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

wrote in message
ups.com...

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:15:23 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:

In article .com,
George Dishman wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:

You and George are producing these stupid figures becasue you are
using the
wrong model.

Paul and I are not using a model at all, we are applying
ballistic theory directly.


Henri,
Since George D has taken to calling me a liar,

Any time I do that, I back it up. The recent
example is where you denied you had originated
the question regarding the stop-start rifleman.
The Google reference to the the post in question
was supplied yet you still denied it.

snipping deceitfully,
and claiming that he
(sometimes) deliberately misrepresents his position,

That was your accusation, unsubstantiated.

I feel no
compunction in offerring
examples of his "work" sent to me in private previous conversations.

George D to JG during discussion of time dilation/length contraction
2/3/05
"You keep coming out with statements like this but you already know
that a gendanken _must_ (his emphasis) exhibit circular logic. If you
think it results in a contradiction, that immediately tells you you
have missed something in your analysis".

What a mindset! What breath-taking faith?

Neither, is is a fact of logic. If you describe a
scenario but then analyse it using a thought
experiment in which the results are predicted
solely by applying theory X, then the results
cannot contradict theory X unless that theory is
self-contradictory. It is nothing more than a
limitation of the technique.

This clearly shows that he
rejects ALL evidence and logical rebuttal of SR/GR, and not only
ACCEPTS circular logic as
a scientific tool, but DEMANDS that it be used!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, what it means is that any theory which is
not self-contradictory, such as SR or Ritz's
ballistic theory or LET, can only be rejected
on the basis of REAL experiments, not thought
experiments (gedanken).

................which is why his ruler MUST set his watch rate, AND his
watch second adjusts the length of THAT ruler, which adjusts the watch
rate etc, etc, etc
..............and round and round goes the circular logic, until the
believers are so dizzy they are stupified.

First we observe, then we deduce. We observe in
the Sagnac experiment that the speed of light
from a moving source is the same as when it is
at rest and from that and other REAL experiments,
special relativity is deduced logically.

That's why you and Henry are continually forced
to deny that experiments have been done or deny
that they produced the results they did, because
the logical deduction from those experiments is
at odds with your faith.

George

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:47:37 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:29:45 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"


Paul, you are using the wrong approach entirely.
I have explained that I cannot match the curves because the stars are generally
beyond the critical distance and to match them would require speculation about
the extinction rate.
It turns out that the curves themselves are easy to match. It is only the
distances that don't agree with YOUR figures and that is partly explainable
with light speed unification. It is also partly explainable by the fact that
the brightness variations of the two members almost cancel each other out. We
see the combined effect....and you know what we gat when we ad two sine waves
180 out don't we Paul. The inner star is moving slowly but that is because it
is much larger and radiates proportionally more energy.

Why use so many words?
Why not simply say that I was right, you are not able
to match the observed variation with the BaT.
You were bluffing when you stated:
| They are close binaries with short periods and fairly low orbital speeds...easy
| to match with hte BaTh.


Paul, here are your figures.

:Star paralax[mas] mag. max mag. min period [days]
:V417 Aql 7.65 10.62 11.28 0.37
:FG Hya 2.92 10.00 10.37 0.33

take FG Hya, a pair with supposed radial velocities around 300 and 30
kms/sec...which is rather fast....0.001 and 0.0001c

That means one star is ten times the mass of the other and probably
considerably hotter. Its light output could easily be 10x that of the smaller
one. The observed brightness curve is dominated by that slower one. The
combined output shows a much smaller brightness variation that your figure

Quite.
You are right for that particular binary.
But that doesn't mean much anyway, the correct numbers
will still be of the same order of magnitude.

The point is that _if we assume that the velocity
curves in the reference are correct_, then you must assume that
the distances are very much shorter than the real ones
to make the ballistic theory predict the observed variation.
Look at the numbers: they are in the order of 0.05LY!


It is highly probable that there is a very high extinction rate in the near
vicinity of close binaries.
In other words, the speed of all the light that leaves the pair is somewhat
unified. The interesting part is that according to my model, this kind of
unification process will NOT affect the observed doppler shift.
Think about THAT.


But all this is mute anyway.
The important point is that according to the ballistic theory,
the velocity curves in the reference must be wrong, because
they are calculated from the Doppler shift (1 + v/c), which
is very different from the Doppler shift of the ballistic
theory.


No it isn't. It is almost the same for vc.


According to the ballistic theory the brightening
and the the Doppler shift must be the same (because it is
basically the same phenomenon), and that is not the case
for the binaries in the reference. The variations are in
the order of 0.5 magnitudes, which is ca. 1.6 times.
But the observed Doppler shift is in the order of 1.001.


You and George are producing these stupid figures becasue you are using the
wrong model.


But as we agree, the brightening and the Doppler
shift of frequency are always the same.


No we don't agree Paul. The brightening is related to the doppler shifts of the
pulse rate but not to the doppler shift of the individual photons tyhat make up
the pulses.

Yes, we agree.
The brightening and the Doppler shift of the _frequency_
must always be the same.
You cannot escape from this by using the phrase "pulse rate"
in stead of "frequency".

The ballistic theory predicts that the brightening
and the Doppler shift of the _frequency_ are both:
= 1/(1 - v/c - (D/c^2)*dv/dt)


No. Wrong model Paul.


I have proven in another posting that the _wavelength_
must also be Doppler shifted.

The ballistic theory predicts that the Doppler shift
of the _wavelength_ is: (1 - (D/c^2)*dv/dt)

Note that if the radial acceleration is zero,
the ballistic theory predicts no Doppler shift of
wavelength.
But in all cases where there are a measurable brightening,
the (D/c^2)*dv/dt term will be dominating, and
the brightening will be the inverse of the Doppler shift
of the wavelength.

And it is the Doppler shift of the wavelength that is
observed!


No. Wrong model Paul.


When we measure the wavelength of light in a grating
spectrometer, we are measuring the wavelength of a _wave_.
It is an interference pattern we get on the CCD.
Claiming that the wavelength of the individual photons
somehow can be different from the wavelength of the wave
they constitute is idiocy.


Paul, you obviously don't have the right model.

This is hand waving, Henri.
You cannot claim that photons are particles which
behave very differently from waves.


I have been claiming that for the whole time you have been drivelling about
your classical model.
What is more, my model based on that fact actually works!!!!!


Look:
You can do the double slit experiment with electrons.
(Or use a grid)
From the observed interference pattern, you can
measure the _wavelength_.
The wavelength of what? Of the electrons?
No. The wavelength of the _wave_ that is associated
with the electrons. This wave - whatever it is -
has all the characteristics of a wave.
It behaves like a wave.
All particles show this duality.


What is a 'particle', what is a 'wave', what is a 'field'?
What is matter?


So whatever light is, it has both a wave aspect
and a particle aspect. And when we measure the wavelength
of the light, we measure the wavelength of the _wave_.


I have cleared this up. It behaves like a ballistic particle in space whose
density is below the Wilson Threshold...otherwise it becomes a wave in a
dielectric medium.

You are babbling incoherent nonsense.
There is no point in questioning the wave-particle duality.
It is never either or. It is always both. In vacuum as
well as in a dense medium.

So if you insist that the "wavelengths" of the photons
are different from the associated wave, it doesn't matter.
It is in any case the wavelength of the _wave_ we
measure. And that wave behaves like a wave, and I have
shown how the ballistic theory predicts that wave
must behave.

No way out, Henry.


I don't need a way out of a totally unrelated predicament.


You are hand waving, Henry.
You haven't refuted one single of my arguments.
You haven't even tried.
The reason is obvious.
You can't.


According to the ballistic theory, the brightening
of a binary should be the inverse of the observed
Doppler shift of the wavelength.
It never is.


You really should get one of your brighter students to help you on this Paul.
You are showing signs of premature aging. You cannot overcome your
indoctrination.

See? :-)

"I won't try to refute any of your arguments
because you are showing signs of premature ageing". :-)

I think the whole thing is settled now.
Never did we observe what the ballistic theory predicts we should.


Paul

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
| Henri Wilson wrote:
| On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:47:37 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
| wrote:
|
|
| Henri Wilson wrote:
|
| On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:29:45 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
|
|
| Paul, you are using the wrong approach entirely.
| I have explained that I cannot match the curves because the stars are
generally
| beyond the critical distance and to match them would require
speculation about
| the extinction rate.
| It turns out that the curves themselves are easy to match. It is only
the
| distances that don't agree with YOUR figures and that is partly
explainable
| with light speed unification. It is also partly explainable by the
fact that
| the brightness variations of the two members almost cancel each other
out. We
| see the combined effect....and you know what we gat when we ad two
sine waves
| 180 out don't we Paul. The inner star is moving slowly but that is
because it
| is much larger and radiates proportionally more energy.
|
| Why use so many words?
| Why not simply say that I was right, you are not able
| to match the observed variation with the BaT.
| You were bluffing when you stated:
| | They are close binaries with short periods and fairly low orbital
speeds...easy
| | to match with hte BaTh.
|
|
| Paul, here are your figures.
|
| :Star paralax[mas] mag. max mag. min period [days]
| :V417 Aql 7.65 10.62 11.28 0.37
| :FG Hya 2.92 10.00 10.37 0.33
|
| take FG Hya, a pair with supposed radial velocities around 300 and 30
| kms/sec...which is rather fast....0.001 and 0.0001c
|
| That means one star is ten times the mass of the other and probably
| considerably hotter. Its light output could easily be 10x that of the
smaller
| one. The observed brightness curve is dominated by that slower one. The
| combined output shows a much smaller brightness variation that your
figure
|
| Quite.
| You are right for that particular binary.
| But that doesn't mean much anyway, the correct numbers
| will still be of the same order of magnitude.
|
| The point is that _if we assume that the velocity
| curves in the reference are correct_, then you must assume that
| the distances are very much shorter than the real ones
| to make the ballistic theory predict the observed variation.
| Look at the numbers: they are in the order of 0.05LY!
|
|
| It is highly probable that there is a very high extinction rate in the
near
| vicinity of close binaries.
| In other words, the speed of all the light that leaves the pair is
somewhat
| unified. The interesting part is that according to my model, this kind
of
| unification process will NOT affect the observed doppler shift.
| Think about THAT.
|
|
| But all this is mute anyway.
| The important point is that according to the ballistic theory,
| the velocity curves in the reference must be wrong, because
| they are calculated from the Doppler shift (1 + v/c), which
| is very different from the Doppler shift of the ballistic
| theory.
|
|
| No it isn't. It is almost the same for vc.
|
|
| According to the ballistic theory the brightening
| and the the Doppler shift must be the same (because it is
| basically the same phenomenon), and that is not the case
| for the binaries in the reference. The variations are in
| the order of 0.5 magnitudes, which is ca. 1.6 times.
| But the observed Doppler shift is in the order of 1.001.
|
|
| You and George are producing these stupid figures becasue you are using
the
| wrong model.
|
|
| But as we agree, the brightening and the Doppler
| shift of frequency are always the same.
|
|
| No we don't agree Paul. The brightening is related to the doppler
shifts of the
| pulse rate but not to the doppler shift of the individual photons
tyhat make up
| the pulses.
|
| Yes, we agree.
| The brightening and the Doppler shift of the _frequency_
| must always be the same.
| You cannot escape from this by using the phrase "pulse rate"
| in stead of "frequency".
|
| The ballistic theory predicts that the brightening
| and the Doppler shift of the _frequency_ are both:
| = 1/(1 - v/c - (D/c^2)*dv/dt)
|
|
| No. Wrong model Paul.
|
|
| I have proven in another posting that the _wavelength_
| must also be Doppler shifted.
|
| The ballistic theory predicts that the Doppler shift
| of the _wavelength_ is: (1 - (D/c^2)*dv/dt)
|
| Note that if the radial acceleration is zero,
| the ballistic theory predicts no Doppler shift of
| wavelength.
| But in all cases where there are a measurable brightening,
| the (D/c^2)*dv/dt term will be dominating, and
| the brightening will be the inverse of the Doppler shift
| of the wavelength.
|
| And it is the Doppler shift of the wavelength that is
| observed!
|
|
| No. Wrong model Paul.
|
|
| When we measure the wavelength of light in a grating
| spectrometer, we are measuring the wavelength of a _wave_.
| It is an interference pattern we get on the CCD.
| Claiming that the wavelength of the individual photons
| somehow can be different from the wavelength of the wave
| they constitute is idiocy.
|
|
| Paul, you obviously don't have the right model.
|
| This is hand waving, Henri.
| You cannot claim that photons are particles which
| behave very differently from waves.
|
|
| I have been claiming that for the whole time you have been drivelling
about
| your classical model.
| What is more, my model based on that fact actually works!!!!!
|
|
| Look:
| You can do the double slit experiment with electrons.
| (Or use a grid)
| From the observed interference pattern, you can
| measure the _wavelength_.
| The wavelength of what? Of the electrons?
| No. The wavelength of the _wave_ that is associated
| with the electrons. This wave - whatever it is -
| has all the characteristics of a wave.
| It behaves like a wave.
| All particles show this duality.
|
|
| What is a 'particle', what is a 'wave', what is a 'field'?
| What is matter?
|
|
| So whatever light is, it has both a wave aspect
| and a particle aspect. And when we measure the wavelength
| of the light, we measure the wavelength of the _wave_.
|
|
| I have cleared this up. It behaves like a ballistic particle in space
whose
| density is below the Wilson Threshold...otherwise it becomes a wave in a
| dielectric medium.
|
| You are babbling incoherent nonsense.

