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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

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

(Paul Schlyter) wrote in :


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


I gave up counting when the score passed 1000.
Does the number only apply to a single post? Or is it cumulative?



--
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

"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