Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
Pentcho Valev
> mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 7:26 pm, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > Here some more recent info, from GPS and ISS (and some other clock-
> > > carrying satellites), look at table 1:
>
> > > http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
> > Stupid,
> > http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
> > is certainly not a confirmation of H&K's
> > experimental results.
>
> Of course it is!
>
> > The authors are more careful than you and some of
> > your SR buddies. They nowhere claim that the relativistic
> > effects are real:
> > "Thus on account of its velocity, a GPS satellite clock
> > *appears* to run slow by 7 µs per day.
> > At an altitude of 20,184 km, the clock *appears*
> > to run fast by 45 µs per day.
>
> [...]
>
> This is standard experimentalist jargon. "Appears" means "The
> evidence of our experiment shows." If you read more scientific
> papers you'd recognize the usage.
>
> > And they didn't bring back the airborne clocks to
> > the ground in order to compare their reading with
> > the ground clocks:
>
> Of course they did!
>
> "As shown, when the flight was completed the flight clock
> was theoretically ahead of the clock on the ground by 7.67 ns.
> The actual flight clock data, when compared to the ground
> clock before and after the flight, was ahead by 7.3 ± 1.7 ns.
> The uncertainty represents the one-sigma variation in the
> pre-flight clock comparison data over a span of 6 hours, which
> is equivalent to the time the clocks were separated. The two
> additional flight tests during this series produced similar results.
> It is significant that the error in the clock closure would have
> been nearly five times the uncertainty in the measured clock
> data had relativity not been taken into account."
>
> You will find similar results in http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1981/Vol13_37.pdf
> Look in particular at figure 44, which shows time before, during,
> and after a flight of an atomic clock compared to a ground-based
> reference clock.
>
> Steve Carlip
Bravo Honest Carlip! You have not left the sinking ship yet! Now you
will have to give some explanations:
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
"First, there is the effect of time dilation. The velocity of a moving
clock causes it to appear to run slow relative to a clock on the
Earth. GPS satellites revolve around the Earth with an orbital period
of 11.967 hours and a velocity of 3.874 km/s. Thus on account of its
velocity, a GPS satellite clock appears to run slow by 7 µs per day."
This must be special relativity isn't it Honest Carlip. Then why is
time dilation not reciprocal? Why should the clock on the earth run
FASTER, Honest Carlip? Perhaps the gravitational potential difference
between the two clocks should be taken into account but then this is
not special relativity is it Honest Carlip. Why don't you explain -
you are such a great theoretician (only Tom Roberts is greater than
you).
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
"Second, there is the effect of the gravitational redshift, a
frequency shift caused by the difference in gravitational potential.
(The term “redshift” is generic regardless of sign, but for a
satellite clock the frequency shift is actually a blueshift.) The
difference in gravitational potential between the altitude of the
orbit and the surface of the Earth causes the satellite clock to
appear to run fast. At an altitude of 20,184 km, the clock appears to
run fast by 45 µs per day."
Another enigma, Honest Carlip. The frequency varies with the
gravitational potential V in accordance with the equation:
f' = f(1+V/c^2)
and this equation seems to be consistent with Einstein's 1911 equation
showing how the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential:
c' = c(1+V/c^2)
But, Honest Carlip, if the frequency variation is due to speed of
light variation, then there is NO GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION, and
this can be seen even by Einsteinians sillier than you. And if there
is no gravitational time dilation, Honest Carlip, then what do your
brothers Einsteinians measure? Are they lying? Explain, Honest Carlip!
Is the frequency variation in a gravitational field due to speed of
light variation?
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
ukastronomy
group who don't seem interested or convinced by what you write why
not
just prepare an article for peer reviewed publication.
If the evidence is as overwhelming as you would have us believe the
well known scientific journals would jump at the opportunity to
publish your work.
Martin Nicholson
Daventry, England
PD
> > Look in particular at figure 44, which shows time before, during,
> > and after a flight of an atomic clock compared to a ground-based
> > reference clock.
>
> > Steve Carlip
>
> Bravo Honest Carlip! You have not left the sinking ship yet! Now you
> will have to give some explanations:
>
> http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
> "First, there is the effect of time dilation. The velocity of a moving
> clock causes it to appear to run slow relative to a clock on the
> Earth. GPS satellites revolve around the Earth with an orbital period
> of 11.967 hours and a velocity of 3.874 km/s. Thus on account of its
> velocity, a GPS satellite clock appears to run slow by 7 µs per day."
>
> This must be special relativity isn't it Honest Carlip. Then why is
> time dilation not reciprocal? Why should the clock on the earth run
> FASTER, Honest Carlip?
Because we're not dealing with two *inertial* reference frames. The
satellite is undergoing a *closed* orbit. This does not mean that
special relativity and time dilation cannot be used -- special
relativity can certainly be used in non-inertial reference frames.
However, special relativity says that the *mutual* time dilation that
you are looking for ONLY applies when BOTH reference frames are
inertial.
Your very shallow grasp on special relativity seems to trip you up
wherever you go.
Fortunately, it is not complicated, and it is not reserved for
geniuses and magicians. All you need to do is to find a decent book
and a decent teacher to interact with. The way you are going about it
is perhaps less than constructive.
Danny Milano
Hi,
Without relativistic corrections. Do you know how many error would
the GPS introduce? How many inches, meters or miles? I remember
Baird saying that GPS folks use the relativity equations just to make
them feel "in" and pure newtonian equation is as accurate as it gets.
If the differences is only a few inches. Then GPS is not proof of SR
at all.
D.
> > pva...@yahoo.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
PD
This is further demonstration that Baird doesn't know what he's
talking about. The degree to which GPS would be badly designed if GPS
were not included is a frequently reminded topic on this newsgroup. A
search will pull up loads of details.
Eric Gisse
Yea, because something like differential GPS that obtains your
position within a cm doesn't exist. Oh, and because a ~50,000 nanosec/
day clock drift relative to the satellite's orbit and Earth's surface
manifests a...let's see.
What's light speed? Roughly a foot/ns. That's an approximately 10
miles/day of drift without the general relativistic corrections.
Eric, why do you post under a pseudonym? The sock puppet is blindingly
obvious, as is your lack of education in physics.
[...]
Pentcho Valev
> > > Look in particular at figure 44, which shows time before, during,
> > > and after a flight of an atomic clock compared to a ground-based
> > > reference clock.
>
> > > Steve Carlip
>
> > Bravo Honest Carlip! You have not left the sinking ship yet! Now you
> > will have to give some explanations:
>
> > http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
> > "First, there is the effect of time dilation. The velocity of a moving
> > clock causes it to appear to run slow relative to a clock on the
> > Earth. GPS satellites revolve around the Earth with an orbital period
> > of 11.967 hours and a velocity of 3.874 km/s. Thus on account of its
> > velocity, a GPS satellite clock appears to run slow by 7 µs per day."
>
> > This must be special relativity isn't it Honest Carlip. Then why is
> > time dilation not reciprocal? Why should the clock on the earth run
> > FASTER, Honest Carlip?
>
> Because we're not dealing with two *inertial* reference frames. The
> satellite is undergoing a *closed* orbit. This does not mean that
> special relativity and time dilation cannot be used -- special
> relativity can certainly be used in non-inertial reference frames.
> However, special relativity says that the *mutual* time dilation that
> you are looking for ONLY applies when BOTH reference frames are
> inertial.
That is, when both frames are inertial it is a corollary of Einstein's
1905 false light postulate that either observer sees the other
observer's clock running slow. OK. Now one of the frames is not
inertial and the situation in Divine Albert's Divine Theory changes
dramatically: both obsevers see the non-inertial clock running slow
and the inertial clock running FAST. For instance, the non-inertial
clock is fixed on the periphery of a rotating disc, the inertial clock
is at rest outside the disc, in the vicinity of the periphery, and
each time the two clocks meet observers convince themselves that the
rotating (non-inertial) clock is slow and the non-rotating (inertial)
clock is FAST. Is that what the Divine Theory says? The problem is
that, by increasing the diameter of the disc while keeping the linear
speed of the periphery constant, one can make the rotating clock
virtually inertial and then it is not at all clear what Divine
Albert's Divine theory would say:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/65f07dc1694b1fcb?
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
ukastronomy
Danny Milano
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm not Eric. I think Eric just lacks imagination. We may
be living inside a simulation rule by math of some kind
for all we know.
D.
Sam Wormley
>
> Without relativistic corrections. Do you know how many error would
> the GPS introduce? How many inches, meters or miles? I remember
> Baird saying that GPS folks use the relativity equations just to make
> them feel "in" and pure newtonian equation is as accurate as it gets.
> If the differences is only a few inches. Then GPS is not proof of SR
> at all.
>
GNSS don't work worth a shit without accounting for relativistic
effects.
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html#Relativity
The Global Positioning System (GPS) uses accurate, stable atomic clocks in satellites and
on the ground to provide world-wide position and time determination. These clocks have
gravitational and motional frequency shifts which are so large that, without carefully
accounting for numerous relativistic effects, the system would not work. This paper
discusses the conceptual basis, founded on special and general relativity, for navigation
using GPS. Relativistic principles and effects which must be considered include the
constancy of the speed of light, the equivalence principle, the Sagnac effect, time
dilation, gravitational frequency shifts, and relativity of synchronization. Experimental
tests of relativity obtained with a GPS receiver aboard the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite will
be discussed. Recently frequency jumps arising from satellite orbit adjustments have been
identified as relativistic effects. These will be explained and some interesting
applications of GPS will be discussed.
Danny Milano
Hope Eric can directly address this. I mean. He really said in the
book
GPS uses relativity just to be in the fashion but newtonian
calculation
is enough. The book is in the car and can't find the quotes now.
Come on. Eric, defend what you said there.
D.
Sam Wormley
Don't be stooopid, Danny... who gives a shit what Baird says? Do a bit
of self education, Danny.
