On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:40:52 +0100, "George Dishman" <[email protected]>
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>> On 28 Mar 2006 03:37:33 -0800, "George Dishman" <[email protected]>
>>>That may be what you mean but it's not what the words
>>>say, which is why you need to be careful about how you
>>>express it. The "any" in "any one frame" means it
>>>doesn't matter what frame you use as long as all the
>>>measurements are stated in the same frame, you just
>>>need to say "the rest frame of the equipment" to clarify
>>>that. What you intended is fine, it's just the words that
>>>may cause confusion.
>> I have explained it many times before.
>It doesn't really matter, I haven't seen that thread
>so how am I supposed to know that when you say "in any
>one frame" you actually mean "in only one particular
>frame, specifically the rest frame of the source".
George, the requirement is that all parts of the measuring apparatus are
mutually at rest, ie., they are in the same frame...but you have trouble
understanding what a 'frame' is don't you George.
>> I started a whole thread about it.
>You have a strange approach to the English language,
>why not just say what you mean instead of saying the
>opposite and then posting a separate thread to explain
>> Androcles knows what I mean but cannot understand why I am right.
>Even he can't be faulted for taking your words at
Like you, he still cannot get right away from the aether concept.
>> But SR would have no way of using TWLS to find OWLS if Einstein hadn't
>> accidentally stumbled onto the BaTh approach with his clock synch
>> Makes one wonder if Einstein was really a ballistician.
>Not true, if the speed is isotropic then two way
>equals one way, just as in the source frame with
>ballistic theory if the path length is constant
Einstein merely stated it as a postulate.
The BaTh is a physical theory.
In this instance, light speed IS isotropic and Einstein's postulate is 100% in
accordance with the BaTh.
>>>> The 'hushed-up' Venus radar experiment verified this.
>>>I didn't take you for a conspiracy nut. See the recent
>>>announcement on possible measurement of the
>>>"gravitomagnetic London moment" for the way news
>>>of a conflict between experiment and GR is received.
>>>If it is confirmed, that's definitely Nobel stuff, and you
>>>have to wonder whether it would affect the determination
>>>of dark matter/ dark energy values.
>> There is plenty of dark matter in the form of dead stars and cold
>> planets....probably whole extinct galaxies.
>There is some matter in that form but not enough.
>MACHOs have been counted by microlensing and we
>see too few events.
That could be because the events happen quite rarely. The 'lensing event' is
predicted by the BaTh for orbiting stars with their perihelions furthest from
Earth. It is usually not a lensing event at all...just a pure result of source
>Also there is evidence, though
>as yet inconclusive, that Virgo HI 21 could be a
>galaxy composed of 99.8% dark matter.
there you go...
How many more cold galaxies are out there.
>> This is borne out by the number of variable stars that show no signs of a
>> companion star and therefore must be orbiting a WCH.
>No, they're just variable stars or their orbital
>motion would show up in their spectra. For Cepheids
>the spectra are at the wrong phase to be binaries.
Well I have nearly finished the new 'observed velocity prediction' section in
my program, as you suggested. I get curves like Sekerin's. ...I just have to
tidy up the scaling so the curves always fit on the screen.