Why DeSitter was WRONG.

Science > Physics > Why DeSitter was WRONG.

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 3

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"Wilson"
Date:	24 Sep 2005 07:47:42 PM
Object:	Why DeSitter was WRONG.

This is a fine example of SRian logic.
DeSitter claimed to have refuted the BaT by observing how binary star pairs
didn't do what they should have done if the speed of light was source
dependent.
De Sitter claims to have observed two stars orbiting each other at an
accurately known distance. He also claimed that he knew their approximate
separation and radial velocities.
By assuming all light travels to Earth at precisely c, he assumed that what he
saw was what was actually happening. He then went on to conclude that if light
speed was c+v, what he was seeing should not happen. In other words he used
data based on constant c to show that constant c was correct and that c+v was
wrong.
This is ludicrous! Completely circular in logic!
The sensible approach should have been to realise that what he was observing
might not be what was actually happening and then try to anticipate the true
state of affairs that was giving rise to his observations.
The plain fact is, none of his observed parameters could be believed. They were
illusions caused by his attempts to interpret c+v effects with constant c
methods.

..
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
.

User: "Autymn D. C."
Title: Re: Why DeSitter was WRONG.	25 Sep 2005 07:07:27 AM

Did you see if de Sitter calibrated?
.

User: "Wilson"
Title: Re: Why DeSitter was WRONG.	25 Sep 2005 04:28:51 PM

On 25 Sep 2005 05:07:27 -0700, "Autymn D. C." <lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Did you see if de Sitter calibrated?

No.. but I heard he farted.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
.

User: "Uncle Al"
Title: Re: Why DeSitter was WRONG.	24 Sep 2005 08:10:42 PM

Henri Wilson wrote:

This is a fine example of SRian logic.

DeSitter claimed to have refuted the BaT by observing how binary star pairs
didn't do what they should have done if the speed of light was source
dependent.

De Sitter claims to have observed two stars orbiting each other at an
accurately known distance. He also claimed that he knew their approximate
separation and radial velocities.

By assuming all light travels to Earth at precisely c, he assumed that what he
saw was what was actually happening. He then went on to conclude that if light
speed was c+v, what he was seeing should not happen. In other words he used
data based on constant c to show that constant c was correct and that c+v was
wrong.

This is ludicrous! Completely circular in logic!

The sensible approach should have been to realise that what he was observing
might not be what was actually happening and then try to anticipate the true
state of affairs that was giving rise to his observations.
The plain fact is, none of his observed parameters could be believed. They were
illusions caused by his attempts to interpret c+v effects with constant c
methods.

Idiot. Photons or gravitation, propagation is no faster than
lightspeed - and that is measured one-way in vacuum,
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0212121
Sergei Kopeikin
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301145
Clifford Will
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302294
Kopeikin's results
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302462
Kopeikin's analysis of results
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0303346
Faber's dissent re parameterized post-Newtonian (PPN) model
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0304006
Stuart Samuel's invalid analysis of Kopeikin
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311063
More Kopeikin
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0403060
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0412401
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0501001
More criticism of Kopeikin
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.

User: "Happy Hippy"
Title: Re: Why DeSitter was WRONG.	27 Sep 2005 01:21:39 AM

Uncle Al wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:

This is a fine example of SRian logic.

DeSitter claimed to have refuted the BaT by observing how binary star pairs
didn't do what they should have done if the speed of light was source
dependent.

De Sitter claims to have observed two stars orbiting each other at an
accurately known distance. He also claimed that he knew their approximate
separation and radial velocities.

By assuming all light travels to Earth at precisely c, he assumed that what he
saw was what was actually happening. He then went on to conclude that if light
speed was c+v, what he was seeing should not happen. In other words he used
data based on constant c to show that constant c was correct and that c+v was
wrong.

This is ludicrous! Completely circular in logic!

The sensible approach should have been to realise that what he was observing
might not be what was actually happening and then try to anticipate the true
state of affairs that was giving rise to his observations.
The plain fact is, none of his observed parameters could be believed. They were
illusions caused by his attempts to interpret c+v effects with constant c
methods.

Idiot. Photons or gravitation, propagation is no faster than
lightspeed - and that is measured one-way in vacuum,

Blanket statement.
Unwise.
John
.

User: "Sue..."
Title: Re: Why DeSitter was WRONG.	24 Sep 2005 11:23:14 PM

Henri Wilson wrote:

This is a fine example of SRian logic.

DeSitter claimed to have refuted the BaT by observing how binary star pairs
didn't do what they should have done if the speed of light was source
dependent.

De Sitter claims to have observed two stars orbiting each other at an
accurately known distance. He also claimed that he knew their approximate
separation and radial velocities.

By assuming all light travels to Earth at precisely c, he assumed that what he
saw was what was actually happening. He then went on to conclude that if light
speed was c+v, what he was seeing should not happen. In other words he used
data based on constant c to show that constant c was correct and that c+v was
wrong.

This is ludicrous! Completely circular in logic!

The sensible approach should have been to realise that what he was observing
might not be what was actually happening and then try to anticipate the true
state of affairs that was giving rise to his observations.
The plain fact is, none of his observed parameters could be believed. They were
illusions caused by his attempts to interpret c+v effects with constant c
methods.

Sigh....
<<Maxwell, born in 1831, did for electromagnetism what
Newton did for gravity. He summed up all previous efforts
and descriptions on electric and magnetic phenomena, and
found 4 equations (laws) that could describe everything related to
them. He started out by being astonished from
the fact that the equations of motion that seemed to describe electric
phenomena appeared to be the same as the equations that described heat
and water (fluids). He developed the analogy that the field lines of
electric forces were in analogy with the streamlines of an
incompressible fluid.
His physical picture was slightly wrong, but the equations
he worked out were far more important.
While working his equations though he noticed something interesting: a
physical constant appears in there, a
constant that was the speed with which electromagnetic
waves propagate. The value of this constant was
300,000 Km/sec, and it forced Maxwell to ponder about the nature of
light: light was known by then to move at a
speed that was almost equal to this 300,000 Km/sec value. Maxwell
thought that this could not have been a mere coincidence: it must be
true that the light is in fact
an electromagnetic wave!
The velocity is so nearly that of light that it seems we
have strong reason to conclude that light itself is an electromagnetic
disturbance in the form of waves propagated through the electromagnetic
field according to electromagnetic laws. >>
http://www-scf.usc.edu/~kallos/light1.htm
-------
Sue...