Sam Wormley
> I'm not Eric. I think Eric just lacks imagination. We may
> be living inside a simulation rule by math of some kind
> for all we know.
>
> D.
And it wouldn't hurt you do so some self education about
various branches of applied mathematics, Danny.
Danny Milano
>
> - Show quoted text -
I just don't know why a person like Baird who studies relativity
more than anyone can still say it in spite of discussing it with
you guys for decades. I wonder if anti-relativists are like
schrizophrenic or it is the relativists. But since relativists
are more in number, perhaps the other parties are the ]
schrizophrenic? I mean one can't know when one is crazy
unless compared to the rest. But then there are more
Christians than Relativists so the analogy may not hold
(Christians who believe in a God with two hands and two
feet that can cry and emote and talk and created the
universe is really out of his mind, aren't they).
D.
Spaceman
> I just don't know why a person like Baird who studies relativity
> more than anyone can still say it in spite of discussing it with
> you guys for decades. I wonder if anti-relativists are like
> schrizophrenic or it is the relativists.
Lets see,
A relativist says c+c = c
an anti-relativist usually says c+c = 2c.
The logical function of the relativist has been broken.
The anti-relativist is simply trying to keep things logical.
Now.
What side of logic are you on?
The illogical side, or the logical side.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Danny Milano
wrote:
More sophisticated Minkowski geometry puts constrain
on the speed of anything and it can do jedi mind trick
too. So c is the same in all inertial frames. This is the
magic of math. And since math plus the ensouling
primordial energy create reality. SR and GR may be
correct for all intent and purposes. Since QM is
also correct and it is not compabitle with the formers.
A third theory will encompass the rest and the third
theory may directly deal with the math realm where
the creative energy has its being. The Large
Hadron Collider will show us the way. Encompass
truth or be left behind in medieval newtonian dungeon.
I'll return again after 6 hours to wake you up from
your sleep in your lonely newtonian cave.
D.
Spaceman
> On Jul 16, 11:37 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
>> Danny Milano wrote:
>>> I just don't know why a person like Baird who studies relativity
>>> more than anyone can still say it in spite of discussing it with
>>> you guys for decades. I wonder if anti-relativists are like
>>> schrizophrenic or it is the relativists.
>>
>> Lets see,
>> A relativist says c+c = c
>> an anti-relativist usually says c+c = 2c.
>> The logical function of the relativist has been broken.
>> The anti-relativist is simply trying to keep things logical.
>> Now.
>> What side of logic are you on?
>> The illogical side, or the logical side.
>> :)
>
>
> More sophisticated Minkowski geometry puts constrain
> on the speed of anything and it can do jedi mind trick
> too.
<snipped rest of parrot babble>
Danny has lost logic and turned into a parrot also now.
Sorry Dan.
That was partially my fault you have become a parrot.
LOL
You might want to "re-check" your logic cpu.
It seems to have lost it's functionality.
Sam Wormley
>
> I just don't know why a person like Baird who studies relativity
> more than anyone can still say it in spite of discussing it with
> you guys for decades. I wonder if anti-relativists are like
> schrizophrenic or it is the relativists. But since relativists
> are more in number, perhaps the other parties are the ]
> schrizophrenic? I mean one can't know when one is crazy
> unless compared to the rest. But then there are more
> Christians than Relativists so the analogy may not hold
> (Christians who believe in a God with two hands and two
> feet that can cry and emote and talk and created the
> universe is really out of his mind, aren't they).
>
Not sure where you get this idea that Baird "studies relativity
more than anyone". And just who are these "anti-relativists" you
speak of.
It's interesting that special relativity has been around
for more than a hundred years--as much of a "law" of
physics an any other law. It has been confirmed literally
thousands of experiments and observations, is essential
in the designs of advance technology, such as particle
accelerators.
What's to question about it?
Granted, the person in the street doesn't understand it,
but many of the less scientifically educated can't tell you
the difference between an atom and a molecule either.
So authors like Eric Baird, take advantage of the situation
and make some money! As far as I can tell Baird does NOT
understand relativity at all.
Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Einsteins original 1905 papers are accessible... give'm a read.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
Danny, there has never been a prediction of relativity that was
contradicted by an observation. Relativity has been an accurate
model of physical reality on the macro and cosmic scales for more
than a hundred years.
PD
wrote:
> Danny Milano wrote:
> > I just don't know why a person like Baird who studies relativity
> > more than anyone can still say it in spite of discussing it with
> > you guys for decades. I wonder if anti-relativists are like
> > schrizophrenic or it is the relativists.
>
> Lets see,
> A relativist says c+c = c
No he doesn't.
A physicist doesn't use _ + _ for velocities. He uses ( _ + _ )/(1 +
_*_/c^2).
You say that's silly, and that like combined with like should ALWAYS
be just +, and you say that's "basic math".
Physicists say that's simply wrong, no matter what Spaceman thinks
should be.
Spaceman
> On Jul 16, 10:37 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
>> Danny Milano wrote:
>>> I just don't know why a person like Baird who studies relativity
>>> more than anyone can still say it in spite of discussing it with
>>> you guys for decades. I wonder if anti-relativists are like
>>> schrizophrenic or it is the relativists.
>>
>> Lets see,
>> A relativist says c+c = c
>
> No he doesn't.
> A physicist doesn't use _ + _ for velocities. He uses ( _ + _ )/(1 +
> _*_/c^2).
(c+c)/(1 + c*c/c^2) = ????
You love that sad assed math huh?
LOL
> You say that's silly, and that like combined with like should ALWAYS
> be just +, and you say that's "basic math".
Again PD thinks a + sign means combined in basic math
instead of add.
LOL
> Physicists say that's simply wrong, no matter what Spaceman thinks
> should be.
Relativists use the limited math of your silly transform to
prove the basic math is wrong.
Again, the "proof" is wrong since it is based upon
the math that is proven wrong by the proof.
LOL
Poor PD..
He still does not get how stupid that actually is.
Brainwashed beyond help.
LOL
PD
wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > On Jul 16, 10:37 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> > wrote:
> >> Danny Milano wrote:
> >>> I just don't know why a person like Baird who studies relativity
> >>> more than anyone can still say it in spite of discussing it with
> >>> you guys for decades. I wonder if anti-relativists are like
> >>> schrizophrenic or it is the relativists.
>
> >> Lets see,
> >> A relativist says c+c = c
>
> > No he doesn't.
> > A physicist doesn't use _ + _ for velocities. He uses ( _ + _ )/(1 +
> > _*_/c^2).
>
> (c+c)/(1 + c*c/c^2) = ????
>
> You love that sad assed math huh?
Nothing sad assed about it. It actually works when you try to use it
and compare the result to something *measured*. The one that doesn't
work (and here _ + _ doesn't work so good) is the one that's sad-
assed. Your "basic math" works fine for adding apples and dollars and
Spaceman screw-ups. It just doesn't work fine for velocities. Oh,
sure, you can ADD 50,000 mph to 30,000 mph to get a NUMBER that is
80,000 mph. But it won't correspond to what is *measured*.
Spaceman
> Nothing sad assed about it. It actually works when you try to use it
> and compare the result to something *measured*. The one that doesn't
> work (and here _ + _ doesn't work so good) is the one that's sad-
> assed. Your "basic math" works fine for adding apples and dollars and
> Spaceman screw-ups. It just doesn't work fine for velocities. Oh,
> sure, you can ADD 50,000 mph to 30,000 mph to get a NUMBER that is
> 80,000 mph. But it won't correspond to what is *measured*.
LOL
Poor PD, he does not get that if an object is moving 50,000 miles + 30,000
miles within one hour. It is 80,000 miles per hour.
And such is true about any such "additions" of miles "per" hour.
Poor PD, he actually does think the basic math is wrong.
and also thinks "basic math" proves the basic math is wrong.
ROFLOL
PD
wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > Nothing sad assed about it. It actually works when you try to use it
> > and compare the result to something *measured*. The one that doesn't
> > work (and here _ + _ doesn't work so good) is the one that's sad-
> > assed. Your "basic math" works fine for adding apples and dollars and
> > Spaceman screw-ups. It just doesn't work fine for velocities. Oh,
> > sure, you can ADD 50,000 mph to 30,000 mph to get a NUMBER that is
> > 80,000 mph. But it won't correspond to what is *measured*.
>
> LOL
> Poor PD, he does not get that if an object is moving 50,000 miles + 30,000
> miles within one hour. It is 80,000 miles per hour.
Why, no, no it's not, Spaceman. Direct measurement of the velocities
shows this is NOT the case.
No amount of your saying, "But... but... but... it HAS to be!" changes
those measurements.
Spaceman
> On Jul 16, 12:56 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
>> PD wrote:
>>> Nothing sad assed about it. It actually works when you try to use it
>>> and compare the result to something *measured*. The one that doesn't
>>> work (and here _ + _ doesn't work so good) is the one that's sad-
>>> assed. Your "basic math" works fine for adding apples and dollars
>>> and Spaceman screw-ups. It just doesn't work fine for velocities.
>>> Oh, sure, you can ADD 50,000 mph to 30,000 mph to get a NUMBER that
>>> is 80,000 mph. But it won't correspond to what is *measured*.
>>
>> LOL
>> Poor PD, he does not get that if an object is moving 50,000 miles +
>> 30,000 miles within one hour. It is 80,000 miles per hour.
>
> Why, no, no it's not, Spaceman. Direct measurement of the velocities
> shows this is NOT the case.
Then you apparently did not add "those speeds".
But of course we know you have a problem with
your dillusion of time slowing because of speed so you are also
not using the same "single standard" for an "hour" for each speed
to begin with.
No wonder you are so lost.
You lost the science of measurement and still can't tell.
LOL
Poor PD thinks mile + mile does not equal 2 miles.
John C. Polasek
The hell they would.
Odysseus
<1c215f30-2a5e-4da0...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
PD <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> [...] The degree to which GPS would be badly designed if GPS were not
> included is a frequently reminded topic on this newsgroup. A search
> will pull up loads of details.
Badly designed or otherwise, GPS without GPS wouldn't be GPS at all,
would it? What do you mean by "not included"?
--
Odysseus
PD
> In article
> <1c215f30-2a5e-4da0-99ba-7ffd9ce32...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
>
> PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > [...] The degree to which GPS would be badly designed if GPS were not
> > included is a frequently reminded topic on this newsgroup. A search
> > will pull up loads of details.
>
> Badly designed or otherwise, GPS without GPS wouldn't be GPS at all,
> would it? What do you mean by "not included"?
Sorry, bad typo. Meant to say, "The degree to which GPS would be badly
designed if relativity were not included is a frequently reminded
topic on this newsgroup."
Sue...
> In article
> <1c215f30-2a5e-4da0-99ba-7ffd9ce32...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
> <snip>
>
> > [...] The degree to which GPS would be badly designed if GPS were not
> > included is a frequently reminded topic on this newsgroup. A search
> > will pull up loads of details.
>
wouldn't be GPS at all,
> would it? What do you mean by "not included"?
That is a typo.
The subject line refers to Special Relativity (SR)
Relativity
The Special and General Theory
--Albert Einstein
http://www.bartleby.com/173/
Sue...
Survival kit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emitter_theory
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
>
> --
> Odysseus
Androcles
"John C. Polasek" <jpol...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:un6t74defnospclbb...@4ax.com...
Nicholson has his head up his arse again, try to look like Schwartz.
Danny Milano
> > Hi,
>
> > Without relativistic corrections. Do you know how many error would
> > the GPS introduce? How many inches, meters or miles? I remember
> > Baird saying that GPS folks use the relativity equations just to make
> > them feel "in" and pure newtonian equation is as accurate as it gets.
> > If the differences is only a few inches. Then GPS is not proof of SR
> > at all.
>
> This is further demonstration that Baird doesn't know what he's
> talking about. The degree to which GPS would be badly designed if relativity
> were not included is a frequently reminded topic on this newsgroup. A
> search will pull up loads of details.
Reviewing his book. Baird didn't mention that the GPS didn't use
SR. He just said that GR effect like gravitational time dilation can
be modeled newtonianly without the spacetime concept. See:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f851fbf1e44a85c8#
I wonder if newtonian explanation of gravitational time dilation
can be falsified.
D.
Eric Gisse
[snip]
Why do you care about what Baird thinks? Baird is an idiot who knows
nothing about physics.
I mean, that's assuming you aren't Baird. The term sockpuppet exists
for a reason.
PD
No, it's not virtually inertial. It's only inertial if you look for a
very small line segment of the path.
What distinguishes the two clocks is the path they take between two
common events. For example, in the twin paradox the two events are the
twins' departure from each other and their reunion. What's different
between them is the different path between the two twins between those
two events. Now, if you only look at a small segment of their trips
and remark that they look similar, this is true, but misses the point
entirely.
> and then it is not at all clear what Divine
> Albert's Divine theory would say:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
wrote in sci.astro:
> PentchoValev - why not peer reviewed publication?"
They did jump but for different reasons. Philip Ball, the editor of
Nature, even found it suitable to convert so much jumping into money
and wrote a book about me:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sun-Moon-Corrupted-Philip-Ball/dp/1846271088
"The Sun and Moon Corrupted" by Philip Ball
I am trying to counteract but without much success:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/66743bacba47371c?
So my countless attempts to publish in "peer-reviewed" journals
brought calamity on me and fortune on Philip Ball. Why should I
continue?
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
ukastronomy
> On Jul 16, 4:53 pm, ukastronomy <martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote in sci.astro:
>
> > PentchoValev - why not peer reviewed publication?"
>
> > Instead of endlessly pumping out the same material to people in this
> > group who don't seem interested or convinced by what you write why not
> > just prepare an article for peer reviewed publication.
>
> > If the evidence is as overwhelming as you would have us believe the
> > well known scientific journals would jump at the opportunity to
> > publish your work.
>
> > Martin Nicholson
> > Daventry, England
>
> They did jump but for different reasons. Philip Ball, the editor of
> Nature, even found it suitable to convert so much jumping into money
> and wrote a book about me:
>
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sun-Moon-Corrupted-Philip-Ball/dp/1846271088
> "The Sun and Moon Corrupted" by Philip Ball
>
> I am trying to counteract but without much success:
>
>
> So my countless attempts to publish in "peer-reviewed" journals
> brought calamity on me and fortune on Philip Ball. Why should I
> continue?
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
10/10 for bothering to reply to my question - I didn't think you would
so thank you.
I still don't understand why you bother posting similar material to
these groups again and again and again. The people here are not the
people you need to convince and the danger is that you are seen as
obsessed with the matter to the exclusion of many other, equally
interesting, scientific issues/cover-ups/errors.
Please share your motivation with the group.
--- -. dotat
<pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jul 16, 4:53�pm, ukastronomy <martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk>
>wrote in sci.astro:
>> PentchoValev - why not peer reviewed publication?"
>>
>> Instead of endlessly pumping out the same material to people in this
>> group who don't seem interested or convinced by what you write why not
>> just prepare an article for peer reviewed publication.
>>
>> If the evidence is as overwhelming as you would have us believe the
>> well known scientific journals would jump at the opportunity to
>> publish your work.
>>
>> Martin Nicholson
>> Daventry, England
>
>They did jump but for different reasons. Philip Ball, the editor of
>Nature, even found it suitable to convert so much jumping into money
>and wrote a book about me:
>
>http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sun-Moon-Corrupted-Philip-Ball/dp/1846271088
>"The Sun and Moon Corrupted" by Philip Ball
Hmmm. 27 used ones on offer at Amazon.
Everybody wants to get rid of, obviously.
You are not that interesting, Pentcho.
w.
Pentcho Valev
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 06:50:09 -0700 (PDT), Pentcho Valev
>
> <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 16, 4:53 pm, ukastronomy <martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk>
> >wrote in sci.astro:
> >> PentchoValev - why not peer reviewed publication?"
>
> >> Instead of endlessly pumping out the same material to people in this
> >> group who don't seem interested or convinced by what you write why not
> >> just prepare an article for peer reviewed publication.
>
> >> If the evidence is as overwhelming as you would have us believe the
> >> well known scientific journals would jump at the opportunity to
> >> publish your work.
>
> >> Martin Nicholson
> >> Daventry, England
>
> >They did jump but for different reasons. Philip Ball, the editor of
> >Nature, even found it suitable to convert so much jumping into money
> >and wrote a book about me:
>
> > http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sun-Moon-Corrupted-Philip-Ball/dp/1846271088
> >"The Sun and Moon Corrupted" by Philip Ball
>
> Hmmm. 27 used ones on offer at Amazon.
> Everybody wants to get rid of, obviously.
> You are not that interesting, Pentcho.
Yes in the intepretation of Philip Ball I am not at all interesting.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
wrote:
> On 18 Jul, 14:50, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 16, 4:53 pm, ukastronomy <martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk>
> > wrote in sci.astro:
>
>
> > > Instead of endlessly pumping out the same material to people in this
> > > group who don't seem interested or convinced by what you write why not
> > > just prepare an article for peer reviewed publication.
>
> > > If the evidence is as overwhelming as you would have us believe the
> > > well known scientific journals would jump at the opportunity to
> > > publish your work.
>
> > > Martin Nicholson
> > > Daventry, England
>
> > They did jump but for different reasons. Philip Ball, the editor of
> > Nature, even found it suitable to convert so much jumping into money
> > and wrote a book about me:
>
> > http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sun-Moon-Corrupted-Philip-Ball/dp/1846271088
> > "The Sun and Moon Corrupted" by Philip Ball
>
> > I am trying to counteract but without much success:
>
>
> > So my countless attempts to publish in "peer-reviewed" journals
> > brought calamity on me and fortune on Philip Ball. Why should I
> > continue?
>
> > Pentcho Valev
> > pva...@yahoo.com
>
> 10/10 for bothering to reply to my question - I didn't think you would
> so thank you.
>
> I still don't understand why you bother posting similar material to
> these groups again and again and again. The people here are not the
> people you need to convince and the danger is that you are seen as
> obsessed with the matter to the exclusion of many other, equally
> interesting, scientific issues/cover-ups/errors.
>
> Please share your motivation with the group.
Please consider the following quotation but pay some more attention to
what is said about "later writers":
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."
We have a typical Goebbels' situation: "later writers" have repeated a
lie countless times and the world is now used to it, although the
truth is almost obvious. What can I do? Repeating the obvious truth
seems to be the only possible reaction. If we lived in Big Brother's
world, your question would be: "I still don't understand why you
bother posting 2+2=4 to these groups again and again and again":
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
George Orwell "1984": "In the end the Party would announce that two
and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable
that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise,
but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two
and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the
past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist
only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
kduc
> Please consider the following quotation but pay some more attention to
[ ... ]
> only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"
Vous �tes un clown triste, frustr� et vos motivations sont peu claires
malgr� ce que vous en dites.
O� sont vos r�ponses argument�es � moki et � tous les intervenants qui
eux argumentent et vous ont un million de fois montr� que vous vous
�gariez ?
Les trois ou quatre messages que vous postez inlassablement ne
montrent qu'une chose : que vous n'en comprenez pas la teneur ni ne
savez les replacer dans leur contexte.
Si vous avez tant de probl�mes � comprendre cela, quelle confiance
peut-on avoir dans votre compr�hension de la physique ?
--
kd
PD
> On Jul 18, 4:07 pm, ukastronomy <martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 18 Jul, 14:50, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 16, 4:53 pm, ukastronomy <martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk>
> > > wrote in sci.astro:
>
> > > > Pentcho Valev - why not peer reviewed publication?"
