From: Henri Wilson on
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 12:48:12 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>
>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>news:6v3uf1pnt9o2oog7p0k3aoq1r8nc1lqshf(a)4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:51:07 +0100, "George Dishman"
>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk>
>> wrote:

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>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.
>
>Much trimmed, I think you finally heard what
>I have been saying.

I was always aware of what you are saying.

>
>>>True but you miss the point, you can call it
>>>"one unit" but you haven't found out what
>>>"amount of time" the unit contains. Sorry
>>>about the odd wording but you seem to be
>>>having trouble grasping this.
>>
>> Not so George.
>> I don't want or need to place a figure on the amount of time the orbit
>> contains.
>
>I know you don't but a unit is a well defined
>amount so you have no choice.

I don't need a choice because I have defined the orbit duration as ONE time
unit.

>
>> All I want to know is that it does not change during the experiment.
>
>No, what you want is for it to be single-valued.

George, does a rod simultaneously occupy more than one length of space?

>
>> Since when was the time contained in the orbit equal to TWO different
>> durations?
>
>Since you tried to use it as a test of GR.
>In GR it has two different durations.

In fairyland, people have two heads...

>
>> Two different orbits could have two different durations. One cannot.
>..
>> The orbit represent ONE fixed duration.
>..
>> We have one quantity, one orbit. Why refer to 'it' as 'them'?
>
>Because in GR we have one orbit, two quantities.
>Assuming it to be one quantity requires time to
>be absolute which is contrary to GR and is the
>entire basis of your argument.

George, during the experiment, it is known that the orbit does not change. It
If is measured to contain a different 'numbers of ticks' by two clocks, only a
fool would believe that the orbit duration was being somehow affected by the
measuring process.
Obviously the two clocks were not in synch.
Thus, a clock launched into orbit runs fast because something has change in the
clock itself.

>>
>> you just don't get it George.
>>
>> If I measure the length of a rod with a normal tape and get 1000 mm, then
>> measure it with another that has been used to tow cars, should I conclude
>> that
>> the rod simultaneously occupies two different lengths of space?
>
>If you measure with a tape laid parallel to the
>rod you get one value. If you measure with the
>same tape but laid at an angle to the rod by
>drawing a line perpendicular to the tape from
>the end of the rod, you get a different value.

Why would any sane person try to measure the length of a rod in that way,
George.

>You are then trying to call the two different
>lengths along the tape the same unit of length.
>It doesn't matter if there are no mm marks along
>the tape (no measurement in seconds) the amounts
>of tape using the two methods differ so cannot
>both be called "one unit".

That is not related to our discussion.

>
>George
>


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
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:25:56 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote:

>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:18:18 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>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?
>>
>>
>>>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....
>
>Quite.
>If that's what it takes, such a star MUST exist.
>How can it not?

.....and why shouldn't such a star type exist?

Do you think neutron stars are formed 'instantatly'?

You are the one who claims that there is about four times more dark matter in
the universe than hot stuff.
The WCH answers the questions.
It is small, cool and heavy....and named after H. Wilson, the discoverer.

When it orbits a star, the star wobbles and emits light according to the BaT.
We see the effect in the form of a brightness variation. This can happen in a
few hours......Lyrae stars.

Pulsars could be two WCHs in very close orbit.

Androcles thinks all WCHs are just big planets....and that might be one way of
looking at them.....except that these are much, much more dense than ordinary
planets.

Please don't try to publish this idea in your name Paul. There is evidence on
google.


>
>Paul


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
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 12:56:05 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>
>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>news:ph6uf1hiq7p65j7csvrf7m72pnt0sk1k7t(a)4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 09:00:10 +0100, "George Dishman"
>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk>
>> wrote:

>> The authors claim that the cepheid actually expands and contracts in
>> exactly
>> the same manner. That is not impossible...but highly unlikely, in my mind.
>> I can also produce exactly the right shaped brightness curve, with the
>> same
>> eccentricity.
>> The problem lies in the fact that the phase difference I predict is not
>> the
>> same as the ones the authors claim.
>> However they seem to have gone to some trouble to make the velocity curve
>> match
>> what they thought should be correct. They admit the velocity curve is
>> vaguely
>> determined.
>> I say it is plain wrong.
>>
>> If you can refer me to other data like this I would be grateful.
>
>I'm afraid I can't but you might get someone in
>sci.astro.research to give you a pointer to some
>data. Don't try arguing your ideas there though,
>it's moderated but a request for information will
>be fine.

That sounds more like censorship than moderation.
What are you all afraid of, the truth?
Why the big cover up?


>> I am not concerned with distance for various reasons.
>
>Until you do, you cannot claim a match.
>
>> What is it?
>
>IIRC about 600 light years instead of your 120
>but I got it from the Hipparcos catalogue.
>
>>>> There are currently about ten threads here telling you why sagnac
>>>> falsifies SR.
>>>
>>>The world is full of idiots. I guess they are
>>>in s.p.r, I'm only reading sci.astro. I'm glad
>>>you know better.
>>
>> I don't read sci.astro now...but I probably should.
>
>There's a lot of cranks here too.
>
>>>It says nothing until you correct the distance,
>>>but even a perfect match is irrelevant since
>>>the simple Ritzian model is ruled out by Sagnac,
>>>you need a better version that satisfies both.
>>
>> George, I am not interested in what happens in the lab or near a large
>> mass.
>> I am only interested in what happns to light that is emitted at c wrt its
>> source and which subsequently travels through almost empty space.
>
>Light emitted from the photosphere of a star is
>definitely "near a large mass", more so than in
>a lab on Earth !

