"Well, the passage of time has revealed to everyone the truths that I
previously set forth; and, together with the truth of the facts, there has
come to light the great difference in attitude between those who simply and
dispassionately refused to admit the discoveries to be true, and those who
combined with their incredulity some reckless passion of their own. Men who
were well grounded in astronomical and physical science were persuaded as
soon as they received my first message. There were others who denied them or
remained in doubt only because of their novel and unexpected character, and
because they had not yet had the opportunity to see for themselves. These
men have by degrees come to be satisfied. But some, besides allegiance to
their original error, possess I know not what fanciful interest in remaining
hostile not so much toward the things in question as toward their
discoverer. No longer being able to deny them, these men now take refuge in
obstinate silence, but being more than ever exasperated by that which has
pacified and quieted other men, they divert their thoughts to other fancies
and seek new ways to damage me.

I should pay no more attention to them than to those who previously
contradicted me-at whom I always laugh, being assured of the eventual
outcome-were it not that in their new calumnies and persecutions I perceive
that they do not stop at proving themselves more learned than I am (a claim
which I scarcely contest), but go so far as to cast against me the
imputations of crimes which must be, and are, more abhorrent to me than
death itself. I cannot remain satisfied merely to know that the injustice of
this is recognized by those who are acquainted with these men and with me,
as perhaps it is not known to others."

Source not disclosed. Find it for yourselves.

Androcles.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 00:19:55 GMT, "Black Knight" wrote:

"Well, the passage of time has revealed to everyone the truths that I
previously set forth; and, together with the truth of the facts, there has
come to light the great difference in attitude between those who simply and
dispassionately refused to admit the discoveries to be true, and those who
combined with their incredulity some reckless passion of their own. Men who
were well grounded in astronomical and physical science were persuaded as
soon as they received my first message. There were others who denied them or
remained in doubt only because of their novel and unexpected character, and
because they had not yet had the opportunity to see for themselves. These
men have by degrees come to be satisfied. But some, besides allegiance to
their original error, possess I know not what fanciful interest in remaining
hostile not so much toward the things in question as toward their
discoverer. No longer being able to deny them, these men now take refuge in
obstinate silence, but being more than ever exasperated by that which has
pacified and quieted other men, they divert their thoughts to other fancies
and seek new ways to damage me.

I should pay no more attention to them than to those who previously
contradicted me-at whom I always laugh, being assured of the eventual
outcome-were it not that in their new calumnies and persecutions I perceive
that they do not stop at proving themselves more learned than I am (a claim
which I scarcely contest), but go so far as to cast against me the
imputations of crimes which must be, and are, more abhorrent to me than
death itself. I cannot remain satisfied merely to know that the injustice of
this is recognized by those who are acquainted with these men and with me,
as perhaps it is not known to others."

Source not disclosed. Find it for yourselves.

could be Galileo...


Androcles.









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

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

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 00:19:55 GMT, "Black Knight"
wrote:

"Well, the passage of time has revealed to everyone the truths that I
previously set forth; and, together with the truth of the facts, there has
come to light the great difference in attitude between those who simply
and
dispassionately refused to admit the discoveries to be true, and those who
combined with their incredulity some reckless passion of their own. Men
who
were well grounded in astronomical and physical science were persuaded as
soon as they received my first message. There were others who denied them
or
remained in doubt only because of their novel and unexpected character,
and
because they had not yet had the opportunity to see for themselves. These
men have by degrees come to be satisfied. But some, besides allegiance to
their original error, possess I know not what fanciful interest in
remaining
hostile not so much toward the things in question as toward their
discoverer. No longer being able to deny them, these men now take refuge
in
obstinate silence, but being more than ever exasperated by that which has
pacified and quieted other men, they divert their thoughts to other
fancies
and seek new ways to damage me.

I should pay no more attention to them than to those who previously
contradicted me-at whom I always laugh, being assured of the eventual
outcome-were it not that in their new calumnies and persecutions I
perceive
that they do not stop at proving themselves more learned than I am (a
claim
which I scarcely contest), but go so far as to cast against me the
imputations of crimes which must be, and are, more abhorrent to me than
death itself. I cannot remain satisfied merely to know that the injustice
of
this is recognized by those who are acquainted with these men and with me,
as perhaps it is not known to others."

