A Hitchiker's Guide to the EINSTEIN HOAX

It is true to say that every aspect of astronomy has always been and
still is firmly based on the assumption that all starlight reaching planet
Earth has traveled at precisely the same speed c, during its entire journey.
Now, investigations involving variable stars, along with a radically revised
Ballistic Theory of Light strongly suggest that this is not true and that
the speed of cosmic light is indeed very much dependent on the speed of its
source. This paper presents strong evidence for this alternative view and
suggests that the failure of astronomers to seriously question their
traditional belief has led to a general misinterpretation of most of the
illusory data they have collected. Plainly, much of modern astronomical
theory is built on faulty foundations. The following paper presents novel
concepts and far reaching discoveries that will hopefully rectify this
situation and put some sanity back into modern physics.
(note: this paper contains links to Vbasic .exe programs written by this
author. They cannot harm your computer but might need a Windows operating
system to run properly.)

INTRODUCTION.

Prior to 1905, light in all its forms was widely considered to be nothing
more than wavelike disturbances in an invisible medium called aether, which
occupied the whole of space. Its propagation was virtually identical to that
of sound except for a much higher speed and a transverse rather than
longitudinal wave displacement. Unlike sound, light was deemed to always
move at precisely the same speed 'c' with respect to the absolute reference
frame provided by the aether. However, many earlier attempts to measure the
Earth's speed through that mysterious medium had failed, giving rise to
serious questions. These were seemingly answered by physicist Hendrik
Lorentz who, in the late 19th century, supplemented established aether
principles with the novel concept that both length and time intervals were
similarly contracted by any movement relative to the aether. Accordingly,
rod lengths physically shortened and the passage of time physically slowed
by the same factor, such that any attempt to measure light speed (dimensions
L/T) would always produce the same value, c, irrespective of the observer's
absolute movement through the aether. His theory kept alive the aether
concept in spite of attempts by people such as Michelson and Morley, to
investigate its existence. (see eg., MMX) .
Others were not so happy, particularly after the discovery of the
photo-electric effect, which emphasized the particlate nature of light and
attracted renewed support for the old 'Corpuscular' or 'Ballistic' Theory.
This likened light 'quanta' to bullets fired from a gun...but this theory
was also rejected due to its apparent incompatibility with the wave aspects
of light and to conflicting results involving observations of binary star
behavior. In 1905, Albert Einstein entered the scene by publishing his
famous paper on what was to become known as Special Relativity (SR). This
was an ingenious proposal which temporarily put an end to arguments as to
whether or not the aether existed by effectively making it redundant. He
simply replaced Lorentz's conclusion that light speed would always be
measured as having the value c, with his second postulate (P2), which in
essence, quote, “ allows the reference frame of any observer to be declared
'stationary' such that any ray of light moves.... (in that frame).......with
the determined velocity 'c' whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or
moving source”. His claim was that each and every observer frame constituted
a kind of personal aether in which light always moves at precisely c
irrespective of source movement.
Naturally the theory was greeted with much skepticism since it represented a
radical departure from the traditional Newtonian view of the world and had
no obvious supporting evidence. As well, on closer inspection, it appeared
to be nothing more than a variation of LET, according to which measured
light speed was indeed always equal to c, irrespective of source or observer
movement. (Einstein himself admitted later that without an absolute aether,
his theory would collapse.) However Einstein produced an ingenious velocity
addition formula, which stated that if an object moves at speed u relative
to one observer, its speed relative to a second observer moving at v wrt the
former one is given by the formula: w = (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2) . For light, u = c
and therefore, w = (c+v)/(1+v/c) = c (c+v)/(c+v) = c !!!!...which is nothing
more than a mathematical restatement of his second postulate. With a simple
mathematical trick and by first assuming light speed to be always c, he
produced an equation that seemingly made his postulate mathematically
possible and consistent. But mere words do not constitute a physical law
and neither the postulate nor the velocity addition formula has been
verified by direct experiment.
Einstein's theory differs from LET in several fundamental ways. According to
Lorentz, lengths and time intervals are absolute in nature but vary
according to movement with respect to (wrt) the reference frame provided by
the all-encompasing aether. Einstein rejected the notion that intervals of
time or space were in any way intrinsic or absolute. Rather, he introduced
the novel concept that these quantities were products of measurement only.
They were frame dependent, contracting with relative movement in any
observer's 'personal aether frame' just as they did in Lorentz's 'single
aether' theory. Not surprisingly, LET and SR have the same equations,
although LET's contractions are real 'physical' changes whilst SR's were
purely observational...yet with 'real' consequences for any particular
