On 8 Nov 2005 20:13:04 -0800, "Eric Gisse" wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
Part 1.

Consider the now familiar setup of an observer who is about to receive light
pulses emitted simultaneously from two differently moving sources.

It is "now familiar" because you bring it out all the goddamn time.


-S1_____________________-p____________O
-S2

According to Maxwell and Einstein, O can measure the permeability and
permittivity of space and produce a numerical value for the constant 'c'. This
property of space is claimed to be the sole determinant of light speed... so
all light in O's frame must move at c wrt that frame. Thus, all pulses emitted
at a particular distance from O should take the same time to reach him,
irrespective of source speed.

Sounds right.

This concept is somewhat analogous to sound's fixed speed wrt the air inside an
aeroplane irrespective of how fast the plane is moving wrt the ground. Just as
the plane carries its own atmosphere, the observer carries his own 'personal
aether'.

There is no aether.

The example does not directly translate so you shouldn't try.

The principles are identical.

On the surface, the Maxwell/Einstein theory sounds quite reasonable (even
though the plane's physical atmosphere is replaced by an intangible
'frame').....so we will accept it for the moment.

Next, we will introduce a second observer A, who is moving wrt O but just
happens to be adjacent to O when the two pulses arrive.

-S1_______________________________(-p,O,-A)
-S2

Again, SR says this observer A will measure the two constants and determine
that all light in HIS frame will also travel at speed c.

Consider now, how a third independent observer B might interpret all this?

Exactly the same as before.


B can either directly measure the speeds of the pulses and the speeds of the
other two observers (wrt his own frame) or he can simply deduce that the light
pulses cannot possibly approach both O and A at the same speed ( since O and A
are moving relatively when the pulses arrive).

The second part is impossible because you are working within
relativity.

Relativity agrees that the closing speeds between the pulses and the two
observers are different.

You are not improving geese.
In fact you appear to be regressing rather rapidly.



Therefore B can pose the question as to how and why both O and A should obtain
the same value of c from Maxwell's equation when it is obvious that the pulses
are clearly approaching them at different speeds.

You are no longer working within relativity. Any result you obtain from
this line of thought is invalid as far as relativity is concerned if
you assume c is nolonger a fixed constant.

Poor boy can't even understand the questions involved here.

B can similarly question how observers with the two sources would calculate the
same value of c from Maxwell's equation when it is obvious to him (B) that the
the pulses are moving at different speed relative to each source.

If they are moving at different speeds it is nolonger relativity.

The pulses are clearly approaching the two observers at different speeds.
Why should they both get the same answer for c via Maxwell?

His only conclusions must be that either Maxwell was wrong or O and A's
measured values of the two constants must be somehow associated with their
relative movement.

Of course, because you are nolonger working in relativity. c is
manifestly constant in Maxwell's equations, and relativity enforces
that constancy.

Poor boy....totally and irrepairably brainwashed.



Before I continue, I would like the SRian community to verify that what I have
said above is correct...and then answer this question:

You expect much of the "SRian" community when you refuse to answer
similar questions about your theory.

Like, show how you can solve Maxwell's equations for electromagnetic
radiation with non-constant c.

I didn't say it was not constant.
You said the two observer measure it as c.
Yet you haven't the brains to see that this introduces a paradox...since the
pulses are clearly appraoching both at different speeds.



What factors cause both O and A to calculate the same value for 'c', when it is
obvious that the light pulses from S1 and S2 are NOT approaching them at the
same speed?

..because thats how it is. You can say "because of Maxwell's equations"
or "because the universe is manifestly Lorentz invariant" or any number
of reasons, but at some level you simply have to accept that is how it
is and that no amount of wishing can change that.

.....and god made the world in seven days geese. "you simply have to accept
that is how it is and that no amount of wishing can change that"



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".

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 8 Nov 2005 20:13:04 -0800, "Eric Gisse" wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
Part 1.

Consider the now familiar setup of an observer who is about to receive light
pulses emitted simultaneously from two differently moving sources.

It is "now familiar" because you bring it out all the goddamn time.


-S1_____________________-p____________O
-S2

According to Maxwell and Einstein, O can measure the permeability and
permittivity of space and produce a numerical value for the constant 'c'. This
property of space is claimed to be the sole determinant of light speed... so
all light in O's frame must move at c wrt that frame. Thus, all pulses emitted
at a particular distance from O should take the same time to reach him,
irrespective of source speed.

Sounds right.

This concept is somewhat analogous to sound's fixed speed wrt the air inside an
aeroplane irrespective of how fast the plane is moving wrt the ground. Just as
the plane carries its own atmosphere, the observer carries his own 'personal
aether'.

There is no aether.

The example does not directly translate so you shouldn't try.

The principles are identical.

But they DO NOT directly translate because they are different
phenomena.


On the surface, the Maxwell/Einstein theory sounds quite reasonable (even
though the plane's physical atmosphere is replaced by an intangible
'frame').....so we will accept it for the moment.

Next, we will introduce a second observer A, who is moving wrt O but just
happens to be adjacent to O when the two pulses arrive.

-S1_______________________________(-p,O,-A)
-S2

Again, SR says this observer A will measure the two constants and determine
that all light in HIS frame will also travel at speed c.

Consider now, how a third independent observer B might interpret all this?

Exactly the same as before.


B can either directly measure the speeds of the pulses and the speeds of the
other two observers (wrt his own frame) or he can simply deduce that the light
pulses cannot possibly approach both O and A at the same speed ( since O and A
are moving relatively when the pulses arrive).

The second part is impossible because you are working within
relativity.

Relativity agrees that the closing speeds between the pulses and the two
observers are different.

You don't understand SR by your own admission.

It is again emphasised by this.

Relativity doesn't predict different velocities for c, it predicts ONE
velocity which is an invariant.


You are not improving geese.
In fact you appear to be regressing rather rapidly.

Before all I could argue was the evidence. Now I can argue the evidence
AND the theory because I have taken the time to learn some of it.

Before you question my ability to improve, why don't you grow up and
stop mis-spelling my name?




Therefore B can pose the question as to how and why both O and A should obtain
the same value of c from Maxwell's equation when it is obvious that the pulses
are clearly approaching them at different speeds.

You are no longer working within relativity. Any result you obtain from
this line of thought is invalid as far as relativity is concerned if
you assume c is nolonger a fixed constant.

Poor boy can't even understand the questions involved here.

You didn't understand what I just said because you don't understand SR.



B can similarly question how observers with the two sources would calculate the
same value of c from Maxwell's equation when it is obvious to him (B) that the
the pulses are moving at different speed relative to each source.

If they are moving at different speeds it is nolonger relativity.

The pulses are clearly approaching the two observers at different speeds.

Since you don't understand relativity, this doesn't surprise me.

The pulses move at a fixed velocity in special relativity. Period.
There is no debate.

Why should they both get the same answer for c via Maxwell?

....because that is what the nontrivial solution to Maxwell's equations
shows - c is constant for any electromagnetic wave.

But if you feel that statement is incorrect, all you have to do is
provide a counterexample by using Maxwell's equations.


His only conclusions must be that either Maxwell was wrong or O and A's
measured values of the two constants must be somehow associated with their
relative movement.

Of course, because you are nolonger working in relativity. c is
manifestly constant in Maxwell's equations, and relativity enforces
that constancy.

Poor boy....totally and irrepairably brainwashed.

Waah. Waaah.

I am not going to entertain the delusion that everyone who disagrees
with you is brainwashed. Seek help.




Before I continue, I would like the SRian community to verify that what I have
said above is correct...and then answer this question:

You expect much of the "SRian" community when you refuse to answer
similar questions about your theory.

Like, show how you can solve Maxwell's equations for electromagnetic
radiation with non-constant c.

I didn't say it was not constant.
You said the two observer measure it as c.
Yet you haven't the brains to see that this introduces a paradox...since the
pulses are clearly appraoching both at different speeds.

Not understanding the consequences of your own example isn't my
problem.




What factors cause both O and A to calculate the same value for 'c', when it is
obvious that the light pulses from S1 and S2 are NOT approaching them at the
same speed?

..because thats how it is. You can say "because of Maxwell's equations"
or "because the universe is manifestly Lorentz invariant" or any number
of reasons, but at some level you simply have to accept that is how it
is and that no amount of wishing can change that.

....and god made the world in seven days geese. "you simply have to accept
that is how it is and that no amount of wishing can change that"

God, stop whining and start doing some experiments if you are so
goddamn sure your theory is the truth. You got plenty of time, given
you are on here advocating your theory every day.

You won't even provide some simple derivations, which I have repeatedly
asked for. The latest being he

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e=source&hl=en

You wouldn't even provide one of the "many factors" that produce
Mercury's precession, as I asked for two months ago he

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e=source&hl=en




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".

On 9 Nov 2005 15:57:25 -0800, "Eric Gisse" wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 8 Nov 2005 20:13:04 -0800, "Eric Gisse" wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
Part 1.

Consider the now familiar setup of an observer who is about to receive light
pulses emitted simultaneously from two differently moving sources.

It is "now familiar" because you bring it out all the goddamn time.


-S1_____________________-p____________O
-S2

According to Maxwell and Einstein, O can measure the permeability and
permittivity of space and produce a numerical value for the constant 'c'. This
property of space is claimed to be the sole determinant of light speed... so
all light in O's frame must move at c wrt that frame. Thus, all pulses emitted
at a particular distance from O should take the same time to reach him,
irrespective of source speed.

Sounds right.

This concept is somewhat analogous to sound's fixed speed wrt the air inside an
aeroplane irrespective of how fast the plane is moving wrt the ground. Just as
the plane carries its own atmosphere, the observer carries his own 'personal
aether'.

There is no aether.

The example does not directly translate so you shouldn't try.

The principles are identical.

But they DO NOT directly translate because they are different
phenomena.


On the surface, the Maxwell/Einstein theory sounds quite reasonable (even
though the plane's physical atmosphere is replaced by an intangible
'frame').....so we will accept it for the moment.

Next, we will introduce a second observer A, who is moving wrt O but just
happens to be adjacent to O when the two pulses arrive.

-S1_______________________________(-p,O,-A)
-S2

Again, SR says this observer A will measure the two constants and determine
that all light in HIS frame will also travel at speed c.

Consider now, how a third independent observer B might interpret all this?

Exactly the same as before.


B can either directly measure the speeds of the pulses and the speeds of the
other two observers (wrt his own frame) or he can simply deduce that the light
pulses cannot possibly approach both O and A at the same speed ( since O and A
are moving relatively when the pulses arrive).

The second part is impossible because you are working within
relativity.

Relativity agrees that the closing speeds between the pulses and the two
observers are different.

You don't understand SR by your own admission.

It is again emphasised by this.

Relativity doesn't predict different velocities for c, it predicts ONE
velocity which is an invariant.

