On Feb 9, 1:27 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:42:17 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article ,
Henri Wilson HW@....... wrote:
Subject: Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?
That's the first fundamental postulate of relativity: light moves at c
with respect to any observer, no matter how that observer moves.
There isn't one believable experiment that supports SR..
The ones we read about are all part of the religious promotion.
If so, why don't you just redo some of these experiments, to get
results which contradict relativity? Basically, you're here claiming
these experimental results are all faked in a process of religious
propaganda - redoing the experiments would quickly reveal such a
situation. Any erroneous religious promption can be refuted by
observations and experimentation.
many of the so called 'supporting experiments' were performed in the sixties.
Why do you think nobody repeats them?
No point.
But since you have an opinion to the contrary, why don't you repeat
some experiments? It isn't as if you have anything better to do, and
it would teach you a lot.
[...]
You are indeed overconfident --- however if you also want to convince
others and not just devote yourself to intellectual masturbation, you
need to present evidence rather than just big words through your big
mouth.
What do you think I've been doing. (on sci.physics.relativity)
Between hiding under the pseudonym Henri Wilson even though your
actual name is Ralph Rabbidge, and posting forged degrees?
I have bothered to simulate many brightness curves using just the BaTh
principles
Did you also simulate then using relativity?
What would be the point?
Was there any difference
in your simulated light curves?
You don't seem to have the faintest idea about any of this. Relativity says all
the light leaving the star travels at c wrt Earth. That means there is no
relative movement between light emitted at any part of the orbit.
The order of change you are refering to is minute compared with the BaTh
effect.
What is the order, Henri?
Yes, in relativity too, an
approaching light source will appear somewhat brighter -- and at low
speeds compared to light speed, the difference between the two
brightnesses will be quite small.
In this case, negligible
How do you know? You admit not understanding relativity.
[...]
I have shown that Einstein's P2 is completely wrong and the acceptance
of his stupid theory by a bunch of gullible fools been the cause of much
confusion in the ranks of astronomers for 100 years.
big laugh ....again, where's your evidence?
Here are some more matched light curves.www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
Just about any published curve is easily matched.
With a closed source program that uses an arbitrary amount of
parameters.
You are talking nonsense.
There is NO KNOWN way to measure the OW speed of light...particularly from
moving stars.
Yet you also say:
# and have discovered that light moves at c wrt its source and
# at c+v wrt planet Earth for most of its journey through space.
Which means you have been unable to measure the speed of light (since
you claim there's no known way to measure it). So how come you
consider yourself knowing the speed of light? You haven't measured
it, and the only way to know it is to measure it......
Yet you also say:
The only known way to check this is to try to simulate their brightness curves
using the assumption that their emitted light moves at c+vcos(t) wrt Earth.....
.....and guess what....the simulations work 100%.
If there's a radial velocity change of X km/s, how big brightess change, in
stellar magnitudes, would that produce according to you? Please supply a formula.
My program does all the sums.
I have now placed the latest version on my website.
You are free to use it to match published curves.
But not against your source to understand how the program works,
right?
[...]
It is only via this NG that the truth has been able to emerge.
.... you mean opinion, not truth ....
well let's just call it 'evidence that Einstein was wrong'...
Why? Your theory falls apart under close scrutiny, which is why you
have refused to provide any details about how the theory exactly
works or how the programs you use exactly work.
[...]
Yes we know all about the so called GR correction of GPS clocks. It has been
discussed at length. I have proved that the clocks actually physically change
when placed in free fall. The effect has nothing whatsoever to do with
relativity.
Curiously enough, relativity gets the correction correctly. Why?
[...]