Einstein's Second Postulate Violates His First.

"John Kennaugh" wrote in message
.uk...
Darwin123 wrote:
On Nov 25, 5:21 pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
According to Einstein , the laws of physics are supposed to be the
same in all
inertial frames.....
1) You forgot the SR qualifier. According to Einstein's theory of
special relativity (SR) the laws of physics are the same in all
inertial frames. However, lets go from there. I will restrict my
discussion to the weak field limit, where what you said has been
proven true.
1) Maxwell's equations are laws of physics from which the speed of
light is derived. Maxwell's equations apply in all inertial frames of
reference, as far as can be measured in the weak field limit.
Maxwell's equations, which have a constant c, is a law of physics.

Ah! but is it a law of Nature? Maxwell's equations are simple
rearrangements of Faraday's empirical relationships - relating to charge
moving at very low speed.

The constant, c, has units of speed. However, it is not defined as a
speed of a real object.

If Maxwell's 'wave equation' are describing real physical waves c is the
speed they propagate at based on the supposed physical properties of the
propagating medium permittivity and permeability. If there is no
propagating medium then permittivity and permeability are not its
properties and c is the answer to an unknown question.

Convert this image to 16 colours using Windows paint.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html

There is left-right reversal between that and
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050730.html
as you can easily see from the position of the foreground stars.

Conclusion: The speed of UV, optical light and IR is not the same,
the images come from different times in the past - or the astronomers
are complete goofballs - or both.

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 09:55:56 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:


"John Kennaugh" wrote in message
o.uk...
Darwin123 wrote:
On Nov 25, 5:21 pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
According to Einstein , the laws of physics are supposed to be the
same in all
inertial frames.....
1) You forgot the SR qualifier. According to Einstein's theory of
special relativity (SR) the laws of physics are the same in all
inertial frames. However, lets go from there. I will restrict my
discussion to the weak field limit, where what you said has been
proven true.
1) Maxwell's equations are laws of physics from which the speed of
light is derived. Maxwell's equations apply in all inertial frames of
reference, as far as can be measured in the weak field limit.
Maxwell's equations, which have a constant c, is a law of physics.

Ah! but is it a law of Nature? Maxwell's equations are simple
rearrangements of Faraday's empirical relationships - relating to charge
moving at very low speed.

The constant, c, has units of speed. However, it is not defined as a
speed of a real object.

If Maxwell's 'wave equation' are describing real physical waves c is the
speed they propagate at based on the supposed physical properties of the
propagating medium permittivity and permeability. If there is no
propagating medium then permittivity and permeability are not its
properties and c is the answer to an unknown question.

Convert this image to 16 colours using Windows paint.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html

There is left-right reversal between that and
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050730.html
as you can easily see from the position of the foreground stars.

Conclusion: The speed of UV, optical light and IR is not the same,
the images come from different times in the past - or the astronomers
are complete goofballs - or both.

Hooray, Androcles has done something useful..

Did I not suggest here that light speed wrt its source might be slightly energy
dependent?


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.

........"Indoctrinating young students with Einsteinian religion amounts to child abuse."

This is purely due to errors in the preparation of data. Easy enough
to do. Different speeds of X rays and light (if it were true which it
is not) would not produce that effect. Apart from the general shape of
the galaxy there is little correspondence between X rays and light.
The two things are generated by different procresses. In fact there
will be more correspondence between X rays and radio.


- Ian Parker

On Nov 28, 10:55*am, "Androcles" wrote:
"John Kennaugh" wrote in message

.uk...



Darwin123 wrote:
On Nov 25, 5:21 pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
According to Einstein , the laws of physics are supposed to be the
same in all
inertial frames.....
1) You forgot the SR qualifier. According to Einstein's theory of
special relativity (SR) the laws of physics are the same in all
inertial frames. However, lets go from there. I will restrict my
discussion to the weak field limit, where what you said has been
proven true.
1) Maxwell's equations are laws of physics from which the speed of
light is derived. Maxwell's equations apply in all inertial frames of
reference, as far as can be measured in the weak field limit.
* *Maxwell's equations, which have a constant c, is a law of physics.

Ah! but is it a law of Nature? Maxwell's equations are simple
rearrangements of Faraday's empirical relationships - relating to charge
moving at very low speed.

The constant, c, has units of speed. However, it is not defined as a
speed of a real object.

If Maxwell's 'wave equation' are describing real physical waves c is the
speed they propagate at based on the supposed physical properties of the
propagating medium permittivity and permeability. If there is no
propagating medium then permittivity and permeability are not its
properties and c is the answer to an unknown question.

Convert this image to 16 colours using Windows paint.