No geese.
LET did that.
Einstein tried to cash in on his 'aether substitute' when it appeared an aether
didn't exist.



You are not improving geese.
In fact you appear to be regressing rather rapidly.

Before all I could argue was the evidence. Now I can argue the evidence
AND the theory because I have taken the time to learn some of it.

But you don't understand basic physics Geesey. You have to learn to crawl
before you can walk.


Before you question my ability to improve, why don't you grow up and
stop mis-spelling my name?

why should I?


You are no longer working within relativity. Any result you obtain from
this line of thought is invalid as far as relativity is concerned if
you assume c is nolonger a fixed constant.

Poor boy can't even understand the questions involved here.

You didn't understand what I just said because you don't understand SR.

I hope I never understand plain bull****.

B can similarly question how observers with the two sources would calculate the
same value of c from Maxwell's equation when it is obvious to him (B) that the
the pulses are moving at different speed relative to each source.

If they are moving at different speeds it is nolonger relativity.

The pulses are clearly approaching the two observers at different speeds.

Since you don't understand relativity, this doesn't surprise me.

The pulses move at a fixed velocity in special relativity. Period.
There is no debate.

Poor boy. No clue whatsoever.


Why should they both get the same answer for c via Maxwell?

...because that is what the nontrivial solution to Maxwell's equations
shows - c is constant for any electromagnetic wave.

...then why are the 'electromagnetis waves' approaching the two observers at
different speeds when like you say, they both calculate the value c using
Maxwell's equation.

But if you feel that statement is incorrect, all you have to do is
provide a counterexample by using Maxwell's equations.

Give up physics geesey.

Are you any good at selling used cars?

His only conclusions must be that either Maxwell was wrong or O and A's
measured values of the two constants must be somehow associated with their
relative movement.

Of course, because you are nolonger working in relativity. c is
manifestly constant in Maxwell's equations, and relativity enforces
that constancy.

Poor boy....totally and irrepairably brainwashed.

Waah. Waaah.

I am not going to entertain the delusion that everyone who disagrees
with you is brainwashed. Seek help.

I have a lovely housemaid.


I didn't say it was not constant.
You said the two observer measure it as c.
Yet you haven't the brains to see that this introduces a paradox...since the
pulses are clearly appraoching both at different speeds.

Not understanding the consequences of your own example isn't my
problem.

Geese why don't you go back to college and learn some basic physics?


....and god made the world in seven days geese. "you simply have to accept
that is how it is and that no amount of wishing can change that"

God, stop whining and start doing some experiments if you are so
goddamn sure your theory is the truth. You got plenty of time, given
you are on here advocating your theory every day.

You won't even provide some simple derivations, which I have repeatedly
asked for. The latest being he

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e=source&hl=en

You wouldn't even provide one of the "many factors" that produce
Mercury's precession, as I asked for two months ago he

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e=source&hl=en


Gooosey, if you don't like what I say, I suggest you throw a brick at your
monitor every time you see one of my messages.

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".

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 9 Nov 2005 15:57:25 -0800, "Eric Gisse" wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 8 Nov 2005 20:13:04 -0800, "Eric Gisse" wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
Part 1.

Consider the now familiar setup of an observer who is about to receive light
pulses emitted simultaneously from two differently moving sources.

It is "now familiar" because you bring it out all the goddamn time.


-S1_____________________-p____________O
-S2

According to Maxwell and Einstein, O can measure the permeability and
permittivity of space and produce a numerical value for the constant 'c'. This
property of space is claimed to be the sole determinant of light speed... so
all light in O's frame must move at c wrt that frame. Thus, all pulses emitted
at a particular distance from O should take the same time to reach him,
irrespective of source speed.

Sounds right.

This concept is somewhat analogous to sound's fixed speed wrt the air inside an
aeroplane irrespective of how fast the plane is moving wrt the ground. Just as
the plane carries its own atmosphere, the observer carries his own 'personal
aether'.

There is no aether.

The example does not directly translate so you shouldn't try.

The principles are identical.

But they DO NOT directly translate because they are different
phenomena.


On the surface, the Maxwell/Einstein theory sounds quite reasonable (even
though the plane's physical atmosphere is replaced by an intangible
'frame').....so we will accept it for the moment.

Next, we will introduce a second observer A, who is moving wrt O but just
happens to be adjacent to O when the two pulses arrive.

-S1_______________________________(-p,O,-A)
-S2

Again, SR says this observer A will measure the two constants and determine
that all light in HIS frame will also travel at speed c.

Consider now, how a third independent observer B might interpret all this?

Exactly the same as before.


B can either directly measure the speeds of the pulses and the speeds of the
other two observers (wrt his own frame) or he can simply deduce that the light
pulses cannot possibly approach both O and A at the same speed ( since O and A
are moving relatively when the pulses arrive).

The second part is impossible because you are working within
relativity.

Relativity agrees that the closing speeds between the pulses and the two
observers are different.

You don't understand SR by your own admission.

It is again emphasised by this.

Relativity doesn't predict different velocities for c, it predicts ONE
velocity which is an invariant.

No geese.

Gisse. *yawn*

LET did that.

LET = SR, mathematically. But LET has fallen out of favor because there
is no aether.

Why the hell did you bring up LET again?

Einstein tried to cash in on his 'aether substitute' when it appeared an aether
didn't exist.

Reinventing history is fun, huh Henri?




You are not improving geese.
In fact you appear to be regressing rather rapidly.

Before all I could argue was the evidence. Now I can argue the evidence
AND the theory because I have taken the time to learn some of it.

