Correlation between CMBR and Redshift Anisotropies.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message ...
That simply means the MMX was flawed.
Null results prove nothing.

Not in science. It places an upper limit of any effect and
rules out theories that predict higher values. A simple
un-dragged Galilean Aether is ruled out by the MMX for
example.

Not according to the explanation in my MMX demo. See:
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/mmx.exe

I've had a look at this now and I must admit it is
ingenious. However, there is a small flaw. You have
depicted the light as points rather than wavefronts
The same light is illuminating both paths so you need
to consider a plane wavefront from the source. When
you do that I think you will find the front arrives
at the detector smeared over time. That would mean
there would be no light visible.

You need to adjust the angle of the mirror so that
a plane wavefront from the source (a vertical line
in your graphic) arrives perpendicular to the
direction of travel at the eyepiece (a horizontal
line) for both beams.

George

But you cannot have it both ways George. Either velocity affects physical
rates or it doesn't. You can't just introduce it when convenient and forget
about it

Just as a note: _velocity_ doesn't affect anything (unless you run into it.
_Acceleration_ does, it's what screws up the common reference frames and causes
time dilation. Note that in an orbit the orbiting body is constantly
accelerating.

HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On 19 Aug 2003 14:16:08 -0700, (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote:

HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On 8 Aug 2003 13:41:39 -0700, (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote:

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


Sergey, my H-aether theory is based on the principle that light speed is
locally source dependent. It starts out at c relative to its source but settles
down eventually to the same speed as other EM passing through a particular
point.

Fine. Light from some star travels to Earth millions parsec. Here on
Earth people carry out a comparative experiment with the immediately
radiated light of the same spectral line. Judging by your statement,
arriving light has to have essentially different velocity. ;-) Have
you a corroboration? This is checkable and has been checked, but I
don't remember such difference. ;-)

Nobody has measured OWLS Sergey.

I have suggested an experiment that will do this using star light but am now
working on a better one. Wait for it.






Sergey, when a theory is in its infancy, one should not say too much about it
or make too many claims.

Period, Henri. If your theory is in such infancy that one haven't to
require from it even the substantiation of phenomenology, then on the
basis of such theory we can make no conclusions. ;-) No substantiation
- no theory - no conclusions. Well, what do you calculate? Again: have
you substantiated the phenomenology of the summation of light velocity
and observer velocity? No. What are you speaking about?

There is NO evidence one way or another about the dependence of light speed on
observer velocity.

Correct, Henri, in your sense of addition of source's and observer's
velocities. And what are you trying so long time to instil me? On the
other hand, Miller determined the velocity of Earth as to the aether,
and his results were positive. Furthermore, if we re-calculate
correctly the results of Michelson's experiment, they also will
register the directed motion of the Earth and its rotation around its
axis. This just evidences that radiated light propagates with constant
velocity as to the aether and doesn't depend on the source velocity.




That is the state of my H-aether. So far it appears to
explain all the observational evidence.

Not true, it doesn't explain the very fact of velocities summation.
;-)

The relativistic velocity addition equation directly supports source
dependency.

w=(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2)

Substitute c for v, Sergey.

Yes, Henri, substitute - and for any frame (in that number stationary)
you will yield constant velocity of light. What concern has to it your
summation of light's and source's velocities?



Why should you want to reject it now?

Sure, I have to find a mechanism by which a light ray is influenced by other EM
fields but is still able to traverse long distances without becoming dispersed.
After all, we witness extinction in the earth's atmosphere and this does NOT
affect the clarity of distant galaxies all that much.

And how affects!!! What for the telescopes are launced into the orbit?
Though, if you want so much, your demos are more true than the nature.
Have you sent your application to God - let Him appoint you the
Principal Computer Legislator for Natural Phenomena? With your
self-confidence, you shoul do so long ago. And at all, what is it this
nature, why does it get under your feet? Here is your DEMO!!! ;-)





The source dependency demo is very informative as it is.

To be informative, something has to be grounded. All the rest is a
chatter. And there is actually too much of it.

It allows one to see
just how light from a complete orbit of a binary star would travel across space
if its velocity (the light's) was dependent on the star's velocity.
A vertical line drawn at any time index shows how many images of the star an
observer at that distance would see.
This is far more useful than any equation.

When building your demos, you saw in them other tasks than you are
saying now. It is seen in all your posts. I can repeat, demos can be
much more useful, only if they have been built on the thoroughly
substantiated solutions. Otherwise they are no more than an
abstraction having nothing to do with physics, and having zero
informativeness. I pity much your time and efforts which you spend
additionally, insisting without any wish to understand, what you are
spoken about.

Sergey, none of my demos is related to my H-aetehr theory.
You are very confused. The source dependency demo is purely classical.

No, Henri, it's not a bit classical. Where have you seen in the wave
physics the wave velocity to be added to the source velocity? You
haven't left relativism neither came to classical physics, and your
own theory even in its infancy is more contradictive than Einstein's
relativism. So what you are demonstrating is ungrounded and also
contradictive. With it, see, all our long communication is not so much
of the scientific matters as of merely psychological issue. Your
unwilling to understand is an insurmountable barrier for my attempts
to explain. Then I think: what for do I spend my efforts if you
needn't them? I for my work find firm grounds myself; well, you also
can think yourself if you don't want to listen. As Americans say, you
can take a horse to the water, but you cannot make him drink. You
simply want, our discussion to be ended with your post? No problem.
The last doesn't mean substantiated. You will not say something new
and will not grasp the problem.

Sergey, there is nothing unusual about my source dependency demonstration. It
merely show the distance traveled in the observer frame by light that is
emitted at c+v.

It would be just as legitimate if it used cars instead of photons.

Henri, I'm tired of the obstacle that you want to hear, see,
understand nothing. Let us stop our discussion at this point, as it's
unproductive. You are seeking any way to squeeze your c+v , ignoring
all physical regularities and logic of proof. I can say you whatever,
you are ready to retract whatever, in that number your c+v, but in the
next paragraph you state again that the velocities of source and
observer are added. I said you many times, prove it theoretically and
experimentally. Without it you can create any demos, their
significance is zero. You can take offence, but it will not help. You
want to live in your virtual world - well, do so. But it's
uninteresting for me. I used to work with physically substantiated
conceptions. I spent much time in attempts to help you to
understand... I cannot do more, it's senseless running in a circle. It
remains you only to come to relativism, to photon theory... Everyone
do so when unable to substantiate his own physical conception. But
this will be without me.

I wish you every wellbeing,

Sergey.







Maybe you did not understand the demo.

I understood. It remains only, you to understand what I say you so
long time. ;-)

What is strange about that demo?
It is quite straightfoward.

It is not classical, neither relativistic, it doesn't reflect your new
theory, it is substantiated by nothing. Well, are your conclusions
based on your ideas? Do they explain everything? You have on your web
site a button "Theory", but there is not theory. And you are surprised
that your demo raises criticism? Again, only you need this criticism.
Until your opinion is unsubstantiated and hasn't its phenomenology,
for all others it's only your ungrounded opinion, nothing more. Should
you be able to hear, I would see a sense in our discussion; if you
don't - what for do we shake the air? You want to draw pictures -
well, draw, but don't say that they explain something.

My demo is not an opinion. It would apply equally well to bullets fired from
relatively moving cars.
The fact that it uses binary stars is purely to make it more realistic.



Henri Wilson.

See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm