|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1391
|
|||
|
|||
Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?
"dlzc" wrote in message oups.com... : Dear Henri Wilson: : : On Jun 1, 3:11 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: : ... : George, being one of those very rare relativists : with a slightly open mind, has been of : considerable assistance to me in the development : of the BaTh. By offering constructive criticism : rather than purile negativeness he has probably : earned himself a mention in my Nobel acceptance : speech. : : By "puerile negativeness", do you mean like replying "pure science : fiction" anytime someone provides examples from reality that counter : your arguments? For example modulation of a light beam with a : signal... : : You get what you give, Henri. : : David A. Smith Wilson's dementia has reached an all time high. Why anyone would think c-v needed "developing" when it's only the PoR and agreed to by Einstein himself in his statement: "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" only shows Wilson's dementia has reached the dementia level of his opponents. |
#1392
|
|||
|
|||
Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?
In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
HW@ wrote on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 21:54:23 GMT : On Thu, 31 May 2007 22:30:10 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine wrote: In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson) HW@ wrote Download a copy and play around a bit. Take some white noise, passband filter it, and then modulate it as I described above. TEST things before you start calling people names. What load of crap. You don't even know what 'white light' means. Well, OK -- what does white light mean to you? I can think of several definitions, though the one that's probably most relevant in astronomy would be a body of a certain temperature, emitting a spectrum of wavelengths that we would consider as white. (The Sun might be a bit yellow, with its surface temperature of 5800K or so.) White light would not be white noise (mostly for technical reasons; the energy distributions per Hz are different), but it would be vaguely close. As for modulation -- an interesting question, but conceptually one can easily modulate white light using amplitude. I do not know what the maximum possible frequency would be before information is lost, though. Random noise...I suppose black body radiation would be good enough. Classical or quantum? www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother. -- #191, Windows Vista. It'll Fix Everything(tm). -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#1393
|
|||
|
|||
Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 21:02:52 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote: In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson) HW@ wrote As for modulation -- an interesting question, but conceptually one can easily modulate white light using amplitude. I do not know what the maximum possible frequency would be before information is lost, though. Random noise...I suppose black body radiation would be good enough. Classical or quantum? take your pick... www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother. |
#1394
|
|||
|
|||
Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 23:14:32 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote: HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in : On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 09:44:55 +0000 (UTC), bz wrote: HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in : TEST things before you start calling people names. What load of ****. You don't even know what 'white light' means. Your saying that demonstrates that you do not understand what 'white light' is. What do you think that white light is ? Why do you appear to think that modulated 'white noise' would not be a good model for what you get when you modulate white light? Who said I don't think that? You seemed to be casting aspersions. Do you talk like that every time you agree with someone? The math is identical. I just gave you the tools that will allow you to actually experiment on your computer system rather than just guessing. Are you afraid of real science? Try it. Prove me wrong. Then you can give us the exact parameters you used and we can replicate your experiment. Just try amplitude modulating white light from a thermal radiator such as a filament lamp. Done that when I was a kid. Easy enough to do right now. Take a flashlight beam, focus it on a thin tinfoil diaphram, take the diverging beam and collimate it with another lense. Across the room, intercept the beam and focus it on a photocell, amplify Had a pair of optical telephones when I was a kid that worked exactly like that. Here, looks like you can buy a kit and build your own.... I've built much better optical sensors than that.... from google search] [PDF] M K AC Kite Class PacksFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat Chest; 2 Measuring Cups with Lids; Magnifying Lens; Safety Goggles .... sunlight and metals in acid, build a light telephone, galvanize a nail and split ... www.acsupplyco.com/catalog1/2007/35-68.pdf - Similar pages [unquote] www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother. |
#1395
|
|||
|
|||
Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 23:42:41 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote: "dlzc" wrote in message roups.com... : Dear Henri Wilson: : : On Jun 1, 3:11 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: : ... : George, being one of those very rare relativists : with a slightly open mind, has been of : considerable assistance to me in the development : of the BaTh. By offering constructive criticism : rather than purile negativeness he has probably : earned himself a mention in my Nobel acceptance : speech. : : By "puerile negativeness", do you mean like replying "pure science : fiction" anytime someone provides examples from reality that counter : your arguments? For example modulation of a light beam with a : signal... : : You get what you give, Henri. : : David A. Smith Wilson's dementia has reached an all time high. Why anyone would think c-v needed "developing" when it's only the PoR and agreed to by Einstein himself in his statement: "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" only shows Wilson's dementia has reached the dementia level of his opponents. .....This senile old pom doesn't even know his own theory.... www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother. |
#1396
|
|||
|
|||
Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 16:02:54 -0700, dlzc wrote:
Dear Henri Wilson: On Jun 1, 3:11 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: ... George, being one of those very rare relativists with a slightly open mind, has been of considerable assistance to me in the development of the BaTh. By offering constructive criticism rather than purile negativeness he has probably earned himself a mention in my Nobel acceptance speech. By "puerile negativeness", do you mean like replying "pure science fiction" anytime someone provides examples from reality that counter your arguments? For example modulation of a light beam with a signal... You get what you give, Henri. Poor fool..... David A. Smith www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother. |
#1397
|
|||
|
|||
Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?
On Jun 1, 3:11 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote: .... George, being one of those very rare relativists with a slightly open mind, has been of considerable assistance to me in the development of the BaTh. By offering constructive criticism rather You refuse to accept the beiggest help of all George offers you though: the realization that your BaTh theory does not hold.... than purile negativeness he has probably earned himself a mention in my Nobel acceptance speech. *Ding!* *Ding!* Another 20 points in the Cracpot Index for Henri: 21. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize. Of course Henri already has a lot of Cracpot Index points. For instance: 37. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/ |
#1398
|
|||
|
|||
Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?
HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
: Just try amplitude modulating white light from a thermal radiator such as a filament lamp. Done that when I was a kid. Easy enough to do right now. Take a flashlight beam, focus it on a thin tinfoil diaphram, take the diverging beam and collimate it with another lense. Across the room, intercept the beam and focus it on a photocell, amplify Had a pair of optical telephones when I was a kid that worked exactly like that. Here, looks like you can buy a kit and build your own.... I've built much better optical sensors than that.... Then you concede that white light, from a thermal radiator such as a filament lamp, can be amplitude modulated? from google search] [PDF] M K AC Kite Class PacksFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat Chest; 2 Measuring Cups with Lids; Magnifying Lens; Safety Goggles .... sunlight and metals in acid, build a light telephone, galvanize a nail and split ... www.acsupplyco.com/catalog1/2007/35-68.pdf - Similar pages [unquote] -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap |
#1400
|
|||
|
|||
Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ... On Mon, 28 May 2007 09:18:40 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote: "Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message . .. On Sun, 27 May 2007 17:13:03 +0100, "George Dishman" ... George, (c+v+u). wavelength is constant. Therefore my equation works if Lambda_i is assumed to be the absolute value. Lambda_i is NOT the absolute value Henry, you just admitted that. Use the fixed ratio to change your equation to eliminate one of your unknowns and you can solve the problem. Just rewite to use Lambda_e instead of Lambda_i. If I do that I also have to introduce another velocity. No, you replace v_i and lambda_i with v_e and lambda_e which are the speed and wavelength at emission. lambda_e is know and v_e is what you want to find whereas v_i and lambda_i are both unknowns. Since lambda_e is your "absolute" wavelength, it is known and you then have a usable equation for the source speed. Hahaha! No need George. You need to learn the rules of simultaneous equations Henry, you cannot solve a set if there are more unknowns than you have independent equations. No need George. We know that [lambda x velocity] is constant. So that gives you your extra equation and you can use that to do the substitution above. Absolute values of Lambda for a great many spectral lines are well documented George. Wich part of "but that is NOT lambda_i" is beyond your comprehension? Lambda_e might not be Lambda_i.... Exactly. but nor is the velocity c+v. So the effect is cancelled out. So cancel it out in your equation and you get the right version. The equation is OK as it is. Sorry Henry, you need to learn some basic maths, you have two unknows in one equation so you can't solve it. Of course it affects the result because you need the speed in your equation. You have one unknown too many. I have both c+v and c-v. If the FREQUENCY of wavecrest arrival is assumed constant outside and inside the atmosphere, then my equation still holds. FREQUENCY doesn't appear in your equation so it doesn't hold. irrelevant... Don't be silly. If OWLS could be measured in the lab using a truly OW experiment with source at rest wrt observer, then it would be found to be c...or rather, c/n. Sagnac does that from a _moving_ source and finds the speed unchanged from when it is at rest. I have now explained how sagnac works. No you haven't. You have wittered about lateral displacement but that has no effect whatsoever on the phase. You have talked nonsense about arrows and pin that have no relation to the experiment at all. You talked about reflection speeds but in the regular polygonal layout we used for the analysis, the incident speed was c anyway so there can be no speed change, and you talked about path curvature in the rotating frame but that is second order and symetrical so cancels anyway. In the three years you have been trying, you haven't come up with a single sensible comment, much less an explanation, and