But you don't understand basic physics Geesey. You have to learn to crawl
before you can walk.

Before questioning my knowledge of physics, you should work on *yours*.




Before you question my ability to improve, why don't you grow up and
stop mis-spelling my name?

why should I?

For the same reason I don't point out that you are stupid ****ing moron
every time you make a mistake about something that has been practically
spoonfed to you at least ten times before.



You are no longer working within relativity. Any result you obtain from
this line of thought is invalid as far as relativity is concerned if
you assume c is nolonger a fixed constant.

Poor boy can't even understand the questions involved here.

You didn't understand what I just said because you don't understand SR.

I hope I never understand plain bull****.

Then stop telling *US* what SR predicts.


B can similarly question how observers with the two sources would calculate the
same value of c from Maxwell's equation when it is obvious to him (B) that the
the pulses are moving at different speed relative to each source.

If they are moving at different speeds it is nolonger relativity.

The pulses are clearly approaching the two observers at different speeds.

Since you don't understand relativity, this doesn't surprise me.

The pulses move at a fixed velocity in special relativity. Period.
There is no debate.

Poor boy. No clue whatsoever.


Why should they both get the same answer for c via Maxwell?

...because that is what the nontrivial solution to Maxwell's equations
shows - c is constant for any electromagnetic wave.

..then why are the 'electromagnetis waves' approaching the two observers at
different speeds when like you say, they both calculate the value c using
Maxwell's equation.

I can see the logical disconnect happening by my own eyes.

They are going at different speeds but c is constant regardless of that
fact.


But if you feel that statement is incorrect, all you have to do is
provide a counterexample by using Maxwell's equations.

Give up physics geesey.

Are you any good at selling used cars?

Shut the **** up, Henri. I am sick of your pathetic putdowns and your
smug, condescending attitude towards all those who do not toe the line
you lay.

You cannot provide the counterexample that proves me wrong. The ball is
in your court, I would expect you to return it but you are too busy
sitting with your head up your ass saying how bright the light is.

I am not the one saying how wrong SR and GR are, I am not the one
advocating a pet theory to replace all known theory. You don't
understand any of the physics, thats why all you can do is reply with
stupid crap about how I know nothing while refusing to answer any of my
questions to any degree of satisfaction.


His only conclusions must be that either Maxwell was wrong or O and A's
measured values of the two constants must be somehow associated with their
relative movement.

Of course, because you are nolonger working in relativity. c is
manifestly constant in Maxwell's equations, and relativity enforces
that constancy.

Poor boy....totally and irrepairably brainwashed.

Waah. Waaah.

I am not going to entertain the delusion that everyone who disagrees
with you is brainwashed. Seek help.

I have a lovely housemaid.

If you have enough money to keep a housemaid I suggest you spend a few
bucks and buy a few texts on physics. I could suggest some, if you were
actually willing to learn.



I didn't say it was not constant.
You said the two observer measure it as c.
Yet you haven't the brains to see that this introduces a paradox...since the
pulses are clearly appraoching both at different speeds.

Not understanding the consequences of your own example isn't my
problem.

Geese why don't you go back to college and learn some basic physics?

You first.

If any of the examples or explanations I have been giving were flawed,
they would have been torn apart. Moreso than yours, because stupid is
an expected quantity from you.

Why do I have to defend myself in the face of someone who can't even
get a simple definite integral right?

Were I to ask *you* for help about any of the subjects I am interested
in, you would get confused and tell me to give up physics - I know
because I have asked before.

I don't see you participating in the discussion between me and Juan R
about the Newtonian limit in general relativity, in fact I don't see
you participate in any discussion that doesn't revolve around your
stupid goddamn theory.



....and god made the world in seven days geese. "you simply have to accept
that is how it is and that no amount of wishing can change that"

God, stop whining and start doing some experiments if you are so
goddamn sure your theory is the truth. You got plenty of time, given
you are on here advocating your theory every day.

You won't even provide some simple derivations, which I have repeatedly
asked for. The latest being he

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e=source&hl=en

You wouldn't even provide one of the "many factors" that produce
Mercury's precession, as I asked for two months ago he

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e=source&hl=en


Gooosey, if you don't like what I say, I suggest you throw a brick at your
monitor every time you see one of my messages.

More of your idiotic attitude! Acting as if you are above answering my
questions simply means you are incapable of answering them.

If *YOU* do not like *YOUR* theory being questioned with the severity
it deserves, I suggest you start your own blog or just put it on your
bigpond user site.

If *YOU* continue to post here while saying stupid **** about a theory
that modern physics accepts as unfalsified, someone will be here
explaining to you that you are in fact stupid.

....and if *YOU* cannot come to terms with the simple fact that you are
on a public forum, I suggest you hurry up and die so you can stop
polluting the internet with your stupidity.


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".

On 10 Nov 2005 01:24:37 -0800, "Eric Gisse" wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 9 Nov 2005 15:57:25 -0800, "Eric Gisse" wrote:

You don't understand SR by your own admission.

It is again emphasised by this.

Relativity doesn't predict different velocities for c, it predicts ONE
velocity which is an invariant.

No geese.

Gisse. *yawn*

LET did that.

LET = SR, mathematically. But LET has fallen out of favor because there
is no aether.

How do you know that Geese?
The MMX DID NOT prove there is no aether.

The MMX merely suggested that if there were and aether, our speed wrt it could
not be established.


Why the hell did you bring up LET again?

Because SR is just a subset of LET.