.

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".

User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org"
Title: Re: Why DeSitter was WRONG.	25 Sep 2005 01:39:00 AM

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1127622194.260018.278120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Sigh....
|
| <<Maxwell, born in 1831, did for electromagnetism what
| Newton did for gravity. He summed up all previous efforts
| and descriptions on electric and magnetic phenomena, and
| found 4 equations (laws) that could describe everything related to
| them. He started out by being astonished from
| the fact that the equations of motion that seemed to describe electric
| phenomena appeared to be the same as the equations that described heat
| and water (fluids). He developed the analogy that the field lines of
| electric forces were in analogy with the streamlines of an
| incompressible fluid.
| His physical picture was slightly wrong, but the equations
| he worked out were far more important.
|
|
|
| While working his equations though he noticed something interesting: a
| physical constant appears in there, a
| constant that was the speed with which electromagnetic
| waves propagate. The value of this constant was
| 300,000 Km/sec, and it forced Maxwell to ponder about the nature of
| light: light was known by then to move at a
| speed that was almost equal to this 300,000 Km/sec value. Maxwell
| thought that this could not have been a mere coincidence: it must be
| true that the light is in fact
| an electromagnetic wave!
|
| The velocity is so nearly that of light that it seems we
| have strong reason to conclude that light itself is an electromagnetic
| disturbance in the form of waves propagated through the
electromagnetic
| field according to electromagnetic laws. >>
| http://www-scf.usc.edu/~kallos/light1.htm
|
| -------
| Sue...
The value of this constant, still not measured correctly by Michelson
in 1932 despite being commissioned by the US Navy, was "noticed" by
Maxwell, born in 1832, who was "forced" to ponder.
Did Einstein "notice" that the "time" required by a turtle to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A?
Did John Goodricke, 18 years old in 1782, "notice" the light curve of
Algol is duplicated by Androcles' computer?
Come to that, did Wilson "notice" the light curve of Algol is duplicated
by Androcles' computer, or did Wilson try to duplicate Androcles' work?
You'll drag up any old illogical crap, won't you?
Androcles
.

User: "sue jahn suzysewnshow"
Title: Re: Why DeSitter was WRONG.	25 Sep 2005 09:05:24 AM

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 02:39:00 -0400, Androcles MyPlace.org> <<Androcles>
wrote:

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1127622194.260018.278120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Sigh....
|
| <<Maxwell, born in 1831, did for electromagnetism what
| Newton did for gravity. He summed up all previous efforts
| and descriptions on electric and magnetic phenomena, and
| found 4 equations (laws) that could describe everything related to
| them. He started out by being astonished from
| the fact that the equations of motion that seemed to describe electric
| phenomena appeared to be the same as the equations that described heat
| and water (fluids). He developed the analogy that the field lines of
| electric forces were in analogy with the streamlines of an
| incompressible fluid.
| His physical picture was slightly wrong, but the equations
| he worked out were far more important.
|
|
|
| While working his equations though he noticed something interesting: a
| physical constant appears in there, a
| constant that was the speed with which electromagnetic
| waves propagate. The value of this constant was
| 300,000 Km/sec, and it forced Maxwell to ponder about the nature of
| light: light was known by then to move at a
| speed that was almost equal to this 300,000 Km/sec value. Maxwell
| thought that this could not have been a mere coincidence: it must be
| true that the light is in fact
| an electromagnetic wave!
|
| The velocity is so nearly that of light that it seems we
| have strong reason to conclude that light itself is an electromagnetic
| disturbance in the form of waves propagated through the
electromagnetic
| field according to electromagnetic laws. >>
| http://www-scf.usc.edu/~kallos/light1.htm
|
| -------
| Sue...

The value of this constant, still not measured correctly by Michelson
in 1932 despite being commissioned by the US Navy, was "noticed" by
Maxwell, born in 1832, who was "forced" to ponder.

Did Einstein "notice" that the "time" required by a turtle to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A?

Did John Goodricke, 18 years old in 1782, "notice" the light curve of
Algol is duplicated by Androcles' computer?

Come to that, did Wilson "notice" the light curve of Algol is duplicated
by Androcles' computer, or did Wilson try to duplicate Androcles' work?

You'll drag up any old illogical crap, won't you?

Wilson seems to have decided that light isn't electromagnetism
so you might as well make up the rules of logic as they fit
your purpose.
Sue...

Androcles

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
.

User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org"
Title: Re: Why DeSitter was WRONG.	25 Sep 2005 09:48:44 AM

