Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
news
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 04:27:37 GMT, "Black Knight"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:15:38 GMT, "Black Knight"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 03:51:54 GMT, "Black Knight"

wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
news:uetkn1pisr6g77fodipr58feo0au09mg8b@4ax. com...
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:31:37 GMT, "Black Knight"



When are you going to realize its time to leave these arseholes in
the
dust?
They are not educable, you can't learn anything from them.
Faith cannot be argued with.

I have woken up to that.
Total waste of time.

****-can them. Look out for students wanting real help and give
them guidance. That way you'll be a useful member of society instead
of a mental institution nursing assistant, and have more time to spend
on research when not playing golf.
Androcles.

Even talking to idiots can be productive sometimes.
Thanks to George (who is not as dumb as the rest but more persistent
and
stubborn) I have solved the sagnac riddle.


HW.

Sagnac riddle? What riddle?
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...e=source&hl=en
(August 4th,2005)

All you had do to was ask.
Three months struggling with Dish, 5 minutes from me.
You are very stubborn, H.

Your explanation does explain why the fringe DISPLACEMENT changes only
during
an angular acceleration of the apparatus.

I left out the 'not'.
Your explanation does NOT explain......

That's not not not problem.




If you mean phase shift, please say phase shift.
It is necessary when changing from v1 to v2 for the beat frequency to
change from f1 to f2 for there to be a shift in phase.
In this diagram (the best I have available right now)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...iffraction.png
imagine the frequency through one slit is f.(c+v)/c and through
the other slit is f.(c-v)/c.
The line perpendicular to the slits will lean over.
There will be a gradual phase shift during acceleration.

Hang on A. Were talking about sagnac.


Do you have a hard time understanding f.(c+v)/c and f.(c-v)/c ?
Roll the turntable along a road and let it make footprints, but
imagine it's slipping so that the "wavelength" is slightly short.
Then roll it back again, still slipping, so that the "wavelength"
is slightly long. The difference in print lengths is called the
beat.

Or try it without slipping and two different sized paint rollers.
Sheesh... so simple.
Androcles.






The fringe pattern remains unaltered during periods of constant rotation
speed.
Of course.
Androcles.



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 05:27:29 GMT, "Black Knight"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:32:04 GMT, "Black Knight"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 03:55:51 GMT, "Black Knight"

wrote:

My threebody program can do those things.

Show us. Let's see your figure of 8.
http://www.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection3.html

I would have to feed in the exact starting parameters.

Clearly displayed by Butikov...


However it would soon become unstable on any real computer
simulation..

Oh, so your program is chaotic then?
I sure you said "My threebody program can do those things."
Let's see you do those things. Or are you just blowing smoke?

My program comes up with all kinds of wierd motions.
Starting parameters are crucial.

True for all differential equations and well-known.
http://www.wolfram.com/products/math.../ndsolve.html/
This animation shows the application of the new numerical method of lines
algorithm for solving the Korteweg-de Vries equation demonstrating the
nonlinear interaction of solitary waves. Excellent spatial resolution is
achieved efficiently in this example by use of a pseudospectral
discretization method.

http://math.furman.edu/~dcs/java/newton.html

Look at the initial conditions for this convergence, it's Newton's.

Try entering 0,1,6,11. Continue pressing "Draw Tangent" until the result
stops changing.

0- 11.38

1- 3.37

6- 6.68

11- 11.38 (again)

Now try 5. That's about midway between 3.37 and 6.68. It should converge
quickly.

This is why it will be VERY difficult for you to model V1493 Aql.


But even if I fed in the exact values, the figure of 8 would soon
disappear. No
computer is sufficiently accurate to maintain it.

I understand completely. I've been telling you that for months, but you
are
too stubborn to listen. You just go on insisting your program is the best.

That is an entirely different program.
This one is my 'three body' animation.

It doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. Didn't you read ANYTHING I
wrote above?

http://math.furman.edu/~dcs/java/newton.html

Look at the initial conditions for this convergence, it's Newton's.

Try entering 0,1,6,11. Continue pressing "Draw Tangent" until the result
stops changing.