Einstein tried to cash in on his 'aether substitute' when it appeared an aether
didn't exist.

Reinventing history is fun, huh Henri?




You are not improving geese.
In fact you appear to be regressing rather rapidly.

Before all I could argue was the evidence. Now I can argue the evidence
AND the theory because I have taken the time to learn some of it.

But you don't understand basic physics Geesey. You have to learn to crawl
before you can walk.

Before questioning my knowledge of physics, you should work on *yours*.

Your messages reveal your total ignorance.

Before you question my ability to improve, why don't you grow up and
stop mis-spelling my name?

why should I?

For the same reason I don't point out that you are stupid ****ing moron
every time you make a mistake about something that has been practically
spoonfed to you at least ten times before.

Poor boy.




You are no longer working within relativity. Any result you obtain from
this line of thought is invalid as far as relativity is concerned if
you assume c is nolonger a fixed constant.
Poor boy can't even understand the questions involved here.

You didn't understand what I just said because you don't understand SR.

I hope I never understand plain bull****.

Then stop telling *US* what SR predicts.

SR predicts what LET predicts.




Why should they both get the same answer for c via Maxwell?

...because that is what the nontrivial solution to Maxwell's equations
shows - c is constant for any electromagnetic wave.

..then why are the 'electromagnetis waves' approaching the two observers at
different speeds when like you say, they both calculate the value c using
Maxwell's equation.

I can see the logical disconnect happening by my own eyes.

They are going at different speeds but c is constant regardless of that
fact.

c is a universal constant.
It is also te speed of light wrt its source.

But if you feel that statement is incorrect, all you have to do is
provide a counterexample by using Maxwell's equations.

Give up physics geesey.

Are you any good at selling used cars?

Shut the **** up, Henri. I am sick of your pathetic putdowns and your
smug, condescending attitude towards all those who do not toe the line
you lay.

You cannot provide the counterexample that proves me wrong. The ball is
in your court, I would expect you to return it but you are too busy
sitting with your head up your ass saying how bright the light is.

I am not the one saying how wrong SR and GR are, I am not the one
advocating a pet theory to replace all known theory. You don't
understand any of the physics, thats why all you can do is reply with
stupid crap about how I know nothing while refusing to answer any of my
questions to any degree of satisfaction.

You are the one who is trying to prop up a crap theory by repeating its own
crap ideology.


Of course, because you are nolonger working in relativity. c is
manifestly constant in Maxwell's equations, and relativity enforces
that constancy.

Poor boy....totally and irrepairably brainwashed.

Waah. Waaah.

I am not going to entertain the delusion that everyone who disagrees
with you is brainwashed. Seek help.

I have a lovely housemaid.

If you have enough money to keep a housemaid I suggest you spend a few
bucks and buy a few texts on physics. I could suggest some, if you were
actually willing to learn.

I don't pay her with money.



Not understanding the consequences of your own example isn't my
problem.

Geese why don't you go back to college and learn some basic physics?

You first.

If any of the examples or explanations I have been giving were flawed,
they would have been torn apart. Moreso than yours, because stupid is
an expected quantity from you.

Why do I have to defend myself in the face of someone who can't even
get a simple definite integral right?

geese, the 1/2 was not important.


Were I to ask *you* for help about any of the subjects I am interested
in, you would get confused and tell me to give up physics - I know
because I have asked before.

I don't see you participating in the discussion between me and Juan R
about the Newtonian limit in general relativity, in fact I don't see
you participate in any discussion that doesn't revolve around your
stupid goddamn theory.

poor boy.
Desperately wants to be a physicist....



Gooosey, if you don't like what I say, I suggest you throw a brick at your
monitor every time you see one of my messages.

More of your idiotic attitude! Acting as if you are above answering my
questions simply means you are incapable of answering them.

If *YOU* do not like *YOUR* theory being questioned with the severity
it deserves, I suggest you start your own blog or just put it on your
bigpond user site.

If *YOU* continue to post here while saying stupid **** about a theory
that modern physics accepts as unfalsified, someone will be here
explaining to you that you are in fact stupid.

...and if *YOU* cannot come to terms with the simple fact that you are
on a public forum, I suggest you hurry up and die so you can stop
polluting the internet with your stupidity.

Geese, many members of the physics establishment know that Einstein was wrong
......but to make a public announcement to that effect would risk instant
ridicule and rejection. The conservative element is never going to admit that
it has been the victim of a devious hoax for the past hundred years.

While it can continue to enlist gullible idiots like yourself, it knows it can
get away with its deception.


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".

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 10 Nov 2005 01:24:37 -0800, "Eric Gisse" wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 9 Nov 2005 15:57:25 -0800, "Eric Gisse" wrote:

You don't understand SR by your own admission.

It is again emphasised by this.

Relativity doesn't predict different velocities for c, it predicts ONE
velocity which is an invariant.

No geese.

Gisse. *yawn*

LET did that.

LET = SR, mathematically. But LET has fallen out of favor because there
is no aether.

How do you know that Geese?

The same way I know everything else, by reading. I save the personal
misconceptions for things I believe I understand.

The MMX DID NOT prove there is no aether.

Amazingly enough, you are correct. But, it and the many experiments
that would be conducted in the proceding century restrict ether to a
Lorentz-invariant kind. You do know what Lorentz-invariance is, right?


The MMX merely suggested that if there were and aether, our speed wrt it could
not be established.


Why the hell did you bring up LET again?

Because SR is just a subset of LET.

You would know that by what means? You admit you don't understand SR.

