How Much Longer Can SRians Ignore Their Fundamental Error.

Einstein claims that light speed is independent of the speed of its source. He
went to a great deal of trouble to concoct a very complicated geometry that
would make measured light speed always have the same value, no matter how
source or observer moved. His theory includes no physics, just circular
mathematical reasoning that restates his second postulate over and over under
different guises.

Nowhere in this theory does he provide a logical reason why light from
differently moving sources SHOULD take the same time to traverse the same
length of space. Indeed the only plausible explanation must come directly from
aether theory.....that is, a property of space itself determines how light
travels through it. There is no evidence that this is true.

Maxwell showed that light speed is 'c' relative to its source. In the high
vacuum of space, there is absolutely no reason why light should leave every
star in the universe AT 'C' RELATIVE TO EARTH!! How much more obvous can that
be?????

The relativist DeSitter attempted to back up Einstein's claims with a botched
analysis of binary star behavior.

We now know that the vast majority of variable star brightness curves is simply
and soundly explained on the basis that light leaves these stars at c+v, where
v is the instantaneous velocity of the stars relative to Earth. The fact is,
any distant star that is in some kind of regular orbit SHOULD exhibit a degree
of brightness variability, the effect being clearly apparent only at certain
critical distances. Stars presently regarded as eclipsing binaries, (such as
Algol) are NOT necessarily eclipsing at all. Their brightness variations are
typical of single stars orbiting in highly eliptical orbits (probably around a
cold red dwarf) with their perihelion nearest to us.

Most other variable star data, which presently baffles astronomers, is fully
explained by the ballistic model of light. What does the physics establishment
hope to achieve by continually ignoring this fact?

My very comprehensive 'Variable Star' program simulates expected brightness
curves (based on c+v) by solving the relevant equations for all types of orbits
and observer distances. Virtually any typically observed brightness curve can
be produced, using c+v.

So how much longer can the relativity red herring continue to lead science up a
subterranian blind alley? Light speed, in the high vacuum of remote space, is
CLEARLY SOURCE DEPENDENT.

My program (in Vbasic) can be run from:
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

It may take some time to understand and master. It is not a virus.

Variable star data is obtainable at, for instance, www.britastro.org/vss/

Henri Wilson.
See why relativity is WRONG!
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

"Robert" RB@.. wrote in message ...

Hi Ralph Rabbidge, Henri Wilson, Anna Wilson, Henry Wilson,
Ballisticus...
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...hangeName.html

Dirk Vdm

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 07:20:19 GMT, Robert RB@.. wrote:

[snip]

Another name change? Aww Henri has to run from the filters.

Hey Henri, whats (-1) * (-1)?

Nowhere in this theory does he provide a logical reason why light from
differently moving sources SHOULD take the same time to traverse the
same length of space.
Why should it, the theory described the consequences of a fixed c, not its
cause. It also fits the evidence

Indeed the only plausible explanation must
come directly from aether theory.....that is, a property of space
itself determines how light travels through it. There is no evidence
that this is true.

Maxwell showed that light speed is 'c' relative to its source. In the
high vacuum of space, there is absolutely no reason why light should
leave every star in the universe AT 'C' RELATIVE TO EARTH!! How much
more obvous can that be?????
Have you ever used Maxwell's equations, they show no such thing.


The relativist DeSitter attempted to back up Einstein's claims with a
botched analysis of binary star behavior.

We now know that the vast majority of variable star brightness curves
No, YOU know that, the rest of us think you're a netkook.

is simply and soundly explained on the basis that light leaves these
stars at c+v, where v is the instantaneous velocity of the stars
relative to Earth. The fact is, any distant star that is in some kind
of regular orbit SHOULD exhibit a degree of brightness variability,
the effect being clearly apparent only at certain critical distances.
Stars presently regarded as eclipsing binaries, (such as Algol) are
NOT necessarily eclipsing at all. Their brightness variations are
typical of single stars orbiting in highly eliptical orbits (probably
around a cold red dwarf) with their perihelion nearest to us.
Red dwarf stars are of low mass, typically 0.1 TO 0.5 solar masses. Why does
this make your theory unlikely?