0- 11.38
1- 3.37
6- 6.68
11- 11.38 (again)

Now try 5. That's about midway between 3.37 and 6.68. It should converge
quickly.

This is why it will be VERY difficult for you to model V1493 Aql.
[rest snipped]
Androcles.

"Paul B. Andersen" paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis

Ok. Anything to oblige.
Andersen, you have convinced me.
Your stupidity IS so gigantic that you do not
understand why your statement is nonsense.
Please don't forgive me for not having doubted that.
I'm sure it will happen again.

Androcles.

George Dishman wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 16 Nov 2005 06:10:53 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 15 Nov 2005 06:55:28 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:
snip

snip uncommented parts

[return of the snip]


Of course not! Why? Because it is not a light beam. It is not governed by
Maxwell's equations. It is infinitesimal. It is nothing.

****ing priceless, Henri.

[snip]

Which part of "constant" escapes you?

None.
The fact that both observers calculate the same value for c from the constants
escapes me...since the beam DOES NOT approach them at the same speed.

The fact that they find the same values means the speed must be
the same. That was exactly Einstein's route from the equations to
the postulate.

But we know they are not thsame.
The beam approaches the two observers at different speeds.

Do we? That is YOUR competing postulate and the point is that
it conflicts with Maxwell's Equations where the speed is defined
by the constants.

I am yet to get formally educated in electromagnetic theory, but all it
took for me to believe it was seeing Maxwell's equations reduced to 2
wave equation PDEs in E and B. I guess learning the math long before
you see the physics is handy sometimes.

I really fail to understand how Henri can say that his theory satisfies
Maxwell's equations *and* allows for a variable speed of light.

[snip]


I did...and it makes no sense at all. Infinitesimal points on a graph do not
constitute 'wavefronts'.

The points on the graph aren't infinitesimal, they are purely
mathematical points of zero size. They represent the "very
very small pieces" of the actual wavefront, or isn't that what
you mean, it is what you have been saying.

Not 'very small' but 'infinitesimal'.

Same thing Henri.

Not the same George.

Exactly the same Henri, open a textbook on basic calculus.

He claims to have a degree in "Applied Mathematics".

Reading Henri's replies is just so pathetically funny.

[snip]

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:34:14 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

I don't htink we will discuss ring lasers becasue they might operate on an
entirely different principle to the four mirror type.

I don't think you will discuss ring lasers because they so
obviously falsifies the BaT.

We are discussing sagnac.
Your statement above shows these aren't basd on sagnac.


I have explained why before, and you have fled the discussion before
because you were unable to refute my arguments.

Which is the real reason you don't like to discuss ring lasers.

In fact any gas laser falsifies the BaT. Coherent light means all
the light is going at the same speed. In a gas laser, the gas atoms
which are the sources of the light, are moving fast relative to
each other. BaT falsified.


It is YOUR theory that each atom is a source.
Other don't believe you.

Don't be ridiculous, Henri. :-)
What in a gas laSER do you think is Stimulated to Emit Radiation,
if not the gas atoms?

Even if it were, the effect would be too small to worry about.

Really, Henri?
The light from a laser can go to the Moon and back,
and still be coherent light.
Do you think that could happen if the speeds of the photons
were as different as the speeds of the atoms in the gas?

The mere existence of gas lasers falsifies the BaT.

FoGs are similar but effectively have an infinitie number of mirrors which
reflect at infinitesimal angle.
We aren't going to get anywhere multiplying zero by infinity.

Not unless you know some math, of course.
Hint: limits.
What is sin(x)/x for x = 0?


Irelevant.

It is an example where "multiplying zero by infinity" get you somewhere.

And light in a mono-mode fibre is never reflected.
It's a wave guide.
BaT falsified.


There is constant internal reflection at grazing angles.

You don't know what a mono-mode fibre is, do you? :-)

So let's just stick with the four mirror sagnac eh?

I think by now you will have realised that it fully supports the BaTh and
probably refutes SR.

Any Sagnac ring falsifies the BaT.
No question about it.


