Speed of Light: A universal Constant?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Joan-Claude van Dirk Helps to Trivialize Special Relativity
Next: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds
From: Henri Wilson on 26 May 2005 19:47 On Thu, 26 May 2005 10:14:12 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Wed, 25 May 2005 13:18:53 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >>>BTW, what is it you want me to admit that you are right about? >>> >>>Is it that your program works and show >>>what the ballistic theory predicts? >>> >>>Or is it that your program doesn't work >>>and doesn't show what the ballistic theory predicts? >>> >>>Paul >> >> >> Paul, I know your faith has been waning for several years now. >> >> Why don't you stop fighting and accept the truth. > >But you didn't answer what the truth you want me to >stop fighting is. > >Is it that your program works and show >what the ballistic theory predicts? > >Or is it that your program doesn't work >and doesn't show what the ballistic theory predicts? > > >> Light travels across space at c wrt its original source. >> Variable star light curves prove this to be true. > >Quite. >The fact that the BaT predicts HD80715 to be a variable, >which it isn't, is a very convincing proof indeed. The BaT shows that HD80715 should not be a variable because both members are roughly the same size and the orbit appears to be almost circular. Whilst each member should exhibit brightness, he combined effect is an almost constant brightness. Happy now? Gennergally, the raw brightness curves predicted by my program don't account for extinction, If any, day/night temprature variation of the observed star faces, rotation of the stars themeslves, and the molecular speeds of the source molecules. An rough indication of the effect of the latter is now included in the program. > >Or do you rather mean something like this: >So many weird things happen to the light on its way >from the binary to the observer, that it is impossible >to calculate what the ballistic theory predicts. >We have to observe the light curve first, and then >we can be sure that whatever it looks like, it is >as predicted by the BaT. >So any light curve of any star confirms BaT. > >Right? > > > That aspect of Einsteiniana is definitely wrong. Astronomers have been baffled > > for years because of the red herring they have been chasing. > >You mean that the the Astronomers have been baffled >by why binaries like HD80715 are not variables as SR >does not predict they should be? >Or did you think of another aspect of SR? SR doesn't say anything about light when it isn't being observed. > > > Since SR is an aether theory and there might be 'a local aether' around the > > Earth, it is not completely impossible that some of his theory is partly > > correct. At this stage, I don't know of any aspect that is. > >Of course you don't know of any aspect of SR that is correct, Henri. >That every experiment ever done has proven the predictions >of SR correct, and no experiment has ever falsified SR, >is of course only a coincidence. >It doesn't mean anything at all. > >Henri Wilson don't understand SR. >So how can it be correct? >THAT is the lethal argument killing SR. Paul, give up and accept the truth. > >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 26 May 2005 19:52 On 26 May 2005 01:29:33 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: > > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Wed, 25 May 2005 13:18:53 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >> Paul, I know your faith has been waning for several years now. >> >> Why don't you stop fighting and accept the truth. >> Light travels across space at c wrt its original source. >> Variable star light curves prove this to be true. >> >> That aspect of Einsteiniana is definitely wrong. Astronomers have been baffled >> for years because of the red herring they have been chasing. >> >> Since SR is an aether theory and there might be 'a local aether' around the >> Earth, it is not completely impossible that some of his theory is partly >> correct. At this stage, I don't know of any aspect that is. >> >> >> >> HW. > >Henri > > also from the same Wikiepedia article > >"But the Michelson-Morley experiment, arguably the most famous and >useful failed experiment in the history of physics, could not find this >aether, suggesting instead that the speed of light is constant in all >frames of reference." > >The MMX only proved that light moves at constant speed within a >reference frame. >Don't you agree? It disproved the ether, that's all. I believe that null results prove only one thing. The experiment was faulty. ..but I don;t go along with the aether idea at all, as you know. That does not mean that local EM FoRs cannot exist to some degree, for instance inside a linear accelerator or within the limits of the gravitational field of a planet.. > >But note carefully : the speed of light WHOSE SOURCE AND TARGET BOTH >ARE IN THE >SAME REFERENCE FRAME. The MMX says nothing about source moving wrt to >target > >I believe this is where the critical error was made, equating the >failed MMX >to a blanket assumption that light from any source will be measured as >c >in any other reference frame. Of course. > >A sort of a ballistic theory of light (since a photon is a particle) >seems a bit more realistic Yes. The obvious explanation of te null result is that light moves at c wrt its source and therefroe wrt every component in the MMX apparatus. The MMX fully supports te BaT. > >G > > > > >> 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. 