Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On 18 Feb 2007 11:38:10 -0800, "PD" wrote:

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.

The rule for combining velocities is not, nor was it ever, used to
assert that the speed of light is constant regardless of reference
frame. The only claim that is made is that the frame independence of
the speed of light is *consistent with* the rule for combining
velocities. Moreover, the experimental evidence in support of the rule
for combining velocities has nothing to do with measuring the speed of
light, but in fact measuring the speed of other particles in different
reference frames -- and it is there that measurements are completely
consistent with the velocity combination rule.

The frame-independence of the speed of light is taken as an unproven
*postulate* in special relativity. It is not necessary in science to
experimentally prove a postulate. One determines the implications of a
postulate (and just as you derived it, the velocity addition rule is
an example of an implication of this postulate) and then tests those
implications against experiment. If the implications match experiment,
and if the postulate is able to generate more successful implications
that match up to experiment than competing postulates, then this is
taken in science to be sufficient grounds for belief in the truth of
that postulate.

In this particular case, the postulate is the frame-independence of
the speed of light. One implication (of numerous implications) is the
rule for combining velocities. The rule for combining velocities has
been tested experimentally in a wide variety of circumstances (without
needing a direct test of the frame-independence of the speed of
light). And because this, and so many other implications, match
experiment so well, we take stock in the truth of the frame-
independence of the speed of light.

....

Well said.

Well, thanks, but Henri will ignore it, since it doesn't feed his
fantasy.

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.

Of course I am.
I start with the postulate that w = c and end up with an equation that seems to
CAUSE w to always be c.

.If you will read my
response quoted above once more, you will perhaps understand that a
little better.

PD

On Feb 18, 6:15 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 18 Feb 2007 11:38:10 -0800, "PD" wrote:





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.

The rule for combining velocities is not, nor was it ever, used to
assert that the speed of light is constant regardless of reference
frame. The only claim that is made is that the frame independence of
the speed of light is *consistent with* the rule for combining
velocities. Moreover, the experimental evidence in support of the rule
for combining velocities has nothing to do with measuring the speed of
light, but in fact measuring the speed of other particles in different
reference frames -- and it is there that measurements are completely
consistent with the velocity combination rule.

The frame-independence of the speed of light is taken as an unproven
*postulate* in special relativity. It is not necessary in science to
experimentally prove a postulate. One determines the implications of a
postulate (and just as you derived it, the velocity addition rule is
an example of an implication of this postulate) and then tests those
implications against experiment. If the implications match experiment,
and if the postulate is able to generate more successful implications
that match up to experiment than competing postulates, then this is
taken in science to be sufficient grounds for belief in the truth of
that postulate.

In this particular case, the postulate is the frame-independence of
the speed of light. One implication (of numerous implications) is the
rule for combining velocities. The rule for combining velocities has
been tested experimentally in a wide variety of circumstances (without
needing a direct test of the frame-independence of the speed of
light). And because this, and so many other implications, match
experiment so well, we take stock in the truth of the frame-
independence of the speed of light.

....

Well said.

Well, thanks, but Henri will ignore it, since it doesn't feed his
fantasy.

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.

Of course I am.
I start with the postulate that w = c and end up with an equation that seems to
CAUSE w to always be c.


Well, of course if you are setting out to show that w will always be
c, then of course you are being circular. But the point of the
derivation is to find a rule for combining velocities of *anything*,
not just light. It is that *rule* that is the desired result, not the
claim that w will always be c (that is, of course, what was assumed).
Then the rule is tested against things *other than* light. Sure
enough, it has worked absolutely everywhere it has been tested. This
tells you the rule appears to be generally true. Since the derivation
says this generality is a *direct* result of w always being c, then
the claim that w is always c is given support.

PD

On 19 Feb 2007 06:09:20 -0800, "PD" wrote:

On Feb 18, 6:15 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 18 Feb 2007 11:38:10 -0800, "PD" wrote:





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.

The rule for combining velocities is not, nor was it ever, used to
assert that the speed of light is constant regardless of reference
frame. The only claim that is made is that the frame independence of
the speed of light is *consistent with* the rule for combining
velocities. Moreover, the experimental evidence in support of the rule
for combining velocities has nothing to do with measuring the speed of
light, but in fact measuring the speed of other particles in different
reference frames -- and it is there that measurements are completely
consistent with the velocity combination rule.