>
> > > > Instead of endlessly pumping out the same material to people in this
> > > > group who don't seem interested or convinced by what you write why not
> > > > just prepare an article for peer reviewed publication.
>
> > > > If the evidence is as overwhelming as you would have us believe the
> > > > well known scientific journals would jump at the opportunity to
> > > > publish your work.
>
> > > > Martin Nicholson
> > > > Daventry, England
>
> > > They did jump but for different reasons. Philip Ball, the editor of
> > > Nature, even found it suitable to convert so much jumping into money
> > > and wrote a book about me:
>
> > >http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sun-Moon-Corrupted-Philip-Ball/dp/1846271088
> > > "The Sun and Moon Corrupted" by Philip Ball
>
> > > I am trying to counteract but without much success:
>
>
> > > So my countless attempts to publish in "peer-reviewed" journals
> > > brought calamity on me and fortune on Philip Ball. Why should I
> > > continue?
>
> > > Pentcho Valev
> > > pva...@yahoo.com
>
> > 10/10 for bothering to reply to my question - I didn't think you would
> > so thank you.
>
> > I still don't understand why you bother posting similar material to
> > these groups again and again and again. The people here are not the
> > people you need to convince and the danger is that you are seen as
> > obsessed with the matter to the exclusion of many other, equally
> > interesting, scientific issues/cover-ups/errors.
>
> > Please share your motivation with the group.
>
> Please consider the following quotation but pay some more attention to
> what is said about "later writers":
>
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
> John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
> evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
> universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
> relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
> WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
> POSTULATE."
>
That may be the case, but the acceptance of relativity does not hinge
on the MMX. The MMX *may* have offered a peek that inspired the guess
that Einstein made (though that isn't historically clear either), but
what sealed relativity versus the emission theory of light are two
happenstances that had nothing to do with the MMX.
1. A number of other experimental consequences that were predicted by
SR that turned out to be right.
2. A number of experimental consequences that were predicted by the
emission theory of light that turned out to be wrong.
The fact that the MMX alone cannot discriminate between the two
theories is irrelevant.
I offered this parable before:
A plate on a table had a cloth over it that obscured some objects on
the plate. Einstein walked up to the table, peered at the cloth and
the veiled shapes under it and said, "It's a piece of cake and an
apple." Valev stood nearby and spluttered, "Wait! You can't tell that!
It could just as well be a block of cheese and a spoon! It could be a
toy truck and a stuffed rabbit!"
The next day, someone walked up and uncovered the plate and indeed
there was a piece of cake and an apple.
Valev rushed up and grabbed the cloth and covered the plate once more.
"No fair!" he cried. "You have to judge what's on the plate when it
was covered! It could just as well be a block of cheese and a spoon!
It could be a toy truck and a stuffed rabbit! A piece of cake and an
apple, indeed!"
PD
--- -. dotat
<pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jul 18, 4:07�pm, ukastronomy <martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> On 18 Jul, 14:50, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jul 16, 4:53�pm, ukastronomy <martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk>
>> > wrote in sci.astro:
>>......................
>> I still don't understand why you bother posting similar material to
>> these groups again and again and again. The people here are not the
>> people you need to convince and the danger is that you are seen as
>> obsessed with the matter to the exclusion of many other, equally
>> interesting, scientific issues/cover-ups/errors.
>>
>> Please share your motivation with the group.
>
>Please consider the following quotation but pay some more attention to
>what is said about "later writers":
>
>http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
>John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
>evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
>universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
>relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
>WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
>POSTULATE."
It's history. History deals about things which are over and gone.
While history may be quite interesting if one cares,
the main purpose of history is to feed the historians.
Pentcho, we are living in 2008 now. Wake up.
>
>We have a typical Goebbels' situation: "later writers" have repeated a
>lie countless times and the world is now used to it, although the
>truth is almost obvious. What can I do? Repeating the obvious truth
>seems to be the only possible reaction.
>.....
What truth, Pentcho?
You have not demonstrated a single little tiny bit of truth yet.
Even hanson is better, regarding that.
hanson says, relativity is there to boost "Einstein Watch" sales:
http://www.wackyplanet.com/einstein-relativity-watch.html
How right he is.
w.
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> They did jump but for different reasons. Philip Ball, the editor of
> Nature, even found it suitable to convert so much jumping into money
> and wrote a book about me:
>
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sun-Moon-Corrupted-Philip-Ball/dp/1846271088
> "The Sun and Moon Corrupted" by Philip Ball
So, are you Warren Beatty, or Kris Kirstofferson?
Socks
Puppet_Sock
[snips]
> "Einstein Watch"
http://www.wackyplanet.com/einstein-relativity-watch.html
That watch pulls down my pants and taunts me.
Socks
jmfbahciv
Perhaps you should try to publish in the Congressional Record.
/BAH
Dr. Henri Wilson
there are none.
>2. A number of experimental consequences that were predicted by the
>emission theory of light that turned out to be wrong.
They have all been shown to be wrong.
>The fact that the MMX alone cannot discriminate between the two
>theories is irrelevant.
The MMX is just one of many experiments that supports BaTh.
>I offered this parable before:
>A plate on a table had a cloth over it that obscured some objects on
>the plate. Einstein walked up to the table, peered at the cloth and
>the veiled shapes under it and said, "It's a piece of cake and an
>apple." Valev stood nearby and spluttered, "Wait! You can't tell that!
>It could just as well be a block of cheese and a spoon! It could be a
>toy truck and a stuffed rabbit!"
>The next day, someone walked up and uncovered the plate and indeed
>there was a piece of cake and an apple.
>Valev rushed up and grabbed the cloth and covered the plate once more.
>"No fair!" he cried. "You have to judge what's on the plate when it
>was covered! It could just as well be a block of cheese and a spoon!
>It could be a toy truck and a stuffed rabbit! A piece of cake and an
>apple, indeed!"
...and jesus christ cured blind men with a wave of his hand........
Moron!
>PD
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible unfortunates. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
Dr. Henri Wilson
>On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 06:50:09 -0700 (PDT), Pentcho Valev
><pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 16, 4:53 pm, ukastronomy <martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>wrote in sci.astro:
>>> PentchoValev - why not peer reviewed publication?"
>>>
>>> Instead of endlessly pumping out the same material to people in this
>>> group who don't seem interested or convinced by what you write why not
>>> just prepare an article for peer reviewed publication.
>>>
>>> If the evidence is as overwhelming as you would have us believe the
>>> well known scientific journals would jump at the opportunity to
>>> publish your work.
>>>
>>> Martin Nicholson
>>> Daventry, England
>>
>>They did jump but for different reasons. Philip Ball, the editor of
>>Nature, even found it suitable to convert so much jumping into money
>>and wrote a book about me:
>>
>>http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sun-Moon-Corrupted-Philip-Ball/dp/1846271088
>>"The Sun and Moon Corrupted" by Philip Ball
>
>Hmmm. 27 used ones on offer at Amazon.
>Everybody wants to get rid of, obviously.
>You are not that interesting, Pentcho.
Every group has its extremists. Pentcho is ours.
His tactic is to continually repeat the message in order that is might get
through to innocent newcomers. He is like a demonstrator that always holds up
the same old banner.
In his case, the banner is usually correct.
Keep it up Pentcho! Hit 'em hard!
PD
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:17:00 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >That may be the case, but the acceptance of relativity does not hinge
> >on the MMX. The MMX *may* have offered a peek that inspired the guess
> >that Einstein made (though that isn't historically clear either), but
> >what sealed relativity versus the emission theory of light are two
> >happenstances that had nothing to do with the MMX.
> >1. A number of other experimental consequences that were predicted by
> >SR that turned out to be right.
>
> there are none.
>
> >2. A number of experimental consequences that were predicted by the
> >emission theory of light that turned out to be wrong.
>
> They have all been shown to be wrong.
>
> >The fact that the MMX alone cannot discriminate between the two
> >theories is irrelevant.
>
> The MMX is just one of many experiments that supports BaTh.
>
"Henry", as a big of tactical advice, if you're going to mount a
disinformation campaign, it's extremely important to do so from a
position of credibility. Since you are a known and storied
pathological liar, and since you have freely admitted that you have
read nothing which you attempt to discredit, and have been shown to be
generally incompetent in the subject innumerable times, you may find
your position to be less than ideal for the attempt.
PD
Dr. Henri Wilson
Draper, your defence has sunk to such a low level that your only remaining
argument is to persistently call me a liar. Why don't you behave like a man and
admit defeat.
No matter what you say or think, there is no doubt that Einsteinian relativity
is now known to be pure nonsense from start to finish.
PD
Because you are. There's no point in making an argument with someone
who is completely uninterested in truth. There is no point in making
an argument to a religious zealot. There is no point in making an
argument to a shameless liar who has not a single care for the
integrity of what he says.
An argument is a worthwhile strategy for someone who would be
embarrassed to insist the sky is pink after it is made plain that's an
incorrect statement. But you are wholly incapable of being embarrassed
-- a trait that is not uncommon among those who have no personal
dignity remaining.
> Why don't you behave like a man and
> admit defeat.
> No matter what you say or think, there is no doubt that Einsteinian relativity
> is now known to be pure nonsense from start to finish.
See? There's another lie. You say it is now known. By whom? Names,
please.
>
> >PD
>
> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Eric Gisse
Why? You are a liar.
Your name is not Henri Wilson. You do not have any of the
certifications in your signature. When asked for proof of
certifications in the past, you presented bad forgeries. You routinely
lie about experimental evidence.
Dr. Henri Wilson
Well I had better stop wasting time arguing with one then.
>
>An argument is a worthwhile strategy for someone who would be
>embarrassed to insist the sky is pink after it is made plain that's an
>incorrect statement. But you are wholly incapable of being embarrassed
>-- a trait that is not uncommon among those who have no personal
>dignity remaining.
