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: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 11 Aug 2005 18:58 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:5vjnf1hrmgh1lm5hnpp1ueqlvo85s9fkcj(a)4ax.com... | On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:18:18 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" | <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: | | >Henri Wilson wrote: | >> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:21:33 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> | >> wrote: | >> | | >>>Then why don't you show me the curves you | >>>get and the parameters required to achieve | >>>it. I will be happy to admit you have some | >>>successes when I see them. | > | >I suspect you know the reason, George. :-) | > | >The ballistic theory predicts that HD80715 | >should be a variable. It isn't. | > | >> Firstly it is very hard to obtain the rquired data....much of which is highly | >> suspect anyway. | > | >The fact is that I supplied all the required data. | > | >But the answer is interesting, and typical for Henri Wilson. | >Henri says he has calculated the light curve for HD80715 | >and must thus have had all the required data. | >But he won't show the result, because the required | >data are hard to get. And the data that are hard to get | >are suspect anyway - they are only measured data. | > | >> Secondly, the fact that the typical curve sha[es can be produced is suficient | >> reason to accept that most variable star curves are a direct consequence of | >> c+v. | > | >In other words, it doesn't matter that the predictions of | >the ballistic theory are wrong for a concrete binary with | >measured data, if Henri can dream up (in most cases physically | >impossible) data for a fantasy binary that will make the ballistic | >theory produce the observed light curve. | > | >Henry can infer what the parameters of the binary must be | >from the light curve, and the inferred data are not suspect. | >How can they be wrong? | | Is this the same Paul Andersen who doesn't know that Asin(xt) +Asin(xt+180) = | 0? Yep. The same Paul Andersen that can't figure out v = x/t, Where x = 100000m and t = 2.2 microseconds, the life of a muon. He thinks you have to slow the muon down with a scintillator to measure its speed to make sure it is less than c. | | >So he is inferring that a cepheid really is orbiting | >a 100+ solar masses invisible star. | >(Not a black hole - they don't exist in Henri's world!) | | This new category of star is called the WCH (Wilson, Cool, Heavy). | Pass it on.... Does the Paul Andersen that can't figure out v = x/t or Asin(xt) +Asin(xt+180) = 0 have some black holes in his world? Not surprising, I suppose. Observation means nothing to him. If he can dream it then it exists. What I'd like to know though is why a Wilson Can't Hack thinks he needs a star that isn't in a tiny orbit at the focus of a 1/2 spiral? | | > | >> Thirdly, I am still trying to work on important aspects of the program but | >> cannot get on with it becaus I spend too much time trying to educate people | >> like you. You got that right, and Andersen is ineducable. He still can't figure v = x/t. | >In other words, Henri's program doesn't produce the desired result, | >and he is unable to find a way to make it do so. Andersen cannot produce the desired result of x/t, so he slows the muon with a scintillator. Henri's program cannot reproduce an ellipse. Henri needs 20 or so lines of code replaced. Not a big deal, but it will make an enormous difference. | This IS the same Paul Andersen who doesn't believe that light moves at c wrt | its source. Instead, all starlight in the universe moves at c wrt little planet | Earth. | ........The fairies are reponsible, you know :) Yes, of course. So neither of you gave the other any clear signal to read, the posts were to raise the general noise level of the newsgroup. Androcles.
From: Henri Wilson on 11 Aug 2005 20:46 On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:58:57 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:5vjnf1hrmgh1lm5hnpp1ueqlvo85s9fkcj(a)4ax.com... >| On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:18:18 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >| <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >| >| > >| >The ballistic theory predicts that HD80715 >| >should be a variable. It isn't. >| > >| >> Firstly it is very hard to obtain the rquired data....much of which >is highly >| >> suspect anyway. >| > >| >The fact is that I supplied all the required data. >| > >| >But the answer is interesting, and typical for Henri Wilson. >| >Henri says he has calculated the light curve for HD80715 >| >and must thus have had all the required data. >| >But he won't show the result, because the required >| >data are hard to get. And the data that are hard to get >| >are suspect anyway - they are only measured data. >| > >| >> Secondly, the fact that the typical curve sha[es can be produced is >suficient >| >> reason to accept that most variable star curves are a direct >consequence of >| >> c+v. >| > >| >In other words, it doesn't matter that the predictions of >| >the ballistic theory are wrong for a concrete binary with >| >measured data, if Henri can dream up (in most cases physically >| >impossible) data for a fantasy binary that will make the ballistic >| >theory produce the observed light curve. >| > >| >Henry can infer what the parameters of the binary must be >| >from the light curve, and the inferred data are not suspect. >| >How can they be wrong? >| >| Is this the same Paul Andersen who doesn't know that Asin(xt) >+Asin(xt+180) = >| 