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 7 Jul 2005 08:53 On 7 Jul 2005 00:41:52 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 6 Jul 2005 04:57:55 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >Henri Wilson wrote: >> > >> >> The BaT would expect emitted light from WCHs to be heavily >> >> redshifted...so they may be a lot hotter than they appear to >> >> be...and consequently much smaller. >> > >> >Redshift does not affect temperature estimates of a star, which >> >are mostly based on analysis of line strengths, many of which >> >are cross-correlated with each other. An anomaly such as you >> >propose should have been long noticed. >> >http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s12.htm >> >> No it wouldn't ....becasue light speed is assumed to be c. >> >> >Sounds like you are predicting a HUGE correction to the >> >Cepheid luminosity-distance relationship. >> >> there probably isn't a relationship at all. >> >> > >> >Allen summarizes a century of work establishing the Cepheid >> >distance scale: >> >http://www.institute-of-brilliant-failures.com >> >> >> > >> >Other publications dealing with the Cepheid luminosity-distance >> >relationship: >> >http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1999ASPC..167..113P&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format= >> >http://www.rssd.esa.int/Hipparcos/pstex/pr-14Feb97.html >> >http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/lmc/lmc.html >> >> all based on constant c. >> Not worth the paper they are written on. > >What paper? These are online. Divide-by-zero error. > >Anyhow, you have made your position clear. A century of scientific >inquiry involving many thousands of scientists is completely >misguided. Only you, the great Henri Wilson, have the true answer. It appears so. >Despite the fact that you have predicted nothing correctly. Well I have certainly cleared up that GPS 'GR correction' nonsense. > >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: G on 8 Jul 2005 05:24 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 6 Jul 2005 21:01:23 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: > > > > > > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On 6 Jul 2005 01:50:13 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: > > >> >Funnily no mention of SRT in this explanation. > >> > >> Very funny :). > > > >But, take hope. There are articles that say that GPS cannot work > >without > >SRT, and is proof of SRT. There are articles that say the opposite. > > > >Our task is simple: with the help of our friends here, we will > >have to find out who is right. (unless you have already found out). > > I have. See my thread about the GR clock correction. > > > > > > >> > > >> >> It travels at c+v wrt other objects moving at -v wrt the source. > >> > > >> >Sounds reasonable enough, but how is it to be tested, proven? I can > >> >think of about four experiments that will have to be done in space. > >> > > >> >How about an MMX that uses starlight or sunlight? That would settle the > >> >issue - could cause interference fringes. Has this been done? > >> > >> No. Must be done in space. > > > >But won't light reaching the instrument be anything but c? > > After passing through the atmosphere, who knows? > > >averaging out atmospheric disturbances can't it be done? Anyway > >good candidate for next shuttle launch. If they don't > >want to keep their jobs that is. > > No, it cannot be done on Earth. All complications must be eliminated. > So NASA must be knowing about it: my previous post disappeared, I wonder if there is a theory of conspiracy? > > > 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 8 Jul 2005 05:51 On 8 Jul 2005 02:24:30 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: > > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 6 Jul 2005 21:01:23 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: >> >> > >> >averaging out atmospheric disturbances can't it be done? Anyway >> >good candidate for next shuttle launch. If they don't >> >want to keep their jobs that is. >> >> No, it cannot be done on Earth. All complications must be eliminated. >> > >So NASA must be knowing about it: my previous post disappeared, I >wonder >if there is a theory of conspiracy? conspiracies are everywhere 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: G on 8 Jul 2005 07:41 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 8 Jul 2005 02:24:30 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: > > > > > > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On 6 Jul 2005 21:01:23 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: > >> > >> > > > >> >averaging out atmospheric disturbances can't it be done? Anyway > >> >good candidate for next shuttle launch. If they don't > >> >want to keep their jobs that is. > >> > >> No, it cannot be done on Earth. All complications must be eliminated. > >> > > > >So NASA must be knowing about it: my previous post disappeared, I > >wonder > >if there is a theory of conspiracy? > > conspiracies are everywhere Anyway, an experiment can be done using the space shuttle and two satellites, timing radio signals between all of them. If there is a time difference due to relative movement, then we know we are right. Any idea of the experimental error of measuring c over a distance of the earth' diameter with a source speed of 50,000 kmh? Will it show, and if it does not show then how can anyone claim SRT is proven because NASA calculations are based on them? > > > > 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: G on 8 Jul 2005 09:08
Henri Wilson wrote: > On 6 Jul 2005 21:01:23 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: > > > > > > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On 6 Jul 2005 01:50:13 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: > > >> >Funnily no mention of SRT in this explanation. > >> > >> Very funny :). > > > >But, take hope. There are articles that say that GPS cannot work > >without > >SRT, and is proof of SRT. There are articles that say the opposite. > > > >Our task is simple: with the help of our friends here, we will > >have to find out who is right. (unless you have already found out). > > I have. See my thread about the GR clock correction. > > > > > > >> > > >> >> It travels at c+v wrt other objects moving at -v wrt the source. I cannot imagine why certain people do not want me to divide distance between two photons passing each other by the time since the photons crossed. I get 2c but that is an illusion. Look carefully the two becomes a one. Why is this? Nothing I in the calculation conflicts with SRT > >> > > >> >Sounds reasonable enough, but how is it to be tested, proven? I can > >> >think of about four experiments that will have to be done in space. > >> > > >> >How about an MMX that uses starlight or sunlight? That would settle the > >> >issue - could cause interference fringes. Has this been done? > >> > >> No. Must be done in space. > > > >But won't light reaching the instrument be anything but c? > > After passing through the atmosphere, who knows? > > >averaging out atmospheric disturbances can't it be done? Anyway > >good candidate for next shuttle launch. If they don't > >want to keep their jobs that is. > > No, it cannot be done on Earth. All complications must be eliminated. > > > > 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. |