>
>> Why don't you behave like a man and
>> admit defeat.
>> No matter what you say or think, there is no doubt that Einsteinian relativity
>> is now known to be pure nonsense from start to finish.
>
>See? There's another lie. You say it is now known. By whom? Names,
>please.
>
>>
>> >PD
>>
>> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>>
>> All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible unfortunates. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
PD
Promises, promises. Is this another lie, "Dr." "Henri"? Fifty bucks
says you can't do it.
>
> >An argument is a worthwhile strategy for someone who would be
> >embarrassed to insist the sky is pink after it is made plain that's an
> >incorrect statement. But you are wholly incapable of being embarrassed
> >-- a trait that is not uncommon among those who have no personal
> >dignity remaining.
>
> >> Why don't you behave like a man and
> >> admit defeat.
> >> No matter what you say or think, there is no doubt that Einsteinian relativity
> >> is now known to be pure nonsense from start to finish.
>
> >See? There's another lie. You say it is now known. By whom? Names,
> >please.
>
> >> >PD
>
> >> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>
> >> All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible unfortunates. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
>
> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>
Eric Gisse
[...]
> > Well I had better stop wasting time arguing with one then.
>
> Promises, promises. Is this another lie, "Dr." "Henri"? Fifty bucks
> says you can't do it.
>
How many times does this make it now?
[...]
Ian Parker
>
Propose an alternative theory. It has to be one though that fits the
facts.
- Ian Parker
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
All the facts clearly point to light being ballistic in pure vacuum...
All arguments against the Ballistic nature of light have been shown to be
flawed.
Light moves at c wrt its source and c+v wrt an observer moving at v wrt the
source.
> - Ian Parker
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Ian Parker
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:42:51 -0700 (PDT), Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com>
supose too that if you went up in an aircraft you could "race" 2.7K.
This is quite incredible!
- Ian Parker
Talebun
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:42:51 -0700 (PDT), Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com>
subject. How can you ever see double stars? If light was ballistic
light from one stars would arrive months, or even years before that of
the other.
Pentcho Valev
> subject. How can you ever see double stars? If light was ballistic
> light from one stars would arrive months, or even years before that of
> the other.
There is too much mythology in this (and in all other "confirmations"
of Einstein's theory), so much that a normal human mind is virtually
unable to reach the truth. The moment you discover that no solar
eclipse has ever been and will never be able to provide relevant
information, either in favor or agaist the theory, you are taught that
the Sirius B experiment (Eddington, Evans) did give the necessary
confirmation after all. Then you may discover that the Sirius B
experiment was also a fraud but the number of "non-fraudulent" ad hoc
experiments gloriously confirming Einstein's theory remains so great
that it would only be reasonable for you to start singing "Divine
Einstein" and apply for a job in some of Einsteiniana's numerous
choirs.
The double star mystery involves similar problems, as you can see from
a text written by someone who is obviously an Einsteinian but rather
clever:
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-10/2-10.htm
Note that the author, who elsewhere describes the variability of the
speed of light due to gravitation quite well, here does not even
mention this important factor. Einsteinians are Einsteinians even when
they are clever.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Androcles
"Talebun" <pmpa...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a9bc372b-d3c8-42b4...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
I do which you learn how to write English. You can take a look
at Sirius, although no double star was ever seen until the twentieth
century.
| If light was ballistic
| light from one stars would arrive months, or even years before that of
| the other.
That rights, and its do.
(For English readers needing translation, I just wrote "That's right, and it
does"
in Talebun's troll speak.)
Talebun
> "Talebun" <pmpark...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>
I will do a little bit of trolling here. I got the alias for 2
reasons. The first of these was to show how easy it was. The second
was because of my interest in Maximum Entropy methods of textual
analysis. It might be really needed at some point. It simply means
"student", like Student T.
Now the same thing in fact applies with speed varying in a
gravitational field. If the speed only changes within the field then
we have an alternative view to GR. We can view the 1919 eclipse as
Schnell's law.
HOWEVER
1) If the speed varies out of the field we have a corpuscular theory.
This has the same objections wrt double stars as does velocity
relative to source.
2) The speed of light has been shown NOT to vary according to where we
are wrt gravity. If you posulate a theory where "space/matter"
effectively contracts/expands you have something which is
phenomenologically the same as Relativity. Let's call it that.
Androcles
On 24 Jul, 14:45, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> "Talebun" <pmpark...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> | I do which you learn a little Astronomy. I am in fact a student of the
> | subject. How can you ever see double stars?
>
> I do which you learn how to write English. You can take a look
> at Sirius, although no double star was ever seen until the twentieth
> century.
>
> | If light was ballistic
> | light from one stars would arrive months, or even years before that of
> | the other.
>
> That rights, and its do.
> (For English readers needing translation, I just wrote "That's right, and
> it
> does"
> in Talebun's troll speak.)- Hide quoted text -
>
| I will do a little bit of trolling here. I got the alias for 2
| reasons. The first of these was to show how easy it was. The second
| was because of my interest in Maximum Entropy methods of textual
| analysis. It might be really needed at some point. It simply means
| "student", like Student T.
| Now the same thing in fact applies with speed varying in a
| gravitational field.
Acceleration is change of speed, it happens in g-fields.
| If the speed only changes within the field then
| we have an alternative view to GR. We can view the 1919 eclipse as
| Schnell's law.
What made you bring up GR?
| HOWEVER
| 1) If the speed varies out of the field we have a corpuscular theory.
Yeah, only the term we use today is "photon".
| This has the same objections wrt double stars as does velocity
| relative to source.
You object to photons? Why?
| 2) The speed of light has been shown NOT to vary according to where we
| are wrt gravity.
You've measured the speed of light changing between the sun and here
and found zero change, have you? I'd be interested in how you did that.
Have you written a paper?
| If you posulate a theory where "space/matter"
| effectively contracts/expands you have something which is
| phenomenologically the same as Relativity. Let's call it that.
I've done no such thing. What does that have to do with anything?
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>On 24 Jul, 00:21, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:42:51 -0700 (PDT), Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Propose an alternative theory. It has to be one though that fits the
>> >facts.
>>
>> All the facts clearly point to light being ballistic in pure vacuum...
>> All arguments against the Ballistic nature of light have been shown to be
>> flawed.
>>
>> Light moves at c wrt its source and c+v wrt an observer moving at v wrt the
>> source.
>>
>I do which you learn a little Astronomy. I am in fact a student of the
>subject. How can you ever see double stars? If light was ballistic
>light from one stars would arrive months, or even years before that of
>the other.
I do wish you'd learn a little English.
Light from orbiting stars initially leaves the source at c+vsint/T wrt Earth.
However the conditions for multiple images are never reached because all light
traveling in a particular direction tends towards the same speed, according to
BaTh. Also, there is a hight degree of extinction in the near vicinity of a
binary pair, the amount increasing with decreasing period (proximity).
Just about all variable star curves can be produced using the c+v principle
alone. For instance see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
Many binaries appear to involve a just star and a large planet or other cool
object that reflects the star's light 180 out of phase, giving the appearance
of two stars.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Rock Brentwood
> George Orwell "1984": "In the end the Party would announce that two
> and two made five, and you would have to believe it.
Mass conspiracies, as the instability and collapse of the USSR in a
mere few decades proved, are fundamentally impossible. Even in the
USSR there were many countervailing points of view widely-known and
widely published.
An Orwellian monolith cannot happen in ANY group beyond a certain
size. However, it's invocation can, itself, be seen as the shibboleth
of one with an agenda intent on pursuing such ambition.
Even in North Korea -- the closest real-life analogue to Orwell -- you
have bridges filled with anti-government graffiti.
In any case, the whole premise is out the window even before it
starts. There is, in fact, a very large industry IN the peer-reviewed
literature dedicated to the further development of Galilean relativity
and Newtonian Physics. It is an absolute necessity for several basic
reasons: (1) to clarify what actually distinguishes physics based on
the Poincare' group (aka Relativity), vs. that based on the Galilei
group (aka Newtonian physics) ... and to clarify what distinctions do
NOT apply that most people think do; (2) to more precisely define the
Galilean limit for various modern theories; (3) to complete (and
correct) what was left undone or done wrong before the advent of
relativistic physics; (4) to retrofit the newest Physics and related
Mathematical formalisms (e.g. the curved space-time foundation of
gravity leading to Newton-Cartan geometry) ... which ties directly to
(2) and (3).
So, to say that you can't publish in the literature on any of this
matter is simple BS, because it ALREADY EXISTS in the present-day
literature. And the last I checked, something already being there
permanently and decisively proves wrong the theory that it can't be
there.
So your theory about Newtonian Physics not being publishable is wrong
before it even gets out of the starting gates. Newtonian Physics IS
publishable and IS published in peer-reviewed literature. Likewise,
the conspiracy nut-case nonsense is exposed as nothing more than the
ramblings of a demagogue-in-waiting, since such ramblings (even in
Orwell's depiction) are never anything more than the handmaiden of the
demagogue.
In order to have Orwell, you have to have a complete absence of the
countervailing points of view. The literature is completely open in
all regards. It's simply you that are not.
To answer the other person's question: you can't publish in the peer-
reviewed literature if you're spending all your time posting 600+
articles a month on the USENET (which only geezers stuck in the old
Internet world read anymore), It takes time to prepare and write a
paper, much more than one can have when putting out 20 articles a day,
spending all day doing it and nothing else (as you can clearly see by
looking at Pentecho Valev's profile via Google).
One would even ask: why would a person spend so much time
communicating to a forum that nobody listens to if they weren't
INTENDING on not being heard, listen to, or taken seriously?!
Sam Wormley
>
> Light from orbiting stars initially leaves the source at c+vsint/T wrt Earth.
>
<laughing>
Dr. Henri Wilson
All right, I could have included another term u, denoting the speed of the
binary barycentre wrt earth. I usually leave that out because it is obvious and
doesn't affect brightness curves..