He does, you should see his worbits. But then, you do too.

| There is no point in questioning the wave-particle duality.

Why not?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...photonwave.gif


| It is never either or. It is always both. In vacuum as
| well as in a dense medium.

Bull****. You have no idea what phase is, proven liar.


|
| So if you insist that the "wavelengths" of the photons
| are different from the associated wave, it doesn't matter.
| It is in any case the wavelength of the _wave_ we
| measure. And that wave behaves like a wave, and I have
| shown how the ballistic theory predicts that wave
| must behave.
|
| No way out, Henry.
|
|
| I don't need a way out of a totally unrelated predicament.
|
|
| You are hand waving, Henry.

He does that. So do you.

| You haven't refuted one single of my arguments.
| You haven't even tried.
| The reason is obvious.
| You can't.
|
You haven't refuted one single of my arguments.
You haven't even tried.
The reason is obvious.
You can't.

| According to the ballistic theory, the brightening
| of a binary should be the inverse of the observed
| Doppler shift of the wavelength.
| It never is.
|
|
| You really should get one of your brighter students to help you on this
Paul.
| You are showing signs of premature aging. You cannot overcome your
| indoctrination.
|
| See? :-)
|
| "I won't try to refute any of your arguments
| because you are showing signs of premature ageing". :-)
|
| I think the whole thing is settled now.
| Never did we observe what the ballistic theory predicts we should.

Yep. BaTh is total crap like you, proven lying ****.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...son/worbit.JPG
At least it isn't Ritz's theory.

Androcles.

On 28 Apr 2006 02:21:25 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 27 Apr 2006 03:05:50 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:




George, I think that light from all close binaries experiences a great deal of
unification before it leaves the sphere of influence of the pair. (Similar to
Paul's 'contact binary' question).

Yes, that's the whole point of where we started, I said
you could use the pulsar to find out over what distance
it occurred.

Therefore I would be only speculating if trying to discuss pulsars of this
nature.

No you wouldn't, you would be using an observation to
determine the extinction distance which is the scientific
method. Everything you have said about that distance
to date has been speculation and wild of the mark, this
is your chance to change that.

yes, now that I have most of the bugs out of my program I can now use it to
establish a few facts such as this.
I still have one problem in the latest version. The amplitude of the red and
blue velocity curves differs markedly in the case of ellipses...and it isn't
easy to solve. However one can still see the basic differences between the two.

That fact is that in every case where it can be measured
your speed unification will be so rapid that any difference
between your theory and SR is unmeasurable. The real
reason is that SR is right as proved by Sagnac.

George, I have provided about six reasons why sagnac DOES NOT refute the BaTh.