* *http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html

There is left-right reversal between that and
* *http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050730.html
as you can easily see from the position of the foreground stars.

Conclusion: The speed of UV, optical light and IR is not the same,
*the images come from different times in the past - or the astronomers
are complete goofballs - or both.

Yeah, at 16 colors it pretty much becomes unquestionable.

Nice one,

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"John Kennaugh" wrote in message
.uk...
Darwin123 wrote:
On Nov 25, 5:21 pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
According to Einstein , the laws of physics are supposed to be the
same in all
inertial frames.....
1) You forgot the SR qualifier. According to Einstein's theory of
special relativity (SR) the laws of physics are the same in all
inertial frames. However, lets go from there. I will restrict my
discussion to the weak field limit, where what you said has been
proven true.
1) Maxwell's equations are laws of physics from which the speed of
light is derived. Maxwell's equations apply in all inertial frames of
reference, as far as can be measured in the weak field limit.
Maxwell's equations, which have a constant c, is a law of physics.

Ah! but is it a law of Nature? Maxwell's equations are simple
rearrangements of Faraday's empirical relationships - relating to charge
moving at very low speed.

The constant, c, has units of speed. However, it is not defined as a
speed of a real object.

If Maxwell's 'wave equation' are describing real physical waves c is the
speed they propagate at based on the supposed physical properties of the
propagating medium permittivity and permeability. If there is no
propagating medium then permittivity and permeability are not its
properties and c is the answer to an unknown question.

Convert this image to 16 colours using Windows paint.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html

There is left-right reversal between that and
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050730.html
as you can easily see from the position of the foreground stars.

Conclusion: The speed of UV, optical light and IR is not the same,
the images come from different times in the past - or the astronomers
are complete goofballs - or both.

http://www.astd60.dsl.pipex.com/bicycles.htm
Androcles concludes that there is one green bicycle and the blue light is
travelling faster than the yellow light.

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 09:55:56 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:

"John Kennaugh" wrote in message
.uk...
Darwin123 wrote:
On Nov 25, 5:21 pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
According to Einstein , the laws of physics are supposed to be the
same in all
inertial frames.....
1) You forgot the SR qualifier. According to Einstein's theory of
special relativity (SR) the laws of physics are the same in all
inertial frames. However, lets go from there. I will restrict my
discussion to the weak field limit, where what you said has been
proven true.
1) Maxwell's equations are laws of physics from which the speed of
light is derived. Maxwell's equations apply in all inertial frames of
reference, as far as can be measured in the weak field limit.
Maxwell's equations, which have a constant c, is a law of physics.
Ah! but is it a law of Nature? Maxwell's equations are simple
rearrangements of Faraday's empirical relationships - relating to charge
moving at very low speed.

The constant, c, has units of speed. However, it is not defined as a
speed of a real object.
If Maxwell's 'wave equation' are describing real physical waves c is the
speed they propagate at based on the supposed physical properties of the
propagating medium permittivity and permeability. If there is no
propagating medium then permittivity and permeability are not its
properties and c is the answer to an unknown question.
Convert this image to 16 colours using Windows paint.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html

There is left-right reversal between that and
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050730.html
as you can easily see from the position of the foreground stars.

Conclusion: The speed of UV, optical light and IR is not the same,
the images come from different times in the past - or the astronomers
are complete goofballs - or both.

Hooray, Androcles has done something useful..

Did I not suggest here that light speed wrt its source might be slightly energy
dependent?

So we can conclude that the radio-waves have used 50 millions years
more than the x-rays to go the 21 million light years from M106 to us.
Right?

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 09:55:56 -0000, "Androcles"

wrote:

"John Kennaugh" wrote in message
.uk...
Darwin123 wrote:
On Nov 25, 5:21 pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
According to Einstein , the laws of physics are supposed to be the
same in all
inertial frames.....
1) You forgot the SR qualifier. According to Einstein's theory of
special relativity (SR) the laws of physics are the same in all
inertial frames. However, lets go from there. I will restrict my
discussion to the weak field limit, where what you said has been
proven true.
1) Maxwell's equations are laws of physics from which the speed of
light is derived. Maxwell's equations apply in all inertial frames of
reference, as far as can be measured in the weak field limit.
Maxwell's equations, which have a constant c, is a law of physics.
Ah! but is it a law of Nature? Maxwell's equations are simple
rearrangements of Faraday's empirical relationships - relating to
charge
moving at very low speed.

The constant, c, has units of speed. However, it is not defined as a
speed of a real object.
If Maxwell's 'wave equation' are describing real physical waves c is
the
speed they propagate at based on the supposed physical properties of
the
propagating medium permittivity and permeability. If there is no
propagating medium then permittivity and permeability are not its
properties and c is the answer to an unknown question.
Convert this image to 16 colours using Windows paint.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html

There is left-right reversal between that and
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050730.html
as you can easily see from the position of the foreground stars.

