Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #390131 > unrolled thread

Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-16 12:16 -0700
    Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 13:17 -0700
      Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-17 08:34 +1000
        Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 16:04 -0700
          Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-17 13:43 +1000
            Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 00:12 -0700
              Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-19 05:31 +1000
                Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 13:20 -0700
                  Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-19 06:38 +1000
                    Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 13:59 -0700
    Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:33 -0500
      Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-22 12:12 -0700
        Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-23 10:56 -0700
          Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 12:13 -0700
            Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-24 06:29 +1000
          Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-23 18:47 -0500
            Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-25 03:36 +1000
              Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-24 21:00 +0200
              Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-24 17:13 -0500
                Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-25 20:02 +1000
                  Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-28 10:56 -0500
                    Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-29 06:00 +1000
                      Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-28 21:51 -0500
                        Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-29 20:40 +1000
                          Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-29 07:04 -0700
                            Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-30 05:17 +1000
                          Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-30 08:59 -0500
                            Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-30 10:45 -0700
                            Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-09-05 16:28 +1000
                              Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-06 10:14 -0500
                                Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-06 20:39 +0200
                                Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-07 05:55 +1000
                                  Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-12 11:41 -0500
                                    Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-13 09:20 +1000
                                Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 22:34 -0700
                      Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-29 14:11 +0200
                Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-25 03:13 -0700
      Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-23 05:59 +1000
        Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-22 22:59 -0700
          Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-23 19:42 +1000
            Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-23 03:17 -0700
              Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS) is a bogus concept of physics "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-24 06:34 +1000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#391116

On 8/25/16 8/25/16   5:02 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 25/08/16 08:13, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> You REALLY don't understand science, or scientists.
>
> I fully understand failed scientists like Tom Roberts.

You don't "understand" me at all. I am not "failed" except in your personal 
fantasy world. In the real world I am a successful professional physicist and 
earn a good living at it. I actually have two independent jobs that reflect my 
varied interests and expertise in physics.


>> Your personal
>> fantasy world is wildly disconnected from the world we inhabit, and it
>> is truly remarkable how ignorant and closed-minded you are.
>
> There has never been an experiment that disagrees with the notion that light
> speed is source dependent like everything else.

Yes, IN YOUR PERSONAL FANTASY WORLD. In the real world there have been LOTS of 
such experiments.


> [... further fantasies]

> Well why doesn't someone follow up my variable star discoveries which clearly
> show that light travels at different speeds towards Earth.

Again your colossal IGNORANCE is showing. There are many observations of binary 
star systems, both visual binaries and spectroscopic binaries, that directly 
contradict that. If light traveled at c+v towards earth, they would look 
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from what is observed.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391136

On 29/08/16 01:56, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 8/25/16 8/25/16   5:02 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>> On 25/08/16 08:13, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> You REALLY don't understand science, or scientists.
>>
>> I fully understand failed scientists like Tom Roberts.
>
> You don't "understand" me at all. I am not "failed" except in your
> personal fantasy world. In the real world I am a successful
> professional physicist and earn a good living at it.

I also made a successful living out of being a professional physicist
for twenty years till I got sick of putting up with useless academics
like some people here.

> I actually have two independent jobs that reflect my varied interests
> and expertise in physics.

We know what one is....publicity agent for THE GRAND CONSPIRACY.
How much do they pay you to keep the name 'Einstein' alive on physics 
forums?

>> Well why doesn't someone follow up my variable star discoveries
>> which clearly show that light travels at different speeds towards
>> Earth.
>
> Again your colossal IGNORANCE is showing. There are many
> observations of binary star systems, both visual binaries and
> spectroscopic binaries, that directly contradict that. If light
> traveled at c+v towards earth, they would look COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
> from what is observed.

How can you explain the fact that a great many star curves have the
exact shapes predicted by the theory that is based on the assumption 
light moves ballistically from stars which pulsate in certain prescribed 
ways or are moving in precise elliptical orbits. As a successful 
physicist, you should be vitally interested in such a relationship.

What else would cause stars to vary in brightness in such a precisely 
predictable manner? The fact that Cepheids in particular behave exactly 
like this represents a far greater discovery than that of Henrietta 
Leavitt.