My diagram clearly show the opposite.
Path lengths change during acceleration. Wavelength is absolutely constant
according to the BaTh. Therefore fringes will MOVE during angular acceleration
and will NOT move during constant rotation.

Sagnac disproves SR.

Inventing new laws of nature proves nothing.
Any Sagnac ring falsifies the BaT.
No question about it.



Poor old George has spent years proving that according to the BaTh, fringes
will not move during constant rotation. That is of course what happens.

Of course it is.
But I have in a much shorter time proved that according
to the BaT, the phase relationship between the two waves
will be the same regardless of the rate of a constant rotation.
That is NOT what happens.
The BaT falsified.


You haven't proved that at all.

You have a very selective memory.

Paul B. Andersen wrote January 2005:
| To a first order approximation, (that is, ignoring
| terms containing higher than first order of
| the tangential mirror speed v) the light will use
| the same time in both directions.
| The math isn't very hard, but it isn't trivial either.
| I won't bother to go through all the math in this awkward
| medium, but I will write the first order terms:
| The length of one chord of the light path will be:
| d = srt(2)*r + v*t/sqrt(2)
| where r is the radius of the circle tangenting the mirrors,
| and t is the time the light uses to traverse the chord.
| The speed of the light will be:
| c' = c + v/sqrt(2)
| Note that these equations are valid for both direction,
| v being negative for the beam going in the opposite direction.
| So we have:
| c'*t = d
| c*t + v*t/sqrt(2) = sqrt(2)*r + v*t/sqrt(2)
| t = sqrt(2)*r/c
| The ballistic theory predicts that the time
| has no first order dependency on the speed!
|
| The sagnac effect IS a first order effect!
|
| You are proven wrong.

Henri Wilson responded:
| I did that calculation a long time ago.

So Henri Wilson agree to the statement:
" The ballistic theory predicts that the time
has no first order dependency on the speed!"

Which obviously implies that the phase relationship between the two waves
will be the same regardless of the rate of a constant rotation.

You haven't even understood the significance of acceleration in all of this.
You haven't a clue.
Study my diagram again.

I understand that acceleration have no significance in this.

And you never refuted my proof.

Quite the contrary, you have confirmed it.

You fled it by claiming that interferometers works
in an entirely different manner than physicists think.
You are unable to explain _how_ you think it works, thought.
All you know is that it works in some mysterious way which
make the fringes appear at different positions even when
the phase relationship between the two waves are the same.

Henri's explanation of why the fringes change position
despite the fact that BaT predicts no change in the phase
relationship:
Henri Wilson wrote:
| I have told you many times. The sagnac effect is caused by the angular change
| in the mirrors during the travel time of the light between them. The change in
| opposite ways for the two beams and cause opposite sideways displacements when
| reunited. That causes sideways fringe movements.

Henri Wilson wrote:
| Actually, the sagnac effect is completely unrelated to SR, the BaT or aether
| theories.
|
| The fringes shift because the mirrors rotate slightly during lights travel time
| between them.
|
| The clockwise beam ends up displaced one way, the anti-clockwise one the other.

See?
The fringes do not change position because the phase relashionship
between the waves changes, interferometers doesn't measure phase
differences. They work in an entirely different manner.
How is not clear.

This is unbelivable stupid, Henri. :-)

A typical Wilsonian escape by inventing new laws of nature
for every new phenomenon that must be explained away.


The sagnac effect occurs when the apparatus is experiencing angular
acceleration. The reason is that, during light transit time, successive
components are displaced by a little more than they would be under constant
rotation.

D = kw when dw/dt = 0
But D is caused by dw/dt, not w,
because dD/dt 0 only when dw/dt 0.

How incredible stupid!

The amount is virtually the same whether c or c+v is used.
Path length difference alone determines the position of the fringes. Small
variations in light speed do not make any significant difference to the result.

How incredible stupid!

