|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
How Much Longer Can SRians Ignore Their Fundamental Error.
"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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
How Much Longer Can SRians Ignore Their Fundamental Error.
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)? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
How Much Longer Can SRians Ignore Their Fundamental Error.
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! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
How Much Longer Can SRians Ignore Their Fundamental Error.
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
How Much Longer Can SRians Ignore Their Fundamental Error.
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
How Much Longer Can SRians Ignore Their Fundamental Error.
"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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
How Much Longer Can SRians Ignore Their Fundamental Error.
"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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
How Much Longer Can SRians Ignore Their Fundamental Error.
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
How Much Longer Can SRians Ignore Their Fundamental Error.
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Quasar Studies Keep Fundamental Physical Constant Constant (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | April 28th 04 07:46 PM |
Pioneer 10 rx error and tx frequencies? | ralph sansbury | Astronomy Misc | 132 | February 8th 04 09:45 PM |
Electric Gravity&Instantaneous Light | ralph sansbury | Astronomy Misc | 8 | August 31st 03 02:53 AM |
Correlation between CMBR and Redshift Anisotropies. | The Ghost In The Machine | Astronomy Misc | 172 | August 30th 03 10:27 PM |
localizing gamma ray bursts via interplanetary-spacecraft | Craig Markwardt | Astronomy Misc | 1 | July 16th 03 10:02 AM |