That's right...but I have to live with that.

The way light leaves a star is very much part of the theory.
There is the question of thermal speeds of molecular sources and how these
affect the speed of each photon...If there some kind of unification in the
star's vicinity?

>
>George
>


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

"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:nkd7g1lilg34rebp4ekeggfp4akmufcs2r(a)4ax.com...
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 12:48:12 +0100, "George Dishman"
> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>>news:6v3uf1pnt9o2oog7p0k3aoq1r8nc1lqshf(a)4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:51:07 +0100, "George Dishman"
>>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>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.
>>
>>Much trimmed, I think you finally heard what
>>I have been saying.
>
> I was always aware of what you are saying.
>
>>
>>>>True but you miss the point, you can call it
>>>>"one unit" but you haven't found out what
>>>>"amount of time" the unit contains. Sorry
>>>>about the odd wording but you seem to be
>>>>having trouble grasping this.
>>>
>>> Not so George.
>>> I don't want or need to place a figure on the amount of time the orbit
>>> contains.
>>
>>I know you don't but a unit is a well defined
>>amount so you have no choice.
>
> I don't need a choice because I have defined the orbit duration as ONE
> time
> unit.

No, you have tried to define _both_ the durations
as one unit.

>>> All I want to know is that it does not change during the experiment.
>>
>>No, what you want is for it to be single-valued.
>
> George, does a rod simultaneously occupy more than one
> length of space?

Yes, see below:

<Snip stuff about constancy, constancy
is not an issue.>

>>If you measure with a tape laid parallel to the
>>rod you get one value. If you measure with the
>>same tape but laid at an angle to the rod by
>>drawing a line perpendicular to the tape from
>>the end of the rod, you get a different value.
>
> Why would any sane person try to measure the length of
> a rod in that way, George.

The fact is that if you make two measurements,
one parallel and one at an angle, you get two
different values, two different "lengths in
space" as you said above.

When making measurements using an instrument
moving relative to the thing being measured,
this effect is unavoidable, only the rotation
is in the x-t plane, not the x-y plane as in
the analogy. (BTW, don't get misled, this is
after the first order change due to the motion
is accounted for.)

>>You are then trying to call the two different
>>lengths along the tape the same unit of length.
>>It doesn't matter if there are no mm marks along
>>the tape (no measurement in seconds) the amounts
>>of tape using the two methods differ so cannot
>>both be called "one unit".
>
> That is not related to our discussion.

It is precisely the entire argument Henri,
pure and simple. I thought you said you had
always been aware of what I was saying.

George


From: George Dishman on

"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:fpe7g1lbsikchm6vjcatu0fhb0pcjt8dku(a)4ax.com...
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 12:56:05 +0100, "George Dishman"
> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>>news:ph6uf1hiq7p65j7csvrf7m72pnt0sk1k7t(a)4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 09:00:10 +0100, "George Dishman"
>>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>
>>> The authors claim that the cepheid actually expands and contracts in
>>> exactly
>>> the same manner. That is not impossible...but highly unlikely, in my
>>> mind.
>>> I can also produce exactly the right shaped brightness curve, with the
>>> same
>>> eccentricity.
>>> The problem lies in the fact that the phase difference I predict is not
>>> the
>>> same as the ones the authors claim.
>>> However they seem to have gone to some trouble to make the velocity
>>> curve
>>> match
>>> what they thought should be correct. They admit the velocity curve is
>>> vaguely
>>> determined.
>>> I say it is plain wrong.
>>>
>>> If you can refer me to other data like this I would be grateful.
>>
>>I'm afraid I can't but you might get someone in
>>sci.astro.research to give you a pointer to some
>>data. Don't try arguing your ideas there though,
>>it's moderated but a request for information will
>>be fine.
>
> That sounds more like censorship than moderation.

Don't be silly, you are free to post any
opinions here. It is no more censorship
than separating .research from .amateur,
or sci.* from rec.*, it just saves wading
through piles of stuff of no interest.

>>> What is it?
>>
>>IIRC about 600 light years instead of your 120
>>but I got it from the Hipparcos catalogue.

See the corrections in other posts, it should
have been circa 1560 LY, sorry.

>>> George, I am not interested in what happens in the lab or near a large
>>> mass.
>>> I am only interested in what happns to light that is emitted at c wrt
>>> its
>>> source and which subsequently travels through almost empty space.
>>
>>Light emitted from the photosphere of a star is
>>definitely "near a large mass", more so than in
>>a lab on Earth !
>
> That's right...but I have to live with that.

Sure, but it means you cannot dismiss the lab
results just because they are "near a large
mass." or your stellar results are even less
meaningful.

> The way light leaves a star is very much part of the theory.

They way it leaves the atom that emitted it
must be the same as in the Sagnac effect.
Thereafter the stellar plasma may affect it.

> There is the question of thermal speeds of molecular sources and how these
> affect the speed of each photon...If there some kind of unification in the
> star's vicinity?

That would occur after emission. Solve Sagnac
first, then apply it to the plasma source, then
consider what happens next. Once you have done
that, you can model it.

George