The Sagnac effect IS "the small variations in light speed".

delta_n = n+ - n-
where n+ and n- are the number of wavelengths around the ring
for the two beams, and delta_n is the difference.
n+ = (S/lambda)(c+v)/c S = circumference of ring
n- = (S/lambda)(c-v)/c
delta_n = (S/lambda)2v/c

S = 2*pi*r, A = pi*r^2, v = w*r, lambda = c/f, T = 1/f

delta_n = f*4*pi*r^2*w/c^2 = f4Aw/c^2

delta_t = delta_n*T = delta_n/f = 4Aw/c^2

Seen this before?
If this is the Sagnac effect, then it is caused by
"the small variations in light speed".

Paul

"Paul B. Andersen" paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis
^^^^^^^^^^


OK, Andersen, you have convinced me.
Your stupidity IS so gigantic that you do not
understand why your statement is nonsense.
Please don't forgive me for not having doubted that.
I'm sure it will happen again.

Androcles.

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:51:35 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 23:07:00 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:



Henri Wilson wrote:


On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 15:48:41 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:




Henri Wilson wrote:



Wavefronts really exist only in the source frame.

Quite.
When I go out in my boat, the wavefronts disappear
as soon as I start moving. Whatever is hitting my boat so hard
are not wavefronts, they are only infinitesimal points.

Paul


A fine laser beam is not like the ocean surface Paul.

The light from a laser and a water surface wave have
that in common that they both have wave fronts which
are physical entities that exist independent of frames
of reference.

It is incredible stupid to claim that a physical entity
- any physical entity - exists in one frame of reference
but not in another.

And what is even more remarkable is that I have to point
out to you that the statement:
"Wavefronts really exist only in the source frame."
is mindless babble.
It should be self evident to any sane person.



However, in case you are correct, I shall look through my telescope to see if
star light is really coming to us via cosmic ships.

If you from the cosmic ship Tellus ever look through
a telescope, be sure to notice the stellar aberration.
Having done so, you can kick and shout:
WHATEVER IS COMING FROM THAT STAR, MOVING WITH CHANGING
DIRECTION, IS NOT LIGHT, IT IS ONLY INFINITESIMAL POINTS.

That will make you look exactly as intelligent as you are.


Geez, Paul, you are becoming more amusing every day.

Stars emit light in all directions.
A vertical telescope moving sideways will always pick up part of the starlight
that moves directly down its centre.

You just don't understand any of this, do you?

Say, Henri.
Have you emptied the bottle you owe Androcles?
Read what you wrote above when you sober up,
and have a good laugh.

Look Henri.
Pick a distant star, say 500 LY away.
Point your telescope at it, so that the image is at the centre.
Measure the absolute angle of your telescope.
Repeat 6 month later.
The telescope will now point in a direction 22 arcsecs
different from the first time.

The parallax is negligible. The light path is the same,
nameley a straight line from the star to the Earth.
So why are the angle of the light path different?
It is caused by the different velocity of the Earth
at the two occations. We are observing the star from
two different frames of reference.
Both frames are moving relative to the star.


So what? Ligth leaves the star spherically.

Still drunk?
Didn't you get it?
There is but one light path - the path from the Star to the Earth.
(We can neglect the small parallax angle which is only 0.0006 of
the aberration angle)
It is obviously utterly irrelevant that the star emits light
in all other directions that don't hit the Earth,
so why the hell are you stating this stupidity?

The only light path of interest is the one that hits the Earth!
The _direction_ of that light path is down the middle of
our telescope.
The direction of that single light path changes throughout the year
because the velocity of the frame of reference (Earth) changes
throughout the year.

This is in no way related to our discussion. You are diverting attention from
the fact that SR is proved to be nonsense.

It is related to your incredible stupid statements:
"Wavefronts really exist only in the source frame."
and:
"Whatever is moving diagonally isn't light. It is
infinitesimal points."

To be consistent, you have to claim:
"WHATEVER IS COMING FROM THAT STAR, MOVING WITH CHANGING
DIRECTION, IS NOT LIGHT, IT IS ONLY INFINITESIMAL POINTS."

Now Henri, what is it that hits the CCD in our telescope?
Is it light?
It cannot be, can it?
Because whatever moves along paths with different directions
in different frames cannot be light, can it?