Source not disclosed. Find it for yourselves.

could be Galileo...

Take a brownie point. Two more if you can find who he said it to. :-)

"But some, besides allegiance to their original error, possess I know
not what fanciful interest in remaining hostile not so much toward the
things in question as toward their discoverer."
Interesting to note how history repeats itself, don't you think?

Androcles.
Message rating?

In sci.physics.relativity, Black Knight

wrote
on Wed, 16 Nov 2005 00:19:55 GMT
:

Finder=Google
Source=Galileo Galilei
Destination=Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany
Date=1615
Reference=http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/galileo.html
Reference=http://people.bu.edu/dklepper/RN242/duchess.html

Analysis begins.

"Well, the passage of time has revealed to everyone
the truths that I previously set forth; and, together
with the truth of the facts, there has come to light
the great difference in attitude between those who
simply and dispassionately refused to admit the
discoveries to be true, and those who combined with
their incredulity some reckless passion of their own.

Hmm..lessee.

Discoveries:

[1] Aql1493 conclusively proves c'=c+v, without even so much
as an equation.

[2] Einstein is proven wrong by using various methods; the ones
of note a

[a] Relatives moving at a relatively high speed.
[b] A turtle.
[c] A mosquito, ladder, a fire hydrant, and a pair of firemen.
[d] An equation.

[3] Muons are superluminal and may last longer than 2.2 microseconds,
in their own reference frame.

[4] Accelerators cannot accelerate faster than light.

[5] Pound-Rebka disproves SR.

[6] Sagnac disproves SR.

[7] An equation disproves SR.

[8] Supernovae do not show evidence for SR.

[9] Algol is an ordinary star with a planet orbiting it; the Sekerin
effect accounts for the variability.

The following are pending:

[1] Laser speckle interference when a pen laser is aimed at a wall.

The following catalogue may be of some assistance.

http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...alFumbles.html

Men who were well grounded in astronomical and physical
science were persuaded as soon as they received my first
message.

Perhaps so. I wouldn't ask as to what direction they were
persuaded, though. As an illustration:

A small moving red spot appears on a nearby wall. What does one do?

[a] Roll like a crazy man to nearby cover and pull a nonexistent
weapon.

[b] Look in the other direction to attempt to find the origin
of the light.

[c] Ignore it.

The answer is: it depends. There was a news story of a poor fellow
sitting in his house who answered [a]. No harm done (AFAIK) but
it probably scared him quite a bit for a while.

[rest snipped because of time constraints]

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

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
In sci.physics.relativity, Black Knight

wrote
on Wed, 16 Nov 2005 00:19:55 GMT
:

Finder=Google
Source=Galileo Galilei
Destination=Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany
Date=1615
Reference=http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/galileo.html
Reference=http://people.bu.edu/dklepper/RN242/duchess.html

Five brownie points to Ghost!



Analysis begins.

"Well, the passage of time has revealed to everyone
the truths that I previously set forth; and, together
with the truth of the facts, there has come to light
the great difference in attitude between those who
simply and dispassionately refused to admit the
discoveries to be true, and those who combined with
their incredulity some reckless passion of their own.

Hmm..lessee.

Discoveries:

[1] Aql1493 conclusively proves c'=c+v, without even so much
as an equation.

c' = c+v IS an equation.
The one you are seeking is SUM(0-period/delta_T) photon_arrival (D/(c+v))
where v is derived from E = M-e.sin(E), D the distance from
Earth to the star.



[2] Einstein is proven wrong by using various methods; the ones
of note a

[a] Relatives moving at a relatively high speed.
[b] A turtle.
[c] A mosquito, ladder, a fire hydrant, and a pair of firemen.
[d] An equation.

[d] An equation.
x = AB, -x = BA
(AB + BA)/(t'A -tA) = c = 0.
sqrt(1-v^2/0^2) = pick any value you like, it's undefined.


[3] Muons are superluminal and may last longer than 2.2 microseconds,
in their own reference frame.

Nonsense. Muons last 2.2 microseconds.
The Earth moves at 15c in the frame of the muon.

When asked if New York stops at this train, Galileo said "Yes".
Einstein said "To a first approximation for small quantities, as Galileo
has shown and I've called the "Principle of Relativity".
Does New York stop at this ****in' train or not, phuckwit?