Do you still find this amusing, Wormey?...or do you think that all starlight is
magically adjusted by the fairies to travel towards little planet Earth at
precisely c?
I might remind you that even Einstein accepted the notion of 'approaching
speed' being other than c, as seen by a third observer. It is this approaching
speed that creates brightness curves.
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
Anti-Einstein articles will never be published in establishment run journals
for the simple reason that too many eminent reputations would be destroyed as
the truth emerged.
Uncensored electronic publishing will take over completely in the near future
and enable the relativity myth to be finally exposed as the hoax it is.
Ian Parker
How does it know where the barycenter is. This seems very like :
http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/
One you get beyond the glam pusses and Nazi propaganda there are some
very interesting articles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piecraft/Jenseitsflugmaschine From
Wikipaedia
http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/The%20Vril%20Discs.htm Aldebaron
(khayyid?)
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ufo_aleman/esp_ufoaleman_6.htm
2000+km/h endurance 5½ hr was absolutely absurd.
Don't you think Freya looks nice. Worth it for a little soft porn.
Look, light "sees" the physical environment round it. Its properties
do not depend on source or emitter. It IS reminiscent of Aldebaran.
BTW - Are you "khayyid"or "mis khayyid"? Do you know what it means?
Why the Nazis should choose a red giant is beyond my comprehension. If
there ever was a planet supporting life it has long ceased to. The
Earth will eventually be roasted.
I don't think you believe half the things you post. I don't think Tom
Potter does either. He blames the Jews for the Iraq war while it is
perfectly clear that the war was caused by a gentile cabal WHO DID NOT
RESPECT TRAINED INTELLIGENCE.
You would not think that Arabic and relativity were linked. They are,
by this lack of respect for trained intelligence. This leads me onto
another point.
The Nazis produced disc aircraft. The belief was that the aircraft was
not aerodynamic it was linked to Aldebaran. If you state, at once,
that the craft is aerodynamic you have a lot of theory to draw upon.
There was where the waste occurred and where all the lying started.
The fact of the matter was that the CIA did not consult reputable
Physicists or Aerodynamicists. If they had they might not have made
such a hash of things.
Is there anything in vortex VTOL? Yes and no. I believe it would be
possible with modern technology to construct a vortex aircraft that
would have advantages over existing aircraft. BUT I think that anyone
starting out would be well advised to disregard the literature and
start from scratch. A 3GB RAM 2GHz computer costs < $1,000. This can
do quite a reasonable mesh for you. You would be well advised to run
hydrocode, test controllability at speed, transition to conventional
fixed wing BEFORE you start to bend metal.
I feel too that lies feed on lies. I think it would be impossible to
propose a vortex aircraft seriously, largely because of all the hype
and lies. That is of course in the US. There is still a danger that
someone who understands the Navier Stokes equation and v^2/r will beat
the US to it.
Do you by any chance work on antigravity?
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/story41.html The setting up of
the CIA links
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/anti_grav_010909.html
US Research into antigravity
http://anthonyhmura.blogspot.com/2008/03/witch-hunts-of-mccarthy-and-fagan.html
More Nazi conspiracy theories
http://www.westga.edu/~hgoodson/The%20Cold%20War.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird CIA activities kept
secret from congress
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/mccarthy/
By all accounts research is STILL going on. Anyone with any knowledge
of Physics would demand that the whole project should be shelved and a
new project, with different people, started - this time on firm
aerodynamic principles.
- Ian Parker
Sam Wormley
>
> Anti-Einstein articles will never be published in establishment run journals
> for the simple reason that too many eminent reputations would be destroyed as
> the truth emerged.
Especially when the empirical data shows the articles
to be without merit.
Dr. Henri Wilson
All experimental evidence points to light being 100% ballistic in a pure
vacuum.
Pentcho Valev
> mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> > On Jul 24, 3:10 am, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> > > mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> > > > On Jul 21, 7:12 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> > > > I of course accept that clocks in flight are *observed*
> > > > to tick differently from ground clocks.
> > > > But I can't find a physical cause, that could *permanently*
> > > > alter the readings of 'flying' clocks.
> > > Eppur si muove...
> > A nice, but a little sad answer!
>
> The point is that the experiments disagree with your intuition
> of what ought to happen. There is, in fact, an *observed*
> permanent shift between the readings of the two clocks. You
> can wish what you like, but in the end, Nature doesn't care
> about your guesses.
>
> It still moves...
>
> Steve Carlip
But, Clever Carlip, your "Eppur si muove" sounds so grotesque! You
have nothing to do with Galileo, your predecessor is Ignatius of
Loyola:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/730312dd871ff5db?
People who would have the right to say "Eppur si muove" (if they were
alive) are Bryan Wallace and Herbert Dingle:
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Dingle
http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Talebun
> On Jul 26, 1:58 am, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> > > On Jul 24, 3:10 am, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> > > > mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> > > > > On Jul 21, 7:12 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> > > > > I of course accept that clocks in flight are *observed*
> > > > > to tick differently from ground clocks.
> > > > > But I can't find a physical cause, that could *permanently*
> > > > > alter the readings of 'flying' clocks.
> > > > Eppur si muove...
> > > A nice, but a little sad answer!
>
> > The point is that the experiments disagree with your intuition
> > of what ought to happen. There is, in fact, an *observed*
> > permanent shift between the readings of the two clocks. You
> > can wish what you like, but in the end, Nature doesn't care
> > about your guesses.
>
> > It still moves...
>
> > Steve Carlip
>
> But, Clever Carlip, your "Eppur si muove" sounds so grotesque! You
> have nothing to do with Galileo, your predecessor is Ignatius of
> Loyola:
I think you should look at my profile, or rather my profile in this
account. It is geared for compression NOT relativity. The real people
who are being persecuted STILL are academic scientists.
I mentioned the German Professor researching the fragments of the
Koran found in the Yemen. He has compared Arabic and Syriac readings
Hanzas and Maddas. I have 2 rather uneasy feelings. The first of these
is that he is right, and the second is that compression would help to
prove it.
Arabic is an inflected language (like Latin) and needs to be parsed in
order to translate it. You effect a translation (either way) by fining
the "right answer". Now the right answer is what an intelligent person
would guess. This is the basis of compression being the basis of AI.
I thought this alias appropriate I did it to prove to myself how easy
it was, but I just could need it.
One thing - you don't just have to be right. David Irving took out a
libel action against Deborah Lipstadt. Ms Lipstadt was proved right
all the way down the line, but still finished up out of pocket. So
much for British Justice!
The anti evolutionsts too have no scientific case but are extremely
well funded and have all the smary lawyers. Lawyers BTW ans not
scientists or engineers control America.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
Ian Parker
>
>
>
>
>
> > mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> > > On Jul 24, 3:10 am, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> > > > mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
> > > > > On Jul 21, 7:12 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> > > > > I of course accept that clocks in flight are *observed*
> > > > > to tick differently from ground clocks.
> > > > > But I can't find a physical cause, that could *permanently*
> > > > > alter the readings of 'flying' clocks.
> > > > Eppur si muove...
> > > A nice, but a little sad answer!
>
> > The point is that the experiments disagree with your intuition
> > of what ought to happen. There is, in fact, an *observed*
> > permanent shift between the readings of the two clocks. You
> > can wish what you like, but in the end, Nature doesn't care
> > about your guesses.
>
> > It still moves...
>
> > Steve Carlip
>
> But, Clever Carlip, your "Eppur si muove" sounds so grotesque! You
> have nothing to do with Galileo, your predecessor is Ignatius of
> Loyola:
>
>
> People who would have the right to say "Eppur si muove" (if they were
> alive) are Bryan Wallace and Herbert Dingle:
>
> http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Dingle
>
> http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf
>
> Pentcho Valev
>
> - Show quoted text -
I see that Talebun will have double membership of the Eisein cult.
Will not be consulted on antigravity. Will not be consulted on the
Middle East!
- Ian Parker
Pentcho Valev
Of course "Newtonian Physics IS publishable", except for its
implication c'=c+v showing how the speed of light varies with v, the
speed of the light source. Einstein and his apostle Banesh Hoffmann
knew quite well how dangerous this implication was:
Albert Einstein: ""If the speed of light is the least bit affected by
the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and
theory of gravity is false."
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
John Stachel: "It is not so well known that there was "another
Einstein," who from 1916 on was skeptical about the continuum as a
foundational element in physics..." Albert Einstein: "I consider it
entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept,
that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole
castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also
nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to
be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also
a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein
had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this
one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it
was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle?
Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the
one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote
his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
prove to be superfluous."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
ukastronomy
really want to influence scientific thought!
The people here are not the people you need to convince and the danger
is that you are seen as obsessed with the matter. I really don't
understand why you feel posting similar material again and again
advances, rather than damages, your cause?
Please share your motivation with the group.
Martin Nicholson
Daventry, UK
Ian Parker
wrote:
NO merit in anything which is said by the anti Relativists. Light
speed relative to source, a commonsense corpuscular view was qickly
rejected because of double stars. In the same way the whole of the
Einstein Hoax website is a mass of contradictions.
The "Einstein Hoax" is clearly organized.
I did a Google search.
http://users.isp.com/retic/physics/index.htm
Look in particular at the user group log. This is clearly ORGANIZED.
One asks the question why go to all this trouble? Even if one is not a
born conspiracy theorist one tends to suspect ulterior motives.