> Tom Roberts
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391151

On 8/28/16 8/28/16   3:00 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 29/08/16 01:56, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> There are many
>> observations of binary star systems, both visual binaries and
>> spectroscopic binaries, that directly contradict that. If light
>> traveled at c+v towards earth, they would look COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
>> from what is observed.
>
> How can you explain the fact that a great many star curves have the
> exact shapes predicted by the theory that is based on the assumption light moves
> ballistically from stars which pulsate in certain prescribed ways or are moving
> in precise elliptical orbits. As a successful physicist, you should be vitally
> interested in such a relationship.

Not so. You again show your colossal IGNORANCE of what science actually is. I 
don't need to "explain" how or why your model appears to provide an assumption 
about certain stars' light curves. Because the observations of both visible 
binaries and spectroscopic binaries REFUTE YOUR MODEL.

Remember this is supposed to be SCIENCE, in which a single refutation is 
sufficient to demonstrate that a given model is not valid. Your model is not 
valid. It does not matter how many instances your model seems to work for, as 
there are MANY for which it DOES NOT WORK.


> What else would cause stars to vary in brightness in such a precisely
> predictable manner?

That is NOT the way science works. Again you display you colossal IGNORANCE.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391162

On 29/08/16 12:51, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 8/28/16 8/28/16   3:00 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:

>> How can you explain the fact that a great many star curves have
>> the exact shapes predicted by the theory that is based on the
>> assumption light moves ballistically from stars which pulsate in
>> certain prescribed ways or are moving in precise elliptical orbits.
>> As a successful physicist, you should be vitally interested in such
>> a relationship.
>
> Not so. You again show your colossal IGNORANCE of what science
> actually is. I don't need to "explain" how or why your model appears
> to provide an assumption about certain stars' light curves. Because
> the observations of both visible binaries and spectroscopic binaries
> REFUTE YOUR MODEL.
>
> Remember this is supposed to be SCIENCE, in which a single refutation
> is sufficient to demonstrate that a given model is not valid. Your
> model is not valid. It does not matter how many instances your model
> seems to work for, as there are MANY for which it DOES NOT WORK.

No credible experiment has refuted the obvious fact that light behaves 
ballistically.
>
>
>> What else would cause stars to vary in brightness in such a
>> precisely predictable manner?
>
> That is NOT the way science works. Again you display you colossal
> IGNORANCE.

You obviously have no aptitude for physics. No physicist would behave 
the way you do. You are nothing but a science historian and second rate 
journalist who is incapable of original thought.
The fact that most star curves follow a certain narrow pattern is
extremely interesting whether my theory is right or wrong.

No genuine physicist would ignore such facts. They would at least look 
for alternative explanations even if they insisted on
rejecting the obvious truth that there is no absolute frame and light 
speed must be and IS source dependent.

> Tom Roberts
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391176

On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 6:40:41 AM UTC-4, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:

> No credible experiment has refuted the obvious fact that light behaves 
> ballistically.

delusions on your part. MANY direct exps refute the ballistic model. You just cant handle reality. And part of that reality, is that you are an idiot and you are too weak to admit it and too dumb to do anything about it. So you remain stuck in your ignorance & delusions. 


> No physicist would behave the way you do. 

You mean that no decent human would behave the way YOU do. You Are dishonest to yourself and to everyone else. 


> ...who is incapable of original thought.

Actually, he is one of the rare ones here who has shown to be able to solve original problems. You, OTOH, have failed miserably on every (simple) problem posed in this NG. I recall posing simple highschool math/physics probs here; you FAILED them. If you would admit to your weaknesses, then you cant work on them and try to better yourself. But you choose not too. So, remain an idiot as you choose to be.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391183

On 30/08/16 00:04, rotchm wrote:
> On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 6:40:41 AM UTC-4, HGWilson, DSc.

>
>
>> ...who is incapable of original thought.
>
> Actually, he is one of the rare ones here who has shown to be able to
> solve original problems. You, OTOH, have failed miserably on every
> (simple) problem posed in this NG. I recall posing simple highschool
> math/physics probs here; you FAILED them. If you would admit to your
> weaknesses, then you cant work on them and try to better yourself.
> But you choose not too. So, remain an idiot as you choose to be.

You have never uttered a word of physics and don't even know what your 
own theory says.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391233

On 8/29/16 8/29/16 - 5:40 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> No credible experiment has refuted the obvious fact that light behaves
> ballistically.

Again, only in your personal fantasy world.

In the real world, what you claim as "fact" is refuted by essentially every 
observation of visual binary stars, and by essentially every observation of 
spectroscopic binary stars. Not to mention all the direct tests....