[4] Accelerators cannot accelerate faster than light.

Accelerators cannot accelerate particles faster than light
in the frame of the accelerator. Usual lthe accelerator is
moving at 0.0001c around the sun, so the particles often
exceed the speed of light (in the frame of the sun) .

[5] Pound-Rebka disproves SR.

I'd have to look into that.


[6] Sagnac disproves SR.

Definitely.
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
The other ray (the one that goes the opposite ) moves relatively to the
initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system, with the
velocity c+v.

[rest snipped. You will lose concentration if I write more and you'll snip
anyway]
Androcles.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 17:00:04 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, Black Knight

wrote
on Wed, 16 Nov 2005 00:19:55 GMT
:

Finder=Google
Source=Galileo Galilei
Destination=Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany
Date=1615
Reference=http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/galileo.html
Reference=http://people.bu.edu/dklepper/RN242/duchess.html

Analysis begins.

"Well, the passage of time has revealed to everyone
the truths that I previously set forth; and, together
with the truth of the facts, there has come to light
the great difference in attitude between those who
simply and dispassionately refused to admit the
discoveries to be true, and those who combined with
their incredulity some reckless passion of their own.

Hmm..lessee.

Discoveries:

[1] Aql1493 conclusively proves c'=c+v, without even so much
as an equation.

[2] Einstein is proven wrong by using various methods; the ones
of note a

[a] Relatives moving at a relatively high speed.
[b] A turtle.
[c] A mosquito, ladder, a fire hydrant, and a pair of firemen.
[d] An equation.

[3] Muons are superluminal and may last longer than 2.2 microseconds,
in their own reference frame.

[4] Accelerators cannot accelerate faster than light.

[5] Pound-Rebka disproves SR.

Don't distort the truth Ghost.
Pound-Rebka shows that the BaTh gets the same answer as GR concerning
gravitational blue shift.
..

[6] Sagnac disproves SR.

[7] An equation disproves SR.

[8] Supernovae do not show evidence for SR.

[9] Algol is an ordinary star with a planet orbiting it; the Sekerin
effect accounts for the variability.

Androcles is basically correct on all of these.
Light moves at c wrt its source and c+v wrt anything else.
The rest follows.


The following are pending:

[1] Laser speckle interference when a pen laser is aimed at a wall.

The following catalogue may be of some assistance.

http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...alFumbles.html

Men who were well grounded in astronomical and physical
science were persuaded as soon as they received my first
message.



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, HW@..(Henri Wilson)
HW@
wrote
on Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:47:02 GMT
:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 17:00:04 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, Black Knight

wrote
on Wed, 16 Nov 2005 00:19:55 GMT
:

Finder=Google
Source=Galileo Galilei
Destination=Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany
Date=1615
Reference=http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/galileo.html
Reference=http://people.bu.edu/dklepper/RN242/duchess.html

Analysis begins.

"Well, the passage of time has revealed to everyone
the truths that I previously set forth; and, together
with the truth of the facts, there has come to light
the great difference in attitude between those who
simply and dispassionately refused to admit the
discoveries to be true, and those who combined with
their incredulity some reckless passion of their own.

Hmm..lessee.

Discoveries:

[1] Aql1493 conclusively proves c'=c+v, without even so much
as an equation.

[2] Einstein is proven wrong by using various methods; the ones
of note a

[a] Relatives moving at a relatively high speed.
[b] A turtle.
[c] A mosquito, ladder, a fire hydrant, and a pair of firemen.
[d] An equation.

[3] Muons are superluminal and may last longer than 2.2 microseconds,
in their own reference frame.

[4] Accelerators cannot accelerate faster than light.

[5] Pound-Rebka disproves SR.

Don't distort the truth Ghost.
Pound-Rebka shows that the BaTh gets the same answer as GR concerning
gravitational blue shift.
.

You're an odd one. GTR states f/f0 = 1+gh/c^2, approximately.
I've not verified this equation.

However, a careful computation using Newtonian mechanics
gets f/f0 = 1+2gh/c^2. See, for instance, my prior posting
. (One can also
use
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e=source&hl=en
..)


[6] Sagnac disproves SR.