Again and again you make claims about a theory you do not understand as
if the claims are somehow more relevant because they are coming from
your mouth.



Einstein tried to cash in on his 'aether substitute' when it appeared an aether
didn't exist.

Reinventing history is fun, huh Henri?




You are not improving geese.
In fact you appear to be regressing rather rapidly.

Before all I could argue was the evidence. Now I can argue the evidence
AND the theory because I have taken the time to learn some of it.

But you don't understand basic physics Geesey. You have to learn to crawl
before you can walk.

Before questioning my knowledge of physics, you should work on *yours*.

Your messages reveal your total ignorance.

*yawn*

Your inability to answer my questions reveals *your* total ignorance.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e=source&hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e=source&hl=en




Before you question my ability to improve, why don't you grow up and
stop mis-spelling my name?

why should I?

For the same reason I don't point out that you are stupid ****ing moron
every time you make a mistake about something that has been practically
spoonfed to you at least ten times before.

Poor boy.

My liege, would you like your shoes shined while you sit upon your
golden throne?





You are no longer working within relativity. Any result you obtain from
this line of thought is invalid as far as relativity is concerned if
you assume c is nolonger a fixed constant.
Poor boy can't even understand the questions involved here.

You didn't understand what I just said because you don't understand SR.

I hope I never understand plain bull****.

Then stop telling *US* what SR predicts.

SR predicts what LET predicts.

How the hell would you know?

You don't understand SR! You say so a few lines above!





Why should they both get the same answer for c via Maxwell?

...because that is what the nontrivial solution to Maxwell's equations
shows - c is constant for any electromagnetic wave.

..then why are the 'electromagnetis waves' approaching the two observers at
different speeds when like you say, they both calculate the value c using
Maxwell's equation.

I can see the logical disconnect happening by my own eyes.

They are going at different speeds but c is constant regardless of that
fact.

c is a universal constant.
It is also te speed of light wrt its source.

If you actually understood that you wouldn't keep repeating 'c+v'.


But if you feel that statement is incorrect, all you have to do is
provide a counterexample by using Maxwell's equations.

Give up physics geesey.

Are you any good at selling used cars?

Shut the **** up, Henri. I am sick of your pathetic putdowns and your
smug, condescending attitude towards all those who do not toe the line
you lay.

You cannot provide the counterexample that proves me wrong. The ball is
in your court, I would expect you to return it but you are too busy
sitting with your head up your ass saying how bright the light is.

I am not the one saying how wrong SR and GR are, I am not the one
advocating a pet theory to replace all known theory. You don't
understand any of the physics, thats why all you can do is reply with
stupid crap about how I know nothing while refusing to answer any of my
questions to any degree of satisfaction.

You are the one who is trying to prop up a crap theory by repeating its own
crap ideology.

Oh please, Henri.

You are the one with the competing theory, you are the one advocating
that SR and GR are wrong. It is *YOU* who has to answer for it, not
anyone else.

You still can't provide the counterexample using Maxwell's equations.
You can't do anything, you just keep asserting what you say is the
truth over and over without any attempt at proving it.




Of course, because you are nolonger working in relativity. c is
manifestly constant in Maxwell's equations, and relativity enforces
that constancy.

Poor boy....totally and irrepairably brainwashed.

Waah. Waaah.

I am not going to entertain the delusion that everyone who disagrees
with you is brainwashed. Seek help.

I have a lovely housemaid.

If you have enough money to keep a housemaid I suggest you spend a few
bucks and buy a few texts on physics. I could suggest some, if you were
actually willing to learn.

I don't pay her with money.



Not understanding the consequences of your own example isn't my
problem.

Geese why don't you go back to college and learn some basic physics?

You first.

If any of the examples or explanations I have been giving were flawed,
they would have been torn apart. Moreso than yours, because stupid is
an expected quantity from you.

Why do I have to defend myself in the face of someone who can't even
get a simple definite integral right?

geese, the 1/2 was not important.

hahahahahahahahhahaha

....and you claim to have a degree in applied mathematics. You can't
even get a simple integral correct. x/2 is not the same thing as x,
**** for brains.



Were I to ask *you* for help about any of the subjects I am interested
in, you would get confused and tell me to give up physics - I know
because I have asked before.

I don't see you participating in the discussion between me and Juan R
about the Newtonian limit in general relativity, in fact I don't see
you participate in any discussion that doesn't revolve around your
stupid goddamn theory.

poor boy.
Desperately wants to be a physicist....

Unlike you, I actually have a desire to learn.




Gooosey, if you don't like what I say, I suggest you throw a brick at your
monitor every time you see one of my messages.

More of your idiotic attitude! Acting as if you are above answering my
questions simply means you are incapable of answering them.

If *YOU* do not like *YOUR* theory being questioned with the severity
it deserves, I suggest you start your own blog or just put it on your
bigpond user site.

If *YOU* continue to post here while saying stupid **** about a theory
that modern physics accepts as unfalsified, someone will be here
explaining to you that you are in fact stupid.

...and if *YOU* cannot come to terms with the simple fact that you are
on a public forum, I suggest you hurry up and die so you can stop
polluting the internet with your stupidity.

Geese, many members of the physics establishment know that Einstein was wrong
.....but to make a public announcement to that effect would risk instant
ridicule and rejection. The conservative element is never going to admit that
it has been the victim of a devious hoax for the past hundred years.

Stop changing the subject, this is about YOU.

*YOU* cannot answer any of my questions because *YOU* are incapable of
answering them.