Conclusion: The speed of UV, optical light and IR is not the same,
the images come from different times in the past - or the astronomers
are complete goofballs - or both.

Hooray, Androcles has done something useful..

Did I not suggest here that light speed wrt its source might be slightly
energy
dependent?

So we can conclude that the radio-waves have used 50 millions years
more than the x-rays to go the 21 million light years from M106 to us.
Right?

My conclusion is qualitative, based on Ockham's Razor and the evidence
of the photograph. Time lapse photography is commonplace.
http://tinyurl.com/5574nr
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/1...understorm.jpg
http://media.mgbg.com/wrbl/images/we...nIllusion2.jpg
http://www.buzzle.com/img/articleImages/30132-1med.jpg
http://www.gearfuse.com/wp-content/u...8/03/stars.jpg

What it doesn't do is support Wilson's useless uni****ation theory,
or even Fox's extinction theory. Of course Wilson will have so many
theories that he should get one of them right eventually, purely on a
probability basis. If he continues randomly tapping on his keyboard
for long enough then eventually he'll type out the complete works of
Shakespeare and every scientific theory there ever was, but then so
would any monkey.

Without disputing your estimate, do you have any data to support your
quantitative hypothesis? Rate of galactic rotation in radians per megayear,
perhaps? Do you even have a method for estimating 21 megalightyears?
Go look for dork matter, Tusseladd. Dork Van der merde may have some
hidden away in Belgium and we all know extra gravity from dork matter
makes galaxies rotate faster.

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:05:46 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 09:55:56 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:

"John Kennaugh" wrote in message
.uk...
Darwin123 wrote:
On Nov 25, 5:21 pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
According to Einstein , the laws of physics are supposed to be the
same in all
inertial frames.....
1) You forgot the SR qualifier. According to Einstein's theory of
special relativity (SR) the laws of physics are the same in all
inertial frames. However, lets go from there. I will restrict my
discussion to the weak field limit, where what you said has been
proven true.
1) Maxwell's equations are laws of physics from which the speed of
light is derived. Maxwell's equations apply in all inertial frames of
reference, as far as can be measured in the weak field limit.
Maxwell's equations, which have a constant c, is a law of physics.
Ah! but is it a law of Nature? Maxwell's equations are simple
rearrangements of Faraday's empirical relationships - relating to charge
moving at very low speed.

The constant, c, has units of speed. However, it is not defined as a
speed of a real object.
If Maxwell's 'wave equation' are describing real physical waves c is the
speed they propagate at based on the supposed physical properties of the
propagating medium permittivity and permeability. If there is no
propagating medium then permittivity and permeability are not its
properties and c is the answer to an unknown question.
Convert this image to 16 colours using Windows paint.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html

There is left-right reversal between that and
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050730.html
as you can easily see from the position of the foreground stars.

Conclusion: The speed of UV, optical light and IR is not the same,
the images come from different times in the past - or the astronomers
are complete goofballs - or both.

Hooray, Androcles has done something useful..

Did I not suggest here that light speed wrt its source might be slightly energy
dependent?

So we can conclude that the radio-waves have used 50 millions years
more than the x-rays to go the 21 million light years from M106 to us.
Right?

You simply cannot resist the the temptation to say the first thing that comes
into your head, can you? Have you always been this impulsive?

Would you please enlarge on the above.


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.

......

On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 15:53:08 -0000, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:


So we can conclude that the radio-waves have used 50 millions years
more than the x-rays to go the 21 million light years from M106 to us.
Right?

My conclusion is qualitative, based on Ockham's Razor and the evidence
of the photograph. Time lapse photography is commonplace.
http://tinyurl.com/5574nr
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/1...understorm.jpg
http://media.mgbg.com/wrbl/images/we...nIllusion2.jpg
http://www.buzzle.com/img/articleImages/30132-1med.jpg
http://www.gearfuse.com/wp-content/u...8/03/stars.jpg

What it doesn't do is support Wilson's useless uni****ation theory,
or even Fox's extinction theory. Of course Wilson will have so many
theories that he should get one of them right eventually, purely on a
probability basis. If he continues randomly tapping on his keyboard
for long enough then eventually he'll type out the complete works of
Shakespeare and every scientific theory there ever was, but then so
would any monkey.

....and all this from the bloke who has to include orbit pitch twice in order to
match his curves.

