Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

"PD" wrote in
oups.com:

On Feb 17, 5:12 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 17 Feb 2007 08:54:45 -0800, "PD" wrote:

...
Tell me what is wrong with my derivation...

Nothing is wrong with your derivation. Your conclusion that it
implies circularity is what's wrong.

.....

I showed how to derive the formula with trivial mathematical
circularity. Does that make me as great as Einstein ...or greater...?


Well, Henri, as I explained to you in great detail, there is nothing
circular about it. You started with the presumption that c is
constant, independent of the reference frame, and used that derive the
correct rule for the addition of velocities. That is precisely the
right way to do it. Circularity would entail concluding what you
started with, and that is not what you're doing. If you will read my
response quoted above once more, you will perhaps understand that a
little better.

Henri, another way of saying it is this:
If one is speaking of how SR says things 'should be', then one must (at
least for the sake of the discussion in progress) accept the postulates of
SR and the derived conclusions.

If one is doing so, then the BaTh statement c'=c+v would be expressed (in
SR) as c' = composition(c,v) and the results will always be c.

Nothing terribly unexpected about this. But it does invalidate attempts to
say that SR requires photons leaving a moving source to know the velocity
of the target so that they arrive there at c.

The other important point PD made might be reworded as "if we were to
compute the 'relative velocity' using any other rule than the composition
rule, the results would not agree with expermental data".

For example, two particles approach each other at v1 and v2,
if v_effective=v1+v2 were correct, rather than
v_effective=composition(v1,v2)
then dozens of years of expermental data from particle accelerators around
the world would have given much different results from those that have been
seen.

The composition formula gives the correct results for all experiments
anyone has been able to run(as far as I know).

While this does NOT prove SR is correct, it clearly proves that we can NOT
use v_effective = v1+v2 under any circumstances where either v1 or v2 are a
significant fraction of c and get the correct (as verified by experiment)
predictions.



--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:02:58 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

"PD" wrote in
roups.com:

On Feb 17, 5:12 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 17 Feb 2007 08:54:45 -0800, "PD" wrote:

...
Tell me what is wrong with my derivation...

Nothing is wrong with your derivation. Your conclusion that it
implies circularity is what's wrong.

....

I showed how to derive the formula with trivial mathematical
circularity. Does that make me as great as Einstein ...or greater...?


Well, Henri, as I explained to you in great detail, there is nothing
circular about it. You started with the presumption that c is
constant, independent of the reference frame, and used that derive the
correct rule for the addition of velocities. That is precisely the
right way to do it. Circularity would entail concluding what you
started with, and that is not what you're doing. If you will read my
response quoted above once more, you will perhaps understand that a
little better.

Henri, another way of saying it is this:
If one is speaking of how SR says things 'should be', then one must (at
least for the sake of the discussion in progress) accept the postulates of
SR and the derived conclusions.

If one is doing so, then the BaTh statement c'=c+v would be expressed (in
SR) as c' = composition(c,v) and the results will always be c.

Nothing terribly unexpected about this. But it does invalidate attempts to
say that SR requires photons leaving a moving source to know the velocity
of the target so that they arrive there at c.

.....but it doesn't invalidate the concept of a single absiolute aether frame.

The other important point PD made might be reworded as "if we were to
compute the 'relative velocity' using any other rule than the composition
rule, the results would not agree with expermental data".

how would you know? OWLS has never been measured...nor can it be...

For example, two particles approach each other at v1 and v2,
if v_effective=v1+v2 were correct, rather than
v_effective=composition(v1,v2)
then dozens of years of expermental data from particle accelerators around
the world would have given much different results from those that have been
seen.

I don't think so. They are concerned with energy and the circularity of SR
would probably multiply and dive\die by the same factor somewhere..

The composition formula gives the correct results for all experiments
anyone has been able to run(as far as I know).

While this does NOT prove SR is correct, it clearly proves that we can NOT
use v_effective = v1+v2 under any circumstances where either v1 or v2 are a
significant fraction of c and get the correct (as verified by experiment)
predictions.

Bob, nobody has measured OWLS and is never likely to.

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 05:15:08 GMT, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:02:58 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

"PD" wrote in
groups.com:

On Feb 17, 5:12 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 17 Feb 2007 08:54:45 -0800, "PD" wrote:

...
Tell me what is wrong with my derivation...

Nothing is wrong with your derivation. Your conclusion that it
implies circularity is what's wrong.

....