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391239

W dniu wtorek, 30 sierpnia 2016 15:59:28 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> On 8/29/16 8/29/16 - 5:40 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> > No credible experiment has refuted the obvious fact that light behaves
> > ballistically.
> 
> Again, only in your personal fantasy world.
> 
> In the real world, what you claim as "fact" is refuted by essentially every 
> observation of visual binary stars, and by essentially every observation of 
> spectroscopic binary stars. Not to mention all the direct tests....

You are still more stupid.

The binary stars are consistent with the LET perfectly, namely:
lightspeed c =~ const wrt the ether frame.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391555

On 30/08/16 23:59, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 8/29/16 8/29/16 - 5:40 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>> No credible experiment has refuted the obvious fact that light behaves
>> ballistically.
>
> Again, only in your personal fantasy world.
>
> In the real world, what you claim as "fact" is refuted by essentially
> every observation of visual binary stars, and by essentially every
> observation of spectroscopic binary stars. Not to mention all the direct
> tests....

Your mistake is that you are making deductions about objects based on 
their spectral detail and assuming constant light speed. Naturally if 
you interpret observed data in that way, your conclusions will not 
support a theory that acknowledges variable light speeds.

For instance, if you see light curves like these, 
http://www.scisite.info/fig3.jpg
you will immediately think they are from eclipsing binaries.
Then you will estimate their speeds from spectral shifts and claim BaTh 
would predict something entirely different.

In fact, those curves are from a stable star with one orbiting planet. 
Its brightness variation is probably entirely Willusory.
The typical Cepheid type curve is one of the most studied variables. One 
notable feature of Cepheids is that their brightness curves are near 
mirror image of their spectral shifts. That is just as predicted by BaTh 
for stars with one planet with ecc between 0.1 and 0.2 and a narrow 
range of yaw angles relative to Earth. However, it is apparent that the 
same type of curve results from body pulsations and surface waves, which 
explain short period and transient Cepheid phenomena. It is unlikely but 
not entirely impossible that any object could orbit a star with a period 
of less than about two days.


>
> Tom Roberts


-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391617

On 9/5/16 9/5/16 - 1:28 AM, HGW. wrote:
> On 30/08/16 23:59, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> In the real world, what you claim as "fact" is refuted by essentially
>> every observation of visual binary stars, and by essentially every
>> observation of spectroscopic binary stars. Not to mention all the direct
>> tests....
>
> Your mistake is that you are making deductions about objects based on their
> spectral detail and assuming constant light speed. Naturally if you interpret
> observed data in that way, your conclusions will not support a theory that
> acknowledges variable light speeds.

Hmmmm. For visible binaries we are MODELING the source of the observed light, 
using Newtonian mechanics for the orbit and constant light speed (as in SR). 
This model works extremely well for virtually all visible binaries and 
spectroscopic binaries. (If the model did not work well, astronomers would be 
unable to obtain sensible orbital parameters for these star systems; a few of 
them seem to have more than two components, which complicates the analysis.)

Given the FACT that such modeling works so well, if light actually traveled with 
speed c+v, then for that modeling to work you would have to assume that in EACH 
AND EVERY CASE the distance from binary to earth JUST HAPPENS to be such that 
the arrival times at earth for light from the stars are offset by an integral 
number of orbits of the source star system. That's HOPELESSLY UNLIKELY.

Note, of course, that in this model there is no such thing as "Willusion" -- 
figments of YOUR imagination do not affect the models that physicists and 
astronomers use.

And if you think there is some sort of "unification" of light speed happening, 
you must explain how that can happen to light rays that are not parallel and are 
millions of kilometers apart (or more). (Such "unification" must happen close to 
the source, not near earth where these rays are much closer together.)


> [... claims about Cepheids]

That is completely irrelevant, because your model is REFUTED by observations of 
visible and spectroscopic binaries, and also by many direct tests.

	YOUR fantasies that these experiments are invalid does not
	make it so.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391637

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:b56dnZr5RezRQFPKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com...


|Hmmmm. For visible binaries we are MODELING the source of the observed 
light,
|using Newtonian mechanics for the orbit and constant light speed (as in 
SR).
|This model works extremely well for virtually all visible binaries and
|spectroscopic binaries. (If the model did not work well, astronomers would 
be
|unable to obtain sensible orbital parameters for these star systems; a few 
of
|them seem to have more than two components, which complicates the 
analysis.)