"sue jahn" <suzysewnshow> wrote in message
news:op.sxnv3ax61v3b7x@maxwell.dbknest.net...
| On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 02:39:00 -0400, Androcles MyPlace.org>
<<Androcles>
| wrote:
|
| >
| > "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
| > news:1127622194.260018.278120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| > | Sigh....
| > |
| > | <<Maxwell, born in 1831, did for electromagnetism what
| > | Newton did for gravity. He summed up all previous efforts
| > | and descriptions on electric and magnetic phenomena, and
| > | found 4 equations (laws) that could describe everything related to
| > | them. He started out by being astonished from
| > | the fact that the equations of motion that seemed to describe
electric
| > | phenomena appeared to be the same as the equations that described
heat
| > | and water (fluids). He developed the analogy that the field lines
of
| > | electric forces were in analogy with the streamlines of an
| > | incompressible fluid.
| > | His physical picture was slightly wrong, but the equations
| > | he worked out were far more important.
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > | While working his equations though he noticed something
interesting: a
| > | physical constant appears in there, a
| > | constant that was the speed with which electromagnetic
| > | waves propagate. The value of this constant was
| > | 300,000 Km/sec, and it forced Maxwell to ponder about the nature
of
| > | light: light was known by then to move at a
| > | speed that was almost equal to this 300,000 Km/sec value. Maxwell
| > | thought that this could not have been a mere coincidence: it must
be
| > | true that the light is in fact
| > | an electromagnetic wave!
| > |
| > | The velocity is so nearly that of light that it seems we
| > | have strong reason to conclude that light itself is an
electromagnetic
| > | disturbance in the form of waves propagated through the
| > electromagnetic
| > | field according to electromagnetic laws. >>
| > | http://www-scf.usc.edu/~kallos/light1.htm
| > |
| > | -------
| > | Sue...
| >
| > The value of this constant, still not measured correctly by
Michelson
| > in 1932 despite being commissioned by the US Navy, was "noticed" by
| > Maxwell, born in 1832, who was "forced" to ponder.
| >
| > Did Einstein "notice" that the "time" required by a turtle to travel
| > from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A?
| >
| > Did John Goodricke, 18 years old in 1782, "notice" the light curve
of
| > Algol is duplicated by Androcles' computer?
| >
| > Come to that, did Wilson "notice" the light curve of Algol is
duplicated
| > by Androcles' computer, or did Wilson try to duplicate Androcles'
work?
| >
| > You'll drag up any old illogical crap, won't you?
|
|
| Wilson seems to have decided that light isn't electromagnetism
| so you might as well make up the rules of logic as they fit
| your purpose.
| Sue...
Wilson is attempting to reinvent Nature as Einstein and Ptolemy
before him attempted. Nothing is as important to Wilson as his
own "theory".
Yes, you are correct. Make it up as you go along, full speed ahead
and damn the photon torpedoes.
A single cycle of an electromagentic wave directed into a beam
is not a "photon", Newton called it a corpuscle. Maybe the name
you give it makes it different, but a rose by any other name would
stink as putrescently.
Androcles.
| >
| > Androcles
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
|
|
|
| --
| Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
.

User: "Wilson"
Title: Re: Why DeSitter was WRONG.	25 Sep 2005 04:28:22 PM

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 10:05:24 -0400, "sue jahn" <suzysewnshow> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 02:39:00 -0400, Androcles MyPlace.org> <<Androcles>
wrote:

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1127622194.260018.278120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Sigh....
|
Did John Goodricke, 18 years old in 1782, "notice" the light curve of
Algol is duplicated by Androcles' computer?

Come to that, did Wilson "notice" the light curve of Algol is duplicated
by Androcles' computer, or did Wilson try to duplicate Androcles' work?

You'll drag up any old illogical crap, won't you?

Wilson seems to have decided that light isn't electromagnetism
so you might as well make up the rules of logic as they fit
your purpose.

Wilson believes that light consists of packages of energy that consist of E and
M fields, a la Maxwell. These form a kind of standing wave along the length of
the photon, the frequency of which is not directly related to the 'nu' normally
associated with light.
The combination self-propagates through empty space with very little if any
loss.
Its speed is c wrt its source.
Happy now?

Sue...

Androcles

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
.

User: "Sue..."
Title: Re: Why DeSitter was WRONG.	25 Sep 2005 09:42:57 PM

Henri Wilson wrote:

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 10:05:24 -0400, "sue jahn" <suzysewnshow> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 02:39:00 -0400, Androcles MyPlace.org> <<Androcles>
wrote:

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1127622194.260018.278120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Sigh....
|

Did John Goodricke, 18 years old in 1782, "notice" the light curve of
Algol is duplicated by Androcles' computer?

Come to that, did Wilson "notice" the light curve of Algol is duplicated
by Androcles' computer, or did Wilson try to duplicate Androcles' work?

You'll drag up any old illogical crap, won't you?

Wilson seems to have decided that light isn't electromagnetism
so you might as well make up the rules of logic as they fit
your purpose.

Wilson believes that light consists of packages of energy

That is very convenient if you happen to be solving an ultraviolet
catastropy... useless for all else.

that consist of E and
M fields, a la Maxwell.

a la Maxwell doesn't even radiate.

These form a kind of standing wave along the length of
the photon,

You have just described a entity comprised of itself.
Next you'll have us believe snakes can subsist by swallowing
their tails.
the frequency of which is not directly related to the 'nu' normally

associated with light.

How frequently *does* a snake swallow it's tail? When it
isn't talking... I suppose:
<<Intelligent design should be taught as hoax
News-Leader.com, MO - 18 hours ago
Since intelligent design has no scientific substance, there is no
controversy with evolution to teach to a science student. >>
http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050925/OPINIONS/509250350/1091

The combination self-propagates through empty space with very little if any
loss.
Its speed is c wrt its source.

Snakes self unpropagate by swallow their tails.
So they must propagate by talking.

Happy now?

Indeed! Ignorance is bliss.
Sue...

Sue...

Androcles

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".

User: "David McAnally"
Title: Re: Why DeSitter was WRONG.	25 Sep 2005 10:57:21 PM

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> writes:

Henri Wilson wrote:

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 10:05:24 -0400, "sue jahn" <suzysewnshow> wrote:

Wilson seems to have decided that light isn't electromagnetism
so you might as well make up the rules of logic as they fit
your purpose.

Wilson believes that light consists of packages of energy

That is very convenient if you happen to be solving an ultraviolet
catastropy... useless for all else.

Even though an idiot like Wilson is expounding on HIS ideas regarding
light quanta, I feel that you have disregarded all the work done on light
quanta and the like by people who actually do know what they are doing.
Einstein used light quanta to explain the photoelectric effect.
Light quanta are important in the study of present day Quantum Optics (for
example, the study of the laser), Quantum Electrodynamics, and Quantum
Field Theory.
Of course, Wilson is the last person to whom you want to pay attention,
since he is yet another who has convinced himself that he knows more than
the professionals when he actually knows nothing at all.

that consist of E and
M fields, a la Maxwell.

a la Maxwell doesn't even radiate.