you own diagram with a little algebra from me proved that ballistic theory predicts no fringe shift. Prove that sagnac works in remote space.... It is used in spacecraft inertial navigation systems and works with solid prisms where the speed must be c/n according to the "speed equalisation" extension to Ritz's theory. If it does, then my arrow theory holds. Your "arrow" nonsense isn't a theory, you have no equations, and even your handwaving doen't affect the speed of the arrow, it cannot explain Sagnac. If it doesn't, then my WEMF explains it. Your H-aether idea would explain Sagnac in an Earth lab - it is the old "fully dragged aether" model, but it doesn't work in space in setups using prisms where the medium is rotating with the craft. Whatever you personally consider is the 'physical mechanism' or whatever you want to call it, SR is correct. It always gives accurate results so it will not be retired any more than Newtonian physics was discarded when its limitations were solved. George, no prediction of SR has never been observed. ROFL, Henry you're an idiot. Sagnac, Shapiro Delay, Ives & Stilwell, Hafele & Keating, GPS, direct measures of the speed from spacecraft, planetary radar, the colour of gold, the magnetic field needed to make the picture on a colour CRT and many more _all_ demonstrate SR. yes George...and jesus christ walked on water and cured blind men with a wave of his hand. If you can repeat that demonstration, as science can with all those I listed, then I will believe in you. If anything, some of the predictions of LET are observed in accelerators, and even then for the wrong reasons.... LET is nothing more than SR with a bolt-on aether for people who haven't learned geometry. SR's 'geometry'' is no better than the theory itself. Well obviously, the geometry _is_ the theory. Its value is not known but that does not matter. It does matter because L_i is what appears in your equation, not L_e, and v_i is unknown. L_i.(c+v+u) appears in my equation. Exactly and they aren't known. Change it to eliminate one and you will get the correct equation. ...but I didn't actually include the 'u' because the HST is outside the atmosphere. But inside the heliopause. What is the speed of the solar wind Henry? Don't worry about it. Its effect cancels out anyway. Hardly, it determines 'u'. snip restored to prevent Henry distorting the context yet again Changing the coordinate system which is used to measure the wavelength can and does. coordinate lengths are absolute whether they are moving relatively or not. Obviously untrue since coordinates are dependent on human definitions. The spatial interval occupied by a rod is absolute. It can be taken anywhere, anyhow and used as the same standard LENGTH reference. That is proper length, not coordinate length. It's is 'absolute spatial interval'. When used as a length reference, it is at rest wrt the object being measured so you are compring the proper length, not the coordinate length. Has it ever occured to you that GR tells us absolutely nothing about gravity? Speak for yourself. It merely redefines space so that light speed will always appear to be 'c' even if it isn't. Ah, but we know it is. ;-) Do WE? Who is this WE who measured it George? Many people measured Henry, the 'we' who know is anyone who understands the fundamentals of physics and looks at the experiments without your religious pre-conceptions. George, I know that deep down you don't believe a word of SR. Sorry Henry, your insecurity is showing. Don't waste your time on childish debating tricks. Nobody is ever going to adopt Ritz's model because it gets almost everything wrong. I even gave you a list which you snipped: Whatever you personally consider is the 'physical mechanism' or whatever you want to call it, SR is correct. It always gives accurate results so it will not be retired any more than Newtonian physics was discarded when its limitations were solved. George, no prediction of SR has never been observed. ROFL, Henry you're an idiot. Sagnac, Shapiro Delay, Ives & Stilwell, Hafele & Keating, GPS, direct measures of the speed from spacecraft, planetary radar, the colour of gold, the magnetic field needed to make the picture on a colour CRT and many more _all_ demonstrate SR. The only experiment I can think of that doesn't falsify it is the MMX though if you can tell me any more I would be curious to know. George |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fixed for a price? | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 5 | May 18th 05 06:33 PM |
Spirit Fixed! | Greg Crinklaw | UK Astronomy | 1 | January 25th 04 02:56 AM |
Spirit Fixed! | Greg Crinklaw | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | January 24th 04 08:09 PM |
I think I got it fixed now. | Terrence Daniels | Space Shuttle | 0 | July 2nd 03 07:53 PM |
I think I got it fixed now. | Terrence Daniels | Policy | 0 | July 2nd 03 07:53 PM |