Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:41:39 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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



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.

Of course not.
MMX did that.


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...

A strawman.

OWLS has been determined from many different experiments including
observation of the moons of Jupiter.

All results are consistent with SR/GR.

You're all becoming desperate now.


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.

You need to understand your enemies. Understand SR before you attack it.

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.

Not true but it would not be important even if it were true.
It is just a straw man.

OWLS has an infinite number of values.