While it can continue to enlist gullible idiots like yourself, it knows it can
get away with its deception.

Oh? You think so?

Since you think questioning intelligence is still ok, why don't you
explain to me why a person with a degree in applied mathematics has
such a hard time working out some simple derivations?

Since you think you are smarter than nearly every physicist who has
come to terms with relativity, it should be a piece of cake for you to
work out some simple examples with your theory. Yet you resist.

I think it is more likely that you are full of ****.



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".

In sci.physics.relativity, Eric Gisse

wrote
on 10 Nov 2005 15:53:54 -0800
. com:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 10 Nov 2005 01:24:37 -0800, "Eric Gisse" wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 9 Nov 2005 15:57:25 -0800, "Eric Gisse" wrote:

You don't understand SR by your own admission.

It is again emphasised by this.

Relativity doesn't predict different velocities for c, it predicts ONE
velocity which is an invariant.

No geese.

Gisse. *yawn*

LET did that.

LET = SR, mathematically. But LET has fallen out of favor because there
is no aether.

How do you know that Geese?

The same way I know everything else, by reading. I save the personal
misconceptions for things I believe I understand.

The MMX DID NOT prove there is no aether.

Amazingly enough, you are correct. But, it and the many experiments
that would be conducted in the proceding century restrict ether to a
Lorentz-invariant kind. You do know what Lorentz-invariance is, right?

Actually, I'm not so sure of that; all it really showed
is that lightspeed is c relative to the source. However,
that may very well be good enough, as the temperature of
the source is well above absolute zero.

Consider.

Assume a He/Ne laser (632.8 nm), and a 12.656 m distance
from central mirror to each side mirror. (That, of course,
is 2 * 10^7 wavelengths of light.) Presumably, one can
adjust the mirrors using screws or something to move them
fractions of a micron; 632.8 nm = 0.6328 micron.

Now...how much variance in a c'=c+v theory would ensue,
assuming that the endpoint mirrors of the laser (or,
for that matter, the MMX apparatus) are made of silver,
and vibrating in accordance with molecular kinetic theory?

Silver has atomic mass 107.8682; this translates into
1.7912 * 10^-22 kg/atom. We assume a temperature of
300 K. RMS velocity of those silver atoms will be
approximately sqrt(3kT/m) = sqrt(3*1.3807*10^-23*300/(1.7912*10^-22))
= 8.3291 m/s or 2.776 * 10^-8 c. Over 12.656m that results
in a delta of about 7 wavelengths. Extremely fuzzy.
Using neon and helium in the calculations would make things
even fuzzier; hell, I don't know how the laser even works
in this case! :-)

Assuming that Michelson-Morley had adjustment screws
that actually showed an effect while looking through the
interferometer, this almost proves that c'=c+v is total
hokum, though one can assume such things as synchronous
vibration of the silver with the coherent laser light to
try to save the theory. However, in light of what little
I know of thermodynamics I would think such possibilities
unlikely.

I could be wrong as the fuzz is happening over both legs
of the MMX experiment, but that "jitter" is going to
screw things up no matter what, making the MMX useless,
in a c'=c+v universe.

There's a simpler test, as well. Point a laser pen at a
wall some meters away. IINM, most people will report a
"grainy effect"; the reasons for that effect I cannot
fully explain but in light of the above calculations one
must assume that the "grains" would be moving around
frenetically to the observer's eye, were c'=c+v even
remotely true. However, clamp the laser gently in a
handy vise and stand still, and they do not jump around,
at least as far as I remember (I don't have such a pen
but I have seen the effect).

A very simple test, IMO.

[rest snipped]

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

On 10 Nov 2005 15:53:54 -0800, "Eric Gisse" wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 10 Nov 2005 01:24:37 -0800, "Eric Gisse" wrote:


How do you know that Geese?

The same way I know everything else, by reading. I save the personal
misconceptions for things I believe I understand.

The MMX DID NOT prove there is no aether.

Amazingly enough, you are correct. But, it and the many experiments
that would be conducted in the proceding century restrict ether to a
Lorentz-invariant kind. You do know what Lorentz-invariance is, right?

'Lorentz invariance' means the poor chap was a victim of habit.

You would know that by what means? You admit you don't understand SR.

Again and again you make claims about a theory you do not understand as
if the claims are somehow more relevant because they are coming from
your mouth.

Why don't you talk about science, Geese, instead of me.



I hope I never understand plain bull****.

Then stop telling *US* what SR predicts.

SR predicts what LET predicts.

How the hell would you know?

You don't understand SR! You say so a few lines above!

I understand what's wrong about it.
Vertical light beams don't become diagonal ones in a moving frame, for one.



I can see the logical disconnect happening by my own eyes.

They are going at different speeds but c is constant regardless of that
fact.

c is a universal constant.
It is also te speed of light wrt its source.

If you actually understood that you wouldn't keep repeating 'c+v'.

iiidiot.



But if you feel that statement is incorrect, all you have to do is
provide a counterexample by using Maxwell's equations.

Give up physics geesey.

Are you any good at selling used cars?

Shut the **** up, Henri. I am sick of your pathetic putdowns and your
smug, condescending attitude towards all those who do not toe the line
you lay.

You cannot provide the counterexample that proves me wrong. The ball is
in your court, I would expect you to return it but you are too busy
sitting with your head up your ass saying how bright the light is.

I am not the one saying how wrong SR and GR are, I am not the one
advocating a pet theory to replace all known theory. You don't
understand any of the physics, thats why all you can do is reply with
stupid crap about how I know nothing while refusing to answer any of my
questions to any degree of satisfaction.

