sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment

Subject: Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment
From: "Hexenmeister"
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 08:32:45 GMT
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
"jgreenfield@xxxxxxxxxxx" <jgreen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
news:1143513048.962464.98390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| Hexenmeister wrote:
| > "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| > news:651f22heul0ah937prqaoun0ab7d7cnbd7@xxxxxxxxxx
| > | On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 12:25:09 GMT, "Hexenmeister" 
<vanquish@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > wrote:
| > |
| > | >
| > | >"George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | >news:e05qtd$s9j$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | >|
| > |
| > | >|
| > | >| Indeed, it should have been translated as "average
| > | >| speed". However, the maths is correct and his proof
| > | >| is valid.
| > | >
| > | >Oh,  it's valid to add speed to velocity in vector algebra, is it?
| > | >
| > | > 'But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
| > | >when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v...' --
| > | >Einstein.
| > | >
| > | >That should be 'But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of 
k,
| > | >when measured in the stationary system, with the "average speed" 
c-v...'
| > | >should it?
| > | >
| > | >Apologise to the translator for  mistaking "Geschwindigkeit" with
| > | >"velocity."
| > | >He must have been a moron.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >I'm  ing glad you are an imbecile and not a teacher.
| > | >The kids might learn some vulgar English from me, but at least
| > | >they'd know mathematics.
| > | >Actually children never hear vulgar English from me, I reserve
| > | >it for cunts like you; lessons in stupidity are not part of the
| > | >curriculum.
| > | >
| > | >|
| > | >| > Shithead Wilson says TWLS = OWLS.
| > | >|
| > | >| Indeed, he is wrong.
| > | >
| > | >You've just said "However, the maths is correct and his proof
| > | > is valid."
| > | >How come when Wilson agrees with Einstein, Wilson is wrong?
| > | >I'm  ing glad you are an imbecile and not a teacher.
| > |
| > | Wilson does not agree with Einstein.
| > |
| > | Wilson agrees with Ritz..... who effectively said that in any one 
frame,
| > TWLS =
| > | OWLS = c.
| >
| > Don't give me that "effectively said" and "any one frame" shit, you 
 ing
| > squirmer. You agree with Einstein and you are an idiot. Ritz said 
nothing of
| > the kind, you lying cunt. You are as bad as Dishwanker and Rot.
| > Velocity is NOT measured as "there and back again", and OWLS is
| > easily measured from Cassini.
| >   http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/saturn-time.cfm
| > Now shut the   up about TWLS, it is NOT the same as OWLS.
|
| That site doesn't address whether the variation in signal transit  is
| due to Cassini's
| distance from earth, or its relative velocity to it. It has to be a
| combination of both, but how do you _prove_ anything from that
| information?


"Proof" is that which is to be believed.

Proof in law is built upon built on axioms, definitions, logic, evidence
and persuasive rhetoric.  To counter the persuasive rhetoric the
jury system was introduced, one must convince twelve men good
and true.  The burden of proof is upon the claimant, the accused
is innocent until proven guilty.
 Once convicted, the burden of proof shifts to the accused who
must then prove himself innocent on appeal.

Proof in physics is built on axioms, definitions, logic and evidence.
No persuasion allowed, physicists are in general not lawyers.

Proof in mathematics is built on axioms, definitions and logic.
No evidence necessary.

Morons like Einstein and Wilson employ persuasive rhetoric
to claim D + (-D) = 2, which is against the definition.
They are Monday morning quarterbacks engaged in idle chatter
about how they "would" have scored or the line backer "should have",
living in the fairy tale world of blaming the other guy.

To answer your question, I do not have to prove that the
variation in signal transit  is  due to Cassini's distance from
earth or its relative velocity to it.  To me that is obvious,
Earth moves relative to Saturn.
Newton is innocent until proven guilty, then I'll start the appeal.
Newton's accuser is Einstein, the burden of proof is Einstein's.
As a member of the jury I do not accept Einstein's definition

[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to travel
 from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Androcles.


|
| Jim G
| c'=c+v
| >
| >
| >
| > | Androcles would also agree if he had enough remaining brain cells to
| > fathom
| > | what the hell it all means.
| >
| >   off, drunken old wabo.
| >
| > |
| > | Einstein said that if you synch clocks """"IN THE AETHER"""" so that 
tAB =
| > tBA
| > | then you can forget all about that aether and TWLS will always equal 
OWLS
| > due
| > | to clock fiddling.
| > |
| > | The silly fool was actually right all along but for the wrong reasons.
| >
| > Idiot, you have no idea what Einstein, Ritz, Lorentz or anyone else said
| > or effectively said. Shut up, you  ing wino.
| >
| >
| > |
| > | >
| > | >Androcles.
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| > | HW.
| > | www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
| > |
| > |
| 



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>