"Androcles" wrote in message news:...

"John Kennaugh" wrote in message
.uk...
| HenriWilson writes
|
| One thing you will soon discover here is that the only rational thinkers
are
| the skeptics. Relativists are, as you say, totally fixed in their
beliefs.
|
| Most of the abuse comes from the relativists too, although one can hardly
avoid
| giving some in return when the opportunity arises.
|
| I think this is bad tactics. The only possible hope for the future is
| that we influence the next generation of students. That we return to
| them what is the birthright of the young to question perceived wisdom.
| One should be always mindful of the thought that a student, with the
| potential to make a major contribution to physics, may be reading the
| thread. If relativists resort to abuse because they have no answer -
| fine. That point will be more obvious to a casual observer if you don't
| respond in kind. Once you get into a slanging match it not obvious who
| started it.
|
| Both Androcles and I have been looking at variable star data for some
time now
| and have every reason to believe that it overwhelmingly supports the
ballistic
| theory.
|
| I have now completed my very comprehensive Visual basic program which
enables
| every configuration of orbiting stars and binaries to be investigated.
| I hope you can run it. I have learned a great deal during the time I have
been
| composing it.
|
| Fine. The problem is I don't know sufficient about what you are talking
| about for your program to be of any use to me. What I need is a layman's
| step by step comparison.
|
| 1/ Here is some data .............
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....ctual_data.htm


| 2/ Conventional wisdom interprets this data as being .........

A star exploding.

| 3/ If you assume light is ballistic then the interpretation of the data
| is..........

the star is in a perfectly normal orbit.

| 4/ I believe the ballistic interpretation is more convincing
| because......
|
cepheids, flare stars, recurrent novae and so called "eclipsing" variables
can all be explained as stars in a perfectly normal orbit, whereas
convention requires a different explanation for each phenomenon, and the
explanation is usually an exotic one.


| Brightness curves like that of Algol should be quite common. They are
typical
| of single stars orbiting a large dark mass, with high eccentricity and
their
| perihelion nearest to us. The apparent 'discontinuity' in the curves is a
pure
| consequence of source dependency and is not caused by an eclipse.
| I didn't believe it myself till I investigated the numbers very closely.
Such
| discontinuities can occur when the curvature of the orbit flips across a
| certain critical angle.
|
| [....]
|
| [......] snipped a bit too much here I think this comment referred to
| Paul
| Reasoning with him is not an option.
|
| That is my choice not yours. It seems to have got rather personal
| between you and Paul. Count me out.
|
|
| Actually Paul is one of the few relativists who knows his stuff and will
| occasionally argue sensibly.
| He will however snip embarrassing parts from our messages, often giving
them an
| entirely different meaning from the intended one.
| Paul is also famous for not answering questions at all, if he cannot.
|
| I personally cannot understand why anyone accepts relativity. As soon as
| it says "relativity does not attempt to answer those sorts of questions"
| my scepticism meter goes off the scale. When you look at the history it
| seems that everything was pointing to the ballistic theory which after
| Ritz's death seems to have been ignored. One asks where Einstein got his
| second postulate from and the only answer seems to be that he took
| source independence from the wave ether theory which MMX had disproved
| and combined it with the result of MMX that movement of the observer
| didn't have any effect either....... I could go on.
|
| Paul defends the status quo but if as you say
|
| Paul is also famous for not answering questions at all, if he cannot.
|
| If Paul is intelligent he must know he hasn't answered and that must
| eventually have an accumulative effect. We may yet turn him from the
| dark side ) his intelligence is our strongest weapon. One thread 'Re
| Who is right' came to an abrupt halt.
|
| We were discussing why clocks on the equator do not go slower than those
| at the poles as predicted by relativity. I quoted an article from
| "Electronics and Wireless World December 86 - 'If you want to know the
| time ...'" where Dr Scott Murray explains the standard reason given by
| W.J. Cocke that the shape of the earth is such that the SR term is
| cancelled by the GR term is in fact false.
|
| "... the two relativistic effects of velocity (Special theory) and
| gravitational potential (General theory) [cancel out] exactly, in accord
| with the very convenient equation
|
| gH/c^2 - v^2/(2c^2) = 0 --------------------- [4]
|
| The elegant simplicity of this proposal may well serve, for believers,
| to conceal the fact that it is untenable. The reason why the earth's
| surface follows its flattened, oblate (elliptically curved) shape is
| simply that everywhere on its surface, neglecting minor effects, gravity
| (plumb-line) is at right angles to the local horizontal (spirit-level);
| if it were not, the oceans would flow north or south to make it so. The
| fallacy in the argument lies in assuming that the gravitational term
| Vg = (GM/r^2)H = gH represents the whole of the matter; but the
| centrifugal term Vc (the cause of the earth's oblateness) must also be
| included. When it is, the total gravitational potential at each
| observatory clock is not just Vg=gH as in equation 4, but exactly
| Vg+Vc=0 the surface of the geoid - mean sea level, where h = 0 - is now
| (and always has been) a unipotential surface world-wide".
|
| "In other words, the gravitational potential at sea level is the same
| everywhere in the world. Hafele and Keating's "difference in surface
| potential owing to the oblate figure of the earth" does not exist. It
| follows that general relativity is irrelevant to this argument, since
| its contribution is zero" [and so cannot cancel the predicted time
| difference]
|
| Paul responded with a load of equations. I pointed out that I was
| quoting from an article and offered to email him the diagram which went
| with it. Discussion continued:
| ------------------------------------------------------------
| John
| Alternatively you could look up the article yourself. "Electronics and
| Wireless World December 86". I am not competent to argue the case
| myself.
|
| My only point, on a common sense basis, would be that surely there is
| no way of putting measuring instruments at a point and taking separate
| readings of gravity and 'centrifugal' force. Surely there is only one
| reading and one direction of the net force. Surely that is the only
| force which could effect clocks and that force is a constant at all
| points of mean sea level. It is mere speculation on my part but are you
| perhaps using centrifugal acceleration twice. The shape of the earth has
| already accounted for it but you are adding it a second time.
|
| Paul
| If you swing an accelerometer in a thread around your head,
| would you then call the measured acceleration "gravitation"?
| Of course you wouldn't.
|
| John
| I don't think that answers the question. If you are sitting at a point
| on the earths surface and have only your instruments to go by (no
| peaking at the stars) is there any way you could resolve the net force
| into its centrifugal and gravitational components. If not how could a
| clock tell the difference?
|
| John - added post
| I thought I would do a quick search on the www and came up with this:
|
| "After 1905, Einstein continued working in all three of his works in the
| 1905 papers. He made important contributions to the quantum theory, but
| increasingly he sought to extend the special theory of relativity to
| phenomena involving acceleration. The key to an elaboration emerged in
| 1907 with the principle of equivalence, in which gravitational
| acceleration was held a priori indistinguishable from acceleration
| caused by mechanical forces"
|
| Surely that proves my point. If centrifugal acceleration and gravity are
| indistinguishable mean sea level is everywhere the same gravitational
| potential so there is no GR correction needed so that leaves only SR and
| according to that clocks on the equator should run slower.
| --------------------------------------------------------------
|
| There was no response from Paul. As far as I can see Scott Murray was
| right and Relativity has been disproved.
|
|
| --
| John Kennaugh
| to email convert the number from hex to decimal

Androcles