Garbage. I went through this with you previously, demonstrating that the
EM field satisfies an inhomogeneous wave equation in vacuo. I even
detailed the EM generated by a point charge in the non-quantum case.
Obviously you did not bother taking any notice of what was being told to
you.
As I remarked in an earlier post, Panofsky and Philips used the Lienard-
Wiechert potential of a point charge to derive the EM field generated by
the charge in vacuo:
E = q/(4 \pi e_0) {(1/s^3) S (1-u^2/c^2) + (1/(c^2 s^3)) [R,[S,du/dt]]},
B = [R,E]/(|R| c),
where the vector R is determined by the requirement that the charge is at
r-R at time t-|R|/c (since the charge is travelling at less than the speed
of light, then there is at most one value of R which satisfies this
condition), u is the velocity of the charge when it is at r-R at time
t-|R|/c, S = R - |R| u/c, s = |R| - u.R/c, du/dt is the acceleration of
the charge when it is at r-R at time t-|R|/c, and for vectors v and w,
[v,w] denotes the cross product of v and w. The first term within the
braces in the expression for E yields the electric field which is induced
by a uniformly moving charge (and the corresponding term in B in the full
expansion yields the magnetic field induced by a uniformly moving charge).
The first term in the braces makes no contribution to the radiation. The
second term, which depends on the acceleration, contributes to the EM
radiation.
I also made the point, at the same time, that the homogeneous equations
for the EM potential has nonzero solutions, e.g. A = a cos(k.r - |k| c t),
\Phi = 0, where k and a are constant vectors such that k.a = 0 (to satisfy
the Lorentz condition). The corresponding EM field is
E = |k| c a sin(k.r - |k| c t),
B = - [k,a] sin(k.r - |k| c t).
This solution is radiative.
The solution of the inhomogeneous equation is of the form of one specific
solution of the inhomogeneous equation plus some solution of the
homogeneous equation. The exact solution of the homogeneous equation that
you add to the specific solution of the inhomogeneous equation is
determined by the boundary conditions. In demanding that there is no
radiation as a consequence of Maxwell's Equations, you are artificially
fixing certain properties of the boundary conditions, and ignoring what
may be the actual case.
-----
.

User: "Sue..."
Title: Re: Why DeSitter was WRONG.	26 Sep 2005 05:04:35 AM

David McAnally wrote:

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> writes:

Henri Wilson wrote:

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 10:05:24 -0400, "sue jahn" <suzysewnshow> wrote:

Wilson seems to have decided that light isn't electromagnetism
so you might as well make up the rules of logic as they fit
your purpose.

Wilson believes that light consists of packages of energy

That is very convenient if you happen to be solving an ultraviolet
catastropy... useless for all else.

Can you cite a single piece where coherent radiation is not
distributed in a Gaussian pattern?

Einstein used light quanta to explain the photoelectric effect.

With all six assumptions he did. Read the paper.

Light quanta are important in the study of present day Quantum Optics (for
example, the study of the laser), Quantum Electrodynamics, and Quantum
Field Theory.

They are mathematical tools... not models of propagation.
<<
There is in particular one problem whose
exhaustive solution could provide considerable
elucidation. What becomes of the energy of a
photon after complete emission? Does it spread
out in all directions with further propagation
in the sense of Huygens' wave theory, so constantly
taking up more space, in boundless progressive
attenuation? Or does it fly out like a projectile
in one direction in the sense of Newton's emanation
theory? In the first case, the quantum would no
longer be in the position to concentrate energy
upon a single point in space in such a way as to
release an electron from its atomic bond, and in
the second case, the main triumph of the Maxwell
theory - the continuity between the static and the
dynamic fields and, with it, the complete understanding
we have enjoyed, until now, of the fully investigated
interference phenomena - would have to be
theoreticians.

http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1918/planck-lecture.html
http://www.eso.org/projects/vlti/images/vlti-array-smallsize.jpg

Of course, Wilson is the last person to whom you want to pay attention,
since he is yet another who has convinced himself that he knows more than
the professionals when he actually knows nothing at all.

The pot calls the kettle?

that consist of E and
M fields, a la Maxwell.

a la Maxwell doesn't even radiate.

No... you stalled when you had to rely on a canned wavefuncton
formula. You demonstrated nothing and refused to read
"the professionals" as you call them.
You'll only cite 'Jackson' when he supports your mythology.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing

As I remarked in an earlier post, Panofsky and Philips used the Lienard-
Wiechert potential of a point charge to derive the EM field generated by
the charge in vacuo:

E = q/(4 \pi e_0) {(1/s^3) S (1-u^2/c^2) + (1/(c^2 s^3)) [R,[S,du/dt]]},

B = [R,E]/(|R| c),

where the vector R is determined by the requirement that the charge is at
r-R at time t-|R|/c (since the charge is travelling at less than the speed
of light, then there is at most one value of R which satisfies this
condition), u is the velocity of the charge when it is at r-R at time
t-|R|/c, S = R - |R| u/c, s = |R| - u.R/c, du/dt is the acceleration of
the charge when it is at r-R at time t-|R|/c, and for vectors v and w,
[v,w] denotes the cross product of v and w. The first term within the
braces in the expression for E yields the electric field which is induced
by a uniformly moving charge (and the corresponding term in B in the full
expansion yields the magnetic field induced by a uniformly moving charge).
The first term in the braces makes no contribution to the radiation. The
second term, which depends on the acceleration, contributes to the EM
radiation.

I also made the point, at the same time, that the homogeneous equations
for the EM potential has nonzero solutions, e.g. A = a cos(k.r - |k| c t),
\Phi = 0, where k and a are constant vectors such that k.a = 0 (to satisfy
the Lorentz condition). The corresponding EM field is

E = |k| c a sin(k.r - |k| c t),

B = - [k,a] sin(k.r - |k| c t).

This solution is radiative.

The solution of the inhomogeneous equation is of the form of one specific
solution of the inhomogeneous equation plus some solution of the
homogeneous equation. The exact solution of the homogeneous equation that
you add to the specific solution of the inhomogeneous equation is
determined by the boundary conditions. In demanding that there is no
radiation as a consequence of Maxwell's Equations, you are artificially
fixing certain properties of the boundary conditions, and ignoring what
may be the actual case.

I don't think Wilson believes there is any relation between light and
charges so you can show your maths to Jackson and show some fairy tales
to Wilson.
Sue...

