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: Paul B. Andersen on 18 Aug 2005 06:49 Henri Wilson wrote: > 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. OK. I won't. :-) BTW, is your invisible WCH blue like a fairy or pink like an elephant? Paul
From: Henri Wilson on 18 Aug 2005 16:38 On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:06:11 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:nkd7g1lilg34rebp4ekeggfp4akmufcs2r(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 12:48:12 +0100, "George Dishman" >>>> 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.) That is wrong. It is possible to measure both the length and speed of a moving rod comparing the times the end points pass two detectors. > >>>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, your problem is that you believe 'reality' is solely a human construction. You are under the impression that the fundamental dimensions we call space and time only exist in terms of human measurement. It is true that the FORM of the universe as we know it is just a psychological construct.....but it still exists no matter how our minds choose to portray it 'internally'. 'Lengths of space' and ' intervals of time' are natural phenomena. We humans try to devise accurate methods of comparing different lenths and times. We have been very successful...but by no means perfect. The fact that 'an orbit' - which obviously can have only ONE time duration - can be measured to have MORE than ONE duration, is evidence that our measuring techniques are faulty. The same applies to rods. A rod has ONE length. It will not change no matter how it is moved. Different measured lengths signify inaccurate methods. > >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 18 Aug 2005 16:41 On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:49:56 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> 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. > >OK. I won't. :-) > >BTW, is your invisible WCH blue like a fairy or pink like an elephant? For inclusion in your plagiarized paper, I hereby give permission for you to state that they are pink with green spots. Some wear earings. > >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 18 Aug 2005 16:58 On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:13:36 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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> >>> >>>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. If they wont publish anything that questions established theory, that is 'censorship'. > >>>> 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. ......and there is obviously a great deal of uncertainty. > >>>> 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. I hope brightnes curves, analysed according to teh BaT, will throw some light on this whole topic. > >> 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. The error in your sagnac argument is that you assume the source is moving directly towards the next mirror. That 'appears' true in the fibre optic version...but is not in the four mirror one. In fact, the source velocity is at right angles to the velocity vector of the next mirror . The path length difference is virtually independent of small changes in light speed. >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: Paul B. Andersen on 19 Aug 2005 05:12
Henri Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:49:56 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>OK. I won't. :-) >> >>BTW, is your invisible WCH blue like a fairy or pink like an elephant? > > > For inclusion in your plagiarized paper, I hereby give permission for you to > state that they are pink with green spots. Some wear earings. > Quite. So we can conclude that the number of persons considering the WCHs to be a serious proposition is zero. Paul |