The frame-independence of the speed of light is taken as an unproven
*postulate* in special relativity. It is not necessary in science to
experimentally prove a postulate. One determines the implications of a
postulate (and just as you derived it, the velocity addition rule is
an example of an implication of this postulate) and then tests those
implications against experiment. If the implications match experiment,
and if the postulate is able to generate more successful implications
that match up to experiment than competing postulates, then this is
taken in science to be sufficient grounds for belief in the truth of
that postulate.

In this particular case, the postulate is the frame-independence of
the speed of light. One implication (of numerous implications) is the
rule for combining velocities. The rule for combining velocities has
been tested experimentally in a wide variety of circumstances (without
needing a direct test of the frame-independence of the speed of
light). And because this, and so many other implications, match
experiment so well, we take stock in the truth of the frame-
independence of the speed of light.

....

Well said.

Well, thanks, but Henri will ignore it, since it doesn't feed his
fantasy.

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.

Of course I am.
I start with the postulate that w = c and end up with an equation that seems to
CAUSE w to always be c.


Well, of course if you are setting out to show that w will always be
c, then of course you are being circular. But the point of the
derivation is to find a rule for combining velocities of *anything*,
not just light. It is that *rule* that is the desired result, not the
claim that w will always be c (that is, of course, what was assumed).
Then the rule is tested against things *other than* light. Sure
enough, it has worked absolutely everywhere it has been tested. This
tells you the rule appears to be generally true. Since the derivation
says this generality is a *direct* result of w always being c, then
the claim that w is always c is given support.

The rule has never been proved.

You simply delude that it has.


PD

On Feb 19, 7:09 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 19 Feb 2007 06:09:20 -0800, "PD" wrote:





On Feb 18, 6:15 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 18 Feb 2007 11:38:10 -0800, "PD" wrote:

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.

The rule for combining velocities is not, nor was it ever, used to
assert that the speed of light is constant regardless of reference
frame. The only claim that is made is that the frame independence of
the speed of light is *consistent with* the rule for combining
velocities. Moreover, the experimental evidence in support of the rule
for combining velocities has nothing to do with measuring the speed of
light, but in fact measuring the speed of other particles in different
reference frames -- and it is there that measurements are completely
consistent with the velocity combination rule.

The frame-independence of the speed of light is taken as an unproven
*postulate* in special relativity. It is not necessary in science to
experimentally prove a postulate. One determines the implications of a
postulate (and just as you derived it, the velocity addition rule is
an example of an implication of this postulate) and then tests those
implications against experiment. If the implications match experiment,
and if the postulate is able to generate more successful implications
that match up to experiment than competing postulates, then this is
taken in science to be sufficient grounds for belief in the truth of
that postulate.

In this particular case, the postulate is the frame-independence of
the speed of light. One implication (of numerous implications) is the
rule for combining velocities. The rule for combining velocities has
been tested experimentally in a wide variety of circumstances (without
needing a direct test of the frame-independence of the speed of
light). And because this, and so many other implications, match
experiment so well, we take stock in the truth of the frame-
independence of the speed of light.

....

Well said.

Well, thanks, but Henri will ignore it, since it doesn't feed his
fantasy.

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.

Of course I am.
I start with the postulate that w = c and end up with an equation that seems to
CAUSE w to always be c.

Well, of course if you are setting out to show that w will always be
c, then of course you are being circular. But the point of the
derivation is to find a rule for combining velocities of *anything*,
not just light. It is that *rule* that is the desired result, not the
claim that w will always be c (that is, of course, what was assumed).
Then the rule is tested against things *other than* light. Sure
enough, it has worked absolutely everywhere it has been tested. This
tells you the rule appears to be generally true. Since the derivation
says this generality is a *direct* result of w always being c, then
the claim that w is always c is given support.

The rule has never been proved.

You simply delude that it has.



Of course it has. I mentioned several examples. I could certainly
point you to some reading where you can find out about it in detail.
Would you like some references, Henri?

Or is it better if you just clamp your hands over your ears and
holler, "La-la-la-la-la! I don't believe it and you can't make me! La-
la-la-la-la!"

PD

On 19 Feb 2007 19:30:44 -0800, "PD" wrote:

On Feb 19, 7:09 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 19 Feb 2007 06:09:20 -0800, "PD" wrote:




Of course I am.
I start with the postulate that w = c and end up with an equation that seems to
CAUSE w to always be c.