Most other variable star data, which presently baffles astronomers,
is fully explained by the ballistic model of light. What does the
physics establishment hope to achieve by continually ignoring this
fact?

My very comprehensive 'Variable Star' program simulates expected
brightness curves (based on c+v) by solving the relevant equations
for all types of orbits and observer distances. Virtually any
typically observed brightness curve can be produced, using c+v.

So how much longer can the relativity red herring continue to lead
science up a subterranian blind alley? Light speed, in the high
vacuum of remote space, is CLEARLY SOURCE DEPENDENT.
Apart from YOUR "work", this fits the observational evidence.


My program (in Vbasic) can be run from:
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
Why would anyone sensible want to download an executable. Maybe if you
supply the source code, or do you not want people to analyse it carefully.
Except when there are commercial implecations, many real scientists share
their source code.


It may take some time to understand and master. It is not a virus.
I like the way you call your audience thick, and try to reassure them you
aren't passing them a virus in the same line


Variable star data is obtainable at, for instance,
www.britastro.org/vss/

Henri Wilson.
See why relativity is WRONG!
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

DaveL

Sorry to everyone else for replying, but kook-baiting is such fun!

"Robert" RB@.. wrote in message
...
Einstein claims that light speed is independent of the speed of its
source. He
went to a great deal of trouble to concoct a very complicated geometry
that
would make measured light speed always have the same value, no matter how
source or observer moved. His theory includes no physics, just circular
mathematical reasoning that restates his second postulate over and over
under
different guises.

Nowhere in this theory does he provide a logical reason why light from
differently moving sources SHOULD take the same time to traverse the same
length of space. Indeed the only plausible explanation must come directly
from
aether theory.....that is, a property of space itself determines how light
travels through it. There is no evidence that this is true.

Maxwell showed that light speed is 'c' relative to its source.

Huh?! I don't think so - when and where supposedly did Maxwell do that?

Harald

In sci.physics.relativity, Eric Gisse

wrote
on Tue, 27 Jul 2004 01:08:36 -0800
:
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 07:20:19 GMT, Robert RB@.. wrote:

[snip]

Another name change? Aww Henri has to run from the filters.

Hey Henri, whats (-1) * (-1)?

You mean to say he's got the same problem as Spaceman in that
respect?

Ye gods. One can question SR based on various issues that
do not square with (perceived) reality (and then do some
research), but basic math?!

Of course, math is a good chunk of conventions anyway, but
for most humans on the planet who are knowledgeable about
basic arithmetic, (-1) * (-1) has a certain, consistent meaning.

[calming down]

Ahem.

Anyway, I still offer to such a variant of my two-mirror problem.
Take two small handmirrors, and position them within a cut
milk carton (a square tube, basically) at 45 degree angles.
Cut slits and/or attach.


| / |
| / B
| / |
| |
| |
| / |
A / |
| / |

Now look through A. If one's done this right, one should see
an object placed in front of B. Does that object appear to be:

[1] right side up?
[2] reversed left to front?
[3] upside down?
[4] sideways?

(There's probably better examples of periscopes out there. :-) )

What will this tell individuals about (-1) * (-1)? Simple.
If one looks in a floor-length mirror one is looking at a
mirror image (-1). If one looks in two mirrors...

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Eric Gisse
|
| wrote
| on Tue, 27 Jul 2004 01:08:36 -0800
| :
| On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 07:20:19 GMT, Robert RB@.. wrote:
|
| [snip]
|
| Another name change? Aww Henri has to run from the filters.
|
| Hey Henri, whats (-1) * (-1)?
|
| You mean to say he's got the same problem as Spaceman in that
| respect?
|
| Ye gods. One can question SR based on various issues that
| do not square with (perceived) reality (and then do some
| research), but basic math?!

Yes, basic math.

By 'v' we mean dx/dt. It's simple enough, a small change in distance
divided by a small change in time.
When we multiply dx/dt by dt, we get ... yep, dx. Letting d = 1, v = x/t.
so vt = x.
Now Einstein writes: "If we place x' = x-vt..."
So, x' = x-x and that must equal 0.
Of course this is simply the coordinate of the origin of the moving frame,
which is always at 0-vt in the stationary frame.
So far so good. It's basic math.
But then Einstein goes on...
But then Einstein goes on...