0? > >Yep. The same Paul Andersen that can't figure out v = x/t, >Where x = 100000m and t = 2.2 microseconds, the life of a muon. >He thinks you have to slow the muon down with a scintillator to >measure its speed to make sure it is less than c. > >| >| >So he is inferring that a cepheid really is orbiting >| >a 100+ solar masses invisible star. >| >(Not a black hole - they don't exist in Henri's world!) >| >| This new category of star is called the WCH (Wilson, Cool, Heavy). >| Pass it on.... >Does the Paul Andersen that can't figure out v = x/t or >Asin(xt) +Asin(xt+180) = 0 have some black holes in his world? >Not surprising, I suppose. Observation means nothing to him. If >he can dream it then it exists. >What I'd like to know though is why a Wilson Can't Hack thinks he >needs a star that isn't in a tiny orbit at the focus of a 1/2 spiral? You still wont admit to your mistake will you A >| >| > >| >> Thirdly, I am still trying to work on important aspects of the >program but >| >> cannot get on with it becaus I spend too much time trying to >educate people >| >> like you. > >You got that right, and Andersen is ineducable. He still can't figure v >= x/t. > > > >| >In other words, Henri's program doesn't produce the desired result, >| >and he is unable to find a way to make it do so. >Andersen cannot produce the desired result of x/t, so he slows the muon >with a scintillator. >Henri's program cannot reproduce an ellipse. Henri needs 20 or so lines >of code replaced. Not a big deal, but it will make an enormous >difference. Henri produces beautiful and accurate ellipses. I sent you some more coordinates. (The first were for e=0.25 not 0.5). Would you like to plot them. I'll send the full 20000 if you wnat them. > > >| This IS the same Paul Andersen who doesn't believe that light moves at >c wrt >| its source. Instead, all starlight in the universe moves at c wrt >little planet >| Earth. >| ........The fairies are reponsible, you know :) > >Yes, of course. >So neither of you gave the other any clear signal to read, the posts >were >to raise the general noise level of the newsgroup. A, my ellipses produce the same results for Algol as your own program....so if mine are wrong, so are yours. > >Androcles. > > > > 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: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 11 Aug 2005 21:52 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:p2snf1ha06860gi87rj6snq6iur1o3ouiq(a)4ax.com... | On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:58:57 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote: | | > | >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message | >news:5vjnf1hrmgh1lm5hnpp1ueqlvo85s9fkcj(a)4ax.com... | >| On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:18:18 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" | >| <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: | >| | | >| > | >| >The ballistic theory predicts that HD80715 | >| >should be a variable. It isn't. | >| > | >| >> Firstly it is very hard to obtain the rquired data....much of which | >is highly | >| >> suspect anyway. | >| > | >| >The fact is that I supplied all the required data. | >| > | >| >But the answer is interesting, and typical for Henri Wilson. | >| >Henri says he has calculated the light curve for HD80715 | >| >and must thus have had all the required data. | >| >But he won't show the result, because the required | >| >data are hard to get. And the data that are hard to get | >| >are suspect anyway - they are only measured data. | >| > | >| >> Secondly, the fact that the typical curve sha[es can be produced is | >suficient | >| >> reason to accept that most variable star curves are a direct | >consequence of | >| >> c+v. | >| > | >| >In other words, it doesn't matter that the predictions of | >| >the ballistic theory are wrong for a concrete binary with | >| >measured data, if Henri can dream up (in most cases physically | >| >impossible) data for a fantasy binary that will make the ballistic | >| >theory produce the observed light curve. | >| > | >| >Henry can infer what the parameters of the binary must be | >| >from the light curve, and the inferred data are not suspect. | >| >How can they be wrong? | >| | >| Is this the same Paul Andersen who doesn't know that Asin(xt) | >+Asin(xt+180) = | >| 0? | > | >Yep. The same Paul Andersen that can't figure out v = x/t, | >Where x = 100000m and t = 2.2 microseconds, the life of a muon. | >He thinks you have to slow the muon down with a scintillator to | >measure its speed to make sure it is less than c. | > | >| | >| >So he is inferring that a cepheid really is orbiting | >| >a 100+ solar masses invisible star. | >| >(Not a black hole - they don't exist in Henri's world!) | >| | >| This new category of star is called the WCH (Wilson, Cool, Heavy). | >| Pass it on.... | >Does the Paul Andersen that can't figure out v = x/t or | >Asin(xt) +Asin(xt+180) = 0 have some black holes in his world? | >Not surprising, I suppose. Observation means nothing to him. If | >he can dream it then it exists. | >What I'd like to know though is why a Wilson Can't Hack thinks he | >needs a star that isn't in a tiny orbit at the focus of a 1/2 spiral? | | You still wont admit to your mistake will you A. What mistake? You think Kepler's equation is a mistake? You think my ellipse centred on zero is a mistake? You think my 1,000,000 points to your pathetic 70,000 is a mistake? You think my finding V1493 Aql that you can't do is a mistake? You think my 0.9999 eccentricity that you can't do is a mistake? You've got a strange idea of what a mistake is. What I'd like to know, though, is