[7] An equation disproves SR.

[8] Supernovae do not show evidence for SR.

[9] Algol is an ordinary star with a planet orbiting it; the Sekerin
effect accounts for the variability.

Androcles is basically correct on all of these.
Light moves at c wrt its source and c+v wrt anything else.
The rest follows.

OK. So how come a pen laser speckles against a wall?



The following are pending:

[1] Laser speckle interference when a pen laser is aimed at a wall.

The following catalogue may be of some assistance.

http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...alFumbles.html

Men who were well grounded in astronomical and physical
science were persuaded as soon as they received my first
message.



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

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


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

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 06:00:05 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, HW@..(Henri Wilson)
HW@
wrote
on Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:47:02 GMT

[a] Relatives moving at a relatively high speed.
[b] A turtle.
[c] A mosquito, ladder, a fire hydrant, and a pair of firemen.
[d] An equation.

[3] Muons are superluminal and may last longer than 2.2 microseconds,
in their own reference frame.

[4] Accelerators cannot accelerate faster than light.

[5] Pound-Rebka disproves SR.

Don't distort the truth Ghost.
Pound-Rebka shows that the BaTh gets the same answer as GR concerning
gravitational blue shift.
.

You're an odd one. GTR states f/f0 = 1+gh/c^2, approximately.
I've not verified this equation.

However, a careful computation using Newtonian mechanics
gets f/f0 = 1+2gh/c^2. See, for instance, my prior posting
. (One can also
use
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e=source&hl=en
.)

Einstein must have left out a 2 somewhere then.



[6] Sagnac disproves SR.

[7] An equation disproves SR.

[8] Supernovae do not show evidence for SR.

[9] Algol is an ordinary star with a planet orbiting it; the Sekerin
effect accounts for the variability.

Androcles is basically correct on all of these.
Light moves at c wrt its source and c+v wrt anything else.
The rest follows.

OK. So how come a pen laser speckles against a wall?



The following are pending:

[1] Laser speckle interference when a pen laser is aimed at a wall.

The following catalogue may be of some assistance.

http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...alFumbles.html

Men who were well grounded in astronomical and physical
science were persuaded as soon as they received my first
message.



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".

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, HW@..(Henri Wilson)
HW@
wrote
on Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:47:02 GMT
:

Don't distort the truth Ghost.
Pound-Rebka shows that the BaTh gets the same answer as GR concerning
gravitational blue shift.
.


You're an odd one. GTR states f/f0 = 1+gh/c^2, approximately.
I've not verified this equation.

However, a careful computation using Newtonian mechanics
gets f/f0 = 1+2gh/c^2. See, for instance, my prior posting
. (One can also
use
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e=source&hl=en
.)

Well, that depends on how the frequency is defined.
There is no such thing as "frequency of a falling body"
in Newtonian mechanics, so an additional assumption has
to be made.

If c is the initial speed of the photon and c' is the speed
when it has fallen a distance h, then we according to NM have:

c'^2 - c^2 = 2gh
(c'/c)^2 = 1 + 2gh/c^2
c'/c = sqrt(1 + 2gh/c^2) = ca. (1 + gh/c^2)

But what is the frequency?
In your (correct) calculation you assumed that the frequency
of the photon is defined by E = hf.
But Henri claims that the BaTh predicts a Doppler shift
f' = f(c+v)c = fc'/c,
and has then implicitly defined the frequency of
a photon as being proportional to its speed.
With this definition, we get the BaTh to predict:
f' = f(1 + gh/c^2).

The big problem with this definition is of course
that then the energy of a "BaTh photon" must be:
E = const*sqrt(f).
This is not in accordance with experimental evidence.

So the BaTh is falsified either way.

That is of course no problem for Henri, his laws
of nature change according to which phenomenon
he is explaining away. :-)

Paul

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...

You're an odd one. GTR states f/f0 = 1+gh/c^2, approximately.
I've not verified this equation.

You are an odd on. You pose your question to me, address your response
to Wilson and ignore my response. Andersen calls that "willful ignorance".
I call it ignorant ewill ).
The reason you did that is that you cannot fault me and like to argue
for the sake of argument, having no real interest in physics.
Andersen, of course, is as willfully ignorant and stupid as you.

Androcles.