I showed how to derive the formula with trivial mathematical
circularity. Does that make me as great as Einstein ...or greater...?


Well, Henri, as I explained to you in great detail, there is nothing
circular about it. You started with the presumption that c is
constant, independent of the reference frame, and used that derive the
correct rule for the addition of velocities. That is precisely the
right way to do it. Circularity would entail concluding what you
started with, and that is not what you're doing. If you will read my
response quoted above once more, you will perhaps understand that a
little better.

Henri, another way of saying it is this:
If one is speaking of how SR says things 'should be', then one must (at
least for the sake of the discussion in progress) accept the postulates of
SR and the derived conclusions.

If one is doing so, then the BaTh statement c'=c+v would be expressed (in
SR) as c' = composition(c,v) and the results will always be c.

Nothing terribly unexpected about this. But it does invalidate attempts to
say that SR requires photons leaving a moving source to know the velocity
of the target so that they arrive there at c.

....but it doesn't invalidate the concept of a single absiolute aether frame.

The other important point PD made might be reworded as "if we were to
compute the 'relative velocity' using any other rule than the composition
rule, the results would not agree with expermental data".

how would you know? OWLS has never been measured...nor can it be...

For example, two particles approach each other at v1 and v2,
if v_effective=v1+v2 were correct, rather than
v_effective=composition(v1,v2)
then dozens of years of expermental data from particle accelerators around
the world would have given much different results from those that have been
seen.

I don't think so. They are concerned with energy and the circularity of SR
would probably multiply and dive\die by the same factor somewhere..

The composition formula gives the correct results for all experiments
anyone has been able to run(as far as I know).

While this does NOT prove SR is correct, it clearly proves that we can NOT
use v_effective = v1+v2 under any circumstances where either v1 or v2 are a
significant fraction of c and get the correct (as verified by experiment)
predictions.

Bob, nobody has measured OWLS and is never likely to.

Correction: That should be 'from a moving source'.

It might be just possible to compare OWLS from two differently moving
sources...but not in the lab.

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

The composition formula gives the correct results for all experiments
anyone has been able to run(as far as I know).

While this does NOT prove SR is correct, it clearly proves that we can
NOT use v_effective = v1+v2 under any circumstances where either v1 or
v2 are a significant fraction of c and get the correct (as verified by
experiment) predictions.

Bob, nobody has measured OWLS and is never likely to.

Correction: That should be 'from a moving source'.

It might be just possible to compare OWLS from two differently moving
sources...but not in the lab.

A straw man.
Also, not true.


In any case, I was not talking about the speed of light but the speed of
particles moving near the speed of light ('v1 and v2 are a significant
fraction of the speed of c').

Build your own particle accelerator, using the predictions of BaTh and see
if you can get particles to move faster than c as is implied by v_effective
=(v1+v2) rather than v_effective = composition(v1,v2).

If we lived in a universe where BaTh worked, v1+v2 would work. It MUST so
that c+v will work unless you say that c+v ONLY applies to massless
particles and THEN you must explain how the massive particles 'know' they
must go slower than c when they are surrounded by photons moving faster
than c as they would be if c'=c+v worked.

You must play by the rules of the game.
Everything must be consistent with c'=c+v. You must deal with all the
implications, you can not pick and choose which you want to deal with.


--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:45:59 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

The composition formula gives the correct results for all experiments
anyone has been able to run(as far as I know).

While this does NOT prove SR is correct, it clearly proves that we can
NOT use v_effective = v1+v2 under any circumstances where either v1 or
v2 are a significant fraction of c and get the correct (as verified by
experiment) predictions.

Bob, nobody has measured OWLS and is never likely to.

Correction: That should be 'from a moving source'.

It might be just possible to compare OWLS from two differently moving
sources...but not in the lab.

A straw man.
Also, not true.


In any case, I was not talking about the speed of light but the speed of
particles moving near the speed of light ('v1 and v2 are a significant
fraction of the speed of c').

Build your own particle accelerator, using the predictions of BaTh and see
if you can get particles to move faster than c as is implied by v_effective
=(v1+v2) rather than v_effective = composition(v1,v2).

If we lived in a universe where BaTh worked, v1+v2 would work. It MUST so
that c+v will work unless you say that c+v ONLY applies to massless
particles and THEN you must explain how the massive particles 'know' they
must go slower than c when they are surrounded by photons moving faster
than c as they would be if c'=c+v worked.