observer. LET says a rod physically shrinks and a clock slows with absolute
movement. SR says nothing actually happens to a rod or clock during a speed
change but their measured properties will always be reduced by any movement
relative to the observer. Thus, the two theories can give different answers
for the same situation. It is not hard to see why Einstein's theory created
confusion and was initially rejected.
In summary, whilst Lorentz's theory provided a sound basis for both the
universality and source independence of light speed, Einstein's relied
solely on an unproven postulate. However, without an absolute spatial
reference, (an 'aetherlike medium'), the latter fails to provide a logical
argument or physical mechanism that might cause light from totally remote
and unrelated galaxies to reach a common speed in transit... particularly
one of fixed value with respect to a distant planet Earth, which might not
have even existed at the time of emission. The fact that all forms of EM
radiation take time to go from A to B gives them a conventional speed and
all speeds are frame dependent by definition. Normal logic demands that a
remote light source is the ONLY speed reference for its own emitted light.
Einstein claimed otherwise via his personal aether concept. The
Einstein/Lorentz approach clearly requires that a unique spatial reference
frame exists, in which case a consistent mathematical theory can be
formulated to describe subsequent interelations between length, time and
speed. But if one does not exist...BOTH THEORIES COLLAPSE! (Note, according
to SR, the mass of an object is also frame dependent). It would be left to
experimental physics to determine if Einstein's personal aether concept, was
at all credible...and after one hundred years of grappling with accuracy
limitations and interpretational nightmares, it appears that the jury is
still seeking a verdict. The following program illustrates the reliance of
source independency on the existence of an absolute spatial reference:
Demonstration of source independency. (A Vbasic program, Windows OS
required) www.scisite.info/einstein's_aether.exe
It is hard to fathom why, to this day, astronomy has maintained
complete confidence in Einstein's source independency postulate, when the
speed of stellar light has never been directly measured. Whether or not
some aspects of LET or SR are valid in the vicinity of large masses, it is
argued here that the postulate is counter intuitive and certainly wrong for
light traveling across 'empty' space. On Earth, the high speed of light
enables humans to confidently assume that what they see is a true account of
what actually happens but this is not generally true in astronomy because of
the large distances involved. Throughout the universe, a huge amount of
light energy is being continuously emitted by a wide range of sources moving
at different speeds relative to planet Earth. According to ballistic theory,
emitted light initially travels at c wrt its sourrce and at c+v towards
Earth, where v is the source speed at the instant of emission. Subsequently,
during travel over vast distances, the faster light encroaches on slower
light and may overtake it, meaning that observed sequences of cosmic events
might be very different from those which actually happened at the source. A
photograph taken over a few hours on Earth might include events and features
that occurred weeks or even years apart at the object's location.
Currently, astronomers make routine timing estimates based on the
principle of constant light speed across the whole of space. However, it is
inconceivable that nature was so kind as to make all speeds frame dependent
except that of light, just to make the astronomer's life a little easier.
According to the Ballistic Theory of Light (BaTh), the corrections should
take into account the varying speeds of light. Such a refinement has far
reaching consequences for astronomy, which has been wallowing under the
source independency cloud since its inception. A new term 'willusion' has
been created to describe an optical illusion brought about by light moving
at different speeds towards an observer. Currently, astronomers collect and
record vast amounts of willusory data and, largely because of Einstein's
second postulate, mistakenly accept it as an exact portrayal of distant
images and events. This leads to a fabrication of often outlandish and
fantastic theories in attempts to explain what they think they are seeing.
The real challenge for astronomers is to try to sift out scientific truths
from the mass of willusory data at their disposal. The revised ballistic
theory described below simplifies the interpretation of data and opens up a
Pandora's box full of opportunities for those who have the courage to
question the established views.
Walter Ritz, the main proponent of ballistic theory passed away not long
after Einstein's radical ideas swept the scientific world. Development of
BaTh more or less died with him although Russian workers including Vladimir
I. Sekerin maintained a strong interest. However, without the availability
of fast computers, unraveling willusory data was a formidable challenge.
Presented here is an upgraded version of a theory that has the potential to
revolutionize the whole of astronomy. Irrespective of claimed successes of
the Einstein/Lorentz theory in the lab or near large masses, evidence
obtained from studying variable star brightness curves strongly supports the
source dependency principle. It will be shown that claimed 'refutations' of
Ballistic Theory are fundamentally flawed and that direct support for any
aspect of Einstein's theory is sketchy at best. The scientific world can no
longer afford to ignore the fact that Einstein's unproven second postulate
is completely wrong.

