged >when boosted into orbit. (This presumably includes >radioactive isotopes. How one can damage, say, cobalt >60 by boosting it with a relatively gentle (compared to >the nuclear strong force) 10g rocket ride with lots of >irrelevant vibration is not clear. Whether one has performed >such an experiment is not clear to me, either.) > >As for BaT's "time compression" -- first I've heard of it; >my usual postulate regarding BaT is a universal time co-ordinate >system (suggested by Henri's comments that a clock can only >have one measurement regardless of the velocity of an observer >in motion relative to that clock). Time compression comes about when the light emitted from a large section of a star's orbit arrives at an observer over a much shorter time interval. All information occuring in a quarter period may arrive in a fraction of that time. Thus that information is compressed in time. Any periodic event will have its period apparently reduced....except for the photons themselves. > >> >>> I would say tat a cepheid is a largeish star around which >>> a neutron star or other WCH is orbiting quite rapidly. >>> Note: a neutron star would not create a noticeable eclipse. >>> The pair are themselves in orbit around another large mass, >>> a process that can make the period of the binary appear >>> considerably shorter than it really is. >> >> Your curves appear similar in gross to Cepheid curves. They do >> NOT resemble Cepheid curves in DETAIL. >> >> How do you explain the random 0.03 magnitude fluctuations in the >> Polaris light curve? >> >> Your BaT theory requires epicycle upon epicycle... > >Henri is also on record as claiming BaT has never been disproven; >this despite a rather large list of experiments that confirm SR >and GR. I don't know of any. > >> >> Jerry >> HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Henri Wilson on 23 Jun 2005 19:55
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 18:56:20 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:3p6lb1d05c132g7big468fqlttlmenjgga(a)4ax.com: > >> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 02:59:21 +0000 (UTC), bz >> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>news:7bmeb1ds7uae0d8fcn62fu4gr54fqqvq5f(a)4ax.com: >>> >> >>>>>I have built such circuits and observed the curves myself. I think the >>>>>first time I saw such curves was on an Oscilliscope [heathkit] that I >>>>>build when I was 16. >>>> >>>> The RO curves are not the same as these. >>> >>>Henri, there are different kinds of relaxation oscillators with >>>different looking waveforms. I assure you that it is quite possible to >>>produce any of the cepheid wavforms with a relaxation oscillator using >>>the proper circuit elements. >> >> But why would we want to do that when we can produce the curves using >> the simple model of a star in elliptical orbit? ..Particularly when its >> brightness curve also matches that of a star in the same elliptical >> orbit. > >We need to examine likely models and eliminate those that do not match the >data. The He+ <--> He+2 huff and puff (as you call it) model is BETTER at >explaining the data than BaT because it accounts for the DIFFERENT radial >velocity curves displayed by different elements, whereas the BaT model says >all elements should be traveling around the orbit at the same velocity. >Doppler shift shows that they dont. Where did you dig up that idea? You are becoming more like Andersen every day. >> That kind of process could occur completely independently. I have always >> accepted that many stars are genuinely varying 'intrinsically'. > >So, now we have a periodic process taking place within the star, independent >of its orbiting the Henri Cool Mass. Now you have several MORE things to >explain. Sir Wm. Of Ockaam will thrash you soundly with his razor. There is no doubt that many stars DO intinsically change in brightness. I have never claimed otherwise. >>>I have no idea what you are talking about at this moment. >> >> it's in the paper about RT Aur...speculating about the phase >> relationship between radial v and brightness. > >are you talking about partial ionisation zones? >are you talking about the phase lag between the stars maximum brightness and >its minimum radius? I don't see anything about ionisation delays. >Tell me which paper we are talking about. I don't know which it was. maybe it was Andersen's one about delta cep. >>>It is not like you fed in the parameters and got the right curve on the >>>first try. >> >> If I could get my hands on a few sets of parameters I could do it.... >> but they are hard to obtain. > >Keep trying. > >>>>>> RT Aur has the exact radial velocity curve of a star in elliptical >>>>>> orbit, e=~ 0.25. > >http://www.aavso.org/data/download/ >look at the data. > >>>>>> So do all other 'Cepheids'. >>>>> >>>>>No, Henri. Only two BaT stars of the proper masses, one of which is a >>>>>peculiar black hole that doesn't seem to be capturing mass from the >>>>>other star [if it were, there would be massive radiation of x and >>>>>gamma rays]. >>>> >>>> Speculation.. >>> >>>Phenomina observed around neutron stars and black holes. Not >>>speculation. >> >> Lots of speculation. > >Observation. Observation.... followed by speculatiopn. >>>There may be some SR priests on usenet. >>>You certainly act like a BaT priest. >>> >>>I have no faith in either theory. >> >> That's a reasonable start. > >That is where science starts and ends. but I get the impression that you are well and truly indoctrinated with Einsteiniana.. >>>> It is based solely on the notion that the Earth is the centre of the >>>> universe. There is absolutely no justification for its existence. >>> >>>That is not a scientific statement. It is exaggeration. Once again, you >>>show your faith is strong. >> >> I cannot see the exaggeration. > >That is because your faith is strong. > >The words you use such as "solely" and "absolutely" are unjustified >exaggerations Oh? Can you see some justification or the assumption that the Earth rreally IS the centre of the niverse? > >> The only reason SR was supported was because it appeared to prop up the >> religious notion that the Earth was the centre of the universe. > >Since it made the speed of light equal to all observers, it did NOT prop up >any notion that earth was the centre of the universe. Quite to the contrary. I don't see it that way. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. |