I think I ought to say straigt away that the aim is NOT to disprove
Relativity. You might respond to that with howls of derision. Well
think a bit. If you publish a peer reviewed paper you are writing for
other trained scientists. You, in sort, want to prove your point even
if in many cases it is a very minor point. The "Einstein Hoax" is not
really aimed at scientists, it is aimed at putting the seed of doubt
into the minds of lawyers, administrators and decision makers. Many
scientific decision makers are not scientifically trained. I refer you
to a Janes article.
http://www.janes.com/aerospace/civil/news/jdw/jdw020729_1_n.shtml
This was fairly recent 2002 in fact. Anti gravity research is STILL
going on. What they are doing one can only hazard a guess at. There
seems to be no theory other than that of rays from Aldebaran.
http://www.rense.com/general13/djsk.htm
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/gravity/gravitsapa.htm is a
compendium of resources.
Now what you need to carry on such research is essentially fog.
Clarity in the shape of an alternative theory to Relativity would
equally be bad news.
Certainty would mean an investigation into theories and claims. There
is only one thing that really works and that is vortex lift. Not
because of any antigravity but because pressure in the centre is
reduced because of v^2/r.
I believe it would be possible with modern technology to construct a
vortex aircraft that would have advantages over existing aircraft. BUT
I think that anyone starting out would be well advised to disregard
the literature and start from scratch. A 3GB RAM 2GHz computer costs <
$1,000. This can do quite a reasonable mesh for you. You would be well
advised to do this, test controllability at speed, transition to
conventional fixed wing BEFORE you start to bend metal.
In fact a good mesh analysis of vortex stability would be eminently
publishable.
How did all this start?
http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/
One you get beyond the glam pusses and Nazi propaganda there are some
very interesting articles.
http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/The%20Vril%20Discs.htm Aldebaron
(khayyid?)
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ufo_aleman/esp_ufoaleman_6.htm
2000+km/h endurance 5½ hr was absolutely absurd.
After the war the US claimed it was tracking down war criminals and
sending them to Nurenberg. In point of fact the CIA was supporting the
ODESSA network.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ODESSA
The Black Sun cult believed in rays from Aldebaran, although what is
of particular concern is the relationship between the Black Sun the
CIA and ODESSA.
OK you might say, this happened a long time ago. The point that we
have to get is that antigravity research is still going on. Seemingly
without any coherent scientific basis. One might ask how has it
managed to last for over 60 years without any coherent scientific
theory, or any basis.
This is where Pencho Valev, the Einstein Hoax comes in. If doubt is
created such things can go on. There is also the fact that lies lead
on to more lies.
One of the persistent myths about Rowell is alien autopsies. Complete
bunkum you might say. Well not quite, rumours like these do have a
basis of fact. Shall I tell you what I think that basis is? The ODESSA
mob were incredibly brazen. Back in Germany they performed experiments
in concentration camps, depressurization effects for example. A few
bodies arrived in their crates of disc aircraft and they performed
autopsies on them.
Alien autopsies were invented by a CIA that was in a bit of a spot. I
don't think they wholly approved, but they could not admit their
involvement in ODESSA.
Mc Carthy gave lies a bodyguard or terror. If you were not "aldebaran
khayyid", and Oppenhiemer was certainly "mis khayyid" you lost your
job and could even end up in jail.
That is the plain unadorned truth of Pencho Valev and "The Einstein
Hoax".
AM I RIGHT?
- Ian Parker
Pentcho Valev
wrote:
You don't understand and unfortunately I cannot help you - pehaps your
early education or your genes are to blame. But your cleverer brothers
now understand everything and react in the only reasonable way:
http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to
explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics
into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which
tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into
account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track —
but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or
both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic.....I
realized I didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in
these heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions
to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the
right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight
less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
PD
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:33:12 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>
> >> Anti-Einstein articles will never be published in establishment run journals
> >> for the simple reason that too many eminent reputations would be destroyed as
> >> the truth emerged.
>
> > Especially when the empirical data shows the articles
> > to be without merit.
>
> All experimental evidence points to light being 100% ballistic in a pure
> vacuum.
Well, let's see...
Since you would claim that light being in a pure vacuum is
unobservable, because the fields in light destroy the vacuum, then
perhaps a more accurate rendition of your clumsily constructed cipher
is:
All experimental evidence is consistent with light being 100%
ballistic in a pure vacuum, though there is no experimental evidence
that directly tests light being ballistic in a pure vacuum (because
all observations don't deal with light in a pure vacuum). Moreover,
all experimental evidence points to light being not only 100%
ballistic but steadily decelerating in Neverland.
PD
>
> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Dr. Henri Wilson
>On Jul 25, 5:29 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:33:12 GMT, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> >Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>>
>> >> Anti-Einstein articles will never be published in establishment run journals
>> >> for the simple reason that too many eminent reputations would be destroyed as
>> >> the truth emerged.
>>
>> > Especially when the empirical data shows the articles
>> > to be without merit.
>>
>> All experimental evidence points to light being 100% ballistic in a pure
>> vacuum.
>
>Well, let's see...
>Since you would claim that light being in a pure vacuum is
>unobservable, because the fields in light destroy the vacuum, then
>perhaps a more accurate rendition of your clumsily constructed cipher
>is:
>All experimental evidence is consistent with light being 100%
>ballistic in a pure vacuum, though there is no experimental evidence
>that directly tests light being ballistic in a pure vacuum (because
>all observations don't deal with light in a pure vacuum). Moreover,
>all experimental evidence points to light being not only 100%
>ballistic but steadily decelerating in Neverland.
It appears you will forever remain deluded, Diaper.
Light from variable stars travels through empty space. ('empty' means 'below
the WDT (Wilson Density Threshold)).
Variable star virtually prove that BaTh is correct.
>PD
>
>>
>> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>>
>> All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Ian Parker
>
Well I think what you are saying comes pretty damn close to a
religion.
C'mon why does light slow down after it has left the source? How long
does it take? What are the mechanisms?
- Ian Parker
Raghar
As student of astronomy you should know the stars are visible as a
point source, and they are detected by variation in brightness.
Now, how would you detect three stars, oribting at the figure eight
orbit?
Talebun
>
This is really a red herring. The three body problem, as you know is
governed by chaos. Is this a trick question. It does not affect light
travelling relative to the source.
The main thing I am a student of is compression and its relationsip
with AI. A chaotic assemblage obeys ergodic laws. That is not however
the point.
Androcles
--------------------------
Is this trick statement. Do you know what a question mark is.
Some three body problems do have solutions?
That is shown here?
http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection3.html
You do not use question marks?
Why do you not use question marks.
Did you not learn English.
Ian Parker
> "Talebun" <pmpark...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>
There are quadrature solutions, and often many body systems move into
a quadradture. A quadrature exists where a small departure from an
orbit gets corrected. It is a very special case in topological terms.
They do exist, but need special conditions.
- Ian Parker
hanson
Some three body problems do have solutions?
That is shown here?
http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection3.html
>
Andro, these are cool Java animations.
Does the dude have the governing 3 body
motion equations somewhere?
hanson
Androcles
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:vNojk.213$aA5.20@trnddc05...
He must do, musn't he?
But let's see if you can work out what they are if I give you
these clues, given that for the figure-of-eight
a) there is no motion in the z-direction
b) all three bodies have identical mass
c) the initial condition for each mass
i) xpos
ii) ypos
iii) zpos =0
iv) xvel
v) yvel
vi) zvel =0
vii) xacc
viii) yacc
ix) zacc =0
is repeated for that mass each cycle,
d) is the same for the other two masses at 120 degrees and
e) at 240 degrees into the cycle.
f) Butikov shows the initial conditions clearly before you
hit the start button.
Although there can be no general solution to the three-body
problem there are infinitely many special case solutions where
the initial condition is repeated, but that's not something you
are likely to find in Nature.
Cooking up some special case equations is easiest when the
z-direction is taken out, and to throw the layman off the scent
and be impressive it helps if you already know (because other
mathematicians have discovered for you) some solutions to
first and second order differential equations.
A The derivative of sine is cosine,
B The derivative of cosine is -sine,
C The derivative of -sine is -cosine,
D The derivative of -cosine is sine.
E Goto A.
If you understand that and never forget it you are most of the way
there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lissajous_curve
For those who like mysteries I could say you have glimpsed
the mind of God, for He is bound by the laws of mathematics.
If He made the rules then He sticks by them. All we as scientists
and mathematicians can do is try to discover what they are.
Thank gawd I'm an atheist and not a Jew.
Ian Parker
The important parts of the equations center round INT(F(x+dx) where we
are integrating the effect of dx round an orbit.
Orbit is stationary iff in All space INT(F(x+dx) < INT(F(x) +dx
This means in Matric term that all the eigenvalues < 1
This is conservatism expressed in a mathematical foorm. An orbit must
cause a small disturbance to die down.
- Ian Parker
- Ian Parker
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
It doesn't just slow down. It can also speed up, although the general trend is
a loss of energy that produces the cosmic redshift. The mechanism is basically
that described by Maxwell. The various regions of space behave like extremely
weak 'aethers'.
> - Ian Parker
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
Ian Parker
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 02:55:59 -0700 (PDT), Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com>
"Changing speed" but I STILL don't have a theory.
- Ian Parker
hanson
news:d6a2fd92-33fa-4776...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
> "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> Some three body problems do have solutions?
> That is shown here?
> http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection3.html
>
> hanson wrote:
> Andro, these are cool Java animations.
> Does the dude have the governing 3 body
> motion equations somewhere?
> hanson
>
The important parts of the equations center round INT(F(x+dx)
where we are integrating the effect of dx round an orbit.
Orbit is stationary iff in All space INT(F(x+dx) < INT(F(x) +dx
This means in Matric term that all the eigenvalues < 1
This is conservatism expressed in a mathematical foorm.
An orbit must cause a small disturbance to die down.
- Ian Parker
>
Ian Parker's orbit must have caused a small disturbance
in his own mind that forced it to die down.... which is clearly
evident in your posts wherein you assert SR/GR to affect
complex and living systems, even the CIA... ahahaha..