For full article, see:
http://www.scisite.info/The_New_Ball..._of_Light.html

"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
...

For full article, see:
http://www.scisite.info/The_New_Ball..._of_Light.html

You posted the wrong link .. the one entitled "A HITCHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE
EINSTEIN HOAX" is here...

http://www.scisite.info/why_not_ballistic.html

Only it is written by "RM RABBIDGE. ASTC, Bsc.", with not a mention of Henry
Wilson contributing in any way.

Nor does Henry, in his verbatim, blatantly stolen version, give any credit
to Mr Rabbidge. He simply replaced RM RABBIDGE with his own name.

Henry has plagiarized Ralph';s work and has claimed it for his own .. simply
re-titling it and changing the authorship to be solely his own.

You're a thief, Henry !!

On Apr 12, 5:41*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
[snip all, unread]

Doesn't it just **** you off that you've been shouting for more than a
decade on here with not a single person saying they changed their mind
and now agrees with you?

More than a DECADE! All you have to show for it is a bunch of half
baked rants, and a persona that is toxic to serious discourse.

"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
...
http://www.scisite.info/The_New_Ball..._of_Light.html

This is a blatant copy of the work by "RM RABBIDGE. ASTC, Bsc." at

http://www.scisite.info/why_not_ballistic.html
( google has it cached at
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co....google.com.au
)

Entitled "A HITCHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE EINSTEIN HOAX"

Henry's stolen version even still has...

META NAME="AUTHOR" CONTENT="ralph rabbidge"
META NAME="CREATED" CONTENT="20100329;11135900"
META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="ralph rabbidge"
META NAME="CHANGED" CONTENT="20110413;10205814"

All he has done is changed the title and put himself as the author at the
end

There is no credit given to Ralph Rabbidge in the stolen document that Henry
claims was written by him, nor any mention of Henry contributing to the
paper written by Ralph Rabbidge.

Ralph is still posting links to his original article. . eg

http://www.spacekb.com/Uwe/Forum.asp...t-is-Ballistic

Interestingly .. Ralph (Rabbo) gives his email address as

===

===

Which Henry Wilson has claimed to be *his* email address .. eg see

http://www.inetbot.com/post/489083967_2398__Permanent%20Solution%20To%20Earth' s%20.html

===
Henry Wilson.
email
===

Unless, of course, Henry has been lying repeated all these years when he
claims in detail how he and Ralph are two different people.

Either way .. Henry is clearly shown as the dishonest fraudster that we all
know him to be.

Thanks for the proof Henry. Expect it to be deliberately thrown back at you
in replies to post you make. That and the degrees you forged.

You're a criminal Henry.

"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...
|
| It is true to say that every aspect of astronomy has always been and
| still is firmly based on the assumption that all starlight reaching planet
| Earth has traveled at precisely the same speed c, during its entire
journey.
| Now, investigations involving variable stars, along with a radically
revised
| Ballistic Theory of Light strongly suggest that this is not true and that
| the speed of cosmic light is indeed very much dependent on the speed of
its
| source. This paper presents strong evidence for this alternative view and
| suggests that the failure of astronomers to seriously question their
| traditional belief has led to a general misinterpretation of most of the
| illusory data they have collected.