Hmmmmm. A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. The Shit is unusable
in cosmology (as well as in anything else) because of its ingenious
approach to coordinates.
You make things classically and then pretend it's your relativity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391647

On 07/09/16 01:14, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 9/5/16 9/5/16 - 1:28 AM, HGW. wrote:
>> On 30/08/16 23:59, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> In the real world, what you claim as "fact" is refuted by essentially
>>> every observation of visual binary stars, and by essentially every
>>> observation of spectroscopic binary stars. Not to mention all the direct
>>> tests....
>>
>> Your mistake is that you are making deductions about objects based on
>> their
>> spectral detail and assuming constant light speed. Naturally if you
>> interpret
>> observed data in that way, your conclusions will not support a theory
>> that
>> acknowledges variable light speeds.
>
> Hmmmm. For visible binaries we are MODELING the source of the observed
> light, using Newtonian mechanics for the orbit and constant light speed
> (as in SR). This model works extremely well for virtually all visible
> binaries and spectroscopic binaries. (If the model did not work well,
> astronomers would be unable to obtain sensible orbital parameters for
> these star systems; a few of them seem to have more than two components,
> which complicates the analysis.)

The BaTh model produces the correct parameters.

> Given the FACT that such modeling works so well, if light actually
> traveled with speed c+v, then for that modeling to work you would have
> to assume that in EACH AND EVERY CASE the distance from binary to earth
> JUST HAPPENS to be such that the arrival times at earth for light from
> the stars are offset by an integral number of orbits of the source star
> system. That's HOPELESSLY UNLIKELY.

You don't appear to understand the complexities of this type of modeling.

> Note, of course, that in this model there is no such thing as
> "Willusion" -- figments of YOUR imagination do not affect the models
> that physicists and astronomers use.

Whether or not illusions due to variable light speed exist in your 
fantasy world does not affect the legitimacy of the concept itself.
You are still living with the primitive attitude that because variable 
light speeds are insignificant on Earth, they do not and cannot exist. 
They DO exist and so do the Willusions they cause.

> And if you think there is some sort of "unification" of light speed
> happening, you must explain how that can happen to light rays that are
> not parallel and are millions of kilometers apart (or more). (Such
> "unification" must happen close to the source, not near earth where
> these rays are much closer together.)

There is good reason to believe that unification is rapid near a large 
mass such as a star but to be able to provide more details one would 
need more evidence about the way fields behave in extreme vacuum.

Consider what is happening at any particular point in remote space. EM 
is passing through in all directions and at a variety of speeds. However 
each finite element moves so rapidly that holes of 'true nothing' might 
exist. We simply do not know anything about the life of  photon. Light 
exists almost entirely in transit but our current knowledge is 
restricted to its creation and annihilation.


>> [... claims about Cepheids]
>
> That is completely irrelevant, because your model is REFUTED by
> observations of visible and spectroscopic binaries, and also by many
> direct tests.

It is YOUR own model that is refuted. You are not refuting MY model at 
all because you are not using it in your interpretation of data.

>      YOUR fantasies that these experiments are invalid does not
>      make it so.
>
>
> Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392152

On 9/6/16 9/6/16 - 2:55 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 07/09/16 01:14, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> And if you think there is some sort of "unification" of light speed
>> happening, you must explain how that can happen to light rays that are
>> not parallel and are millions of kilometers apart (or more). (Such
>> "unification" must happen close to the source, not near earth where
>> these rays are much closer together.)
>
> There is good reason to believe that unification is rapid near a large mass such
> as a star but to be able to provide more details one would need more evidence
> about the way fields behave in extreme vacuum.

But I am NOT talking about "a star", I am talking about TWO stars orbiting each 
other, millions of kilometers apart, and visibly separate on earth for at least 
part of their orbit -- these are called "visible binaries".

For your "unification" to happen, the light must be co-located (say, within a 
few meters) and moving in nearly the same direction (say, within a few degrees) 
[#]. For light rays emitted from each star of a visible binary and viewed on 
earth, those conditions do NOT hold until the light is VERY FAR AWAY from the 
binary and approaching earth.

	[#] That is, I assume that light is not clairvoyant.
	(The values I suggest are MUCH larger than I think reasonable,
	 to give your "model" the best possible chance.)