Paul

"Paul B. Andersen" paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis

Ok, deleted as requested.
Androcles.

On 17 Nov 2005 05:51:27 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 16 Nov 2005 06:10:53 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:

snip religious propaganda.

You claimed above somewhere that the diagonal speed of the points had been
measured

Where? I said the speed of light had been measured.

and found to be c. That is not true and you know it.

TWLS has been measured and found to be c, always, and
you know it, and that is what I said.

You claimed the diagonal speed of the elements was also c.


I don't care, it doesn't affect the length of the diagonal path.

It affects what is supposed to be moving along each diagonal.

Nope, what comes out of a laser it is still light whether you
move your hand or not. I am still waiting for you to explain
why it affects the length of the path because if it doesn't
it is irrelevant.

I don't care what you laser is.
Its beam is made up of an infinitte number of infinitesimally thin vertical
lines.

The field is continuous over the width. Your approach of
breaking it into a large number of finite segments is
giving you problems.

Work out what happens to each one of those.

By your own argument, none of them exists since they
are infinitesimal. That is nonsense of course but if you
want to use that argument in the moving frame, it also
applies in the laser frame.

I'm afraid you are so hopelessly indoctrinated, your brain has ceased to
function freely.


According to you, a laser beam would disperse in all directions, in the source
frame.

No, according to Maxwell's Equations, a point source produces
spherical wavefronts.

I think that was Huygens idea.

Why should it be appropriate for lasers?

They didn't know anythiong about lasers then.


Points aren't, no. Not in either the laser or moving
frames, but the light whose location is represented
by those points is still light, the ants are still ants.

and they are still vertical at any instant in all frames.

How does that affect the path length of the 1.1mm disc
shaped wavefronts?

George, I think you are trying to tell me that the wavefronts are lined up like
this in the moving frame:

_
_
_
_
_

or this:

\
\
\
\
\

They do neither,

They remain like this:

_
_
_ -
_
_

In all frames.

No, what I am saying is that you can integrate over all the
inifinitesimal elements to apply Maxwell's Equations (ME)
and the result tells you the direction power will flow. If you
start with a horizontal wavefront and apply ME then the
wavefront will move vertically like this which is obviously
wrong:

_
_
_ ^
_ |
_

In all frames.

What you will find is that the result in the moving
frame becomes like this with each wavefront moving
diagonally towards the top right.

\
\
\ -
\
\

Try to work out what the wavefronts look like inside
the laser as they bounce between the mirrors and
you should finally understand.


What comes out of a green laser is light Henri, even if
you move your hand while holding it.

It is only light in the vertical direction, in all frames.

It is light in all frames. The beam is also vertical in all frames.
The difference is that the wavefronts are propagating in the
diagonal direction.

George, there is no hope for you.
Tell me this:

Here are two laser beams:

| /
| /
| /
| /

Do you really honestly believe you can make one exactly like the other simply
by moving it sideways at the right speed.
That is what you are claiming.
Can you not see how your acute indoctrination syndrome has turned you into a
mental cripple?

Which part of "constant" escapes you?

None.
The fact that both observers calculate the same value for c from the constants
escapes me...since the beam DOES NOT approach them at the same speed.

The fact that they find the same values means the speed must be
the same. That was exactly Einstein's route from the equations to
the postulate.

But we know they are not thsame.
The beam approaches the two observers at different speeds.

Do we? That is YOUR competing postulate and the point is that
it conflicts with Maxwell's Equations where the speed is defined
by the constants.

It is bloody obvious that if the two observers are in relative motion, no light
beam can approach them at the same speed.
That is unless you want to tear up the whole of physics as it stands.


Snip what you don't want to hear.

Snip what has no scientific content, like the comment above.
If all you can do is toss insults around, you are obviously
unable just justify your assertions, you reduce them to
religious claims, and there is no point in taling about it any
farther.

I'm giving up on you George.
You are a hopeless case.

I have now straightened you out about sagnac and shown why SR is fundamentally
wrong from its first assumption.
If you are too stubborn to accept the truth, that is not my problem.