If you think Saturn's rings and moons are some kind of illusion you must be
some kind of nutter.

Mike Varney aka "Inertial" wrote:

"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote:
http://www.scisite.info/The_New_Ballistic_Theory_of_Light.html

Varney, cranked himself but, still relatively@rest, he wrote:
This is a blatant copy of the work by "RM RABBIDGE. ASTC, Bsc." at
http://www.scisite.info/why_not_ballistic.html
Entitled "A HITCHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE EINSTEIN HOAX"
Henry's stolen version even still has...
META NAME="AUTHOR" CONTENT="ralph rabbidge"
There is no credit given to Ralph Rabbidge in the stolen
document that Henry claims was written by him, nor any mention
of Henry contributing to the paper written by Ralph Rabbidge.
Ralph is still posting links to his original article. . eg
Interestingly .. Ralph (Rabbo) gives his email address as
=== ===
Which Henry Wilson has claimed to be *his* email address .. eg see
Henry Wilson email:
Henry is clearly shown as the dishonest fraudster that we all
know him to be. That and the degrees he forged.
You're a criminal, Henry.

hanson wrote:
..... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHAHA...
Yo, Varney, you got Henry's symptoms right, but not
the cause for his, what you term "criminality"...

Henry plagiarized from his own doppelganger which
is cool. Lots of authors/actors have different stage names.
Henry essentially stole form himself .So Henry committed
legally no fraud nor any other crime.

Einstein, OTOH, was a true criminal, because he signed
his name to the 1905 paper which was the intellectual
property of his Xtian wife Mileva Maric.
http://tinyurl.com/Einsteins-1905-is-Mileva-Maric
Einstein also admitted in 1907 that he stole E=mc^2 from Pretto:
http://tinyurl.com/E-mc2-existed-before-Einstein
http://tinyurl.com/Pretto-beats-Einstein-to-Emc2
http://tinyurl.com/How-Einstein-stole-E-mc-2
http://tinyurl.com/Kwublee-views-Einsteins-Theft

So, Varney, the worst that you can indict Henry for is
for Henry Wilson's gross stupidity as he tries to be a
latter-day Einstein, which is due to the effect of Henry's
schizoid split Wilson/Rabbage personality, wherewith
Henry tries to make a hidden, nefariously religious
reference & connection to Einstein's "Rabbinical baggage"
.... or to some "Rabbi's age"...ahahaha...

Henry old chum, you should clarify whether the kikes
got to you before the Green *******s did, those Enviro
****s and Eco Turds, whom you were running with &
who turned you into the damaged goods that you now
are, with your sorry state that Varney is bitchen about.

Go Ballistic now, Henry, and clear your good name
and rescue your even better theory... unless you come
out of the closet & confess to be a "Green Rabbi"

Thanks for the laughs guys.... ahahaha... ahahanson

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 06:13:52 +0100, "Sky.Watcher"
wrote:


"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
|
| It is true to say that every aspect of astronomy has always been and
| still is firmly based on the assumption that all starlight reaching planet
| Earth has traveled at precisely the same speed c, during its entire
journey.
| Now, investigations involving variable stars, along with a radically
revised
| Ballistic Theory of Light strongly suggest that this is not true and that
| the speed of cosmic light is indeed very much dependent on the speed of
its
| source. This paper presents strong evidence for this alternative view and
| suggests that the failure of astronomers to seriously question their
| traditional belief has led to a general misinterpretation of most of the
| illusory data they have collected.

If you think Saturn's rings and moons are some kind of illusion you must be
some kind of nutter.

Get a life you clueless *******. Saturn is nowhere near far enough away to
be willusive.

Apart from short period binaries, serious willusions need a few LYs, at
least.

Why don't you study my paper aand learn a few facts?