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 26 May 2005 19:55 On Thu, 26 May 2005 15:49:22 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >G wrote: >> >> also from the same Wikiepedia article >> >> "But the Michelson-Morley experiment, arguably the most famous and >> useful failed experiment in the history of physics, could not find this >> aether, suggesting instead that the speed of light is constant in all >> frames of reference." >> >> The MMX only proved that light moves at constant speed within a >> reference frame. >> Don't you agree? It disproved the ether, that's all. > >The MMX proved that the speed of light was isotropic. >Since it was repeated at different times of the year >(when the Earth is not stationary in the same inertial frame), >it showed that the speed of light is isotropic in all inertial >frames of reference, which falsifies Michelson's ether. >The MMX does however NOT show that the speed of light is >the same in all frames of reference, that is, it doesn't show >that the speed of light is invariant. > >That was why the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment was done in 1932. >This esperiment showed that the speed of light was the same >in all inertial frames. > >> But note carefully : the speed of light WHOSE SOURCE AND TARGET BOTH >> ARE IN THE >> SAME REFERENCE FRAME. The MMX says nothing about source moving wrt to >> target > >Right, but not news. > >> I believe this is where the critical error was made, equating the >> failed MMX >> to a blanket assumption that light from any source will be measured as >> c >> in any other reference frame. > >Neither the MMX nor the KTX falsify the ballistic theory. >It is your delusion that anybody has considered the MMX >to be a falsification of the ballistic theory. these two experiments and, in fact, every other light experiment ever performed fully support the BaT. > >> >> A sort of a ballistic theory of light (since a photon is a particle) >> seems a bit more realistic > >Quite. >But the ballistic theory is falsified by >other experiments than the MMX. Name one. > >I see you have got the references fron bz. > >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: Paul B. Andersen on 27 May 2005 05:43 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 26 May 2005 15:49:22 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >>Neither the MMX nor the KTX falsify the ballistic theory. >>It is your delusion that anybody has considered the MMX >>to be a falsification of the ballistic theory. > > > these two experiments and, in fact, every other light experiment ever performed > fully support the BaT. Right. The MMX and the KTX confirm several theories, among them are the ballistic theory, SR, and "fully dragged ether". They falsify "Michelson's ether theory". Only one of these theories is not falsified by other experiments. >>G wrote: >>>A sort of a ballistic theory of light (since a photon is a particle) >>>seems a bit more realistic >> >>Quite. >>But the ballistic theory is falsified by >>other experiments than the MMX. > > > Name one. The fact that the ballistic theory predicts HD80715 to be a variable. It isn't. >>I see you have got the references fron bz. Which names several. Paul
From: Paul B. Andersen on 27 May 2005 05:56
Henri Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 26 May 2005 10:14:12 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 25 May 2005 13:18:53 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>> > > >>>>BTW, what is it you want me to admit that you are right about? >>>> >>>>Is it that your program works and show >>>>what the ballistic theory predicts? >>>> >>>>Or is it that your program doesn't work >>>>and doesn't show what the ballistic theory predicts? >>>> >>>>Paul >>> >>> >>>Paul, I know your faith has been waning for several years now. >>> >>>Why don't you stop fighting and accept the truth. >> >>But you didn't answer what the truth you want me to >>stop fighting is. >> >>Is it that your program works and show >>what the ballistic theory predicts? >> >>Or is it that your program doesn't work >>and doesn't show what the ballistic theory predicts? Still no answer, Henri? >>>Light travels across space at c wrt its original source. >>>Variable star light curves prove this to be true. >> >>Quite. >>The fact that the BaT predicts HD80715 to be a variable, >>which it isn't, is a very convincing proof indeed. > > > The BaT shows that HD80715 should not be a variable because both members are > roughly the same size and the orbit appears to be almost circular. > Whilst each member should exhibit brightness, he combined effect is an almost > constant brightness. > > Happy now? Indeed. I am happy every time you are displaying your desperation by claiming something we both know is wrong. > > Gennergally, the raw brightness curves predicted by my program don't account > for extinction, If any, day/night temprature variation of the observed star > faces, rotation of the stars themeslves, and the molecular speeds of the source > molecules. An rough indication of the effect of the latter is now included in > the program. In other words, you DO mean something like this: >>So many weird things happen to the light on its way >>from the binary to the observer, that it is impossible >>to calculate what the ballistic theory predicts. >>We have to observe the light curve first, and then >>we can be sure that whatever it looks like, it is >>as predicted by the BaT. >>So any light curve of any star confirms BaT. >> >>Right? Paul |