George


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

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 28 Apr 2006 02:21:25 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 27 Apr 2006 03:05:50 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:




George, I think that light from all close binaries experiences a great deal of
unification before it leaves the sphere of influence of the pair. (Similar to
Paul's 'contact binary' question).

Yes, that's the whole point of where we started, I said
you could use the pulsar to find out over what distance
it occurred.

Therefore I would be only speculating if trying to discuss pulsars of this
nature.

No you wouldn't, you would be using an observation to
determine the extinction distance which is the scientific
method. Everything you have said about that distance
to date has been speculation and wild of the mark, this
is your chance to change that.

yes, now that I have most of the bugs out of my program I can now use it to
establish a few facts such as this.
I still have one problem in the latest version. The amplitude of the red and
blue velocity curves differs markedly in the case of ellipses...and it isn't
easy to solve.

The red and blue shouldn't be the same regardless
of eccentricity, Henry, that's the whole point, the
acceleration factor alters the PRF drastically.

The red curves should of course be similar for a
circular orbit and one of low eccentricity. Isn't this
just the same problem we had before where the
velocity seemed to go to infinity as the eccentricity
went to zero? You seem to have a fundamental
problem there.

However one can still see the basic differences between the two.

Seeing basic differences isn't of any use if your
code is wrong. Once you solve the bug, it should
give actual values or it isn't of any use at all. We
know the peak-to-peak amplitude of the red curve
is 55.2km/s and want to find the amplitude and
of the blue curve and the phase difference for
different eccentricities and observer distances.

That fact is that in every case where it can be measured
your speed unification will be so rapid that any difference
between your theory and SR is unmeasurable. The real
reason is that SR is right as proved by Sagnac.

George, I have provided about six reasons why sagnac DOES NOT refute the BaTh.

No you suggested "photon friction" but never produced
the equation, the rest was just meaningless handwaving.
Paul, Jerry and I all gave you approximate equations
which showed you couldn't get enough slowing to explain
the effect, and Jerry did your experiment and found the
phenomenon doesn't exist at all. Sagnac certainly DOES
refute ballistic theory as the current situation stands, and
I don't think you have the maths skills to even attempt to
resolve that.

George

On 29 Apr 2006 05:42:03 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 28 Apr 2006 02:21:25 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:


yes, now that I have most of the bugs out of my program I can now use it to
establish a few facts such as this.
I still have one problem in the latest version. The amplitude of the red and
blue velocity curves differs markedly in the case of ellipses...and it isn't
easy to solve.

The red and blue shouldn't be the same regardless
of eccentricity, Henry, that's the whole point, the
acceleration factor alters the PRF drastically.

The red curves should of course be similar for a
circular orbit and one of low eccentricity. Isn't this
just the same problem we had before where the
velocity seemed to go to infinity as the eccentricity
went to zero? You seem to have a fundamental
problem there.

Sorry George, you seem to have a fundamental inability to understand the
principle behind the method being used.

However one can still see the basic differences between the two.

Seeing basic differences isn't of any use if your
code is wrong. Once you solve the bug, it should
give actual values or it isn't of any use at all. We
know the peak-to-peak amplitude of the red curve
is 55.2km/s and want to find the amplitude and
of the blue curve and the phase difference for
different eccentricities and observer distances.

It isn't exactly a bug...just a scaling problem.

The relationship between the two curves is correct for circular orbits.

That fact is that in every case where it can be measured
your speed unification will be so rapid that any difference
between your theory and SR is unmeasurable. The real
reason is that SR is right as proved by Sagnac.

George, I have provided about six reasons why sagnac DOES NOT refute the BaTh.

No you suggested "photon friction" but never produced
the equation, the rest was just meaningless handwaving.
Paul, Jerry and I all gave you approximate equations
which showed you couldn't get enough slowing to explain
the effect, and Jerry did your experiment and found the
phenomenon doesn't exist at all. Sagnac certainly DOES
refute ballistic theory as the current situation stands, and
I don't think you have the maths skills to even attempt to
resolve that.

How could it when the the source is moving at 45 wrt the light beams?
I have shown how rays which begin 90 apart DO NOT reunite at the same point.


George


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

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 22:14:43 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:47:37 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:



Paul, you obviously don't have the right model.

