How Much Longer Can SRians Ignore Their Fundamental Error.

"Henri Le Neuviere" h@.. wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 15:53:06 +0200, "Harry"
wrote:
SNIP

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


Did he have any other reference?

Were his two constants ever measured in anything but a rest frame?

Yes, his hypothetical reference was some kind of ether. He showed that light
speed and that of other EM radiation is 'c' from any emitter - such a
constant is a characteristic of a medium, and not of a ballistic emitter. I
think he never tested a moving emitter (but others did).

Harald

Henri Le Neuviere wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 10:38:51 +0100, "Dave"
wrote:

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

There is no evidence in support of SR.

Maybe you should tell that to all the people that operate particle
accelerators. No doubt they'll realise that the kinetic energy of the
particles they collide is p^2/2m afterall. But I doubt it.

Have you ever used Maxwell's equations, they show no such thing.

Maxwell's figure for c was calculated in a frame assumed at rest with
the light's source.

No it wasn't. Maxwell's equations for free space imply a speed c & don't
refer to the source. Try reading "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies",
published by Albert Einstein in 1905.



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.

Well, the difference is , I have done the maths.
I know the answers, You people don't.

I haven't heard that as justification of an opinion since I was 5.



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?

typo...try 'big giant cold dark red star'.

A red dwarf is quite specific, and writing it is NOT a typo, more likely
evidence you don't know what you're talking about.


A lot of microsoft stuff is .exe.
My source code is very long and complicated. It would mean nothing to
you.

As I spend a fair amount of time programming, then I'm willing to give it a
try. I haven't specifically programmed in Visual Basic, but have experience
of several other languages, so I'm sure it wouldn't be too arduous. If you
want other's to agree with you (& if you don't why are you posting to the
usenet) then you should publish your code.


Basically, my program does this:
1) assumes light pulses of equal intensity are emitted at regular
intervals by an orbiting star.
2) lets the velocity of these pulses towards Earth be c(1+vcos(x))
where v is peripheral velocity and x is direction of movement when
pulse was emitted. 3) Follows the relative movement of the emitted
pulses as they traverse space. 4) Counts the number of pulses that
arrive in a set time interval at any distant observer. The way this
varies is an indication of apparent brightness fluctuation, as seen
by the observer at that distance.

There is nothing difficult or controversial about this method but
accommodating elliptical orbits makes the programming very hard.

Publish your code, let us judge for ourselves.





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

Why would I want to get fined heavily or go to jail for sending a
virus?

Some would argue that to be justifiable. Others would just be iritated at
the inconvenience.

You are the loser.
You will probably never know why so many stars vary in brightness the
way they do..


I look forward to reading your paper in the Astrophysical Journal then.


DaveL

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"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

Good one! :-))
- Hey Dirk, how do you put the colour marking on your HTML page?

Harald

"Dave" wrote in message
...
| Henri Le Neuviere wrote:
| On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 10:38:51 +0100, "Dave"
| wrote:
|
| 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
|
| There is no evidence in support of SR.
|
| Maybe you should tell that to all the people that operate particle
| accelerators. No doubt they'll realise that the kinetic energy of the
| particles they collide is p^2/2m afterall. But I doubt it.
|
| Have you ever used Maxwell's equations, they show no such thing.
|
| Maxwell's figure for c was calculated in a frame assumed at rest with
| the light's source.
|
| No it wasn't. Maxwell's equations for free space imply a speed c & don't
| refer to the source. Try reading "On the electrodynamics of moving
bodies",
| published by Albert Einstein in 1905.

Oh, that one that has the divide-by-zero in it, you mean. Well, if you
divide by zero you can "prove" 2 = 1 and Einstein = Idiot.