So unless you believe light is clairvoyant, your special plead of "unification" 
does not save observations of visible binaries. Your model must predict that 
their light travels >99% of the path to earth at c+v (i.e. before the rays are 
close enough for "unification"), which would completely screw up the way their 
orbit appears on earth -- THAT IS NOT OBSERVED. That's why I say that visible 
binaries refute your "model".

	Exercise for Wilson: For two stars 1 million kilometers apart
	in a direction perpendicular to the path to earth, located
	10 lightyears away, how far from earth do their visible rays
	come within 1 meter of each other? What fraction of their
	light path is this?


> [... further obfuscation and refusal to address the issue I raised]

(There are two other aspects to this that are quite obvious [@]; let's see if 
Wilson can figure out what they are. Hint: I referred to both of them above.)

	[@] Plus others that are not so obvious....


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#392178

On 13/09/16 02:41, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 9/6/16 9/6/16 - 2:55 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>> On 07/09/16 01:14, Tom Roberts wrote:

>>
>> There is good reason to believe that unification is rapid near a large
>> mass such
>> as a star but to be able to provide more details one would need more
>> evidence
>> about the way fields behave in extreme vacuum.
>
> But I am NOT talking about "a star", I am talking about TWO stars
> orbiting each other, millions of kilometers apart, and visibly separate
> on earth for at least part of their orbit -- these are called "visible
> binaries".

Wiki, "Binary stars are often detected optically, in which case they are 
called visual binaries. Many visual binaries have long orbital periods 
of several centuries or millennia and therefore have orbits which are 
uncertain or poorly known".
" Binary stars that are both visual and spectroscopic binaries are rare, 
and are a precious source of valuable information when found. Visual 
binary stars often have large true separations, with periods measured in 
decades to centuries; consequently, they usually have orbital speeds too 
small to be measured spectroscopically. Conversely, spectroscopic binary 
stars move fast in their orbits because they are close together, usually 
too close to be detected as visual binaries. Binaries that are both 
visual and spectroscopic thus must be relatively close to Earth."

The mistake you and astronomers make is to assume that the images you 
are seeing have all come to Earth at speed c. In reality, your data is 
wrongly interpreted and the orbit is not what you think it is. Also, the 
radial component of orbital speeds are usually pretty small at the kinds 
of separations and orbit orientations you are talking about.
The velocities that are estimated from spectra are not to be believed 
because the observed line displacement includes the dominant 
acceleration component that nobody except I and, now, Paul Andersen know 
anything about.

> For your "unification" to happen, the light must be co-located (say,
> within a few meters) and moving in nearly the same direction (say,
> within a few degrees) [#]. For light rays emitted from each star of a
> visible binary and viewed on earth, those conditions do NOT hold until
> the light is VERY FAR AWAY from the binary and approaching earth.

No you go it all wrong, Tom. The light from any binary pair travels 
through roughly the same space conditions for its entire journey. 
Therefore it is subject to the same kind of unifying processes.

>      [#] That is, I assume that light is not clairvoyant.
>      (The values I suggest are MUCH larger than I think reasonable,
>       to give your "model" the best possible chance.)
>
> So unless you believe light is clairvoyant, your special plead of
> "unification" does not save observations of visible binaries. Your model
> must predict that their light travels >99% of the path to earth at c+v
> (i.e. before the rays are close enough for "unification"), which would
> completely screw up the way their orbit appears on earth -- THAT IS NOT
> OBSERVED. That's why I say that visible binaries refute your "model".
>
>      Exercise for Wilson: For two stars 1 million kilometers apart
>      in a direction perpendicular to the path to earth, located
>      10 lightyears away, how far from earth do their visible rays
>      come within 1 meter of each other? What fraction of their
>      light path is this?

That is irrelevant. Unification (call it extinction if you like) is 
determined by the conditions of the space through which the beams travel.

>
>> [... further obfuscation and refusal to address the issue I raised]
>
> (There are two other aspects to this that are quite obvious [@]; let's
> see if Wilson can figure out what they are. Hint: I referred to both of
> them above.)
>
>      [@] Plus others that are not so obvious....

As I said, your mistake it to base your statements on information which 
assumed constant light speed in the first place. Naturally predictions 
wrongly based on willusory data will not support a variable light speed 
theory.
The plain fact is, because light comes to us at different speeds, no 
cosmic observation should be regarded as a true representation of fact.