This is hand waving, Henri.
You cannot claim that photons are particles which
behave very differently from waves.


I have been claiming that for the whole time you have been drivelling about
your classical model.
What is more, my model based on that fact actually works!!!!!


Look:
You can do the double slit experiment with electrons.
(Or use a grid)
From the observed interference pattern, you can
measure the _wavelength_.
The wavelength of what? Of the electrons?
No. The wavelength of the _wave_ that is associated
with the electrons. This wave - whatever it is -
has all the characteristics of a wave.
It behaves like a wave.
All particles show this duality.


What is a 'particle', what is a 'wave', what is a 'field'?
What is matter?


So whatever light is, it has both a wave aspect
and a particle aspect. And when we measure the wavelength
of the light, we measure the wavelength of the _wave_.


I have cleared this up. It behaves like a ballistic particle in space whose
density is below the Wilson Threshold...otherwise it becomes a wave in a
dielectric medium.

You are babbling incoherent nonsense.
There is no point in questioning the wave-particle duality.
It is never either or. It is always both. In vacuum as
well as in a dense medium.

How would YOU know that... when nobody else does?


So if you insist that the "wavelengths" of the photons
are different from the associated wave, it doesn't matter.
It is in any case the wavelength of the _wave_ we
measure. And that wave behaves like a wave, and I have
shown how the ballistic theory predicts that wave
must behave.

No way out, Henry.


I don't need a way out of a totally unrelated predicament.


You are hand waving, Henry.
You haven't refuted one single of my arguments.
You haven't even tried.
The reason is obvious.
You can't.

Paul, your classical doppler argument is not related to the model we are using
to describe the ballistic movement of photons from moving stars.
They do not change intrinsically after leaving their source (except when
accelerating during extinction, when their intrinsic length and 'wavelength'
changes) .

According to the ballistic theory, the brightening
of a binary should be the inverse of the observed
Doppler shift of the wavelength.
It never is.


You really should get one of your brighter students to help you on this Paul.
You are showing signs of premature aging. You cannot overcome your
indoctrination.

See? :-)

"I won't try to refute any of your arguments
because you are showing signs of premature ageing". :-)

I think the whole thing is settled now.
Never did we observe what the ballistic theory predicts we should.

YOUR classical version of the BaTh is not the modern one.

Paul


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

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 23:13:55 GMT, "Hexenmeister"
wrote:


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

|
| So whatever light is, it has both a wave aspect
| and a particle aspect. And when we measure the wavelength
| of the light, we measure the wavelength of the _wave_.
|
|
| I have cleared this up. It behaves like a ballistic particle in space
whose
| density is below the Wilson Threshold...otherwise it becomes a wave in a
| dielectric medium.
|
| You are babbling incoherent nonsense.

He does, you should see his worbits. But then, you do too.

****ing fence sitting traitor...


| There is no point in questioning the wave-particle duality.

Why not?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...photonwave.gif


| It is never either or. It is always both. In vacuum as
| well as in a dense medium.

Bull****. You have no idea what phase is, proven liar.


|
| So if you insist that the "wavelengths" of the photons
| are different from the associated wave, it doesn't matter.
| It is in any case the wavelength of the _wave_ we
| measure. And that wave behaves like a wave, and I have
| shown how the ballistic theory predicts that wave
| must behave.
|
| No way out, Henry.
|
|
| I don't need a way out of a totally unrelated predicament.
|
|
| You are hand waving, Henry.

He does that. So do you.

| You haven't refuted one single of my arguments.
| You haven't even tried.
| The reason is obvious.
| You can't.
|
You haven't refuted one single of my arguments.
You haven't even tried.
The reason is obvious.
You can't.

| According to the ballistic theory, the brightening
| of a binary should be the inverse of the observed
| Doppler shift of the wavelength.
| It never is.
|
|
| You really should get one of your brighter students to help you on this
Paul.
| You are showing signs of premature aging. You cannot overcome your
| indoctrination.
|
| See? :-)
|
| "I won't try to refute any of your arguments
| because you are showing signs of premature ageing". :-)
|
| I think the whole thing is settled now.
| Never did we observe what the ballistic theory predicts we should.