why a Wilson Can't Hack thinks he needs a star that isn't in a tiny orbit at the focus of a 1/2 spiral? | | >| | >| > | >| >> Thirdly, I am still trying to work on important aspects of the | >program but | >| >> cannot get on with it becaus I spend too much time trying to | >educate people | >| >> like you. | > | >You got that right, and Andersen is ineducable. He still can't figure v | >= x/t. | > | > | > | >| >In other words, Henri's program doesn't produce the desired result, | >| >and he is unable to find a way to make it do so. | >Andersen cannot produce the desired result of x/t, so he slows the muon | >with a scintillator. | >Henri's program cannot reproduce an ellipse. Henri needs 20 or so lines | >of code replaced. Not a big deal, but it will make an enormous | >difference. | | Henri produces beautiful and accurate ellipses. I sent you some more | coordinates. (The first were for e=0.25 not 0.5). Would you like to plot them. | I'll send the full 20000 if you wnat them. Send me Major axis 3.14159265/2 AU, eccentricity 0.99, 1,000,000 pts, centred on (0,0). If you can't I'll send them to you. | > | > | >| This IS the same Paul Andersen who doesn't believe that light moves at | >c wrt | >| its source. Instead, all starlight in the universe moves at c wrt | >little planet | >| Earth. | >| ........The fairies are reponsible, you know :) | > | >Yes, of course. | >So neither of you gave the other any clear signal to read, the posts | >were | >to raise the general noise level of the newsgroup. | | A, my ellipses produce the same results for Algol as your own program....so if | mine are wrong, so are yours. But you can't do V1493 Aql, you want atoms in space and you want WCH's because your program is limited. | | > | >Androcles. | > | > | > | > | | | 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: George Dishman on 12 Aug 2005 10:36 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:h53lf1lafifeafvtubqiajj17ss7kcpf92(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:49:52 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:j75df1585qm4scri82v1iu2qoq1iethmui(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 12:03:55 +0100, "George Dishman" > >> >>> 'Now' HERE is NOW everywhere. >>> >>> What could be more obvious? >> >>That follows from the definition of 'now'. However >>it is true in both SR and Newtonian models. Perhaps >>you meant that the events constituting 'now' would >>be agreed by different observers.] > > No George, I mean that "RIGHT NOW, something is happening both here and > everywhere else". Well as I said, if that's ALL you mean then IMO it is tautological. I don't disagree but I think it leaves a lot to be said. >>>>Nothing you have said in this thread adds any more >>>>to that paragraph, it is nothing but an assertion >>>>of your belief. >> >>The above is still true. >> >>>>> Then the 'GR correction' can never have been verified.....but we knew >>>>> that >>>>> didn't we George? >>>> >>>>The 'GR correction' is about 38us per day. The >>>>clocks on the craft are stable to about 4ns per >>>>day and their stability is measured and broadcast >>>>as part of the craft "health", one of the factors >>>>the receivers take into account. All that is >>>>separate from ground clock steering which is >>>>needed to correct for things like the effect >>>>of mountain ranges and ocean trenches so the >>>>effect is constantly verified to about one part >>>>in 10,000. >>>> >>>>If the duration of the orbit measured by the GO >>>>is defined as 1 unit exactly, then the duration >>>>measured by the OO would be 1.00000000044. If >>>>you define the OO duration as 1 unit exactly >>>>the GO duration is 0.99999999956. The correction >>>>factor is the ratio of the two. >>>> >>>>All you are doing is saying that both durations >>>>are going to be called "one unit" hence the ratio >>>>is exactly 1 solely because of your definition. >>>>It is of course a nonsensical argument two declare >>>>two different times to be the value of the same >>>>unit. >>> >>> George, would you agree that an orbit occupies a length of time? >> >>The orbit occupies some amount of time as measured >>by the GO. It also occupies an amount of time as >>measured by the OO. The two amounts differ by a >>factor of 1.00000000044. > > That was not the question George. > It was "does the orbit occupy an interval of time?" No, it was "George, would you agree that ...". The answer is that IMO your statement is incomplete. > I didn't request a value for that interval. The value of the interval, or "the amount of time occupied by the orbit." as you put it later, is what you are proposing as a standard for the measurement of time, one unit. >>> Would you agree that this 'duration' DOES NOT CHANGE when differently >>> moving >>> observers go past? >> >>The amount measured by the GO is not changed by >>the passage of the OO, assuming the OO doesn't >>have sufficient mass to create a significant >>gravitational field of course ;-) > > I don't mention measuring the duration George. Duration IS a measurement Henri. > I merely asked if any process in the experiment could have possibly > altered the > amount of time occupied by the orbit. And I explained that the "amount" is not the same depending on how it is measured. You are trying to wheasel your way around that and hide the fact that your argument relies not on the constancy of the amount but on your assumption that the amount is the same regardless of how it is measured. >>The duration measured by an observer will be changed >>if the motion of that observer changes, that's a >>different point. > > You cannot get away from the concept that something has