You must play by the rules of the game.
Everything must be consistent with c'=c+v. You must deal with all the
implications, you can not pick and choose which you want to deal with.

Rubbish

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
[snip] http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...WilsonFake.JPG This
message is for *your* personal safety, brought to *you* by Dumbledore, the
computer of Androcles, having passed my Turing Test using Uncle Phuckwit for
a guinea pig. How is my driving? Call 1-800-555-1234
http://www.carmagneticsigns.co.uk/im...l/P_Plates.jpg Worn with pride.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-plate

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:45:59 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
m:

The composition formula gives the correct results for all experiments
anyone has been able to run(as far as I know).

While this does NOT prove SR is correct, it clearly proves that we
can NOT use v_effective = v1+v2 under any circumstances where either
v1 or v2 are a significant fraction of c and get the correct (as
verified by experiment) predictions.

Bob, nobody has measured OWLS and is never likely to.

Correction: That should be 'from a moving source'.

It might be just possible to compare OWLS from two differently moving
sources...but not in the lab.

A straw man.
Also, not true.


In any case, I was not talking about the speed of light but the speed of
particles moving near the speed of light ('v1 and v2 are a significant
fraction of the speed of c').

Build your own particle accelerator, using the predictions of BaTh and
see if you can get particles to move faster than c as is implied by
v_effective =(v1+v2) rather than v_effective = composition(v1,v2).

If we lived in a universe where BaTh worked, v1+v2 would work. It MUST
so that c+v will work unless you say that c+v ONLY applies to massless
particles and THEN you must explain how the massive particles 'know'
they must go slower than c when they are surrounded by photons moving
faster than c as they would be if c'=c+v worked.

You must play by the rules of the game.
Everything must be consistent with c'=c+v. You must deal with all the
implications, you can not pick and choose which you want to deal with.

Rubbish

Rubbish?

How can you pick and choose effects while ignoring other predictable
effects and claim to be a follower of science, as describe it in your book?

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.




--
bz 73 de N5BZ k

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:37:12 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:



You must play by the rules of the game.
Everything must be consistent with c'=c+v. You must deal with all the
implications, you can not pick and choose which you want to deal with.

Rubbish

Rubbish?

How can you pick and choose effects while ignoring other predictable
effects and claim to be a follower of science, as describe it in your book?

Bob, the only so called evidence AGAINST the BaTh was De Sitter's work.
We know now why that is wrong.


--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

On Feb 18, 11:15 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:02:58 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:





"PD" wrote in
roups.com:

On Feb 17, 5:12 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 17 Feb 2007 08:54:45 -0800, "PD" wrote:

...
Tell me what is wrong with my derivation...

Nothing is wrong with your derivation. Your conclusion that it
implies circularity is what's wrong.

....

I showed how to derive the formula with trivial mathematical
circularity. Does that make me as great as Einstein ...or greater...?

Well, Henri, as I explained to you in great detail, there is nothing
circular about it. You started with the presumption that c is
constant, independent of the reference frame, and used that derive the
correct rule for the addition of velocities. That is precisely the
right way to do it. Circularity would entail concluding what you
started with, and that is not what you're doing. If you will read my
response quoted above once more, you will perhaps understand that a
little better.

Henri, another way of saying it is this:
If one is speaking of how SR says things 'should be', then one must (at
least for the sake of the discussion in progress) accept the postulates of
SR and the derived conclusions.

If one is doing so, then the BaTh statement c'=c+v would be expressed (in
SR) as c' = composition(c,v) and the results will always be c.

Nothing terribly unexpected about this. But it does invalidate attempts to
say that SR requires photons leaving a moving source to know the velocity
of the target so that they arrive there at c.

....but it doesn't invalidate the concept of a single absiolute aether frame.

The other important point PD made might be reworded as "if we were to
compute the 'relative velocity' using any other rule than the composition
rule, the results would not agree with expermental data".

how would you know? OWLS has never been measured...nor can it be...

Because it has been tested for things *other than* light as well. For
example, it has been tested for muons emitted from stationary and
moving pions, it has been tested for protons given successive,
identical momentum kicks, it has been tested a hundred different ways.
That is what I was explaining to you, that the rule for the
combination of velocities applies to *all* things, from protons to
basketballs, and that it has been tested in a multitude of
applications. It is *not necessary* to test it for light, since the
result is only what is postulated anyway. It is the testing for *every
case but light* that verifies its general applicability, and it is
this wide range of testing that lends credence to the postulate that
in turn gives rise to the prediction of the general rule.