> Tom Roberts
>


-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#394784

On Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 8:14:26 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 9/5/16, HGW. wrote:

> > Your mistake is that you are making deductions about objects based
> > on their spectral detail and assuming constant light speed.
> > Naturally if you interpret observed data in that way, your
> > conclusions will not support a theory that acknowledges variable
> > light speeds.
> 
> For visible binaries we are MODELING the source of the observed light, 
> using Newtonian mechanics for the orbit and constant light speed...

Don’t criticize Mr. Wilson’s model before you can answer the GR model for light.  Yah, that lightlike nonsense.  Please allow Koobee Wublee to explain.  <shrug>

GR can only come about based on the mathematical model where all geodesic movements follow the very path that exhibits the shortest length in spacetime geometry.  This is the very central theme to GR.  This hypothesis predicts the Christoffel symbols of the second kind, the covariant derivative based on the Christoffel symbols of the second kind, the Riemann curvature tensor, the Ricci curvature tensor, and the Ricci curvature scalar.  <shrug>

This model works fine for anything other than light.  For light, every single geodesic path follows a net spacetime displacement of exactly zero.  This model cannot possibly allow light to propagate at all.  <shrug>

Spacetime physics can only be wrong since it does not work in the fringes of extreme boundary conditions such as light.  <shrug>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391170

On 28.08.2016 22:00, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>
> I also made a successful living out of being a professional physicist
> for twenty years till I got sick of putting up with useless academics
> like some people here.

:-D

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390841

W dniu czwartek, 25 sierpnia 2016 00:13:36 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> On 8/24/16 8/24/16 - 12:36 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> > Typical! If an experiment will refute Einstein's silly theory, there is no point
> > in performing it!
> 
> You REALLY don't understand science, or scientists. Your personal fantasy world 
> is wildly disconnected from the world we inhabit, and it is truly remarkable how 
> ignorant and closed-minded you are.

You REALLY don't understand science, or scientists. Your personal fantasy world 
is wildly disconnected from the world we inhabit, and it is truly remarkable
how ignorant and closed-minded you are.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390590

On 22/08/16 08:33, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/16/2016 2:16 PM, RichD wrote:
>> On August 9, rotchm wrote:
>>>> What experiment exists, which has measured the speed
>>>> of light inside a moving vehicle?
>>>
>>> Really? This is done *every day*. Wake up man!
>>
>> um, observing particle lifetimes in accelerators
>> isn't equivalent to measuring light speed inside a bus.
>> Neither is the stripe pattern on an interferometer.
>
> Well, to help frame your mind, we know that the earth is a moving
> vehicle.

Bodkin, when are you going to learn some basic physics. The Earth is not 
'moving'. Nothing in the whole universe is 'moving'. Movement is always 
relative.

In particular, it flies at 108 km/hr around the sun. Moreover,
> it changes its direction completely twice a year as it goes around in
> its orbit. This means that you know for a fact that over six months
> time, the earth is going to CHANGE its motion by 216,000 km/hr.

The Earth is ACCELERATING towards the sun and has angular momentum 
relative to it.

> So
> whatever the speed of light happens to be right now with respect to the
> earth, then just wait six months and your vehicle will now be moving
> differently with respect to that reference by 216,000 km/hr. This should
> be more than enough to detect some effect, if there is one.

No TWLS experiment will be able to detect that minute effect...and 
appropriate OWLS experiments don't exist.


>> Rich
>>
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390624

W dniu poniedziałek, 22 sierpnia 2016 21:59:17 UTC+2 użytkownik HGWilson, DSc. napisał:

> Bodkin, when are you going to learn some basic physics. The Earth is not 
> 'moving'. Nothing in the whole universe is 'moving'. Movement is always 
> relative.

Copernicus had a different opinion.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#390632

On 23/08/16 15:59, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu poniedziałek, 22 sierpnia 2016 21:59:17 UTC+2 użytkownik HGWilson, DSc. napisał:
>
>> Bodkin, when are you going to learn some basic physics. The Earth is not
>> 'moving'. Nothing in the whole universe is 'moving'. Movement is always
>> relative.
>
> Copernicus had a different opinion.

He would have been correct if he said "nothing is at rest in the universe."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web