Androcles.






|
|
|
| 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.
|
| Well, the difference is , I have done the maths.
| I know the answers, You people don't.
|
| I haven't heard that as justification of an opinion since I was 5.
|
|
|
| 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?
|
| typo...try 'big giant cold dark red star'.
|
| A red dwarf is quite specific, and writing it is NOT a typo, more likely
| evidence you don't know what you're talking about.
|
|
| A lot of microsoft stuff is .exe.
| My source code is very long and complicated. It would mean nothing to
| you.
|
| As I spend a fair amount of time programming, then I'm willing to give it
a
| try. I haven't specifically programmed in Visual Basic, but have
experience
| of several other languages, so I'm sure it wouldn't be too arduous. If you
| want other's to agree with you (& if you don't why are you posting to the
| usenet) then you should publish your code.
|
|
| Basically, my program does this:
| 1) assumes light pulses of equal intensity are emitted at regular
| intervals by an orbiting star.
| 2) lets the velocity of these pulses towards Earth be c(1+vcos(x))
| where v is peripheral velocity and x is direction of movement when
| pulse was emitted. 3) Follows the relative movement of the emitted
| pulses as they traverse space. 4) Counts the number of pulses that
| arrive in a set time interval at any distant observer. The way this
| varies is an indication of apparent brightness fluctuation, as seen
| by the observer at that distance.
|
| There is nothing difficult or controversial about this method but
| accommodating elliptical orbits makes the programming very hard.
|
| Publish your code, let us judge for ourselves.

Here's mine. You get to do your own graphics and user interface.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....Copernicus.htm

Here's the program itself.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....Copernicus.exe

Here's one result. http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....ctual_data.htm
There are some typical sample curves embedded in the program.

Androcles.

|
|
|
| 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
|
| Why would I want to get fined heavily or go to jail for sending a
| virus?
|
| Some would argue that to be justifiable. Others would just be iritated at
| the inconvenience.
|
| You are the loser.
| You will probably never know why so many stars vary in brightness the
| way they do..
|
|
| I look forward to reading your paper in the Astrophysical Journal then.
|
|
| DaveL
|
|

"Harry" wrote in message ...

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"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

Good one! :-))
- Hey Dirk, how do you put the colour marking on your HTML page?

The html-file is script-generated from a template.
I make minor adjustments and add the coloured
highlighting with MS-FrontPage.

Dirk Vdm

"Harry" wrote in message
...
|
| "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
| in message ...
|
| "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
|
| Good one! :-))
| - Hey Dirk, how do you put the colour marking on your HTML page?
|
| Harald

It's a scream, isn't it?

How about
m' = am + f(t)
t' = bt + f(x)
x' = cx + f(m)
as well?
Oh and look, "mAdAm" is symmetric, so "EvermorE" must be as well.
Play with your crayons and make it symmetric, little boy.

Androcles

"Androcles" wrote in message ...

"Harry" wrote in message
...
|
| "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
| in message ...
|
| "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
|
| Good one! :-))
| - Hey Dirk, how do you put the colour marking on your HTML page?
|
| Harald

It's a scream, isn't it?

How about
m' = am + f(t)
t' = bt + f(x)
x' = cx + f(m)
as well?
Oh and look, "mAdAm" is symmetric, so "EvermorE" must be as well.
Play with your crayons and make it symmetric, little boy.

Stupidity and equations:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../SetSolve.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...les/Think.html
Stupidity and square roots:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...anSpecify.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...es/Nearly.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...Quadratic.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...es/GrowUp.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...Tautology.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../Material.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...les/GIVEN.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...agoRescue.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...s/SqrtRev.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...s/NegSqrt.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...rtAnswers.html
Stupidity and exclusive ors:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...Gibberish.html
Stupidity and partial differential equations:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...rtialDiff.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...tialDiff2.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...tialDiff3.html

Dirk Vdm

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"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

BTW as Eric shows below, you have new fabulous input from Androcles:
"Letting d = 1".
With which he obviously meant dx/dt - x/t...

Harald

"Harry" wrote in message ...

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"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

BTW as Eric shows below, you have new fabulous input from Androcles:
"Letting d = 1".
With which he obviously meant dx/dt - x/t...

Sometimes he tries to *fake* being stupid.
The tragedy is of course that the errors he *really*
makes are even more stupid than the ones he tries
to fake.
IIRC this is one of my free lessons in Applied
Village Idiot Psychology (AVIP)
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=avip+author%3Amoortel

Dirk Vdm

"Harry" wrote in message
...
|
| "Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
| in message ...
|
| "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
|
| BTW as Eric shows below, you have new fabulous input from Androcles:
| "Letting d = 1".
| With which he obviously meant dx/dt - x/t...

Perhaps you do not accept v = x/t with unaccelerated motion.
Your attempt to trivialize and mock betrays your stupidity below the normal
IQ of 100.
Time to ignore.
*plonk*
Androcles.

| Harald
|
|