>
But your splendid cyber machinations which I hope do impress
YOU are strong enough to invoke chuckles... ahahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs, Ian. I enjoy your lunacies... Don't let me
cramp your style... ahahaha... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
Ian Parker
>
> Ian Parker's orbit must have caused a small disturbance
> in his own mind that forced it to die down.... which is clearly
> evident in your posts wherein you assert SR/GR to affect
> complex and living systems, even the CIA... ahahaha..
>
> But your splendid cyber machinations which I hope do impress
> YOU are strong enough to invoke chuckles... ahahahaha...
> Thanks for the laughs, Ian. I enjoy your lunacies... Don't let me
> cramp your style... ahahaha... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
Be fippant if you like. That is the standard definition of chaos. You
cannot balance a pencil on its point even through there is a point of
balance. Why? Because any departure from the equlilibrium position is
magnified. This is just the presentation of this in a form suitable
for orbital quadratures.
- Ian Parker
hanson
"Ian Parker" <ianpa...@gmail.com> cranked himself in message
news:dec3fc5f-ef10-479a...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
Ian Parker's orbit must have caused a small disturbance
in his own mind that forced it to die down.... which is clearly
evident in your posts wherein you assert SR/GR to affect
complex and living systems, even the CIA... ahahaha..
>
But your splendid cyber machinations which I hope do impress
YOU are strong enough to invoke chuckles... ahahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs, Ian. I enjoy your lunacies... Don't let me
cramp your style... ahahaha... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
>
Be fippant if you like.... [snip crap]
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
I certainly shall!... since it's because of your flipping from
Conservative Matrices into Chaos and you forgetting the
all important Dedekind Cut after the Cerenkov Braking
so necessary for an Emergent Complexity Formation.
Go look at a fish-ball or at a flock of birds... There are no
such things as quadratures in the real world when looked
at close up.. or even from the distance conditions where
dimensions curl up and do vanish... ahaha... ahahahanson
Ian Parker
> --------- ahahahahaha.... AHAHAHAHAHA... -----------
>
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
> Ian Parker's orbit must have caused a small disturbance
> in his own mind that forced it to die down.... which is clearly
> evident in your posts wherein you assert SR/GR to affect
> complex and living systems, even the CIA... ahahaha..
>
> But your splendid cyber machinations which I hope do impress
> YOU are strong enough to invoke chuckles... ahahahaha...
> Thanks for the laughs, Ian. I enjoy your lunacies... Don't let me
> cramp your style... ahahaha... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
>
> Be fippant if you like.... [snip crap]
>
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
> I certainly shall!... since it's because of your flipping from
> Conservative Matrices into Chaos and you forgetting the
> all important Dedekind Cut after the Cerenkov Braking
> so necessary for an Emergent Complexity Formation.
> Go look at a fish-ball or at a flock of birds... There are no
> such things as quadratures in the real world when looked
> at close up.. or even from the distance conditions where
> dimensions curl up and do vanish... ahaha... ahahahanson
You are only showing your total ignorance. This is the BOG STANDARD
treatment of chaos. When it happens and when it does not. This is BOG
STANDARD stability theory. Please do your homework just a little bit
better.
- Ian Parker
BTW - This abundantly confirms my contention that the Einstein Hoaxers
are NOT interested in Physics or Maths.
- Ian Parker
hanson
news:dec3fc5f-ef10-479a...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
Ian Parker's orbit must have caused a small disturbance
in his own mind that forced it to die down.... which is clearly
evident in your posts wherein you assert SR/GR to affect
complex and living systems, even the CIA... ahahaha..
But your splendid cyber machinations which I hope do impress
YOU are strong enough to invoke chuckles... ahahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs, Ian. I enjoy your lunacies... Don't let me
cramp your style... ahahaha... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
>
"Ian Parker" <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote
Be fippant if you like.... [snip crap]
>
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
I certainly shall!... since it's because of your flipping from
Conservative Matrices into Chaos and you forgetting the
all important Dedekind Cut after the Cerenkov Braking
so necessary for an Emergent Complexity Formation.
Go look at a fish-ball or at a flock of birds... There are no
such things as quadratures in the real world when looked
at close up.. or even from the distance conditions where
dimensions curl up and do vanish... ahaha... ahahahanson
>
You are only showing your total ignorance. This is the BOG
STANDARD treatment of chaos. When it happens and when
it does not. This is BOG STANDARD stability theory. Please
my contention that the Einstein Hoaxers are NOT interested
in Physics or Maths.
>
... IOW, Ian, you are a self-admitted, self-confessed and
self-indicted & self-convicted Einstein Dingleberry now !
Swallow that bitter pill that BOGgles your chaotic mind
while you dangle from Einstein's Sphincter... hahahaha...
-- Keep an upper stiff lip when you call the CIA for help --
Thanks for the laughs. AHAHA.. ahaha... ahahahanson
Androcles
and find out what his total ignorance is.
THE QUESTION:
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img21.gif
"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch
According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.
According to xxein:
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.
According to Lamenting Shubert:
Why do you want to know?
" In neither system (meaning frame of reference in modern-day terminology)
is the speed of light c-v or c+v. In both systems the speed of light is c."
-- cretin Jimmy Black fml...@organization.edu.
According to the imbecile Jimmy Black, Einstein did not write the equation
he wrote.
According to Dork Bruere
"I don't give a damn what Einstein wrote."
According to rect_Al Schwartz:
"SR is GR with G=0." -- Uncle Stooopid.
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' --
Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer.
Ref: news:1188363019....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com
(How many Polacks does it take to change a light bulb?)
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
Ian Parker
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
>
> news:c_2kk.569$rb5.287@trnddc04...
> | --------- ahahahahaha.... AHAHAHAHAHA... -----------
> According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.
>
> According to xxein:
> It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.
>
> According to Lamenting Shubert:
> Why do you want to know?
>
> " In neither system (meaning frame of reference in modern-day terminology)
> is the speed of light c-v or c+v. In both systems the speed of light is c."
> According to the imbecile Jimmy Black, Einstein did not write the equation
> he wrote.
>
> According to Dork Bruere
> "I don't give a damn what Einstein wrote."
>
> According to rect_Al Schwartz:
> "SR is GR with G=0." -- Uncle Stooopid.
>
> 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
> light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
> to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' --
> Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer.
>
> Ref:news:1188363019....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com
>
> (How many Polacks does it take to change a light bulb?)
>
> 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
> light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
> to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
> agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
> dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
We are not talking about the speed of light here we are talking
classical stability theory.
- Ian Parker
hanson
>
"Ian Parker" <ianpa...@gmail.com> wrote ...http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/msg/6f7e8dfe5199ec2a?hl=en"Ian Parker" <ianpark...@gmail.com> cranked himself ...
Thanks for the laughs. AHAHA.. ahaha... ahahahanson
> |
If Ian's interested in physics and math ask him
THE QUESTION and find out what his total ignorance is.
>
THE QUESTION:
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img21.gif
>
"Easy: he (Einstein) did NOT say that." -
=2= According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation
he (Einstein) wrote.
=3= According to xxein:
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.
=5= According to cretin Jimmy Black fmla...@organization.edu":
In neither system (meaning frame of reference in modern-day
terminology) is the speed of light c-v or c+v. In both systems
the speed of light is c."
the equation he (Einstein) wrote.
=7= According to Dork Bruere: "I don't give a damn what Einstein wrote."
=8= According to rect_Al Schwartz:"SR is GR with G=0." - Uncle Stooopid.
=9= According to Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer.
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' --
(How many Polacks does it take to change a light bulb?)
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
>
We are not talking about the speed of light here we are talking
classical stability theory.
>
...ahahahaha.. Ian, you made a very very bad turn here while
you are dangling from Albert's Sphincter. Androcles will put
you now onto the list as the new #1 worshipper of Einstein's crap.
But thanks for the laughs... ahahahaha.. AHAHAHA... ahahanson
Androcles
I'm running out of suitable titles for cretins in general and it can't be
"Dork", that's reserved for Dirks.
hanson
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:M%4kk.106534$Gb2.1...@newsfe29.ams2...
Does he wish to be known as Idiot Ian Parker or Imbecile Ian Parker?
I'm running out of suitable titles for cretins in general and it can't be
"Dork", that's reserved for Dirks.
>
AHAHAHAHA... Soon you will have to invent a relativistically
suitable title search prg. for that awesome task. I wish you luck,
Andro... and thanks for the laughs, in particular because the
Einstein Dingleberries do lack the ability to detect when they
are being wound up, with suitable Newtonian resonance, to keep
their relativistic dangling from Albert's sphincter in full swing...
ahahahaha... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
Androcles
http://www.urbandictionary.com cites
idiot moron fool stupid imbecile retard tool dumbass dork dolt dumb jerk
blockhead dimwit twat fuckwit donkey boob asshole loser dunce ass simpleton
jackass ignoramus nincompoop halfwit nitwit douchebag dummy douche
dunderhead wanker dope ninny dipshit fathead bonehead bafoon lunkhead oaf
half-wit numskull buffoon nerd birdbrain shithead liberal lame turkey
Note there is a progression among the witless wits:
fuckwit
nitwit
dimwit
halfwit
which is not apparent in the heads...
blockhead
dunderhead
fathead
bonehead
shithead
lunkhead
loons, loonies, lunatics appear to be missing, one need to wait for a full
moon
for those to appear; the physics related newsgroups are a magnet for them
all.
If they don't have a theory of their own they can always fall back on
Einstein's.
Ian Parker
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
>
> || "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
I have never seen such lack of understanding. You know what - Ares is
failing PRECISELY because of this lack of understanding. Barack Obama
is 100% right. Ares must go. The problem with it is instability which
no one seems to understand. It was understood when Apollo landed on
the Moon but is not understood today.
Use the Proton - At least the Russians seem do STILL have an
understanding.
Potter is saying GTR is useless. Well there seems to be a palpable
failure to undertand basic engineering as well. If you cannot make
Ares work, Ares must go. It probably will anyway.
- Ian Parker