-----

User: "Wilson"
Title: Re: Why DeSitter was WRONG.	26 Sep 2005 05:21:33 PM

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 03:57:21 +0000 (UTC), D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au (David
McAnally) wrote:

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> writes:

Henri Wilson wrote:

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 10:05:24 -0400, "sue jahn" <suzysewnshow> wrote:

Light quanta are important in the study of present day Quantum Optics (for
example, the study of the laser), Quantum Electrodynamics, and Quantum
Field Theory.

Of course, Wilson is the last person to whom you want to pay attention,
since he is yet another who has convinced himself that he knows more than
the professionals when he actually knows nothing at all.

Are these the professionals who have become expert at a magnificent
mathematical theory that just happens to be wrong from start to finish.
See www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
for some examples of how the BaT predicts observed variable star brightness
curves.

that consist of E and
M fields, a la Maxwell.

a la Maxwell doesn't even radiate.

Garbage. I went through this with you previously, demonstrating that the
EM field satisfies an inhomogeneous wave equation in vacuo. I even
detailed the EM generated by a point charge in the non-quantum case.
Obviously you did not bother taking any notice of what was being told to
you.

As I remarked in an earlier post, Panofsky and Philips used the Lienard-
Wiechert potential of a point charge to derive the EM field generated by
the charge in vacuo:

E = q/(4 \pi e_0) {(1/s^3) S (1-u^2/c^2) + (1/(c^2 s^3)) [R,[S,du/dt]]},

B = [R,E]/(|R| c),

where the vector R is determined by the requirement that the charge is at
r-R at time t-|R|/c (since the charge is travelling at less than the speed
of light, then there is at most one value of R which satisfies this
condition), u is the velocity of the charge when it is at r-R at time
t-|R|/c, S = R - |R| u/c, s = |R| - u.R/c, du/dt is the acceleration of
the charge when it is at r-R at time t-|R|/c, and for vectors v and w,
[v,w] denotes the cross product of v and w. The first term within the
braces in the expression for E yields the electric field which is induced
by a uniformly moving charge (and the corresponding term in B in the full
expansion yields the magnetic field induced by a uniformly moving charge).
The first term in the braces makes no contribution to the radiation. The
second term, which depends on the acceleration, contributes to the EM
radiation.

I also made the point, at the same time, that the homogeneous equations
for the EM potential has nonzero solutions, e.g. A = a cos(k.r - |k| c t),
\Phi = 0, where k and a are constant vectors such that k.a = 0 (to satisfy
the Lorentz condition). The corresponding EM field is

E = |k| c a sin(k.r - |k| c t),

B = - [k,a] sin(k.r - |k| c t).

This solution is radiative.

The solution of the inhomogeneous equation is of the form of one specific
solution of the inhomogeneous equation plus some solution of the
homogeneous equation. The exact solution of the homogeneous equation that
you add to the specific solution of the inhomogeneous equation is
determined by the boundary conditions. In demanding that there is no
radiation as a consequence of Maxwell's Equations, you are artificially
fixing certain properties of the boundary conditions, and ignoring what
may be the actual case.

-----

User: "Autymn D. C."
Title: Re: Why DeSitter was WRONG.	26 Sep 2005 12:35:18 AM

Sue the *****, stop misspelling its.
.

User: "David McAnally"
Title: Re: Why DeSitter was WRONG.	26 Sep 2005 09:28:30 AM

"Autymn D. C." <lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> writes:

Sue the *****, stop misspelling its.

Sue's already shown herself to ignorant of physics. It is hardly
surprising that she should be ignorant of correct English as well.
-----
.

User: "David McAnally"
Title: Re: Why DeSitter was WRONG.	26 Sep 2005 09:54:44 AM

D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au (David McAnally) writes:

"Autymn D. C." <lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> writes:

Sue the *****, stop misspelling its.

Sue's already shown herself to ignorant of physics. It is hardly
surprising that she should be ignorant of correct English as well.

That should have read:
Sue's already shown herself to be ignorant of physics. It is hardly
surprising that she should be ignorant of correct English as well.
-----
.

User: "Wilson"
Title: Re: Why DeSitter was WRONG.	25 Sep 2005 04:23:33 PM

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 06:39:00 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote:

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1127622194.260018.278120@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Sigh....
|
| <<Maxwell, born in 1831, did for electromagnetism what
| Newton did for gravity. He summed up all previous efforts
| and descriptions on electric and magnetic phenomena, and
| found 4 equations (laws) that could describe everything related to
| them. He started out by being astonished from
| the fact that the equations of motion that seemed to describe electric
| phenomena appeared to be the same as the equations that described heat
| and water (fluids). He developed the analogy that the field lines of
| electric forces were in analogy with the streamlines of an
| incompressible fluid.
| His physical picture was slightly wrong, but the equations
| he worked out were far more important.
|
|
|
| While working his equations though he noticed something interesting: a
| physical constant appears in there, a
| constant that was the speed with which electromagnetic
| waves propagate. The value of this constant was
| 300,000 Km/sec, and it forced Maxwell to ponder about the nature of
| light: light was known by then to move at a
| speed that was almost equal to this 300,000 Km/sec value. Maxwell
| thought that this could not have been a mere coincidence: it must be
| true that the light is in fact
| an electromagnetic wave!
|
| The velocity is so nearly that of light that it seems we
| have strong reason to conclude that light itself is an electromagnetic
| disturbance in the form of waves propagated through the
electromagnetic
| field according to electromagnetic laws. >>
| http://www-scf.usc.edu/~kallos/light1.htm
|
| -------
| Sue...

The value of this constant, still not measured correctly by Michelson
in 1932 despite being commissioned by the US Navy, was "noticed" by
Maxwell, born in 1832, who was "forced" to ponder.

Did Einstein "notice" that the "time" required by a turtle to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A?

Did John Goodricke, 18 years old in 1782, "notice" the light curve of
Algol is duplicated by Androcles' computer?

Come to that, did Wilson "notice" the light curve of Algol is duplicated
by Androcles' computer, or did Wilson try to duplicate Androcles' work?