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:39:12 +1000, "Inertial" wrote:

"Henry Wilson DSc." wrote in message
.. .
http://www.scisite.info/The_New_Ball..._of_Light.html

This is a blatant copy of the work by "RM RABBIDGE. ASTC, Bsc." at

http://www.scisite.info/why_not_ballistic.html
( google has it cached at
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co....google.com.au
)

Entitled "A HITCHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE EINSTEIN HOAX"

Henry's stolen version even still has...

META NAME="AUTHOR" CONTENT="ralph rabbidge"
META NAME="CREATED" CONTENT="20100329;11135900"
META NAME="CHANGEDBY" CONTENT="ralph rabbidge"
META NAME="CHANGED" CONTENT="20110413;10205814"

All he has done is changed the title and put himself as the author at the
end

There is no credit given to Ralph Rabbidge in the stolen document that Henry
claims was written by him, nor any mention of Henry contributing to the
paper written by Ralph Rabbidge.

Ralph is still posting links to his original article. . eg

http://www.spacekb.com/Uwe/Forum.asp...t-is-Ballistic

Interestingly .. Ralph (Rabbo) gives his email address as

===

===

Which Henry Wilson has claimed to be *his* email address .. eg see

http://www.inetbot.com/post/489083967_2398__Permanent%20Solution%20To%20Earth' s%20.html

===
Henry Wilson.
email
===

Unless, of course, Henry has been lying repeated all these years when he
claims in detail how he and Ralph are two different people.

Either way .. Henry is clearly shown as the dishonest fraudster that we all
know him to be.

Thanks for the proof Henry. Expect it to be deliberately thrown back at you
in replies to post you make. That and the degrees you forged.

You're a criminal Henry.

He can have some credit...After all, it's his website.

On Apr 13, 3:02*am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 06:13:52 +0100, "Sky.Watcher"
wrote:











"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
|
| It is true to say that every aspect of astronomy has always been and
| still is firmly based on the assumption that all starlight reaching planet
| Earth has traveled at precisely the same speed c, during its entire
journey.
| Now, investigations involving variable stars, along with a radically
revised
| Ballistic Theory of Light strongly suggest that this is not true and that
| the speed of cosmic light is indeed very much dependent on the speed of
its
| source. This paper presents strong evidence for this alternative view and
| suggests that the failure of astronomers to seriously question their
| traditional belief has led to a general misinterpretation of most of the
| illusory data they have collected.

If you think Saturn's rings and moons are some kind of illusion you must be
some kind of nutter.

Get a life you clueless *******. Saturn is nowhere near far enough away to
be willusive.

Apart from short period binaries, serious willusions need a few *LYs, at
least.

Why don't you study my paper aand learn a few facts?


So how come tests on Earth disprove ballistic theory?

On Apr 13, 5:47*am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 13, 3:02*am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:





On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 06:13:52 +0100, "Sky.Watcher"
wrote:

"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
.. .
|
| It is true to say that every aspect of astronomy has always been and
| still is firmly based on the assumption that all starlight reaching planet
| Earth has traveled at precisely the same speed c, during its entire
journey.
| Now, investigations involving variable stars, along with a radically
revised
| Ballistic Theory of Light strongly suggest that this is not true and that
| the speed of cosmic light is indeed very much dependent on the speed of
its
| source. This paper presents strong evidence for this alternative view and
| suggests that the failure of astronomers to seriously question their
| traditional belief has led to a general misinterpretation of most of the
| illusory data they have collected.

If you think Saturn's rings and moons are some kind of illusion you must be
some kind of nutter.

Get a life you clueless *******. Saturn is nowhere near far enough away to
be willusive.

Apart from short period binaries, serious willusions need a few *LYs, at
least.

Why don't you study my paper aand learn a few facts?

So how come tests on Earth disprove ballistic theory?

Einstein, since he was a kind and gentle person, would forgive all you
Einsteinhaters as part of his good and kind and loving nature,
isomorphic to that of jesus Christ himself. DOnt you all feel
ashamed ? I really pity you.

- TBTSLATHOTW