It matters not how wide the beam is. It still doesn't spontaneously disperse in
all diagonal directions as you seem to think it does.

Think about shining a laser onto a pinhole. The width is
very important in a classical analysis.

I'm not shining any laser through a pinhole.
I'm moving sidways past a laser beam.

Do you really believe the beam give a hoot how fast I am moving?



Not 'very small' but 'infinitesimal'.

Same thing Henri.

Not the same George.

Exactly the same Henri, open a textbook on basic calculus.

Calculus doesn't work to well with 'very small' increments, George.
I'm beginning to realize you know very little about anything.


The wavefront is nothing more than a line on a graph.
It is infinitesimally thin and has no light-like properties.

Let me remind you of what you said above:

The wavefront is horizontal.

That horizontal line is merely a mathematical trick, it
marks the highest field strength in a region but the
field is actually a sine wave filling the volume of the
beam. That propagating sine wave is what is called
light (both fields of course but I'm keeping it simple
here).

plain nonsense.
Give up George... to save yourself further embarrassment.
SR was a flawed attempt to modify aether theory after it was shown that no
aether appeared to exist.


According to you, George, a laser beam would spontaneously disperse in all
diagonal directions, in the source frame.

No, according to Maxwell's Equations, the field from any
single one of your "infinitesimal elements" would disperse
in ALL frames. It is the interference between the infinite
number of elements covering the horizontal surface of the
wavefront that allows the beam to avoid dispersing.

George, when I move past a vertical laser beam, I don't see it suddenly
dispersing in all directions.

You are plain dumb!! Like all SRians.

Androcles is rioght. There is no point in aguing with totally indoctrinated
people like you.


George


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:54:34 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:51:35 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Look Henri.
Pick a distant star, say 500 LY away.
Point your telescope at it, so that the image is at the centre.
Measure the absolute angle of your telescope.
Repeat 6 month later.
The telescope will now point in a direction 22 arcsecs
different from the first time.

The parallax is negligible. The light path is the same,
nameley a straight line from the star to the Earth.
So why are the angle of the light path different?
It is caused by the different velocity of the Earth
at the two occations. We are observing the star from
two different frames of reference.
Both frames are moving relative to the star.


So what? Ligth leaves the star spherically.

Still drunk?
Didn't you get it?
There is but one light path - the path from the Star to the Earth.

Are you under the impression that the star is emitting all its light in one
particular direction, as with a narrow laser beam?

(We can neglect the small parallax angle which is only 0.0006 of
the aberration angle)
It is obviously utterly irrelevant that the star emits light
in all other directions that don't hit the Earth,
so why the hell are you stating this stupidity?

The only light path of interest is the one that hits the Earth!
The _direction_ of that light path is down the middle of
our telescope.

You really are funny today.

The direction of that single light path changes throughout the year
because the velocity of the frame of reference (Earth) changes
throughout the year.

Very good Paul. You are improving.


This is in no way related to our discussion. You are diverting attention from
the fact that SR is proved to be nonsense.

It is related to your incredible stupid statements:
"Wavefronts really exist only in the source frame."
and:
"Whatever is moving diagonally isn't light. It is
infinitesimal points."

That is right. Of course I was refering to the plotting, in my frame, of the
paths of individual 'points' inside a vertical laser beam as I move
horizontally past it.

George Dishman is too dumb to understand that but I thought you might have a
little more sense.


To be consistent, you have to claim:
"WHATEVER IS COMING FROM THAT STAR, MOVING WITH CHANGING
DIRECTION, IS NOT LIGHT, IT IS ONLY INFINITESIMAL POINTS."

You are quoting me completely out of context and you know it.
tat has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic or anything I have said.

Now Henri, what is it that hits the CCD in our telescope?
Is it light?
It cannot be, can it?
Because whatever moves along paths with different directions
in different frames cannot be light, can it?

The star emits a sphere of light Paul. The wavefronts are spherical. Didn't you
know that.
When my telescope moves sideways, a different radius vector of the sphere goes
down the middle of my telescope. What could be more simple? I cannot see why
you should have any trouble understanding that.



Paul


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".