Aw! Come on A, we're stuck in the same boat.... Let's be friends!

You'll drag up any old illogical crap, won't you?

Androcles

User: "Wilson"
Title: Re: Why DeSitter was WRONG.	25 Sep 2005 12:15:06 AM

On 24 Sep 2005 21:23:14 -0700, "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:

This is a fine example of SRian logic.

DeSitter claimed to have refuted the BaT by observing how binary star pairs
didn't do what they should have done if the speed of light was source
dependent.

De Sitter claims to have observed two stars orbiting each other at an
accurately known distance. He also claimed that he knew their approximate
separation and radial velocities.

By assuming all light travels to Earth at precisely c, he assumed that what he
saw was what was actually happening. He then went on to conclude that if light
speed was c+v, what he was seeing should not happen. In other words he used
data based on constant c to show that constant c was correct and that c+v was
wrong.

This is ludicrous! Completely circular in logic!

The sensible approach should have been to realise that what he was observing
might not be what was actually happening and then try to anticipate the true
state of affairs that was giving rise to his observations.
The plain fact is, none of his observed parameters could be believed. They were
illusions caused by his attempts to interpret c+v effects with constant c
methods.

Maxwell found the universal constant 'c'....which also happens to be the speed
of light wrt its source, in a pure vacuum.
Neither Maxwell nor anyone else has verified that light speed from a moving
source is equal to c...SO DON'T TRY TO MAKE OUT YOU KNOW SOMETHING.

The value of this constant was
300,000 Km/sec, and it forced Maxwell to ponder about the nature of
light: light was known by then to move at a
speed that was almost equal to this 300,000 Km/sec value. Maxwell
thought that this could not have been a mere coincidence: it must be
true that the light is in fact
an electromagnetic wave!

The velocity is so nearly that of light that it seems we
have strong reason to conclude that light itself is an electromagnetic
disturbance in the form of waves propagated through the electromagnetic
field according to electromagnetic laws. >>
http://www-scf.usc.edu/~kallos/light1.htm

What electromagnetic field?

-------
Sue...

User: "Igor"
Title: Re: Why DeSitter was WRONG.	25 Sep 2005 02:38:34 AM

Henri Wilson wrote:

On 24 Sep 2005 21:23:14 -0700, "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:

This is a fine example of SRian logic.

DeSitter claimed to have refuted the BaT by observing how binary star pairs
didn't do what they should have done if the speed of light was source
dependent.

De Sitter claims to have observed two stars orbiting each other at an
accurately known distance. He also claimed that he knew their approximate
separation and radial velocities.

By assuming all light travels to Earth at precisely c, he assumed that what he
saw was what was actually happening. He then went on to conclude that if light
speed was c+v, what he was seeing should not happen. In other words he used
data based on constant c to show that constant c was correct and that c+v was
wrong.

This is ludicrous! Completely circular in logic!

The sensible approach should have been to realise that what he was observing
might not be what was actually happening and then try to anticipate the true
state of affairs that was giving rise to his observations.
The plain fact is, none of his observed parameters could be believed. They were
illusions caused by his attempts to interpret c+v effects with constant c
methods.

Maxwell found the universal constant 'c'....which also happens to be the speed
of light wrt its source, in a pure vacuum.

Neither Maxwell nor anyone else has verified that light speed from a moving
source is equal to c...SO DON'T TRY TO MAKE OUT YOU KNOW SOMETHING.

What electromagnetic field?

-------
Sue...

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".

And how do Maxwell's equations maintain their form under the ballistic
theory? They don't! It can be shot down by just the simple act of
moving a magnet. Dead in the water and time to move on. If you
actually knew what you were talking about, you would have abandoned
this nonsense a long time ago.
.

User: "Wilson"
Title: Re: Why DeSitter was WRONG.	25 Sep 2005 04:19:31 PM

On 25 Sep 2005 00:38:34 -0700, "Igor" <thoovler@excite.com> wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:

And how do Maxwell's equations maintain their form under the ballistic
theory? They don't! It can be shot down by just the simple act of
moving a magnet. Dead in the water and time to move on. If you
actually knew what you were talking about, you would have abandoned
this nonsense a long time ago.

see how the BaT predicts variable star brightness curves:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
Then you might not be such a know-all smartarse.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
.

User: "Sue..."
Title: Re: Why DeSitter was WRONG.	27 Sep 2005 07:45:53 AM

Henri Wilson wrote:

On 24 Sep 2005 21:23:14 -0700, "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:

This is a fine example of SRian logic.

DeSitter claimed to have refuted the BaT by observing how binary star pairs
didn't do what they should have done if the speed of light was source
dependent.

De Sitter claims to have observed two stars orbiting each other at an
accurately known distance. He also claimed that he knew their approximate
separation and radial velocities.

By assuming all light travels to Earth at precisely c, he assumed that what he
saw was what was actually happening. He then went on to conclude that if light
speed was c+v, what he was seeing should not happen. In other words he used
data based on constant c to show that constant c was correct and that c+v was
wrong.

This is ludicrous! Completely circular in logic!

The sensible approach should have been to realise that what he was observing
might not be what was actually happening and then try to anticipate the true
state of affairs that was giving rise to his observations.
The plain fact is, none of his observed parameters could be believed. They were
illusions caused by his attempts to interpret c+v effects with constant c
methods.

Maxwell found the universal constant 'c'....which also happens to be the speed
of light wrt its source, in a pure vacuum.

Neither Maxwell nor anyone else has verified that light speed from a moving
source is equal to c...SO DON'T TRY TO MAKE OUT YOU KNOW SOMETHING.

Actually, Weber measured this on the surface of a conductor and
that is where Maxwell got the number from. In Maxwell's case
it was fairly speculative that it would extend to free space.
In your case, it is pure folly to assert that it does not.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html
Sue...

What electromagnetic field?

-------
Sue...

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".

User: "Wilson"
Title: Re: Why DeSitter was WRONG.	27 Sep 2005 05:58:31 PM

On 27 Sep 2005 05:45:53 -0700, "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:

On 24 Sep 2005 21:23:14 -0700, "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

Maxwell found the universal constant 'c'....which also happens to be the speed
of light wrt its source, in a pure vacuum.