For example, two particles approach each other at v1 and v2,
if v_effective=v1+v2 were correct, rather than
v_effective=composition(v1,v2)
then dozens of years of expermental data from particle accelerators around
the world would have given much different results from those that have been
seen.

I don't think so. They are concerned with energy and the circularity of SR
would probably multiply and dive\die by the same factor somewhere..

Not at all, Henri. Unless you can demonstrate where that is.


The composition formula gives the correct results for all experiments
anyone has been able to run(as far as I know).

While this does NOT prove SR is correct, it clearly proves that we can NOT
use v_effective = v1+v2 under any circumstances where either v1 or v2 are a
significant fraction of c and get the correct (as verified by experiment)
predictions.

Bob, nobody has measured OWLS and is never likely to.

And as I explained to you numerous times, that is irrelevant. The rule
applies to *everything*, not just light. The general applicability of
this rule *stems directly from* the *assumption* that it is true for
light. So by testing it in many, many cases *except* light, you
demonstrate the general applicability of the rule, which in turn
demonstrates the truth of the assumption.

PD

On 19 Feb 2007 06:05:07 -0800, "PD" wrote:

On Feb 18, 11:15 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:02:58 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:





"PD" wrote in
roups.com:

On Feb 17, 5:12 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 17 Feb 2007 08:54:45 -0800, "PD" wrote:

...
Tell me what is wrong with my derivation...

Nothing is wrong with your derivation. Your conclusion that it
implies circularity is what's wrong.

....

I showed how to derive the formula with trivial mathematical
circularity. Does that make me as great as Einstein ...or greater...?

Well, Henri, as I explained to you in great detail, there is nothing
circular about it. You started with the presumption that c is
constant, independent of the reference frame, and used that derive the
correct rule for the addition of velocities. That is precisely the
right way to do it. Circularity would entail concluding what you
started with, and that is not what you're doing. If you will read my
response quoted above once more, you will perhaps understand that a
little better.

Henri, another way of saying it is this:
If one is speaking of how SR says things 'should be', then one must (at
least for the sake of the discussion in progress) accept the postulates of
SR and the derived conclusions.

If one is doing so, then the BaTh statement c'=c+v would be expressed (in
SR) as c' = composition(c,v) and the results will always be c.

Nothing terribly unexpected about this. But it does invalidate attempts to
say that SR requires photons leaving a moving source to know the velocity
of the target so that they arrive there at c.

....but it doesn't invalidate the concept of a single absiolute aether frame.

The other important point PD made might be reworded as "if we were to
compute the 'relative velocity' using any other rule than the composition
rule, the results would not agree with expermental data".

how would you know? OWLS has never been measured...nor can it be...

Because it has been tested for things *other than* light as well. For
example, it has been tested for muons emitted from stationary and
moving pions, it has been tested for protons given successive,
identical momentum kicks, it has been tested a hundred different ways.
That is what I was explaining to you, that the rule for the
combination of velocities applies to *all* things, from protons to
basketballs, and that it has been tested in a multitude of
applications. It is *not necessary* to test it for light, since the
result is only what is postulated anyway. It is the testing for *every
case but light* that verifies its general applicability, and it is
this wide range of testing that lends credence to the postulate that
in turn gives rise to the prediction of the general rule.

More rubbish.


For example, two particles approach each other at v1 and v2,
if v_effective=v1+v2 were correct, rather than
v_effective=composition(v1,v2)
then dozens of years of expermental data from particle accelerators around
the world would have given much different results from those that have been
seen.

I don't think so. They are concerned with energy and the circularity of SR
would probably multiply and dive\die by the same factor somewhere..

Not at all, Henri. Unless you can demonstrate where that is.


The composition formula gives the correct results for all experiments
anyone has been able to run(as far as I know).

While this does NOT prove SR is correct, it clearly proves that we can NOT
use v_effective = v1+v2 under any circumstances where either v1 or v2 are a
significant fraction of c and get the correct (as verified by experiment)
predictions.

Bob, nobody has measured OWLS and is never likely to.

And as I explained to you numerous times, that is irrelevant. The rule
applies to *everything*, not just light. The general applicability of
this rule *stems directly from* the *assumption* that it is true for
light. So by testing it in many, many cases *except* light, you
demonstrate the general applicability of the rule, which in turn
demonstrates the truth of the assumption.

How can it be irrelevant when that's what you are claiming.

You are a dreamer, draper.


PD