You are the one who is trying to prop up a crap theory by repeating its own
crap ideology.

Oh please, Henri.

You are the one with the competing theory, you are the one advocating
that SR and GR are wrong. It is *YOU* who has to answer for it, not
anyone else.

You still can't provide the counterexample using Maxwell's equations.
You can't do anything, you just keep asserting what you say is the
truth over and over without any attempt at proving it.

Geese, you haven't even attempted to answer the question I asked.
You are again demonstating your complete lack of scientific ability.


If any of the examples or explanations I have been giving were flawed,
they would have been torn apart. Moreso than yours, because stupid is
an expected quantity from you.

Why do I have to defend myself in the face of someone who can't even
get a simple definite integral right?

geese, the 1/2 was not important.

hahahahahahahahhahaha

...and you claim to have a degree in applied mathematics. You can't
even get a simple integral correct. x/2 is not the same thing as x,
**** for brains.

Let m=1/2M

Were I to ask *you* for help about any of the subjects I am interested
in, you would get confused and tell me to give up physics - I know
because I have asked before.

I don't see you participating in the discussion between me and Juan R
about the Newtonian limit in general relativity, in fact I don't see
you participate in any discussion that doesn't revolve around your
stupid goddamn theory.

poor boy.
Desperately wants to be a physicist....

Unlike you, I actually have a desire to learn.

How long have you got?


Geese, many members of the physics establishment know that Einstein was wrong
.....but to make a public announcement to that effect would risk instant
ridicule and rejection. The conservative element is never going to admit that
it has been the victim of a devious hoax for the past hundred years.

Stop changing the subject, this is about YOU.

this is sci.physics.relativity not talk.wilson


*YOU* cannot answer any of my questions because *YOU* are incapable of
answering them.

I like to let you to have an opportunity to use your own brain.

While it can continue to enlist gullible idiots like yourself, it knows it can
get away with its deception.

Oh? You think so?

Since you think questioning intelligence is still ok, why don't you
explain to me why a person with a degree in applied mathematics has
such a hard time working out some simple derivations?

Since you think you are smarter than nearly every physicist who has
come to terms with relativity, it should be a piece of cake for you to
work out some simple examples with your theory. Yet you resist.

I think it is more likely that you are full of ****.

Then please explain why differently moving observers get the same answer for c
using maxwell when it is obvious that light approaches them at diffferent
speeds?




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".


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".

Henri Wilson wrote:

[snip idiotic game]

More of the same, Henri. More of your idiotic games, more of your
idiotic demands that I answer questions that are irrelevant. More of
the same idiotic shifting the burden of proof.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e=source&hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e=source&hl=en

You can't produce a simple counterexample to my claim that Maxwell's
equations do not allow c to be anything other than constant regardless
of how you measure it.

All I ask is for you to provide some simple counterexamples and
derivations, and you can't even produce one. NOT EVEN ONE. How pathetic
is that?

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
On 10 Nov 2005 15:53:54 -0800, "Eric Gisse" wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 10 Nov 2005 01:24:37 -0800, "Eric Gisse" wrote:


How do you know that Geese?

The same way I know everything else, by reading. I save the personal
misconceptions for things I believe I understand.

The MMX DID NOT prove there is no aether.

Amazingly enough, you are correct. But, it and the many experiments
that would be conducted in the proceding century restrict ether to a
Lorentz-invariant kind. You do know what Lorentz-invariance is, right?

'Lorentz invariance' means the poor chap was a victim of habit.

You would know that by what means? You admit you don't understand SR.

Again and again you make claims about a theory you do not understand as
if the claims are somehow more relevant because they are coming from
your mouth.

Why don't you talk about science, Geese, instead of me.



I hope I never understand plain bull****.

Then stop telling *US* what SR predicts.

SR predicts what LET predicts.

How the hell would you know?

You don't understand SR! You say so a few lines above!

I understand what's wrong about it.
Vertical light beams don't become diagonal ones in a moving frame, for
one.



I can see the logical disconnect happening by my own eyes.

They are going at different speeds but c is constant regardless of that
fact.

c is a universal constant.
It is also te speed of light wrt its source.

If you actually understood that you wouldn't keep repeating 'c+v'.

iiidiot.



But if you feel that statement is incorrect, all you have to do is
provide a counterexample by using Maxwell's equations.

Give up physics geesey.

Are you any good at selling used cars?

Shut the **** up, Henri. I am sick of your pathetic putdowns and your
smug, condescending attitude towards all those who do not toe the line
you lay.

You cannot provide the counterexample that proves me wrong. The ball is
in your court, I would expect you to return it but you are too busy
sitting with your head up your ass saying how bright the light is.

I am not the one saying how wrong SR and GR are, I am not the one
advocating a pet theory to replace all known theory. You don't
understand any of the physics, thats why all you can do is reply with
stupid crap about how I know nothing while refusing to answer any of my
questions to any degree of satisfaction.

You are the one who is trying to prop up a crap theory by repeating its
own
crap ideology.

Oh please, Henri.

You are the one with the competing theory, you are the one advocating
that SR and GR are wrong. It is *YOU* who has to answer for it, not
anyone else.

You still can't provide the counterexample using Maxwell's equations.
You can't do anything, you just keep asserting what you say is the
truth over and over without any attempt at proving it.

Geese, you haven't even attempted to answer the question I asked.
You are again demonstating your complete lack of scientific ability.


If any of the examples or explanations I have been giving were flawed,<