to be measured to > exist. You said some time ago that Pythagoras was a result of direction not being absolute. That means that even though there is fixed distance between two dots on a piece of paper, you get different values for x and y components when you make measurements using coordinate axes. The direction of the axes is not absolute in the x-y plane. The same is true of space and time, there is a fixed interval between events but the time and distance components vary depending on the motion of the instruments measuring. for the same reason, the direction of the t axis is not absolute, it is tangent to the worldline of the observing instrument. > The universe existed long before humans evolved George. Spacetime and it's contents existed but there was nobody around to measure it in coordinates called "space" and "time". >>However, regrdless of any of that, I would say >>it was a very poor reference. First of all your >>perfect orbit is entirely hypothetical, real >>orbits vary far more than real clocks. Second, >>to do any sort of scientific work, I want the >>clock portable so that I can set it up beside >>the experiment to be measured. Using an orbit >>is somewhat impractical. > > You are now showing signs of desperation. > > Was it impractical to use the Earth's orbit as the standard of time for > 10000 > years? Not as long as it was more accurate than any clock, the resulting errors could not be seen. >>> Note: the aim is NOT to try to assign a value to the orbit duration >>> (which >>> is >>> what you seem intent on doing) but to use its constancy as a standard. >> >>You can use the value of the duration of the >>orbit say measured by the GO as your standard >>i.e. your unit of duration, and then all other >>durations can be given a numerical value which >>is the ratio of their duration to that standard. > > No George, The value of the orbit is known to be sufficiently invariant > during > the experiment. Look up what "invariant" means, you meant "unchanging". > For convenience it is assigned the value ONE. There you go, trying to do your usual sleight of hand. The value isn't "it", it is "they". Two different values, both of which you want to call "one". That doesn't work Henri, try again. > At no stage do we need to measure it or give it any other value. If you don't measure it, it doesn't have a value. >>So far that is just replacing the second with >>an alternative and that's fine. However having >>done that, you cannot assume the duration of >>the orbit measured by the OO is also one unit, >>you have to measure it and express it as a >>multiple of the duration observed by the GO. >>The result will be 1.00000000044, not 1.0 and >>before you moan about defining the unit, no you >>cannot define 1.00000000044 as being 1.0. > > ONE is ONE always, George....or do you think it becomes 'gamma'? Which amount are you calling "one" Henri, there are two different values throughout the experiment. They are both constant of course. >>You have shown that if time is absolute then >>GR is wrong and if GR is right then time is >>not absolute, but we all know that anyway. >>What you haven't done is show GR to be wrong, >>only that it conflicts with your assumptions. > > I don't cplaim that time is absolute...more like 'universal'. However you want to express it, you cannot assume something contrary to GR in order to produce a falsification of GR. Assuming both measured values will be the same does that and that is why your argument is bogus. > We certainly don't know that time is not universal. > 'Now' HERE is NOW everywhere. We know that spacetime intervals are invariant, or in that sense as you said before, spacetime is absolute (though coordinates aren't). Splitting the interval into x, y, z and t components depends on your choice of direction for the axes, including the t axis. George
From: George Dishman on 12 Aug 2005 10:42
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:7v3lf1pb883cb7375ue7kfqd5vdp45avlo(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:21:33 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:m27df1dq3aapq9io3m86e4hav661qs96o2(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 11:35:03 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: .... >>>>[HD80715] is a spectroscopic binary. It is not >>>>variable. Unless you can show you can set up >>>>parameters that match the spectroscopic data >>>>and have a light curve variation less than >>>>the uncertainty in the measurements, BaT is >>>>falsified. >>> >>> I have already done it. >> >>Then why don't you show me the curves you >>get and the parameters required to achieve >>it. I will be happy to admit you have some >>successes when I see them. > > Firstly it is very hard to obtain the rquired data....much of which is > highly > suspect anyway. The data is not suspect, it is what it is, but derived values such as eccentricity would need to be recalculated if your alternative model might influence their values. > Secondly, the fact that the typical curve sha[es can be produced is > suficient > reason to accept that most variable star curves are a direct consequence > of > c+v. Nope, c+v is falsified by Sagnac and no amount of matches would ever overcome that. Even without Sagnac, your logic is inverted, to test the model with binaries, you have to examine those that are NOT variable. I taught you the logic in a recent post. > Thirdly, I am still trying to work on important aspects of the program but > cannot get on with it becaus I spend too much time trying to educate > people > like you. Then by your own admission, you have not "already done it." Let me know when you have. George |