Yep. BaTh is total crap like you, proven lying ****.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...son/worbit.JPG

Run it again. It is now FOOL proof.

At least it isn't Ritz's theory.

It's exactly the same method you used for Algol.


Androcles.




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

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.

George Dishman wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:15:23 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:

In article .com,
George Dishman wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:

You and George are producing these stupid figures becasue you are
using the
wrong model.

Paul and I are not using a model at all, we are applying
ballistic theory directly.


Henri,
Since George D has taken to calling me a liar,

Any time I do that, I back it up. The recent
example is where you denied you had originated
the question regarding the stop-start rifleman.
The Google reference to the the post in question
was supplied yet you still denied it.

snipping deceitfully,
and claiming that he
(sometimes) deliberately misrepresents his position,

That was your accusation, unsubstantiated.

I feel no
compunction in offerring
examples of his "work" sent to me in private previous conversations.

George D to JG during discussion of time dilation/length contraction
2/3/05
"You keep coming out with statements like this but you already know
that a gendanken _must_ (his emphasis) exhibit circular logic. If you
think it results in a contradiction, that immediately tells you you
have missed something in your analysis".

What a mindset! What breath-taking faith?

Neither, is is a fact of logic. If you describe a
scenario but then analyse it using a thought
experiment in which the results are predicted
solely by applying theory X, then the results
cannot contradict theory X unless that theory is
self-contradictory. It is nothing more than a
limitation of the technique.

This clearly shows that he
rejects ALL evidence and logical rebuttal of SR/GR, and not only
ACCEPTS circular logic as
a scientific tool, but DEMANDS that it be used!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, what it means is that any theory which is
not self-contradictory, such as SR or Ritz's
ballistic theory or LET, can only be rejected
on the basis of REAL experiments, not thought
experiments (gedanken).

................which is why his ruler MUST set his watch rate, AND his
watch second adjusts the length of THAT ruler, which adjusts the watch
rate etc, etc, etc
..............and round and round goes the circular logic, until the
believers are so dizzy they are stupified.

First we observe, then we deduce. We observe in
the Sagnac experiment that the speed of light
from a moving source is the same as when it is
at rest and from that and other REAL experiments,
special relativity is deduced logically.

This paragraph sums your approach up beautifully!
NOWHERE in the Sagnac is any measurement done on the "speed of light".
You PRESUME the "speed of light" to be constant, and then claim THAT
RRESUMPTION
for the change in the interference pattern caused by the machine's
rotation.
So to claim anything about the "speed of light" being "AN OBSERVATION"
in sagnac,
is the utmost twaddle.

That's why you and Henry are continually forced
to deny that experiments have been done or deny
that they produced the results they did, because
the logical deduction from those experiments is
at odds with your faith.

George

Jim G
c'=c+v

PS: How are the rivets on the plane?
Stopping and starting in mid-air every time the machine gun fires, must
be pretty
stressfull on them

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
| On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 23:13:55 GMT, "Hexenmeister"
| wrote:
| He does, you should see his worbits. But then, you do too.
|
| ****ing fence sitting traitor...

I know you are, no need to repeat it, you've made your **point**

| Yep. BaTh is total crap like you, proven lying ****.
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...son/worbit.JPG
|
| Run it again. It is now FOOL proof.

Ok, let me check... pause ... done.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...k/worb****.PNG

(One run with e = 0.89 , one with e = 0.99)

Not only does it still crash, I can't ****ing read black on blue
so I don't know if I mistyped anything.
If poor eyesight makes me a fool then I guess I'm a fool.
Why the **** do you **** about with colored text?
You told me you had that fixed too.
You are ****ing useless, Mr. "User Friendly" and you are still making your
*point*.


| At least it isn't Ritz's theory.
|
| It's exactly the same method you used for Algol.

****ing lying Wusselad, I used Kepler's equation M = E-e.sin(E), the
point I make is that Wabo thinks he's smarter than Newton or Kepler.
You are a ****ing worse liar than Tusselad, he's a nabo, you are a wabo.
Get the **** off your ego trip and do it properly, it's ****.

Androcles.