Neither Maxwell nor anyone else has verified that light speed from a moving
source is equal to c...SO DON'T TRY TO MAKE OUT YOU KNOW SOMETHING.

Actually, Weber measured this on the surface of a conductor and
that is where Maxwell got the number from. In Maxwell's case
it was fairly speculative that it would extend to free space.

In your case, it is pure folly to assert that it does not.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html

Sue...

Can you not get it into your head that the phrase 'speed of light in a vacuum'
has no physical meaning. It is a nonsense statement ..a remnant of aether
theory.
SPEEDS MUST ALWAYS BE SPECIFIED RELATIVE TO SOMETHING.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
.

User: "The Ghost In The Machine"
Title: Re: Why DeSitter was WRONG.	27 Sep 2005 11:00:08 PM

In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson)
<H@>
wrote
on Tue, 27 Sep 2005 22:58:31 GMT
<oejjj1d75n8nm3lhgnbphio1tah2qk2382@4ax.com>:

On 27 Sep 2005 05:45:53 -0700, "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:

On 24 Sep 2005 21:23:14 -0700, "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

Maxwell found the universal constant 'c'....which also happens
to be the speed of light wrt its source, in a pure vacuum.

Neither Maxwell nor anyone else has verified that light speed
from a moving source is equal to c...SO DON'T TRY TO MAKE OUT
YOU KNOW SOMETHING.

Actually, Weber measured this on the surface of a conductor and
that is where Maxwell got the number from. In Maxwell's case
it was fairly speculative that it would extend to free space.

In your case, it is pure folly to assert that it does not.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html

Sue...

That is correct. Of course, it's a Universal Accident of some
sort that the speed of light relative to anything (insofar as our
measurements have shown to this point) is always constant, to
within a few parts per trillion, if I'm not mistaken.
(This despite the Earth's movement through the luminiferous aether,
existent or no, with a variance of at least 2 * 10^-4 c or thereabouts.)

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".

--
#191,

It's still legal to go .sigless.
.

User: "Wilson"
Title: Re: Why DeSitter was WRONG.	28 Sep 2005 06:14:18 AM

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 04:00:08 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:

In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson)
<H@>
wrote

In your case, it is pure folly to assert that it does not.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html

Sue...

That is correct. Of course, it's a Universal Accident of some
sort that the speed of light relative to anything (insofar as our
measurements have shown to this point) is always constant, to
within a few parts per trillion, if I'm not mistaken.

(This despite the Earth's movement through the luminiferous aether,
existent or no, with a variance of at least 2 * 10^-4 c or thereabouts.)

Ghost, TWLS is always = c, if the 'mirror' and source are mutually at rest.
That is a direct consequene of the fact that light leaves its source at speed c
relative to that source....and everything at rest wrt it.
On the other hand, OWLS has never been measured at all, let alone from a
relatively moving source.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
.

User: "Jerry"
Title: Re: Why DeSitter was WRONG.	29 Sep 2005 03:03:18 AM

Henri Wilson wrote:

On the other hand, OWLS has never been measured at all, let
alone from a relatively moving source.

DELTA OWLS (i.e. OWLS anisotropy) has been measured multiple times.
It is always ZERO to within experimental limits.
ALWAYS.
Hence, OWLS = TWLS to within experimental limits.
And yes, DELTA OWLS has been measured from a relatively moving
mirror, in high vacuum.
BaT has failed EVERY experimental test.
BaT has failed EVERY observational test.
Effects of extinction have been explicitly accounted for
in multiple references.
Jerry
.

User: "The Ghost In The Machine"
Title: Re: Why DeSitter was WRONG.	29 Sep 2005 10:00:08 PM

In sci.physics, Jerry
<Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net>
wrote
on 29 Sep 2005 01:03:18 -0700
<1127980998.891747.264620@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:

Henri Wilson wrote:

On the other hand, OWLS has never been measured at all, let
alone from a relatively moving source.

DELTA OWLS (i.e. OWLS anisotropy) has been measured multiple times.

It is always ZERO to within experimental limits.

ALWAYS.

Hence, OWLS = TWLS to within experimental limits.

Not quite. However, the usual assumptions include a mirror which
takes zero time to reflect. :-)

And yes, DELTA OWLS has been measured from a relatively moving
mirror, in high vacuum.

BaT has failed EVERY experimental test.

BaT cannot be disproven by the MMX, as a moment's reflection (ahem)
will see; the standard MMX setup involves a stationary lightsource.
Since BaT assumes emissions from that lightsource are at a constant
velocity c, the MMX can't tell the difference between these three
scenarios.
[1] "Ice Newtonian". The light acts as little pellets and always
moves at c relative to whatever it's coming from or bouncing
off thereof. (Since there are issues regarding the source's
temperature this cannot be 100% accurate; the introduced error
is about 1 in a million at room temperature using nitrogen gas,
if memory serves. Small potatoes in the lab, very large in
the star field.)
[2] "Lorentzian". Everything is moving in some sort of aether
but everything is contracted as well according to the Lorentz.
[3] "SR". Similar to "Ice Newtonian" except that
lightspeed is always c and the energy from a moving
mirror would manifest as a wavelength and/or frequency
shift, not as a speed difference. Since nothing is
moving in the MMX except the hypothetical luminiferous
aether, [1] and [3] are equivalent. (One way of
differentiation is to aim the Lorentz at a moving
source such as Venus; I'm assuming this has been done.)
Not that this means much; other experiments can and have differentiated
between these three scenarios, AFAIK.

BaT has failed EVERY observational test.

Not quite. H. Wilson has a number of curvefitting/star
orbit computation tools that purport to show that many
stars are in fact BaT-compliant. However, this doesn't
mean BaT has been verified or SR falsified.

Effects of extinction have been explicitly accounted for
in multiple references.

Jerry

--
#191,

It's still legal to go .sigless.
.

User: "Wilson"
Title: Re: Why DeSitter was WRONG.	29 Sep 2005 06:43:53 PM

On 29 Sep 2005 01:03:18 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:

On the other hand, OWLS has never been measured at all, let
alone from a relatively moving source.