Well, of course if you are setting out to show that w will always be
c, then of course you are being circular. But the point of the
derivation is to find a rule for combining velocities of *anything*,
not just light. It is that *rule* that is the desired result, not the
claim that w will always be c (that is, of course, what was assumed).
Then the rule is tested against things *other than* light. Sure
enough, it has worked absolutely everywhere it has been tested. This
tells you the rule appears to be generally true. Since the derivation
says this generality is a *direct* result of w always being c, then
the claim that w is always c is given support.

The rule has never been proved.

You simply delude that it has.



Of course it has. I mentioned several examples. I could certainly
point you to some reading where you can find out about it in detail.
Would you like some references, Henri?

Or is it better if you just clamp your hands over your ears and
holler, "La-la-la-la-la! I don't believe it and you can't make me! La-
la-la-la-la!"

Draper, when I see astronomers floundering around in the dark, trying to
explain what they see with way out theories based on Einsteiniana, I laugh my
****ing head off.
You are no better.

PD

On Feb 20, 12:24 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 19 Feb 2007 19:30:44 -0800, "PD" wrote:





On Feb 19, 7:09 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 19 Feb 2007 06:09:20 -0800, "PD" wrote:

Of course I am.
I start with the postulate that w = c and end up with an equation that seems to
CAUSE w to always be c.

Well, of course if you are setting out to show that w will always be
c, then of course you are being circular. But the point of the
derivation is to find a rule for combining velocities of *anything*,
not just light. It is that *rule* that is the desired result, not the
claim that w will always be c (that is, of course, what was assumed).
Then the rule is tested against things *other than* light. Sure
enough, it has worked absolutely everywhere it has been tested. This
tells you the rule appears to be generally true. Since the derivation
says this generality is a *direct* result of w always being c, then
the claim that w is always c is given support.

The rule has never been proved.

You simply delude that it has.

Of course it has. I mentioned several examples. I could certainly
point you to some reading where you can find out about it in detail.
Would you like some references, Henri?

Or is it better if you just clamp your hands over your ears and
holler, "La-la-la-la-la! I don't believe it and you can't make me! La-
la-la-la-la!"

Draper, when I see astronomers floundering around in the dark, trying to
explain what they see with way out theories based on Einsteiniana, I laugh my
****ing head off.
You are no better.


I don't see how what astronomers do with their time has anything to do
with the experimental verification of the rule of combining velocities
in, say, particle interactions.

Now, would you like some reading material about that experimental
verification, Henri? Or are their experimental measurements also "way
out" and "based on Einsteiniana"?

PD

On 20 Feb 2007 05:51:35 -0800, "PD" wrote:

On Feb 20, 12:24 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 19 Feb 2007 19:30:44 -0800, "PD" wrote:





On Feb 19, 7:09 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 19 Feb 2007 06:09:20 -0800, "PD" wrote:

Of course I am.
I start with the postulate that w = c and end up with an equation that seems to
CAUSE w to always be c.

Well, of course if you are setting out to show that w will always be
c, then of course you are being circular. But the point of the
derivation is to find a rule for combining velocities of *anything*,
not just light. It is that *rule* that is the desired result, not the
claim that w will always be c (that is, of course, what was assumed).
Then the rule is tested against things *other than* light. Sure
enough, it has worked absolutely everywhere it has been tested. This
tells you the rule appears to be generally true. Since the derivation
says this generality is a *direct* result of w always being c, then
the claim that w is always c is given support.

The rule has never been proved.

You simply delude that it has.

Of course it has. I mentioned several examples. I could certainly
point you to some reading where you can find out about it in detail.
Would you like some references, Henri?

Or is it better if you just clamp your hands over your ears and
holler, "La-la-la-la-la! I don't believe it and you can't make me! La-
la-la-la-la!"

Draper, when I see astronomers floundering around in the dark, trying to
explain what they see with way out theories based on Einsteiniana, I laugh my
****ing head off.
You are no better.


I don't see how what astronomers do with their time has anything to do
with the experimental verification of the rule of combining velocities
in, say, particle interactions.

Now, would you like some reading material about that experimental
verification, Henri? Or are their experimental measurements also "way
out" and "based on Einsteiniana"?

i hear the physics mafia is recruiting suicide bombers....why don't you have a
go Draper...

PD

"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

"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

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On 18 Feb 2007 11:38:10 -0800, "PD" wrote:
[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