Without disputing your estimate, do you have any data to support your
quantitative hypothesis? Rate of galactic rotation in radians per megayear,
perhaps? Do you even have a method for estimating 21 megalightyears?
Go look for dork matter, Tusseladd. Dork Van der merde may have some
hidden away in Belgium and we all know extra gravity from dork matter
makes galaxies rotate faster.









Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.

......

Androcles wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 09:55:56 -0000, "Androcles"

wrote:

"John Kennaugh" wrote in message
.uk...
Darwin123 wrote:
On Nov 25, 5:21 pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
According to Einstein , the laws of physics are supposed to be the
same in all
inertial frames.....
1) You forgot the SR qualifier. According to Einstein's theory of
special relativity (SR) the laws of physics are the same in all
inertial frames. However, lets go from there. I will restrict my
discussion to the weak field limit, where what you said has been
proven true.
1) Maxwell's equations are laws of physics from which the speed of
light is derived. Maxwell's equations apply in all inertial frames of
reference, as far as can be measured in the weak field limit.
Maxwell's equations, which have a constant c, is a law of physics.
Ah! but is it a law of Nature? Maxwell's equations are simple
rearrangements of Faraday's empirical relationships - relating to
charge
moving at very low speed.

The constant, c, has units of speed. However, it is not defined as a
speed of a real object.
If Maxwell's 'wave equation' are describing real physical waves c is
the
speed they propagate at based on the supposed physical properties of
the
propagating medium permittivity and permeability. If there is no
propagating medium then permittivity and permeability are not its
properties and c is the answer to an unknown question.
Convert this image to 16 colours using Windows paint.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html

There is left-right reversal between that and
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050730.html
as you can easily see from the position of the foreground stars.

Conclusion: The speed of UV, optical light and IR is not the same,
the images come from different times in the past - or the astronomers
are complete goofballs - or both.
Hooray, Androcles has done something useful..

Did I not suggest here that light speed wrt its source might be slightly
energy
dependent?
So we can conclude that the radio-waves have used 50 millions years
more than the x-rays to go the 21 million light years from M106 to us.
Right?

My conclusion is qualitative, based on Ockham's Razor and the evidence
of the photograph. Time lapse photography is commonplace.
http://tinyurl.com/5574nr
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/1...understorm.jpg
http://media.mgbg.com/wrbl/images/we...nIllusion2.jpg
http://www.buzzle.com/img/articleImages/30132-1med.jpg
http://www.gearfuse.com/wp-content/u...8/03/stars.jpg

What it doesn't do is support Wilson's useless uni****ation theory,
or even Fox's extinction theory. Of course Wilson will have so many
theories that he should get one of them right eventually, purely on a
probability basis. If he continues randomly tapping on his keyboard
for long enough then eventually he'll type out the complete works of
Shakespeare and every scientific theory there ever was, but then so
would any monkey.

Without disputing your estimate, do you have any data to support your
quantitative hypothesis? Rate of galactic rotation in radians per megayear,
perhaps?

The rotation of galaxies is no simple matter. Matter in a galaxy doesn't
rotate as a disk. However, the speed of matter as a function of the distance
to the centre is measured for a lot of galaxies. We know that the Sun
uses some 225 million years to complete one rotation around the centre.
But rotation of the spiral arms are not the same as rotation of the matter,
spiral arms are some kind of density waves going through the galaxy.

But the point is: rotation of a galaxy is in the order of hundreds
of million years. So if the the two spiral arms in this photo:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html
really is the same spiral arm at different times, it must be in the order
of tens of million years between them.
You can change my estimate of 50 million years an order of magnitude
if you like, the point I am making will still be valid.

In case you missed it: For your claim to be true, the speed of light
would have to be so dependent of wavelength that the suggestion is
ridiculous.

Look at this:
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/c...useum/m81.html
http://tinyurl.com/5p8ova

The spiral arms in these pictures are much the same for wavelength
all the way from far IR to UV.
But in X-ray and radio, they are very different. That is because it
is very different mechanisms that are the source of radiation
at these extreme wavelengths.

In this picture, URL given by you:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html
the blue arm is x-ray while the purple arm is radio.
They are different because we see different sources of radiation
in the galaxy, not because it is emission from the same sources
at different times.

Do you even have a method for estimating 21 megalightyears?

I am only referring the estimate in the URL.
I would guess it is based on cepheid observations, a method
which now is very well calibrated by HIPPARCOS.
I would think the estimate is pretty good, but even if it
should be 50% off, my point remains valid.

Go look for dork matter, Tusseladd. Dork Van der merde may have some
hidden away in Belgium and we all know extra gravity from dork matter
makes galaxies rotate faster.

Faster than what?
The rotation of matter in galaxies is _measured_.
It doesn't matter if the explanation for the rotation
is dark matter, or that Newton was wrong.

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/