DELTA OWLS (i.e. OWLS anisotropy) has been measured multiple times.

It is always ZERO to within experimental limits.

ALWAYS.

Hence, OWLS = TWLS to within experimental limits.

And yes, DELTA OWLS has been measured from a relatively moving
mirror, in high vacuum.

BaT has failed EVERY experimental test.
BaT has failed EVERY observational test.

Listen you stupid *****, the BaT says that OWLS = TWLS = c in all these
experiments.
The fact that all measurements TWLS provide the same answer and the fact that
OWLS is 100% isotropic when non moving sources are involved are in full support
of the BaT.
.....so go away and learn a few facts...

Effects of extinction have been explicitly accounted for
in multiple references.

Jerry

User: "The Ghost In The Machine"
Title: Re: Why DeSitter was WRONG.	28 Sep 2005 11:00:24 PM

In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson)
<H@>
wrote
on Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:14:18 GMT
<rfukj1pdk3ct2a9uqjtulfjmn7qm8p34gc@4ax.com>:

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 04:00:08 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:

In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson)
<H@>
wrote

In your case, it is pure folly to assert that it does not.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html

Sue...

That is correct. Of course, it's a Universal Accident of some
sort that the speed of light relative to anything (insofar as our
measurements have shown to this point) is always constant, to
within a few parts per trillion, if I'm not mistaken.

(This despite the Earth's movement through the luminiferous aether,
existent or no, with a variance of at least 2 * 10^-4 c or thereabouts.)

How would a light source have light leaving at c if the
light source has moving parts (hot atoms)?
This is a flaw in the BaT theory. It's a flaw you for
some reason refuse to address. SR of course ignores
the issue entirely by flatly stating that lightspeed
is c everywhere relative to anybody, and twisting time
and space to accomplish this constancy. The worst that
happens in SR is the spectral lines get a little fuzzy,
but all of the photons arrive at the same time.

On the other hand, OWLS has never been measured at all, let
alone from a relatively moving source.

Various results have been measured, some of which relate
to OWLS. However, I'd have to look, and in any event
one has to deal with a variant of the "headwind/tailwind
problem", where the combined velocity is (c^2-v^2)/c,
which is less than c.
But Sam has a webpage or two detailing some experiments
relating on OWLS isotropy, even though OWLS is not directly
measured (or, apparently, measurable).
[.sigsnip]
Followups.
--
#191,

It's still legal to go .sigless.
.

User: "brian a m stuckless"
Title: Re: Why DeSitter was WRONG.	01 Oct 2005 04:08:02 AM

Androcles wrote:

The *Wet FiNGER up iNSiDE* Michelson Morely WiND speed TEST.!!
You're making NO hay, here, Dimwit.!!
TURN to the GUESS, idiot.!!

Androcles.

User: "Sue..."
Title: Re: Why DeSitter was WRONG.	28 Sep 2005 05:25:56 AM

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson)
<H@>
wrote
on Tue, 27 Sep 2005 22:58:31 GMT
<oejjj1d75n8nm3lhgnbphio1tah2qk2382@4ax.com>:

On 27 Sep 2005 05:45:53 -0700, "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:

On 24 Sep 2005 21:23:14 -0700, "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

Maxwell found the universal constant 'c'....which also happens
to be the speed of light wrt its source, in a pure vacuum.

Neither Maxwell nor anyone else has verified that light speed
from a moving source is equal to c...SO DON'T TRY TO MAKE OUT
YOU KNOW SOMETHING.

Actually, Weber measured this on the surface of a conductor and
that is where Maxwell got the number from. In Maxwell's case
it was fairly speculative that it would extend to free space.

In your case, it is pure folly to assert that it does not.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html

Sue...

That is correct. Of course, it's a Universal Accident of some
sort that the speed of light relative to anything (insofar as our
measurements have shown to this point) is always constant, to
within a few parts per trillion, if I'm not mistaken.

(This despite the Earth's movement through the luminiferous aether,
existent or no, with a variance of at least 2 * 10^-4 c or thereabouts.)

Henri's corpuscular propagation model is supported by sound
electromagnetic theory. The book raises his arse up about
7cm so he reach the keyboard and he's never found need to
use it for anything else. ;-)
Sue...

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".

--
#191,

It's still legal to go .sigless.

Page 1 of 3

Post reply

Exterior derivative in deSitter space-time
Wrong deSitter space Penrose diagram - but idea still works
WHY THERMATE was USED on 9/11 by the ACTUAL PERPETRATORS ????
Catholic Bishop: 9-11 Was Inside Job - Destroying America - I HATEbush just like any real man would - demand Justice for Humanity - Why wouldGOD will the destruction of life for a criminal thief? - We, as the People,demand you allow US, the human spe
I believe 9/11 was an inside job. Am I kook? Why was I shot in the head in front of my mother in the street of a quiet neighbourhood just two weeks after I had started a 9/11 Truth group at my University? I was one of the most decorated science and e
Why Was The Burn Wound ^^^^White^^^^? It was ^*NOT*^ caused by VASOCONSTRICTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GROTESQUE PHOTO UPSETS INTERNET COMMISSI0N -- LARRY KING, CNN HAVE NO BALLS -- Why 911 Gov't Conspiracy Debate Was *****-Canned
Re: Superslingshot (was: Question why)

The Burn-Injury was White but NOT *dehydrated*!!! Why???
The Infinitesimal Calculus: How and Why it Was Imported into Europe
Re: "fly me to the loon..." was OT: this is why ideology/ideologues suck
Re: Primo Levi worked for the Nazis too. Are all Chem professionals cowards in the face of TYRNANY? 911 was an inside job. Why are all you qualified cowards deserting Prof Steven Jones?
Re: Reply 2 steven-J\Subject: Re: If evolution was such a fact, why do scientist disagree? comments by W.R.Thompson
The (Metaphorical) Death of Archimedes Plutonium; was: Re: Why Archimedes Plutonium will never proof the 4CT
WHY EINSTEIN WAS FED UP WITH RELATIVITY IN 1921

Topics

Bible

Abortion