"From the origin of system k let a ray be emitted at the time tau0 along the
X-axis to x',"

But as we've just seen, the origin of system k and x' are one and the same.
The ray has zero distance to travel.(Or we could suppose that the origin of
system k is at -vt, from 0' = 0-vt, but that doesn't appear in the equation
that follows.)


"and at the time tau1 be reflected thence to the origin of the co-ordinates,
arriving there at the time tau2; we then must have ½(t0+ t2) = t1,"

Well, yes. We have ½(0+0) = 0. So what?
x' is not some point remote from the origin of k where the reflection takes
place, it is AT the origin of k.


Einstein proceeds:

½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))

and takes partial derivatives. To do this Einstein says

"Hence, if x' be chosen infinitesimally small, "

but it is already zero!

1/2 [1/(c-v) + 1/(c+v)]dtau/dt = dtau/dx' + 1/(c-v) dtau/dt,

Which with a little manipulation is

1/2 [1/(c-v) + 1/(c+v)]dtau/dt - 1/(c-v) dtau/dt = dtau/dx'

dtau/dt (1/2 [1/(c-v) + 1/(c+v)] - 1/(c-v)) = dtau/dx'

= dtau/d0

= dtau/0

and we have a divide by zero.

And that is basic math, ye gods.
Ahem.


|
| Of course, math is a good chunk of conventions anyway, but
| for most humans on the planet who are knowledgeable about
| basic arithmetic, (-1) * (-1) has a certain, consistent meaning.

If course, it is quite obvious that for most humans on the planet if you
divide by zero you can produce 2=1.
Wanna see?
v = c
v^2 = cv
v^2-c^2 = cv-c^2
(c+v)(c-v) = c(c-v)
c+v = c (dividing by c-v = 0)

And that is basic math, ye gods.
We call it a "certain consistent meaning".
Ahem.

[snip of trivial periscope]
Androcles

"Androcles" wrote in message ...

[snip]

And that is basic math, ye gods.

basic like solving a set of two equations with two unknowns
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../SetSolve.html

Dirk Vdm

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 07:25:17 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


"Robert" RB@.. wrote in message ...

Hi Ralph Rabbidge, Henri Wilson, Anna Wilson, Henry Wilson,
Ballisticus...
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...hangeName.html

Dirk Vdm



Killfile avoidance tactics.

I 'did a Retic'

It worked.

Henri Wilson.
See why relativity is WRONG!
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 15:27:30 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, Eric Gisse

wrote
on Tue, 27 Jul 2004 01:08:36 -0800
:
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 07:20:19 GMT, Robert RB@.. wrote:

[snip]

Another name change? Aww Henri has to run from the filters.

Hey Henri, whats (-1) * (-1)?

You mean to say he's got the same problem as Spaceman in that
respect?

Ye gods. One can question SR based on various issues that
do not square with (perceived) reality (and then do some
research), but basic math?!

Of course, math is a good chunk of conventions anyway, but
for most humans on the planet who are knowledgeable about
basic arithmetic, (-1) * (-1) has a certain, consistent meaning.

[calming down]

Ahem.

Anyway, I still offer to such a variant of my two-mirror problem.
Take two small handmirrors, and position them within a cut
milk carton (a square tube, basically) at 45 degree angles.
Cut slits and/or attach.


| / |
| / B
| / |
| |
| |
| / |
A / |
| / |

Now look through A. If one's done this right, one should see
an object placed in front of B. Does that object appear to be:

[1] right side up?
[2] reversed left to front?
[3] upside down?
[4] sideways?

(There's probably better examples of periscopes out there. :-) )

What will this tell individuals about (-1) * (-1)? Simple.
If one looks in a floor-length mirror one is looking at a
mirror image (-1). If one looks in two mirrors...

The whole concept of a 'negative axis' is purely conventional..

Henri Wilson.
See why relativity is WRONG!
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm