• A Challenge Testing Lou's Mastery of the Ritz Ether Free Emission Model

    From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to All on Sun Aug 27 02:50:42 2023
    Lou: [The standard model is] only one of various competing theoretical frameworks.
    Me: What "competing theoretical frameworks"? Name them.
    Lou: Ritz ether free emission model. Not only does it not rely on an ether like the SM, it can model all observed so-called particle paths

    Challenge: Isolated neutrons are unstable, decaying with a half life of about 15 minutes. Name the principal decay products that you believe in, and calculate their energies. You are not required to calculate using decay products in which you have
    expressed a disbelief, such as neutrinos. How does your calculation compare with published data? (Yes, I did check. Graphs are available online.)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Sun Aug 27 03:46:22 2023
    On Sunday, 27 August 2023 at 11:50:44 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    Lou: [The standard model is] only one of various competing theoretical frameworks.
    Me: What "competing theoretical frameworks"? Name them.
    Lou: Ritz ether free emission model. Not only does it not rely on an ether like the SM, it can model all observed so-called particle paths

    Challenge: Isolated neutrons are unstable, decaying with a half life of about 15 minutes. Name the principal decay products that you believe in, and calculate their energies. You are not required to calculate using decay products in which you have
    expressed a disbelief, such as neutrinos. How does your calculation compare with published data? (Yes, I did check. Graphs are available online.)

    And a challenge for PCH, poor fanatic trash.
    Is LET "experimentally confirmed" according to so
    called "scientific method" of yours? Spit it - yes or
    no?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Sun Aug 27 06:31:40 2023
    On Sunday, 27 August 2023 at 10:50:44 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    Lou: [The standard model is] only one of various competing theoretical frameworks.
    Me: What "competing theoretical frameworks"? Name them.
    Lou: Ritz ether free emission model. Not only does it not rely on an ether like the SM, it can model all observed so-called particle paths

    Challenge: Isolated neutrons are unstable, decaying with a half life of about 15 minutes. Name the principal decay products that you believe in, and calculate their energies. You are not required to calculate using decay products in which you have
    expressed a disbelief, such as neutrinos. How does your calculation compare with published data? (Yes, I did check. Graphs are available online.)

    My own thread !! Wow. I’m honoured Prokey babe.
    Answer for Proke: A Ritzian ether free wave only emission model, models
    the atom as a wave only resonating system. In other words it is not
    made up of imaginary particles like neutrons and electrons.
    How can an emission model calculate “decay times” of fictional
    particles made up by the wacko religious cult who worship the
    imaginary standard model?

    You might as well have asked me the following question:
    “The Ptolemaic model has an angel pulling Venus across the sky
    on a seperate track from the suns track, which is pulled by god himself.
    How much longer is Venus’s track compared to the suns track?
    And is God wearing running shoes when he pulls the sun across the sky?”

    And while we’re on university challenge questions...
    How does the standard model explain how the muon is wobbling in
    fermilab observations. When according to the standard model...the muon should not wobble?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Lou on Sun Aug 27 07:21:40 2023
    On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 8:31:42 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote:
    On Sunday, 27 August 2023 at 10:50:44 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    Lou: [The standard model is] only one of various competing theoretical frameworks.
    Me: What "competing theoretical frameworks"? Name them.
    Lou: Ritz ether free emission model. Not only does it not rely on an ether like the SM, it can model all observed so-called particle paths

    Challenge: Isolated neutrons are unstable, decaying with a half life of about 15 minutes. Name the principal decay products that you believe in, and calculate their energies. You are not required to calculate using decay products in which you have
    expressed a disbelief, such as neutrinos. How does your calculation compare with published data? (Yes, I did check. Graphs are available online.)
    My own thread !! Wow. I’m honoured Prokey babe.
    Answer for Proke: A Ritzian ether free wave only emission model, models
    the atom as a wave only resonating system. In other words it is not
    made up of imaginary particles like neutrons and electrons.
    How can an emission model calculate “decay times” of fictional
    particles made up by the wacko religious cult who worship the
    imaginary standard model?

    You might as well have asked me the following question:
    “The Ptolemaic model has an angel pulling Venus across the sky
    on a seperate track from the suns track, which is pulled by god himself.
    How much longer is Venus’s track compared to the suns track?
    And is God wearing running shoes when he pulls the sun across the sky?”

    And while we’re on university challenge questions...
    How does the standard model explain how the muon is wobbling in
    fermilab observations. When according to the standard model...the muon should
    not wobble?

    You stated, "Not only does it [i.e. the Ritz ether free emission model]
    not rely on an ether like the SM, it can model all observed so-called
    particle paths" In other words, you contended that it represents a
    complete replacement for the standard model.

    But obviously you cannot compute a darn thing, and you consider
    neutrons and electrons to be imaginary.

    Your theory (which was never Ritz's theory) is completely worthless.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Sun Aug 27 11:26:52 2023
    On Sunday, 27 August 2023 at 15:21:43 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 8:31:42 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote:
    On Sunday, 27 August 2023 at 10:50:44 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    Lou: [The standard model is] only one of various competing theoretical frameworks.
    Me: What "competing theoretical frameworks"? Name them.
    Lou: Ritz ether free emission model. Not only does it not rely on an ether like the SM, it can model all observed so-called particle paths

    Challenge: Isolated neutrons are unstable, decaying with a half life of about 15 minutes. Name the principal decay products that you believe in, and calculate their energies. You are not required to calculate using decay products in which you have
    expressed a disbelief, such as neutrinos. How does your calculation compare with published data? (Yes, I did check. Graphs are available online.)
    My own thread !! Wow. I’m honoured Prokey babe.
    Answer for Proke: A Ritzian ether free wave only emission model, models the atom as a wave only resonating system. In other words it is not
    made up of imaginary particles like neutrons and electrons.
    How can an emission model calculate “decay times” of fictional particles made up by the wacko religious cult who worship the
    imaginary standard model?

    You might as well have asked me the following question:
    “The Ptolemaic model has an angel pulling Venus across the sky
    on a seperate track from the suns track, which is pulled by god himself. How much longer is Venus’s track compared to the suns track?
    And is God wearing running shoes when he pulls the sun across the sky?”

    And while we’re on university challenge questions...
    How does the standard model explain how the muon is wobbling in
    fermilab observations. When according to the standard model...the muon should
    not wobble?
    You stated, "Not only does it [i.e. the Ritz ether free emission model]
    not rely on an ether like the SM, it can model all observed so-called particle paths" In other words, you contended that it represents a
    complete replacement for the standard model.

    Exactly. The SM isn’t working as every week some new observation
    can’t be explained by it. There needs to be a new model based
    on waves. Ritz, Rydberg, Planck, Hubble et al all knew this.
    But if you think I’m could rewrite the rule book on physics
    let alone in a afternoon post to you then forget it,
    It took your lot trillions of dollars, thousands of theorists and a
    100 years and they still screwed up. I’ve cited just 3 major examples
    from last few weeks alone that are completely at odds with your
    model. There are 100s a year coming out in torrents published
    in papers. All saying the latest data cannot be explained by
    current physics.

    But obviously you cannot compute a darn thing, and you consider
    neutrons and electrons to be imaginary.

    Your theory (which was never Ritz's theory) is completely worthless.

    So far you haven’t supplied a single fact or citation that proves it can’t work. And Ritz not me, says in his 1908 paper he wanted to chuck the ether, rewrite Maxwell , Lorentz, Hertz etc and incorporate acceleration with light at c always in source frame.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to Lou on Sun Aug 27 19:01:52 2023
    On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 11:26:55 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    So far you haven’t supplied a single fact or citation that proves [my nutty idea] can’t work.

    Wait, the reasons your nutty belief is so nutty have been explained to you in detail. Again, you are proposing blatant violation of the conservation of momentum, not to mention instantaneous action at a distance, and contradicting yourself when you
    admit that inertial trajectories deviate from constant speed in a straight line only in proportion to applied changes of momentum, and that a pulse of light does not exchange momentum with distant objects, let alone magically distinguish based on "memory"
    of past interactions, etc.

    Although you don't realize it, your nutty belief amounts to postulating that each particle in the (Galilean) universe is surrounded by its own individual and perfectly rigid and yet massless ether (yes, your nutty idea is a multiple-ether theory) and
    every pulse of light emitted by a given particle thereafter propagates at speed c in terms of the specific ether of the specific particle that emitted it, which it remembers eternally. Of course, a pulse of light can be emitted by an atom consisting of
    a proton and electron, and subsequently we could strip the electron away from the proton and send them in opposite directions, etc., or the particles could be anhilated and not even exist subsequent to the emission. And so on. The sheer insanity of
    your belief is astounding.

    And Ritz not me...

    No, we covered this before. Again, Ritz would never have dreamed of denying conservation of momentum, and he stated explicitly that light propagates at c in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the source is at rest *at the moment of emission*.
    Neither he nor any other sentient being ever suggested that we could alter the trajectory of a previously emitted pulse merely by accelerating the particles that emitted it. It is disgraceful for you to attribute your insane belief to Ritz. Please stop
    doing that. He was not an ignorant irrational fool.

    he said he would incorporate acceleration with light at c always in source frame.

    Again, we covered this. The fact that the word "acceleration" appears in his writing does not negate or contradict his clear statement that light propagates at c in the inertial coordinates in which the source was at rest *at the moment of emission*.
    The utterly insane idea that inertial trajectories are straight at constant speed in terms of accelerating coordinates, thereby violating conservation of momentum and every other fundamental physical concept, is entirely yours alone. And you ran away
    from the fully detailed explanation. Remember?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Lou on Sun Aug 27 23:36:55 2023
    On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 1:26:55 PM UTC-5, Lou wrote:
    On Sunday, 27 August 2023 at 15:21:43 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    Your theory (which was never Ritz's theory) is completely worthless.
    So far you haven’t supplied a single fact or citation that proves it can’t
    work. And Ritz not me, says in his 1908 paper he wanted to chuck the ether, rewrite Maxwell , Lorentz, Hertz etc and incorporate acceleration with light at
    c always in source frame.

    You don't get it. It is ***YOUR*** responsibility to provide calculations indicating that it ***CAN*** work. Your theory (which is not Ritz's theory) must provide numbers that are relatable to experimental measurement.

    In the case of the simple beta decay challenge that I presented to you, ***WHICH YOU FAILED***, I can provide in two minutes a figure for
    the maximum kinetic energy of the electron, since the equations are
    already in my calculator. In a couple of hours (if that long), I can
    program a trivial computer program to generate the complete beta
    spectrum, since the math for this is well-known.

    Can you even perform an exercise using Ritz's equations to solve
    a problem in electromagnetics, as opposed to using Maxwell's
    equations? Most of the time in class, you wouldn't be using Maxwell's
    equations directly, but instead you would use Coulomb's, Gauss's,
    Faraday's or Ampere's law.

    But here is a problem from my old textbook that requires reaching
    back to the fundamental equations: Imagine that you have a uniform
    electric field. Consider an uncharged, grounded, conducting sphere
    in this field. What electric field is induced by the applied field?

    The question is a standard one (like I said, I copied it with changes
    from my old textbook) with a well-known answer. Solve the problem
    using Ritz's equations as opposed to Maxwell's equations.

    Being a klutz who has a hard time with always dropping terms, it would
    take me a while to solve this problem with a ton of cross-outs and
    erasures on the paper, but I can ***eventually*** do it with Maxwell's equations (since I know what the answer needs to be) provided that
    I am allowed to work the problem "open book".

    The answer needs to be the same with Ritz's equations.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Sun Aug 27 23:42:48 2023
    On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 08:36:57 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 1:26:55 PM UTC-5, Lou wrote:
    On Sunday, 27 August 2023 at 15:21:43 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    Your theory (which was never Ritz's theory) is completely worthless.
    So far you haven’t supplied a single fact or citation that proves it can’t
    work. And Ritz not me, says in his 1908 paper he wanted to chuck the ether,
    rewrite Maxwell , Lorentz, Hertz etc and incorporate acceleration with light at
    c always in source frame.
    You don't get it. It is ***YOUR*** responsibility to provide calculations indicating that it ***CAN*** work. Your theory (which is not Ritz's theory) must provide numbers that are relatable to experimental measurement.

    The Shit, of course, doesn't. But instead it can easily explain
    that they should be relatable and that they are not is only
    because the reality is improper.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Mikko on Mon Aug 28 01:45:41 2023
    On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 10:41:52 UTC+2, Mikko wrote:
    On 2023-08-27 14:21:40 +0000, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog said:

    [Lou's] theory (which was never Ritz's theory) is completely worthless.

    It is also completely harmless. Anyone so stupid that would apply
    it is so stupid that cannot apply it.

    As for The Shit, on the other hand - noone is stupid enough to
    even try, and all of these magnificient successes of alleged
    GR models are Euclid based.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Mon Aug 28 11:41:48 2023
    On 2023-08-27 14:21:40 +0000, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog said:

    [Lou's] theory (which was never Ritz's theory) is completely worthless.

    It is also completely harmless. Anyone so stupid that would apply
    it is so stupid that cannot apply it.

    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Mon Aug 28 05:36:16 2023
    On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 07:36:57 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 1:26:55 PM UTC-5, Lou wrote:
    On Sunday, 27 August 2023 at 15:21:43 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

    Your theory (which was never Ritz's theory) is completely worthless.
    So far you haven’t supplied a single fact or citation that proves it can’t
    work. And Ritz not me, says in his 1908 paper he wanted to chuck the ether,
    rewrite Maxwell , Lorentz, Hertz etc and incorporate acceleration with light at
    c always in source frame.
    You don't get it. It is ***YOUR*** responsibility to provide calculations indicating that it ***CAN*** work. Your theory (which is not Ritz's theory) must provide numbers that are relatable to experimental measurement.

    My Responsibilty? Sorry Adolf. I don’t take orders from psychotic maniacs Especially if you want me to supply calculations about how imaginary
    particles like neutrons, created by religious wackos like yourself, are supposed to behave at CERN’s weekly Sunday worship.


    In the case of the simple beta decay challenge that I presented to you, ***WHICH YOU FAILED***, I can provide in two minutes a figure for
    the maximum kinetic energy of the electron, since the equations are
    already in my calculator. In a couple of hours (if that long), I can
    program a trivial computer program to generate the complete beta
    spectrum, since the math for this is well-known.

    You can provide a calculation for an imaginary particle? Is
    your “particle” dragged by one angel, or two? Could you supply
    calculations for this please.

    Can you even perform an exercise using Ritz's equations to solve
    a problem in electromagnetics, as opposed to using Maxwell's
    equations? Most of the time in class, you wouldn't be using Maxwell's equations directly, but instead you would use Coulomb's, Gauss's,
    Faraday's or Ampere's law.

    Ritz couldnt supply calculations to correct Maxwell, Coulomb, Hertz
    or Lorentz. And he was even better at maths than I am.
    However your deficiencies are even worse. You might know enough maths
    to know how to do a chi squared calc on maple. But when it comes
    to physics..you know SFA if you think there is an ether.

    But here is a problem from my old textbook that requires reaching
    back to the fundamental equations: Imagine that you have a uniform
    electric field. Consider an uncharged, grounded, conducting sphere
    in this field. What electric field is induced by the applied field?

    Electric field? That says it all. That’s why Ritz wanted to rewrite Maxwell Lorentz et al. He knew that you ether obsessed morons didn’t realise
    that electrons and their fields ...were a fantasy.


    The question is a standard one (like I said, I copied it with changes
    from my old textbook) with a well-known answer. Solve the problem
    using Ritz's equations as opposed to Maxwell's equations.

    Ritz never had a chance to rewrite Maxwell. He died a year after
    writing his paper. And I can understand why. How could Ritz rewrite
    equations written by a religious wacko who believed in imaginary electrons
    and an all pervasive ether?

    Being a klutz who has a hard time with always dropping terms, it would
    take me a while to solve this problem with a ton of cross-outs and
    erasures on the paper, but I can ***eventually*** do it with Maxwell's equations (since I know what the answer needs to be) provided that
    I am allowed to work the problem "open book".

    Don’t bother. Maxwell was a klutz too. He thought there were
    imaginary electrons, electric fields and an ether.

    Now you answer my test. Using your so called maths
    skills, supply me the calculations explaining why the muon
    appears to be wobbling . When your preferred theory says
    it shouldnt.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Bill on Mon Aug 28 05:15:31 2023
    On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 03:01:55 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
    On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 11:26:55 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    So far you haven’t supplied a single fact or citation that proves [my nutty
    idea] can’t work.

    Wait, the reasons your nutty belief is so nutty have been explained to you in detail. Again, you are proposing blatant violation of the conservation of momentum, not to mention instantaneous action at a distance, and contradicting yourself when you
    admit that inertial trajectories deviate from constant speed in a straight line only in proportion to applied changes of momentum, and that a pulse of light does not exchange momentum with distant objects, let alone magically distinguish based on "memory"
    of past interactions, etc.

    Lightwaves are not particles so don’t transfer momentum. But they are magnetic fields so energy is transferred. And in the source frame this
    is observed as light pressure. Nothing to do with imaginary photons.
    And trajectories do not deviate in the source frame. Everything else
    moves relative to the source. No conservation of momentum violated.
    So if I shine a light at you are moving relative to my lightsource, you
    in your sheer bliss of ignorance would be convinced that my lightsource
    was dragging the light. Of course you are wrong. You moved in the source
    frame and my light didn’t drag anything.

    Although you don't realize it, your nutty belief amounts to postulating that each particle in the (Galilean) universe is > surrounded by its own individual and perfectly rigid and yet massless ether

    Let’s just compare what happens to the classical gravitational field. Newton’s instantaneous g field appears to also be dragged to low IQ students like yourself. Just as the emitted source frame light appears to be dragged. It’s not actually dragged in either case. Yet you nor Newton had any problem with the field apparently violating conservation of momentum. Why the hypocricy?



    (yes, your nutty idea is a multiple-ether theory) and every pulse of light emitted by a given particle thereafter

    You are describing SR. Not only does SR contravene conservation of momentum
    it is essentially a multiple ether theory. Albert gave every observer their own
    entrained ether.

    Rest of your ranting babble sipped..

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to Lou on Mon Aug 28 12:04:47 2023
    On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 5:15:33 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    So far you haven’t supplied a single fact or citation that proves [my nutty
    idea] can’t work.

    Wait, the reasons your nutty belief is so nutty have been explained to you in detail. Again, you are proposing blatant violation of the conservation of momentum, not to mention instantaneous action at a distance, and contradicting yourself when you
    admit that inertial trajectories deviate from constant speed in a straight line only in proportion to applied changes of momentum, and that a pulse of light does not exchange momentum with distant objects, let alone magically distinguish based on "memory"
    of past interactions, etc.

    Lightwaves don’t transfer momentum.

    Yes they do, you admitted this previously. Remember? When an object emits a pulse of light, it imparts a recoil to the emitting body, and when they pulse of light is absorbed by some receiver it transfers momentum to that body. Before you can even
    think of criticizing science, you need to acquaint yourself with the basic facts of the phenomena.

    And trajectories do not deviate in the source frame.

    Again, the only relevant "source frame" is the inertial frame in which the source was at rest *at the moment of emission*. As Ritz carefully explained to you, and as every sentient being understands, changing the state of motion of an emitter after it
    has emitted a pulse of light does not have any effect on the inertial trajectory of the pulse. Remember, you already admitted that ballistic objects follow Newton's laws by conserving momentum, which means anything that carries momentum moves at uniform
    speed in a straight line in terms of any single inertial coordinate system, but NOT in terms of accelerating coordinate systems. Your nutty idea is simply absurd. Agreed?

    Although you don't realize it, your nutty belief amounts to postulating that each particle in the (Galilean) universe is surrounded by its own individual and perfectly rigid and yet massless ether...

    Newton’s instantaneous g field appears to also be dragged... just as the emitted source frame light appears to be dragged. Yet you nor Newton had any problem with the field apparently violating conservation of momentum.

    Newtonian instantaneous force of gravity in a Galilean context did not violate conservation of momentum. Each pair of objects exerts equal and opposite gravitational forces on each other, and they respond with acceleration based on their mass, so
    momentum is strictly conserved. In contrast, your insane belief entail gross violation of momentum conservation, both linear and angular (not to mention its inherently magical quality of only responding to the object that it remembers ejected it!)
    Think of two mass at mutual rest and held at a distance L from each other. Now apply an additional sideways force to one of them. Yes, according to Newton there will start to be a change in the gravitational pull on the other object, which will very
    slightly pull the other object offline, but the other object will NOT move in lock-step to the side... which is what you insanely imagine a light pulse will do... because that would require an infinite torque at your object, which is not being applied.

    Look, you already admitted that material objects do NOT behave the way you think light pulses behave, they behave the way everyone else in the world thinks light pulses behave. Your thesis is that it is inconceivable for any entities to behave the way
    you have already admitted that material particles behave. Do you not see the fallacy of your position?

    You are describing SR.

    No, I am describing your nutty belief, purely in the Galilean context, which includes inertia, inertial coordinate systems, inertial trajectories, and the conservation of momentum, all of which your nutty belief violates.

    Ritz, not me...

    No, we covered this before. Again, Ritz would never have dreamed of denying conservation of momentum, and he stated explicitly that light propagates at c in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the source is at rest *at the moment of emission*.
    Neither he nor any other sentient being ever suggested that we could alter the trajectory of a previously emitted pulse merely by accelerating the particles that emitted it. It's disgraceful for you to attribute your insane belief to Ritz. Please stop
    doing that. He was not an ignorant irrational fool.

    he said he would incorporate acceleration with light at c always in source frame.

    Again, we covered this. The fact that the word "acceleration" appears later in his paper (referring to a completely different thing) does not negate or contradict his clear statement that light propagates at c in the inertial coordinates in which the
    source was at rest *at the moment of emission*. The utterly insane idea that inertial trajectories are straight at constant speed in terms of accelerating coordinates, thereby violating conservation of momentum and every other fundamental physical
    concept, is entirely yours alone. And you ran away from the fully detailed explanation. Have you really forgotten all that? Did you get kicked in the head by a mule or something?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to All on Mon Aug 28 15:37:53 2023
    On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 7:36:18 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote:

    [snip Lou's rant]

    You are beyond worth attempting to make rational
    conversation with.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Bill on Tue Aug 29 02:02:49 2023
    On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 20:04:48 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
    On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 5:15:33 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    So far you haven’t supplied a single fact or citation that proves [my nutty
    idea] can’t work.

    Wait, the reasons your nutty belief is so nutty have been explained to you in detail. Again, you are proposing blatant violation of the conservation of momentum, not to mention instantaneous action at a distance, and contradicting yourself when you
    admit that inertial trajectories deviate from constant speed in a straight line only in proportion to applied changes of momentum, and that a pulse of light does not exchange momentum with distant objects, let alone magically distinguish based on "memory"
    of past interactions, etc.

    Lightwaves don’t transfer momentum.

    Yes they do, you admitted this previously. Remember? When an object emits a pulse of light, it imparts a recoil to the emitting body, and when they pulse of light is absorbed by some receiver it transfers momentum to that body. Before you can even
    think of criticizing science, you need to acquaint yourself with the basic facts of the phenomena.

    It’s called magnetic moment. Lightwaves are not particles. They are Oscillating magnetic fields. And these impart the effect so called
    light pressure. Momentum is mass and velocity in Newton.
    And light is not a particle.

    And trajectories do not deviate in the source frame.
    Again, the only relevant "source frame" is the inertial frame in which the source was at rest *at the moment of emission*. As Ritz carefully explained to you, and as every sentient being understands, changing the state of motion of an emitter after it
    has emitted a pulse of light does not have any effect on the inertial trajectory of the pulse.

    When will you learn that the “source frame”...is not another observer frame.
    Grow up and learn some basic physics.

    Remember, you already admitted that ballistic objects follow Newton's laws by conserving momentum, which means anything that carries momentum moves at uniform speed in a straight line in terms of any single inertial coordinate system, but NOT in terms
    of accelerating coordinate systems. Your nutty idea is simply absurd. Agreed?
    Although you don't realize it, your nutty belief amounts to postulating that each particle in the (Galilean) universe is surrounded by its own individual and perfectly rigid and yet massless ether...

    Newton’s instantaneous g field appears to also be dragged... just as the emitted source frame light appears to be dragged. Yet you nor Newton had any problem with the field apparently violating conservation of momentum.
    Newtonian instantaneous force of gravity in a Galilean context did not violate conservation of momentum. Each pair of objects exerts equal and opposite gravitational forces on each other, and they respond with acceleration based on their mass, so
    momentum is strictly conserved. In contrast, your insane belief entail gross violation of momentum conservation, both linear and angular (not to mention its inherently magical quality of only responding to the object that it remembers ejected it!) Think
    of two mass at mutual rest and held at a distance L from each other. Now apply an additional sideways force to one of them. Yes, according to Newton there will start to be a change in the gravitational pull on the other object, which will very slightly
    pull the other object offline, but the other object will NOT move in lock-step to the side... which is what you insanely imagine a light pulse will do... because that would require an infinite torque at your object, which is not being applied.


    Blah blah blah. If it’s OK for a newtonian gravitational field to appear to be “dragged” in an
    observer frame which moves relative to the gravitational field And to be instantaneous.
    Both contravening your conservation of momentum law,..then its not a
    problem for light having left a source being *apparently* being dragged instantaneously
    to observers in other frames. Why your hypocricy?! Why is it OK
    for you to accept gravity being dragged but not light?
    Not to mention your conservation of momentum defying “constant” speed
    of light in all frames. Counterintuitive Magic at a distance.
    SR is just a trumped up ether model. Albert just gave every observer their own magically entrained ether.


    Look, you already admitted that material objects do NOT behave the way you think light pulses behave, they behave the way everyone else in the world thinks light pulses behave. Your thesis is that it is inconceivable for any entities to behave the way
    you have already admitted that material particles behave. Do you not see the fallacy of your position?

    You are describing SR.

    No, I am describing your nutty belief, purely in the Galilean context, which includes inertia, inertial coordinate systems, inertial trajectories, and the conservation of momentum, all of which your nutty belief violates.

    When you learn that transferring energy via a changing magnetic field is not the same as
    transferring energy via gravity or momentum. Then maybe you will be ready
    to start grade school classes.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Bill on Tue Aug 29 05:53:00 2023
    On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 20:04:48 UTC+1, Bill wrote:

    Newtonian instantaneous force of gravity in a Galilean context did not violate conservation of momentum. Each pair of objects exerts equal and opposite gravitational forces on each other, and they respond with acceleration based on their mass, so
    momentum is strictly conserved. In contrast, your insane belief entail gross violation of momentum conservation, both linear and angular (not to mention its inherently magical quality of only responding to the object that it remembers ejected it!) Think
    of two mass at mutual rest and held at a distance L from each other. Now apply an additional sideways force to one of them. Yes, according to Newton there will start to be a change in the gravitational pull on the other object, which will very slightly
    pull the other object offline, but the other object will NOT move in lock-step to the side... which is what you insanely imagine a light pulse will do... because that would require an infinite torque at your object, which is not being applied.



    You are trying to pretend that Newtonian gravity isn’t instantaneous.
    And that this is why it doesn’t contravene conservation of momentum.
    This is your fantasy. Because not only is gravity under Newton considered to be
    instantaneous, it also appears to be dragged from an observers point of view. And thus it IS contravening conservation of energy.
    One only has to look at not only how the suns gravitational field
    but its magnetic field both appear to be ”dragged” in the earth observer frame.
    Notice it is accepted by all including relativity supporters that when we look at the suns position in the sky it also represents the suns actual position in the
    sky. Not it’s time retarded position.
    This means that both the magnetic field AND the gravitational field are instantaneous. Even though the waves in the magnetic field still travel at c. For instance if light thats already left the sun wasnt “dragged” by the sun then we would NOT see the sun at its actual position. We would
    see it at a time regarded -8 min position.
    Which as you know ...is not the case.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Lou on Tue Aug 29 06:21:27 2023
    On Tuesday, 29 August 2023 at 14:53:03 UTC+2, Lou wrote:
    On Monday, 28 August 2023 at 20:04:48 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
    Newtonian instantaneous force of gravity in a Galilean context did not violate conservation of momentum. Each pair of objects exerts equal and opposite gravitational forces on each other, and they respond with acceleration based on their mass, so
    momentum is strictly conserved. In contrast, your insane belief entail gross violation of momentum conservation, both linear and angular (not to mention its inherently magical quality of only responding to the object that it remembers ejected it!) Think
    of two mass at mutual rest and held at a distance L from each other. Now apply an additional sideways force to one of them. Yes, according to Newton there will start to be a change in the gravitational pull on the other object, which will very slightly
    pull the other object offline, but the other object will NOT move in lock-step to the side... which is what you insanely imagine a light pulse will do... because that would require an infinite torque at your object, which is not being applied.

    You are trying to pretend that Newtonian gravity isn’t instantaneous.
    And that this is why it doesn’t contravene conservation of momentum.
    This is your fantasy. Because not only is gravity under Newton considered to be
    instantaneous, it also appears to be dragged from an observers point of view.
    And thus it IS contravening conservation of energy.
    One only has to look at not only how the suns gravitational field
    but its magnetic field both appear to be ”dragged” in the earth observer frame.
    Notice it is accepted by all including relativity supporters that when we look
    at the suns position in the sky it also represents the suns actual position in the
    sky. Not it’s time retarded position.
    This means that both the magnetic field AND the gravitational field are instantaneous. Even though the waves in the magnetic field still travel at c.
    For instance if light thats already left the sun wasnt “dragged” by the sun then we would NOT see the sun at its actual position. We would
    see it at a time regarded -8 min position.
    Which as you know ...is not the case.

    Newtonian physics is made reasonably. And
    thus - easy to adapt to most possibilities.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to Lou on Tue Aug 29 07:19:38 2023
    On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 2:02:51 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    When an object emits a pulse of light, it imparts a recoil to the
    emitting body, and when they pulse of light is absorbed by some
    receiver it transfers momentum to that body.

    [Repeats denial that light conveys momentum, but admits it exerts pressure.]

    Again, you cannot rationally deny that a pulse of light conveys momentum, as required by the fact that the emitting particle is shoved backwards when the pulse is emitted (conservation of momentum), and the receiving particle is shoved forward by
    acquiring the same amount of momentum when the pulse is received. Conservation of momentum requires that the light pulse conveyed that momentum. You even admit this when you admit that light exerts pressure.

    The only relevant "source frame" is the inertial frame in which the
    source was at rest *at the moment of emission*. As Ritz carefully explained to you, and as every sentient being understands, changing
    the state of motion of an emitter after it has emitted a pulse of light does not have any effect on the inertial trajectory of the pulse.

    The “source frame”...is not another observer frame.

    See above.

    Newtonian instantaneous force of gravity in a Galilean context did not violate conservation of momentum.

    If it's okay for a Newtonian gravitational field to appear to be “dragged”
    instantaneously... contravening your conservation of momentum law,..

    You ignored the explanation of why instantaneous gravitation doesn't violate conservation of momentum (in a Galilean context).

    then its not a problem for light having left a source being *apparently* being dragged instantaneously

    Yes it is... as explained in the text that you (again) ignored. Your multiple-magical-ether theory violates conservation of momentum, and could only be viable for an imaginary pseudo-light that is unobservable. But light in the real world is observable,
    it has physical effect when emitted and absorbed, and this is due to its momentum, which your nutty idea violates grossly.

    conservation of momentum defying “constant” speed of light in all frames.

    Special relativity satisfies conservation of momentum, so your complaint is unfounded.

    special relativity just gave every observer their own magically entrained ether.

    You've got that backwards... it is YOUR nutty idea that gives to each particle in the universe its own magical ether, not to mention unobservable light. Local Lorentz invariance (special relativity) does not entail any ether at all.

    Not only is gravity under Newton considered to be instantaneous, it also appears to be dragged from an observers point of view. And thus it IS contravening conservation of energy.

    No, Newton's instantaneous gravity (which of course is wrong for other reasons) does not violate conservation of either energy or momentum... but your nutty belief does.

    One only has to look at not only how the suns gravitational field
    but its magnetic field both appear to be ”dragged” in the earth frame.

    We covered this before, remember? Static force fields cancel first-order aberration both for (instantaneous) Newtonian and for Lorentz invariant forces (which are not instantaneous). For relativistic fields this is due to the "magnetic" components in
    terms of the relatively moving systems of coordinates. But in both Newtyonian theory and modern relativity the light propagating from sun to earth shows the 8 minutes of aberration. Remember?

    It is accepted by all including relativity supporters that when we look
    at the suns position in the sky it also represents the suns actual position in the
    sky. Not it’s time retarded position.

    No, you are confusing the direction of static force fields with the aberration of a emanating entity such as a light pulse. It is well known that when we look at the sun visually with incident light we are looking in a direction offset from the sun's
    true current direction by an angle equivalent to 8 minutes. We covered this before. What is wrong with you? Did you suffwr a severe head injury or something?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Bill on Tue Aug 29 11:32:26 2023
    On Tuesday, 29 August 2023 at 15:19:41 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 2:02:51 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    When an object emits a pulse of light, it imparts a recoil to the emitting body, and when they pulse of light is absorbed by some
    receiver it transfers momentum to that body.

    [Repeats denial that light conveys momentum, but admits it exerts pressure.]

    Again, you cannot rationally deny that a pulse of light conveys momentum, as required by the fact that the emitting particle is shoved backwards when the pulse is emitted (conservation of momentum), and the receiving particle is shoved forward by
    acquiring the same amount of momentum when the pulse is received. Conservation of momentum requires that the light pulse conveyed that momentum. You even admit this when you admit that light exerts pressure.


    And you are unable to tell the difference between magnetic moment. And momentum. Both impart a transfer of energy.
    Light has no mass, isn’t a particle but via magnetic moment can impart energy and give “pressure” in a newtonian classical model. Which has nothing to do with Lorentz, Poincarre Minkowski or SR. Something you
    idiots seem to be unable to comprehend.
    Incidentally, you should read up on annual abberation of sunlight.
    It has nothing to do with this argument. It is a seperate effect caused
    by the observers motion around the sun. And how the speed
    of the observer causes the sun rays to appear to be slanted.
    Similar to stellar abberation. And it is also explainable under
    an emission theory. In the same way as SR does. (You calculate
    the angle of incidence in the observer frame)

    The only relevant "source frame" is the inertial frame in which the source was at rest *at the moment of emission*. As Ritz carefully explained to you, and as every sentient being understands, changing
    the state of motion of an emitter after it has emitted a pulse of light does not have any effect on the inertial trajectory of the pulse.

    The “source frame”...is not another observer frame.

    See above.
    Newtonian instantaneous force of gravity in a Galilean context did not violate conservation of momentum.

    If it's okay for a Newtonian gravitational field to appear to be “dragged”
    instantaneously... contravening your conservation of momentum law,..

    You ignored the explanation of why instantaneous gravitation doesn't violate conservation of momentum (in a Galilean context).

    I ignored it because it was such a load of deranged words salad BS,
    that I couldn’t stop laughing at what nonsense you come up with.

    then its not a problem for light having left a source being *apparently* being dragged instantaneously
    Yes it is... as explained in the text that you (again) ignored. Your multiple-magical-ether theory violates conservation of momentum, and could only be viable for an imaginary pseudo-light that is unobservable. But light in the real world is observable,
    it has physical effect when emitted and absorbed, and this is due to its momentum, which your nutty idea violates grossly.

    Only in your delusional fact free world. Fact is that in a newtonian classical Emission model you don’t have any relativistic effects. Nor is light a particle.
    Oddly enough if you go to ‘speed of g’ in wiki it actually says how under relativity the instantaneous and dragging effect of suns g and image to an observer on earth can be explained by:
    “ Two gravitoelectrically interacting particle ensembles, e.g., two planets or stars moving at constant velocity with respect to each other, each feel a force toward the instantaneous position of the other body without a speed-of-light delay “

    Hilarious isn’t it? You spend all your waking time at the sanatorium composing
    ridiculous posts to me about how effects like instantaneous and “dragging” of light and g in an emission theory are impossible. And how it defies all your rules....And then it turns out your very own favourite theory says exactly
    the same thing is possible.
    Hypocrite Bill on the rampage as usual.
    Fact is you look up at the sun,..thats wheres even NASA calculates its
    true position and center of its gravitational field is.
    Just as a Ritzian Emission model also posits.



    Rest of Bills ranting snipped...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to Lou on Tue Aug 29 11:59:53 2023
    On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 11:32:29 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    You cannot rationally deny that a pulse of light conveys momentum, as required by the fact that the emitting particle is shoved backwards when the pulse is emitted (conservation of momentum), and the receiving particle is shoved forward by acquiring
    the same amount of momentum when the pulse is received. Conservation of momentum requires that the light pulse conveyed that momentum. You even admit this when you admit that light exerts pressure.

    You are unable to tell the difference between magnetic moment and
    momentum. Both impart a transfer of energy.

    This has nothing to do with "magnetic moment" (sheesh), we are discussing the well-known fact that when a pulse of light is emitted by or received by an object it imparts momentum to that object, and it conveys that momentum. What's the point in
    pretending this is not true?

    Incidentally, you should read up on annual abberation of sunlight.
    It has nothing to do with this argument.

    Annual aberration of sunlight? Don't you mean star light? And to the contrary, it is the very same effect, although it doesn't make sense to call it annual for the sun. Maybe you're confused because you are mixing up the earth's rotation with its
    revolution. The aberration of the light from the sun corresponds to the angle that the earth subtends in 8 minutes during its orbit around the sun. It has essentially nothing to do with the earth's rotation. So the aberration for 8 minutes is not 2
    degrees, it is about 20 arc seconds, which is the amplitude of stellar aberration too. And, again, the direction of a static force (electric or gravitational) does not exhibit this aberration, for the reasons explained to you previously.

    The “source frame”...is not another observer frame.

    The only relevant "source frame" is the inertial frame in which the source was at rest *at the moment of emission*. As Ritz carefully explained to you -- and as every sentient being understands -- changing the state of motion of an emitter after it has
    emitted a pulse of light does not have any effect on the inertial trajectory of the pulse. Duh.

    Again, you ignored the explanation of why instantaneous gravitation doesn't violate conservation of momentum (in a Galilean context).

    In a newtonian classical emission model you don’t have any relativistic effects.

    You keep getting confused... we're not talking about a classical emission model, which obeys all the normal rational Galilean and Newtonian principles, we are talking about YOUR completely insane idea that posits infinitely many magical ethers and ghost
    ethers (for particles that no longer even exist), violating every classical principle, including conservation of momentum, denies the existence of inertia, and so on.

    You spend all your waking time composing posts about how effects like instantaneous “dragging” of light are impossible, and how it defies all your rules....And then it turns out your very own favourite theory says exactly
    the same thing is possible.

    No, your nutty idea that you can affect the trajectory of a pulse of light millions of miles away merely by jiggling the laser pointer that emitted it is utterly insane, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the grow-up theories that you refer to. The
    lack of first order aberration for Lorentz invariant forces is a perfectly logical consequence of all the fundamental laws, including conservation of momentum. If you want to learn about modern science, you are encouraged to do so.

    Not only is gravity under Newton considered to be instantaneous, it also appears to be dragged from an observers point of view. And thus it IS contravening conservation of energy.

    No, Newton's instantaneous gravity (which of course is wrong for other reasons) doesn't violate conservation of either energy or momentum... but your nutty belief does.

    One only has to look at not only how the suns gravitational field
    but its magnetic field both appear to be ”dragged” in the earth frame.

    We covered this before, remember? Static force fields cancel first-order aberration both for (instantaneous) Newtonian and for Lorentz invariant forces (which are not instantaneous). For relativistic fields this is due to the "magnetic" components in
    terms of the relatively moving systems of coordinates. But in both Newtonian theory and modern relativity the light propagating from sun to earth shows the 8 minutes of aberration. Remember?

    It is accepted by all including relativity supporters that when we look
    at the suns position in the sky it also represents the suns actual position in the
    sky. Not it’s time retarded position.

    No, you're confusing the direction of static force fields with the aberration of a emanating entity such as a light pulse. It is well known that when we look at the sun visually with incident light we are looking in a direction offset from the sun's true
    current direction by an angle equivalent to 8 minutes, which is about 20 arc seconds. (Again, this is due almost entirely to 67000 mph orbital motion, not 1000 mph rotational motion.)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Bill on Tue Aug 29 12:54:51 2023
    On Tuesday, 29 August 2023 at 19:59:56 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 11:32:29 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    You cannot rationally deny that a pulse of light conveys momentum, as required by the fact that the emitting particle is shoved backwards when the pulse is emitted (conservation of momentum), and the receiving particle is shoved forward by
    acquiring the same amount of momentum when the pulse is received. Conservation of momentum requires that the light pulse conveyed that momentum. You even admit this when you admit that light exerts pressure.

    You are unable to tell the difference between magnetic moment and
    momentum. Both impart a transfer of energy.
    This has nothing to do with "magnetic moment" (sheesh), we are discussing the well-known fact that when a pulse of light is emitted by or received by an object it imparts momentum to that object, and it conveys that momentum. What's the point in
    pretending this is not true?

    Like I said Bill, you don’t know the difference between magnetic moment, which delivers the appearance of light pressure. And momentum which
    does not apply . Seeing as in Ritzs undulatory model...light isn’t a particle.

    In a newtonian classical emission model you don’t have any relativistic effects.

    You keep getting confused... we're not talking about a classical emission model, which obeys all the normal rational Galilean and Newtonian principles, we are talking about YOUR completely insane idea that posits infinitely many magical ethers and
    ghost ethers (for particles that no longer even exist), violating every classical principle, including conservation of momentum, denies the existence of inertia, and so on.

    I keep on getting confused? You are the confused one. How many times have
    I had to tell you emission theory has NOTHING to do with SR GR Lorentz or
    any of that nonsense.

    It is accepted by all including relativity supporters that when we look
    at the suns position in the sky it also represents the suns actual position in the
    sky. Not it’s time retarded position.
    No, you're confusing the direction of static force fields with the aberration of a emanating entity such as a light pulse. It is well known that when we look at the sun visually with incident light we are looking in a direction offset from the sun's
    true current direction by an angle equivalent to 8 minutes, which is about 20 arc seconds. (Again, this is due almost entirely to 67000 mph orbital motion, not 1000 mph rotational motion.)

    Well known !!I. Only a well known assumption amongst religious wackos
    like yourself only.
    Look at the facts . Not your navel. Fact is that the current optical position of the
    sun turns out to also be the current position of the suns gravitational field. And under Newton g is instantaneous. Which means that empirical
    observations are consistent with a Ritzian model that has light at constant speeds isotropically to its source. Regardless of the motion of that source relative to any other object.
    Which is probably why although relativity predicts g and light at c...relativists
    have to make up elaborate excuses as to why g actually appears to be instantaneous
    and the optical image of the sun appears to be dragged by the sun.
    As predicted by Ritzian theory.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to Lou on Tue Aug 29 16:56:10 2023
    On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 12:54:53 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    You don’t know the difference between magnetic moment, and momentum
    which does not apply .

    Again, a pulse of light has neither an electric charge nor a magnetic moment (duh), but it does have momentum, as shown by the fact that it conveys momentum between the emitting and receiving object. Do you understand this?

    You keep getting confused... we're not talking about a classical emission model, which obeys all the normal rational Galilean and Newtonian principles, we are talking about YOUR completely insane idea that posits infinitely many magical ethers and
    ghost ethers (for particles that no longer even exist), violating every classical principle, including conservation of momentum, denies the existence of inertia, and so on.

    Emission theory has NOTHING to do with SR GR Lorentz...

    You're confused again. We are not talking about SR or GR or Lorentz or Ritz or any other rational (or even semi-rational) set of ideas, we are discussing your utterly insane claim that the inertial path of a pulse of light (millions of miles away) can
    be altered merely by fiddling around what whatever object emitted it.

    You're confusing the direction of static force fields with the aberration of a emanating entity such as a light pulse. It is well known that when we look at the sun visually with incident light we are looking in a direction offset from the sun's true
    current direction by an orbital angle equivalent to 8 minutes, which is about 20 arc seconds. (Again, this is due almost entirely to 67000 mph orbital motion, not 1000 mph rotational motion.)

    The current optical position of the sun turns out to also be the current position of the suns gravitational field.

    No, we covered this before. The sun's optical position is aberrated by about 20 arc seconds (8 minutes of orbital angle) relative to it's actual current position, but the force of gravity points exactly (for Newtonian) or almost exactly (for GR) toward
    it's current position (up to the second order). Do you understand this?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Lou on Tue Aug 29 19:35:55 2023
    On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 2:54:53 PM UTC-5, Lou wrote:
    On Tuesday, 29 August 2023 at 19:59:56 UTC+1, Bill wrote:

    No, you're confusing the direction of static force fields with the aberration
    of a emanating entity such as a light pulse. It is well known that when we look at the sun visually with incident light we are looking in a direction offset from the sun's true current direction by an angle equivalent to
    8 minutes, which is about 20 arc seconds. (Again, this is due almost entirely to 67000 mph orbital motion, not 1000 mph rotational motion.)

    Well known !!I. Only a well known assumption amongst religious wackos
    like yourself only.
    Look at the facts . Not your navel. Fact is that the current optical position of the
    sun turns out to also be the current position of the suns gravitational field.
    And under Newton g is instantaneous.

    Let us try a simple multiple choice quiz.

    1) Let us assume an infinite speed of light.
    1a) The optical position of a star will be identical to its physical position. 1b) The optical position of the Sun will be identical to its physical position. Are we agreed on that?

    2) Let us assume a finite speed of light (299,792,458 meters/sec)
    2a) The optical position of a star at 90° to the Earth's orbit will be displaced 20.5" from its physical position.
    Which of the following is true?
    2b1) The optical position of the Sun will be displaced by 20.5" from its physical position.
    2b2) The optical position of the Sun will be identical to its physical position.

    Which is correct, 2b1 or 2b2 ?
    Why?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy)#Annual_aberration

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Wed Aug 30 06:13:40 2023
    On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 03:35:58 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 2:54:53 PM UTC-5, Lou wrote:
    On Tuesday, 29 August 2023 at 19:59:56 UTC+1, Bill wrote:

    No, you're confusing the direction of static force fields with the aberration
    of a emanating entity such as a light pulse. It is well known that when we
    look at the sun visually with incident light we are looking in a direction
    offset from the sun's true current direction by an angle equivalent to
    8 minutes, which is about 20 arc seconds. (Again, this is due almost entirely to 67000 mph orbital motion, not 1000 mph rotational motion.)

    Well known !!I. Only a well known assumption amongst religious wackos
    like yourself only.
    Look at the facts . Not your navel. Fact is that the current optical position of the
    sun turns out to also be the current position of the suns gravitational field.
    And under Newton g is instantaneous.
    Let us try a simple multiple choice quiz.

    1) Let us assume an infinite speed of light.
    1a) The optical position of a star will be identical to its physical position.
    1b) The optical position of the Sun will be identical to its physical position.
    Are we agreed on that?

    Light wave speed isn’t infinite. It is c. (299792)
    What you are referring to is does light that has already left a source get “dragged” instantaneously in the emission model I describe.
    Regardless of how far it has travelled from the source.
    And my answer is that in the source frame...light never gets dragged
    no matter how far it travels from the source. The OBSERVER moves.

    If you are referring to g in Newtonian terms then wherever the sun
    actually is...is also where it’s gravitational field can be located.
    Seeing as G is instantaneous
    And if you are referring to my comment to Bill then
    as an emission model says the optical position appears to be
    “dragged” in the observer frame to appear at the same position as its actual position then the optical pos of sun is the same as the actual pos of sun.
    As far as I’m aware this is the same assumption that NASA makes
    when calculating orbital paths.
    Which is empirical evidence confirming the predictions of
    the ether free Ritzian undulatory model.


    2) Let us assume a finite speed of light (299,792,458 meters/sec)
    2a) The optical position of a star at 90° to the Earth's orbit will be displaced 20.5" from its physical position.
    Which of the following is true?
    2b1) The optical position of the Sun will be displaced by 20.5" from its physical position.
    2b2) The optical position of the Sun will be identical to its physical position.

    Which is correct, 2b1 or 2b2 ?
    Why?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy)#Annual_aberration

    I’m not sure how you got 20.5 degrees for the Sun.
    I calculate stellar abberation from starlight coming from directly above as follows:
    Average earth speed around sun is 30ks
    c = 299792
    Angle of abberation of starlight as seen from earth observer 0.0055degrees.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to Lou on Wed Aug 30 06:48:33 2023
    On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 6:13:42 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    I’m not sure how you got 20.5 degrees for the Sun.

    It isn't 20 degrees, it is 20 arc seconds, which is also written as 20". An arc second is 1/3600 of a degree.

    Angle of abberation of starlight as seen from earth observer 0.0055degrees.

    Right! And that's about 20 arc seconds. The point is that the visual position of the Sun is also off by 20" from it's true current position, corresponding to the orbital angular travel during the 8 minutes of transit. It's the same effect of
    aberration.

    ... the optical position [of the sun] appears to be “dragged” in the observer
    frame to appear at the same position as its actual position then the optical pos of sun is the same as the actual pos of sun.

    No, see above. There is no magical dragging. As explained to you before, you are confusing the directions of static force fields with the directions of propagating entities.

    As far as I’m aware this is the same assumption that NASA makes
    when calculating orbital paths.

    You are mistaken. Every rational educated adult, including employees of NASA, is well aware that the sun's optical position is about 20 arc seconds away from it's actual current position, due to aberration.

    Which is empirical evidence confirming the predictions of
    the ether free Ritzian undulatory model.

    Again, you are confused. We aren't talking about Ritz's ideas (he was not an ignorant fool), we are talking about your insane belief, which cionsists of momentumless radiation and infinitely many ethers, including ghost ethers (for particles that don't
    exist any more), magically guiding light pulses around in circles and figure 8's, etc., in other words, completely unphysical nuttiness. Also, the "evidence" you just cited in support of your belief (claimed absence of the 20 arc second aberration) is
    trivially falsified by the well-known facts. Duh.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Bill on Wed Aug 30 06:52:54 2023
    On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 00:56:13 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
    On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 12:54:53 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    You don’t know the difference between magnetic moment, and momentum
    which does not apply .
    Again, a pulse of light has neither an electric charge nor a magnetic moment (duh), but it does have momentum, as shown by the fact that it conveys momentum between the emitting and receiving object. Do you understand this?
    You keep getting confused... we're not talking about a classical emission model, which obeys all the normal rational Galilean and Newtonian principles, we are talking about YOUR completely insane idea that posits infinitely many magical ethers and
    ghost ethers (for particles that no longer even exist), violating every classical principle, including conservation of momentum, denies the existence of inertia, and so on.

    Emission theory has NOTHING to do with SR GR Lorentz...

    You're confused again. We are not talking about SR or GR or Lorentz or Ritz or any other rational (or even semi-rational) set of ideas, we are discussing your utterly insane claim that the inertial path of a pulse of light (millions of miles away) can
    be altered merely by fiddling around what whatever object emitted it.

    You're confusing the direction of static force fields with the aberration of a emanating entity such as a light pulse. It is well known that when we look at the sun visually with incident light we are looking in a direction offset from the sun's
    true current direction by an orbital angle equivalent to 8 minutes, which is about 20 arc seconds. (Again, this is due almost entirely to 67000 mph orbital motion, not 1000 mph rotational motion.)

    The current optical position of the sun turns out to also be the current position of the suns gravitational field.
    No, we covered this before. The sun's optical position is aberrated by about 20 arc seconds (8 minutes of orbital angle) relative to it's actual current position, but the force of gravity points exactly (for Newtonian) or almost exactly (for GR) toward
    it's current position (up to the second order). Do you understand this?

    Yes Bill. But the big question is...do you understand this?
    Answer is ...No.
    Because I’ve already pointed out to you that annual solar abberation is a seperate effect.
    On TOP of the g and effects from the Ritzian emission theory.
    ( my post to you 19 hours ago aug 23 19:32 my time)
    So if you werent so stupid you would realise that what you just said above
    is exactly what I said to you in the aforementioned post cited above in brackets.
    Which is: The suns current optical position is the same as it’s actual and gravitational
    position ( Newton instantaneous pos). PLUS...an extra aberrated angle of .0055 degrees
    Which, seeing as you are so stupid, is calculated seperately in the OBSERVER FRAME which
    is ALSO mentioned in the aforementioned post
    JEEZ you are stupid.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Bill on Wed Aug 30 06:57:45 2023
    On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 14:48:36 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 6:13:42 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    I’m not sure how you got 20.5 degrees for the Sun.
    It isn't 20 degrees, it is 20 arc seconds, which is also written as 20". An arc second is 1/3600 of a degree.
    Angle of abberation of starlight as seen from earth observer 0.0055degrees.
    Right! And that's about 20 arc seconds. The point is that the visual position of the Sun is also off by 20" from it's true current position, corresponding to the orbital angular travel during the 8 minutes of transit. It's the same effect of aberration.


    ... the optical position [of the sun] appears to be “dragged” in the observer
    frame to appear at the same position as its actual position then the optical
    pos of sun is the same as the actual pos of sun.
    No, see above. There is no magical dragging. As explained to you before, you are confusing the directions of static force fields with the directions of propagating entities.
    As far as I’m aware this is the same assumption that NASA makes
    when calculating orbital paths.
    You are mistaken. Every rational educated adult, including employees of NASA, is well aware that the sun's optical position is about 20 arc seconds away from it's actual current position, due to aberration.

    Yes Bill. And if you bothered taking your head out of your butt for a second you would realise that I have already pointed this out to you a couple days ago.
    As I have also just pointed out to you in a more recent post.
    Try reading my posts more and study less of St Alberts confused writings in the bible.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Lou on Wed Aug 30 07:50:12 2023
    On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 8:13:42 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote:

    2) Let us assume a finite speed of light (299,792,458 meters/sec)
    2a) The optical position of a star at 90° to the Earth's orbit will be displaced 20.5" from its physical position.
    Which of the following is true?
    2b1) The optical position of the Sun will be displaced by 20.5" from its physical position.
    2b2) The optical position of the Sun will be identical to its physical position.

    Which is correct, 2b1 or 2b2 ?
    Why? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy)#Annual_aberration
    I’m not sure how you got 20.5 degrees for the Sun.
    I calculate stellar abberation from starlight coming from directly above as follows:
    Average earth speed around sun is 30ks
    c = 299792
    Angle of abberation of starlight as seen from earth observer 0.0055degrees.

    The quote mark means SECONDS OF ARC, not degrees.
    So. Your figure for aberration of starlight as seen from earth observer is 0.0055degrees
    What is your figure for aberration of light from the Sun?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to Lou on Wed Aug 30 08:00:22 2023
    On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 6:52:57 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    For instance if light thats already left the sun wasnt “dragged” by the sun then we would NOT see the sun at its actual position. We would
    see it at a time regarded -8 min position. Which as you know ...is not
    the case.

    But that IS the case, i.e., we see the sun from the direction where it was
    8 minutes ago, which is why it is about 20 arc seconds away from its
    actual current position. (20 arc sec is the angular travel of it earth in
    its orbit in 8 minutes.) Understand?

    The suns current optical position is the same as it’s actual and gravitational
    position ( Newton instantaneous pos). PLUS...an extra aberrated angle
    of .0055 degrees .

    Well, the non-insane way of saying that is that the sun's optical position is NOT the same as it actual position (nor the same as the direction of the gravitational force), because it appears to be coming from the sun's relative position 8 minutes ago,
    which results in the 0.0055 degrees offset. This falsifies all your nutty claims. Agreed?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Wed Aug 30 08:47:20 2023
    On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 16:50:16 UTC+2, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 8:13:42 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote:

    2) Let us assume a finite speed of light (299,792,458 meters/sec)
    2a) The optical position of a star at 90° to the Earth's orbit will be displaced 20.5" from its physical position.
    Which of the following is true?
    2b1) The optical position of the Sun will be displaced by 20.5" from its physical position.
    2b2) The optical position of the Sun will be identical to its physical position.

    Tell me, poor trash, what do you mean by "optical
    position" or "physical poition"? In the terms of
    your General Shit, pls.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Bill on Wed Aug 30 08:51:05 2023
    On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 17:00:25 UTC+2, Bill wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 6:52:57 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    For instance if light thats already left the sun wasnt “dragged” by the
    sun then we would NOT see the sun at its actual position. We would
    see it at a time regarded -8 min position. Which as you know ...is not
    the case.
    But that IS the case, i.e., we see the sun from the direction where it was
    8 minutes ago, which is why it is about 20 arc seconds away from its
    actual current position. (20 arc sec is the angular travel of it earth in its orbit in 8 minutes.) Understand?

    No, poor trash. Is it a kind of absolute movement?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to Lou on Wed Aug 30 11:58:01 2023
    On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 11:49:17 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    But I think I can see where your confusion is. [Describes his OWN confusion.]

    LOL.

    The suns rays are always going in a straight line from suns actual position to
    the earth observer.

    Each pulse of light from the sun follows a straight path (in terms of any system of inertial coordinates) from the sun's position at the moment of emission to the earth's position at the moment of reception. Needless to say, the path is NOT straight in
    terms of an accelerating system of coordinates.

    Neither sun nor earth are changing their inertial trajectories appreciably during the 8 minutes of transit, so this does not demonstrate anything about your insane belief. Your nutty belief implies totally crazy things like light pulses running around
    in circles and figure 8s, and your denial that light imparts momentum, and so on.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Bill on Wed Aug 30 12:01:29 2023
    On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 16:00:25 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 6:52:57 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    For instance if light thats already left the sun wasnt “dragged” by the
    sun then we would NOT see the sun at its actual position. We would
    see it at a time regarded -8 min position. Which as you know ...is not
    the case.
    But that IS the case, i.e., we see the sun from the direction where it was
    8 minutes ago, which is why it is about 20 arc seconds away from its
    actual current position. (20 arc sec is the angular travel of it earth in its orbit in 8 minutes.) Understand?

    No, 0.0055 degrees displacement doesnt happen because of the fact light
    takes 8+ minutes to get here. That displacement is because of our
    relative speed around sun of 30 ks vs 299792 ks light speed.
    We could be farther from the sun and it’s light could take 20 minutes to
    get here. But as long as our orbital speed around the sun was still 30ks
    we would still get the same 0.0055 degrees Abberation.

    The suns current optical position is the same as it’s actual and gravitational
    position ( Newton instantaneous pos). PLUS...an extra aberrated angle
    of .0055 degrees .

    Well, the non-insane way of saying that is that the sun's optical position is NOT the same as it actual position (nor the same as the direction of the gravitational force), because it appears to be coming from the sun's relative position 8 minutes ago,
    which results in the 0.0055 degrees offset. This falsifies all your nutty claims. Agreed?

    Not at all. I pointed out to you a few days ago that there was also a seperate smaller
    effect of abberation that needed to be added in. That doesnt effect the light coming
    from sun to earth. So for instance if you look up at the sun it will have moved 2 degrees in the sky in the 8 minutes it took for the light to get from sun. Yet we still see the sun at its current “actual* position.( minus-or plus 0.0055
    degrees from abberation) Not where it was 8 minutes ago.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Wed Aug 30 11:49:14 2023
    On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 15:50:16 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 8:13:42 AM UTC-5, Lou wrote:

    2) Let us assume a finite speed of light (299,792,458 meters/sec)
    2a) The optical position of a star at 90° to the Earth's orbit will be displaced 20.5" from its physical position.
    Which of the following is true?
    2b1) The optical position of the Sun will be displaced by 20.5" from its physical position.
    2b2) The optical position of the Sun will be identical to its physical position.

    Which is correct, 2b1 or 2b2 ?
    Why? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy)#Annual_aberration
    I’m not sure how you got 20.5 degrees for the Sun.
    I calculate stellar abberation from starlight coming from directly above as follows:
    Average earth speed around sun is 30ks
    c = 299792
    Angle of abberation of starlight as seen from earth observer 0.0055degrees.
    The quote mark means SECONDS OF ARC, not degrees.

    Then maybe you should have written “seconds of an arc”. After all I specified
    “degrees” to make sure it was clear what I was referring to.

    So. Your figure for aberration of starlight as seen from earth observer is 0.0055degrees
    What is your figure for aberration of light from the Sun?

    I can’t give an exact amount as it probably is slightly different seeing as the stellar
    rays are considered exactly parallel when arriving to Earth observers , whereas
    the suns rays are actually pointing in slightly towards sun. So each succesive sun
    ‘ray’ is angled ever so slightly away from vertical as we look towards sun But it should still be very close to 0.0055.

    But I think I can see where yours and Bills confusion is. There are two seperate
    rotations. The observer around the earths axis. And the observer around the sun.
    Aberration of 0.0055 degrees comes from our orbital speed around sun. And
    is calculated in the earth observer frame. This displaces the suns true position
    by 0.0055 degrees
    Whereas suns movement across the sky comes from our earths observers
    rotation around earths axis. And that optical position should be calculated
    in the solar frame. Where regardless of earths rotation around its axis the suns rays are always going in a straight line from suns actual position to
    the earth observer. Even though each wave takes 8+ minutes to get here.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Bill on Wed Aug 30 12:14:59 2023
    On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 19:58:04 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 11:49:17 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    But I think I can see where your confusion is. [Describes his OWN confusion.]

    LOL.

    The suns rays are always going in a straight line from suns actual position to
    the earth observer.

    Each pulse of light from the sun follows a straight path (in terms of any system of inertial coordinates) from the sun's position at the moment of emission to the earth's position at the moment of reception. Needless to say, the path is NOT straight in
    terms of an accelerating system of coordinates.


    Screw your imaginary relativistic inertial coordinate nonsense. There is no such
    thing as an object on an inertial path. All objects in the universe rotate, spiral, revolve,
    accelerate, decelerate etc.

    Neither sun nor earth are changing their inertial trajectories appreciably during the 8 minutes of transit, so this does not demonstrate anything about your insane belief. Your nutty belief implies totally crazy things like light pulses running around
    in circles and figure 8s, and your denial that light imparts momentum, and so on.

    Obviously you understand physics or this emission model I describe.
    Because it doesn’t matter if the sun moves relative to Betelgeuse or the Virgo
    Galaxy cluster. Light will always travel at constant c relative to the sun. So all
    one has to do is place the sun immobile in its own frame. Have light propagate away from it isotropically at constant speeds. Move the observer around the sun
    in any path you choose. And wherever the observor is and whatever their path is...
    They will always see light coming in a straight line from the sun.
    That’s why I always say....you have to calculate lightspeeds and
    paths always in the source frame. If you do you will get a prediction
    that is consistent with that observed.
    Which is why the moron deSitter screwed up. He calculated light paths
    and speeds in the wrong frame deliberately. He did it in the observer frame. Which is pretty dishonest considering wiki ref says for SR, one calculates
    the suns position always in the.....SUN SOURCE frame.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to Lou on Wed Aug 30 12:22:05 2023
    On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 12:15:01 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    Each pulse of light from the sun follows a straight path (in terms of any system of inertial coordinates) from the sun's position at the moment of emission to the earth's position at the moment of reception. Needless to say, the path is NOT straight
    in terms of an accelerating system of coordinates.

    Screw your imaginary relativistic inertial coordinate nonsense. There is no such
    thing as an object on an inertial path. All objects in the universe rotate, spiral, revolve,
    accelerate, decelerate etc.

    Again, in the Newtonian context, the three laws of motion apply... remember? And according to these laws, any entity with momentum, such as a pulse of light, moves at uniform speed in a straight line except to the extent that it is exchanging momentum
    with some other entity. A pulse exchanges momentum with the source at the moment of emission, and with the receiver at the moment of reception, but in between it is not exchanging momentum with either of those, so accelerating the source after the
    emission has no effect on the pulse. Understand?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to Lou on Wed Aug 30 12:17:20 2023
    On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 12:01:32 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    No, 0.0055 degrees displacement doesnt happen because of the fact light takes 8+ minutes to get here.

    Yes it does. That's how aberration works. In the inertial coordinates in which the earth is essentially at rest during those 8 minutes, the sun is moving transvbersely at 67000 mph, and the pulse reaching us now was emitted by the sun 8 minutes ago
    when it was in the location it was 8 minutes ago, which makes an angle of about 20 arc seconds. Do you understand now?

    Exercise: How many degrees does the earth move in its orbit in 8 minutes?

    I pointed out to you a few days ago that there was also a seperate smaller effect of abberation that needed to be added in.

    Nope. You consistently claimed that we see the sun at it's current actial position, with no aberration. You said over and over that it's the same direction as the newtonian instant gravity force... and that is completely wrong. Now do you finally
    understand?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Bill on Wed Aug 30 13:15:17 2023
    On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 20:17:23 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 12:01:32 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    No, 0.0055 degrees displacement doesnt happen because of the fact light takes 8+ minutes to get here.
    Yes it does. That's how aberration works. In the inertial coordinates in which the earth is essentially at rest during those 8 minutes, the sun is moving transvbersely at 67000 mph, and the pulse reaching us now was emitted by the sun 8 minutes ago
    when it was in the location it was 8 minutes ago, which makes an angle of about 20 arc seconds. Do you understand now?

    I understand your gross stupidly yes.
    You haven’t the faintest idea what causes aberration.
    Earths orbital velocity around sun is 30ks.
    Speed of light is 299792.
    Do the calculation and you get 0.0055 degrees abberation.
    If the earth didn’t orbit the sun and stayed still we would see
    no abberation.
    If the earth orbited at 1/2 the speed at 15ks you would
    get something like 1/2 the 0.0055 degree abberation angle
    Aberration has Nothing to do with light travel times between
    sun and observor. Which is why aberration angles between
    distant stars and earth are roughly the same as between sun and earth.

    Exercise: How many degrees does the earth move in its orbit in 8 minutes?
    I pointed out to you a few days ago that there was also a seperate smaller effect of abberation that needed to be added in.
    Nope. You consistently claimed that we see the sun at it's current actial position, with no aberration. You said over and over that it's the same direction as the newtonian instant gravity force... and that is completely wrong. Now do you finally
    understand?

    No . You didnt read my posts. I said clearly at least a few days ago that there was also
    Aberration. An additional effect seperate from the sun moving across the sky as
    we rotate around earths axis. (And a very small abberation effect of 0.0055 degrees
    compared to the 2 degrees the sun moves across the sky in just 8 minutes)
    *I even cited abberation as a seperate issue to you in my post a few days ago to
    you which you now pretend to ignore.*
    The point you are trying to prove wriggle out of is that the sunlight that
    you see ( minus 0.0055 degrees abberation) is exactly at the same location
    as it’s actual and current gravitational position. Not retarded by 8+ minutes.
    Which would be 2 degrees difference in sky if you saw the optical
    image at its old retarded -8 minute position when the light was emitted. (Aberration is seperate effect and MUCH MUCH smaller than the 2 degrees
    I’m referring to.)
    In other words, aside from an ever so small amount of annual aberration (0.0055)we on earth see the sun at its actual *current* position. Which also coincides with its gravitational position.
    As predicted by a Ritzian ether free emission model where you always
    calculate light paths and speeds in source frames only.
    Looks like you and deSitter screwed up again.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Bill on Wed Aug 30 13:26:33 2023
    On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 20:22:07 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 12:15:01 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    Each pulse of light from the sun follows a straight path (in terms of any system of inertial coordinates) from the sun's position at the moment of emission to the earth's position at the moment of reception. Needless to say, the path is NOT
    straight in terms of an accelerating system of coordinates.

    Screw your imaginary relativistic inertial coordinate nonsense. There is no such
    thing as an object on an inertial path. All objects in the universe rotate, spiral, revolve,
    accelerate, decelerate etc.
    Again, in the Newtonian context, the three laws of motion apply... remember? And according to these laws, any entity with momentum, such as a pulse of light, moves at uniform speed in a straight line except to the extent that it is exchanging momentum
    with some other entity. A pulse exchanges momentum with the source at the moment of emission, and with the receiver at the moment of reception, but in between it is not exchanging momentum with either of those, so accelerating the source after the
    emission has no effect on the pulse. Understand?

    I understand your stupidity yes. How many times do I have to
    tell you that the Ritzian ether free emission model
    I am referring to,....DOES NOT have light as a particle. No mass or momentum Just waves. No ether to drag it. No mass and gravity to bend it. Light always travels
    at constant speeds in the source frame. Confirmed by MMX, lunar ranging experiment and the fact that light does not pile up from binary stars

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Wed Aug 30 17:24:01 2023
    On 8/30/2023 3:14 PM, Lou wrote:

    Screw your imaginary relativistic inertial coordinate nonsense. There is no such
    thing as an object on an inertial path. All objects in the universe rotate, spiral, revolve,
    accelerate, decelerate etc.

    [...]

    Obviously you understand physics or this emission model I describe.
    Because it doesn’t matter if the sun moves relative to Betelgeuse or the Virgo
    Galaxy cluster. Light will always travel at constant c relative to the sun. So all
    one has to do is place the sun immobile in its own frame. Have light propagate
    away from it isotropically at constant speeds.

    Since you claim there are no inertial coordinates, that means that this
    frame you "place the sun immobile" in is not inertial, so it can
    accelerate. Let's say this necessarily non-inertial frame, after
    emitting light toward the observer, wiggles back and forth, does loop-the-loops, figure 8's or whatever. Does the observer see the light following the figure 8s so that it appears to come from the sun always,
    or does it come from the place where the sun WAS when the light was emitted?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to Lou on Wed Aug 30 16:07:49 2023
    On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 1:15:19 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    No, 0.0055 degrees displacement doesnt happen because of the fact light takes 8+ minutes to get here.
    Yes it does. That's how aberration works. In the inertial coordinates in which the earth is essentially at rest during those 8 minutes, the sun is moving transvbersely at 67000 mph, and the pulse reaching us now was emitted by the sun 8 minutes ago
    when it was in the location it was 8 minutes ago, which makes an angle of about 20 arc seconds. Do you understand now?

    You haven’t the faintest idea what causes aberration.

    Well, we could settle this is you would just have answered the question, instead of ducking it. Here it is again: How many degrees does the earth move in its orbit in 8 minutes?

    Earths orbital velocity around sun is 30ks. Speed of light is 299792.
    Do the calculation and you get 0.0055 degrees abberation.

    Right, and that is also the angular travel of the sun relative to the earth's frame during the 8 minutes of transit. Again, this is how aberration works.

    If the earth orbited at 1/2 the speed at 15ks you would
    get something like 1/2 the 0.0055 degree abberation angle
    Aberration has Nothing to do with light travel times between
    sun and observor.

    Again: How many degrees does the earth move in its orbit in 8 minutes? And how many degrees would it move if it was going at half speed? Think.

    I said clearly at least a few days ago that there was also Aberration. An additional
    effect seperate from the sun moving across the sky as we rotate around earths axis.
    (And a very small abberation effect of 0.0055 degrees compared to the 2 degrees
    the sun moves across the sky in just 8 minutes)

    You are hallucinating. I just did a search on aberration (and on your mis-spelling abberation)) and confirmed that you never said any such thing, and in fact it was ME who tolkd YOU that it wasn't 2 degrees it was 20 arc seconds. Your brain is severely
    malfunctioning. Search back in the messages yourself, and you will see that you are hallucinating.

    Screw your imaginary relativistic inertial coordinate nonsense. There is no such
    thing as an object on an inertial path. All objects in the universe rotate, spiral, revolve,
    accelerate, decelerate etc.

    Again, in the Newtonian context, the three laws of motion apply... remember? And according to these laws, any entity with momentum, such as a pulse of light, moves at uniform speed in a straight line except to the extent that it is exchanging momentum
    with some other entity. A pulse exchanges momentum with the source at the moment of emission, and with the receiver at the moment of reception, but in between it is not exchanging momentum with either of those, so accelerating the source after the
    emission has no effect on the pulse. Understand?

    Light has no momentum.

    But that's crazy. Look, even Ritz said specifically that light has momentum. It is elementary in classical physics that an electromagnetic wave has energy density (E^2 + B^2)/(8pi) and momentum density (ExB)/(4pi c). Even Ritz stated that "forces,
    motions, and work are exactly as in Maxwell's theory". You're just fantasizing nonsense. And of course the actual observed phenomena show that material objects satisfy the same speed composition as does light, so are you going to claim that matter
    doesn't have momentum either? You already agreed that after a bullet is fired from a gun, we cannot affect its trajectory by manipulating the gun. The bullet has (in Newtonian context) the muzzle speed plus the speed of the gun at the moment when it
    was fired, but accelerating the gun after the bullet is in flight has no effect on the bullet. Agreed?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Wed Aug 30 22:12:04 2023
    On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 23:24:05 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

    Since you claim there are no inertial coordinates, that means that this
    frame you "place the sun immobile" in is not inertial, so it can
    accelerate.

    Hasn't your idiot guru taught you that gravity is
    equivalent, stupid Mike?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 31 11:01:24 2023
    On August 30,  Lou wrote:
    Light will always travel at constant c relative to the sun.

    Wasn't that Einstein's opinion as well?

    So all one has to do is place the sun immobile in its own frame.

    Everything is immobile in its own frame.  That's a tautology.

    Which is why the moron deSitter screwed up. He calculated light paths
    and speeds in the wrong frame deliberately. He did it in the observer frame.

    What exactly is a "wrong frame"?  Every frame is as good as
    any other.  That's how relativity works.

    Which is pretty dishonest considering wiki ref says for SR, one calculates the suns position always in the.....SUN SOURCE frame.

    The sun's position never moves, in its own frame.

    You're confused regarding frame, position, and movement.
    A (inertial) frame is at rest, by postulate. Attached, is a
    coordinate system, which doesn't move. Every stationary
    object in the frame remains at its space co-ordinate (position),
    for all time; that's the definition of stationarity.

    If an observer sees an object change position, that object
    occupies a different frame, with its own coordinate system,
    attached to the object. Relative velocity between the pair
    of objects is then defined in terms of the coordinate systems
    of those two frames.

    That's Relativity 101. Your terminology is sloppy - If you
    want to talk the talk, you have to talk the talk -

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to RichD on Fri Sep 1 06:03:34 2023
    On Thursday, 31 August 2023 at 19:01:27 UTC+1, RichD wrote:
    On August 30, Lou wrote:
    Light will always travel at constant c relative to the sun.
    Wasn't that Einstein's opinion as well?

    Oddly enough, yes. Odder still is that it’s OK for relativists to
    insist light in SR always travels at c in the source frame. But when
    it comes to emission theory...all the toadies sob and scream “Oh no
    heaven forbid... That’s impossible.. it contravenes laws of momentum”


    So all one has to do is place the sun immobile in its own frame.
    Everything is immobile in its own frame. That's a tautology.

    It’s also...a fact.

    Which is why the moron deSitter screwed up. He calculated light paths
    and speeds in the wrong frame deliberately. He did it in the observer frame.
    What exactly is a "wrong frame"? Every frame is as good as
    any other. That's how relativity works.

    For starters Relativity theory is not emission theory.
    And...Your “every frame is as good as..” argument is pure ignorant hypocricy .
    Because you and every other relativist on this thread tacitly tried to insinuate
    that *ITS NOT OK* to calculate light speeds and paths in the source frame
    for emission theories!
    Hold it a minute Donny. Didn’t you just suggest it’s OK to calculate light speed and paths in any frame?

    Which is pretty dishonest considering wiki ref says for SR, one calculates the suns position always in the.....SUN SOURCE frame.
    The sun's position never moves, in its own frame.


    I’m glad you agree with me.

    You're confused regarding frame, position, and movement.
    A (inertial) frame is at rest, by postulate. Attached, is a
    coordinate system, which doesn't move. Every stationary
    object in the frame remains at its space co-ordinate (position),
    for all time; that's the definition of stationarity.

    I’m not confused.I just don’t use imaginary rules like inertial, coordinates, etc to try to pretend light travels at constant speeds in
    all frames. As SR does.

    If an observer sees an object change position, that object
    occupies a different frame, with its own coordinate system,
    attached to the object. Relative velocity between the pair
    of objects is then defined in terms of the coordinate systems
    of those two frames.

    If an observer sees an object rotate,..that object occupies a
    different frame. And conversely seeing as all things are relative...
    the object in its frame “sees” the observer rotate.
    And any other blarney about this being impossible because of
    an “inertial” frames” excuse...is just that...
    Blarney.
    Seeing as you can’t prove that the observer doesn’t rotate in
    the objects frame. Or vice versa.

    That's Relativity 101. Your terminology is sloppy - If you
    want to talk the talk, you have to talk the talk -

    Relativity 101!! You forgot physics 101
    It says that emission theories...are not relativity theories.
    And do not have * the same imaginary rules* as relativity 101.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Fri Sep 1 05:37:24 2023
    On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 22:24:05 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 8/30/2023 3:14 PM, Lou wrote:

    Screw your imaginary relativistic inertial coordinate nonsense. There is no such
    thing as an object on an inertial path. All objects in the universe rotate, spiral, revolve,
    accelerate, decelerate etc.

    [...]
    Obviously you understand physics or this emission model I describe. Because it doesn’t matter if the sun moves relative to Betelgeuse or the Virgo
    Galaxy cluster. Light will always travel at constant c relative to the sun. So all
    one has to do is place the sun immobile in its own frame. Have light propagate
    away from it isotropically at constant speeds.
    Since you claim there are no inertial coordinates, that means that this frame you "place the sun immobile" in is not inertial, so it can
    accelerate. Let's say this necessarily non-inertial frame, after
    emitting light toward the observer, wiggles back and forth, does loop-the-loops, figure 8's or whatever. Does the observer see the light following the figure 8s so that it appears to come from the sun always,
    or does it come from the place where the sun WAS when the light was emitted?

    OK let’s look,at what we actually observe in deSitters binary star:
    Let’s focus on one star of the two. We see that the star wobbles around roughly in an *ellipse*. I imagine it’s probably a bit more complex
    than that but an ellipse for sake of argument. The star light also
    is observed to * not pile up*.

    Now let’s look at what the Ritzian model predicts:
    It predicts that in the source frame, (a frame where the *earth observer rotates*),
    light travels at constant speeds isotropically and *does not pile up*.
    And therefore using a simple galilean trans to the earth observer frame
    the light from the source can not pile up ( seeing as it’s not piling up in the
    source frame) and also the light from the source will appear to be dragged around in an ellipse in the observer frame.
    Isn’t that what is observed?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Bill on Fri Sep 1 06:08:58 2023
    On Thursday, 31 August 2023 at 00:07:51 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 1:15:19 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    No, 0.0055 degrees displacement doesnt happen because of the fact light
    takes 8+ minutes to get here.
    Yes it does. That's how aberration works. In the inertial coordinates in which the earth is essentially at rest during those 8 minutes, the sun is moving transvbersely at 67000 mph, and the pulse reaching us now was emitted by the sun 8 minutes ago
    when it was in the location it was 8 minutes ago, which makes an angle of about 20 arc seconds. Do you understand now?

    You haven’t the faintest idea what causes aberration.
    Well, we could settle this is you would just have answered the question, instead of ducking it. Here it is again: How many degrees does the earth move in its orbit in 8 minutes?
    Earths orbital velocity around sun is 30ks. Speed of light is 299792.
    Do the calculation and you get 0.0055 degrees abberation.
    Right, and that is also the angular travel of the sun relative to the earth's frame during the 8 minutes of transit. Again, this is how aberration works.
    If the earth orbited at 1/2 the speed at 15ks you would
    get something like 1/2 the 0.0055 degree abberation angle
    Aberration has Nothing to do with light travel times between
    sun and observor.
    Again: How many degrees does the earth move in its orbit in 8 minutes? And how many degrees would it move if it was going at half speed? Think.
    I said clearly at least a few days ago that there was also Aberration. An additional
    effect seperate from the sun moving across the sky as we rotate around earths axis.
    (And a very small abberation effect of 0.0055 degrees compared to the 2 degrees
    the sun moves across the sky in just 8 minutes)
    You are hallucinating. I just did a search on aberration (and on your mis-spelling abberation)) and confirmed that you never said any such thing, and in fact it was ME who tolkd YOU that it wasn't 2 degrees it was 20 arc seconds. Your brain is severely
    malfunctioning. Search back in the messages yourself, and you will see that you are hallucinating.
    Screw your imaginary relativistic inertial coordinate nonsense. There is no such
    thing as an object on an inertial path. All objects in the universe rotate, spiral, revolve,
    accelerate, decelerate etc.

    Again, in the Newtonian context, the three laws of motion apply... remember? And according to these laws, any entity with momentum, such as a pulse of light, moves at uniform speed in a straight line except to the extent that it is exchanging
    momentum with some other entity. A pulse exchanges momentum with the source at the moment of emission, and with the receiver at the moment of reception, but in between it is not exchanging momentum with either of those, so accelerating the source after
    the emission has no effect on the pulse. Understand?
    Light has no momentum.

    But that's crazy. Look, even Ritz said specifically that light has momentum. It is elementary in classical physics that an electromagnetic wave has energy density (E^2 + B^2)/(8pi) and momentum density (ExB)/(4pi c). Even Ritz stated that "forces,
    motions, and work are exactly as in Maxwell's theory". You're just fantasizing nonsense. And of course the actual observed phenomena show that material objects satisfy the same speed composition as does light, so are you going to claim that matter doesn'
    t have momentum either? You already agreed that after a bullet is fired from a gun, we cannot affect its trajectory by manipulating the gun. The bullet has (in Newtonian context) the muzzle speed plus the speed of the gun at the moment when it was fired,
    but accelerating the gun after the bullet is in flight has no effect on the bullet. Agreed?

    Bill....you are insane.
    Try reading my posts again.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to Lou on Fri Sep 1 06:46:25 2023
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:08:59 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    On Thursday, 31 August 2023 at 00:07:51 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
    On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 1:15:19 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    No, 0.0055 degrees displacement doesnt happen because of the fact light
    takes 8+ minutes to get here.
    Yes it does. That's how aberration works. In the inertial coordinates in which the earth is essentially at rest during those 8 minutes, the sun is moving transvbersely at 67000 mph, and the pulse reaching us now was emitted by the sun 8 minutes
    ago when it was in the location it was 8 minutes ago, which makes an angle of about 20 arc seconds. Do you understand now?

    You haven’t the faintest idea what causes aberration.
    Well, we could settle this is you would just have answered the question, instead of ducking it. Here it is again: How many degrees does the earth move in its orbit in 8 minutes?
    Earths orbital velocity around sun is 30ks. Speed of light is 299792.
    Do the calculation and you get 0.0055 degrees abberation.
    Right, and that is also the angular travel of the sun relative to the earth's frame during the 8 minutes of transit. Again, this is how aberration works.
    If the earth orbited at 1/2 the speed at 15ks you would
    get something like 1/2 the 0.0055 degree abberation angle
    Aberration has Nothing to do with light travel times between
    sun and observor.
    Again: How many degrees does the earth move in its orbit in 8 minutes? And how many degrees would it move if it was going at half speed? Think.
    I said clearly at least a few days ago that there was also Aberration. An additional
    effect seperate from the sun moving across the sky as we rotate around earths axis.
    (And a very small abberation effect of 0.0055 degrees compared to the 2 degrees
    the sun moves across the sky in just 8 minutes)
    You are hallucinating. I just did a search on aberration (and on your mis-spelling abberation)) and confirmed that you never said any such thing, and in fact it was ME who tolkd YOU that it wasn't 2 degrees it was 20 arc seconds. Your brain is
    severely malfunctioning. Search back in the messages yourself, and you will see that you are hallucinating.
    Screw your imaginary relativistic inertial coordinate nonsense. There is no such
    thing as an object on an inertial path. All objects in the universe rotate, spiral, revolve,
    accelerate, decelerate etc.

    Again, in the Newtonian context, the three laws of motion apply... remember? And according to these laws, any entity with momentum, such as a pulse of light, moves at uniform speed in a straight line except to the extent that it is exchanging
    momentum with some other entity. A pulse exchanges momentum with the source at the moment of emission, and with the receiver at the moment of reception, but in between it is not exchanging momentum with either of those, so accelerating the source after
    the emission has no effect on the pulse. Understand?
    Light has no momentum.

    But that's crazy. Look, even Ritz said specifically that light has momentum. It is elementary in classical physics that an electromagnetic wave has energy density (E^2 + B^2)/(8pi) and momentum density (ExB)/(4pi c). Even Ritz stated that "forces,
    motions, and work are exactly as in Maxwell's theory". You're just fantasizing nonsense. And of course the actual observed phenomena show that material objects satisfy the same speed composition as does light, so are you going to claim that matter doesn'
    t have momentum either? You already agreed that after a bullet is fired from a gun, we cannot affect its trajectory by manipulating the gun. The bullet has (in Newtonian context) the muzzle speed plus the speed of the gun at the moment when it was fired,
    but accelerating the gun after the bullet is in flight has no effect on the bullet. Agreed?

    You are insane.

    So, you can't even *attempt* to respond to the demolition of your nutty Henry Wilson (RR) belief. That speaks for itself, right?

    Remember, you couldn't even answer the simple question: What is the angular travel of the earth in its orbit during the 8 minutes it takes for light to travel from sun to earth?

    Again, you admit that light exerts pressure, and hence light impinging on an object floating in space would impart momentum to that object, and yet you deny that light conveys momentum... i.e., you blatantly contradict yourself. Agreed?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Lou on Fri Sep 1 06:32:11 2023
    On Friday, 1 September 2023 at 15:03:37 UTC+2, Lou wrote:

    If an observer sees an object rotate,..that object occupies a
    different frame. And conversely seeing as all things are relative...
    the object in its frame “sees” the observer rotate.

    No, an object in its frame "sees" nothing. Unless
    it's another observer. Notice, however, that neither
    you, nor relativists have a slightest clue about how
    "seeing" is performed by the observer's brain.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to Lou on Fri Sep 1 06:56:41 2023
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:37:27 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    Let’s look,at what we actually observe in deSitters binary star:
    The star light is observed to * not pile up*.

    "Piling up" is not an accurate expression of what actual emission theories (like Ritz's) predict. To be precise, they predict that pulses emitted while the star is moving away from earth will catch up with and pass pulses emitted earlier while the star
    was moving toward the earth.

    In contrast, *your* nutty Henry-Wilsonion belief is that light has no momentum (even though it exerts pressure!) and can be made to run around in circles in terms of an inertial coordinate system, by telepathic magical massless ethers that surround each
    individual particle of matter in an imaginary universe filled with invisible flying pink elephants.

    Isn’t that what is observed?

    No, that is most definitely not what is observed. Every pulse of light has momentum and follows inertial trajectories. Do you understand this?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Lou on Fri Sep 1 09:51:29 2023
    On September 1, Lou wrote:
    OK let’s look,at what we actually observe in deSitters binary star:
    We see that the star wobbles around roughly in an *ellipse* ...
    The star light also is observed to * not pile up*.

    Even in the emission theory, there's no 'pile up'. Later light
    overtakes earlier light, such that, at a couple of points, the
    observed orbit appears to split in two.

    This is not observed.

    Now let’s look at what the Ritzian model predicts:
    It predicts that in the source frame, (a frame where the *earth observer rotates*),
    light travels at constant speeds isotropically and *does not pile up*.
    And therefore using a simple galilean trans to the earth observer frame
    the light from the source can not pile up ( seeing as it’s not piling up in the
    source frame) and also the light from the source will appear to be dragged around in an ellipse in the observer frame.

    OK
    In the sun's frame, no pile up, light travels at constant speed c.
    And in the earth's frame, no pile up or other weirdness, we see
    an ellipse. So the light doesn't pile up for anybody, objective
    reality survives, and earth sees light approach at speed c.

    Isn’t that what is observed?

    Yes.
    Therefore, source and observer frames agree that, in the c + kv
    formula, k = 0. Which refutes the emission theory.

    Normally, to engage in debate, a difference of opinion must
    manifest. Are we debating?

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Fri Sep 1 12:36:05 2023
    On Friday, 1 September 2023 at 14:32:14 UTC+1, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
    On Friday, 1 September 2023 at 15:03:37 UTC+2, Lou wrote:

    If an observer sees an object rotate,..that object occupies a
    different frame. And conversely seeing as all things are relative...
    the object in its frame “sees” the observer rotate.
    No, an object in its frame "sees" nothing. Unless
    it's another observer. Notice, however, that neither
    you, nor relativists have a slightest clue about how
    "seeing" is performed by the observer's brain.

    Yes sorry. It was Rich D who specified “object” and observer.
    I’m assuming the “object” could be another observer. I was concerned
    with what 2 observers in seperate frames would see.

    And it’s true, the mechanism of how our eyes sees light
    is much different from the method used to measure light speed
    in MMX. Which is an interferometer where the two split
    beams are recombined as an interference pattern.
    But I’m not really concerned with how our eyes MMX or a CCD
    “Sees” light.
    Moreso with trying to work out how fast (Ie is it constant isotropically)
    the light travels from its source to the eye, interference plane
    or CCD.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to RichD on Fri Sep 1 12:25:42 2023
    On Friday, 1 September 2023 at 17:51:31 UTC+1, RichD wrote:
    On September 1, Lou wrote:
    OK let’s look,at what we actually observe in deSitters binary star:
    We see that the star wobbles around roughly in an *ellipse* ...
    The star light also is observed to * not pile up*.
    Even in the emission theory, there's no 'pile up'. Later light
    overtakes earlier light, such that, at a couple of points, the
    observed orbit appears to split in two.


    Pure nonsense. If light travels at c in the source frame it doesn’t pile up get “split in 2” or anything else. It does what it says on the package.
    It TRAVELS at constant c in the source frame.

    This is not observed.

    Sorry to break the news to you. But for more than
    a century Light has been observed to travel at constant speeds
    and c in the source frame.

    Now let’s look at what the Ritzian model predicts:
    It predicts that in the source frame, (a frame where the *earth observer rotates*),
    light travels at constant speeds isotropically and *does not pile up*.
    And therefore using a simple galilean trans to the earth observer frame the light from the source can not pile up ( seeing as it’s not piling up in the
    source frame) and also the light from the source will appear to be dragged around in an ellipse in the observer frame.
    OK
    In the sun's frame, no pile up, light travels at constant speed c.
    And in the earth's frame, no pile up or other weirdness, we see
    an ellipse. So the light doesn't pile up for anybody, objective
    reality survives, and earth sees light approach at speed c.
    Isn’t that what is observed?
    Yes.
    Therefore, source and observer frames agree that, in the c + kv
    formula, k = 0. Which refutes the emission theory.


    What the f? Where did you get this ridiculous v and k? Alberts ass?
    There is no formula for light in the source frame for Ritzian emission
    model.
    Light just travels at constant speeds of c in the source frame. Period.
    You relativists are barmy. To make SR look like the only contender
    you make up imaginary formulas and imaginary speeds for emission
    theory to falsely refute emission theory.
    Here...I’ll do the same thing for SR:

    SR predicts light in the source frame will be at speeds defined by the following
    formula...c+k^2/v-1+dt-y
    Seeing as light is not observed to be at these speeds...SR is refuted.

    Normally, to engage in debate, a difference of opinion must
    manifest. Are we debating?


    Not if you falsely pretend that emission theory predicts that light
    travels at variable speeds in the source frame.
    Which is what deSitter does. That’s not debating.
    That’s dogmatic gobbledegook.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Bill on Fri Sep 1 12:42:00 2023
    On Friday, 1 September 2023 at 14:56:44 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:37:27 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    Let’s look,at what we actually observe in deSitters binary star:
    The star light is observed to * not pile up*.

    "Piling up" is not an accurate expression of what actual emission theories (like Ritz's) predict. To be precise, they predict that pulses emitted while the star is moving away from earth will catch up with and pass pulses emitted earlier while the star
    was moving toward the earth.

    In contrast, *your* nutty Henry-Wilsonion belief is that light has no momentum (even though it exerts pressure!) and can be made to run around in circles in terms of an inertial coordinate system, by telepathic magical massless ethers that surround
    each individual particle of matter in an imaginary universe filled with invisible flying pink elephants.
    Isn’t that what is observed?
    No, that is most definitely not what is observed. Every pulse of light has momentum and follows inertial trajectories. Do you understand this?

    Yes. I understand that you are completely insane.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to Lou on Fri Sep 1 15:49:36 2023
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:42:02 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    Let’s look,at what we actually observe in deSitters binary star:
    The star light is observed to * not pile up*.

    "Piling up" is not an accurate expression of what actual emission theories (like Ritz's) predict. To be precise, they predict that pulses emitted while the star is moving away from earth will catch up with and pass pulses emitted earlier while the
    star was moving toward the earth.

    In contrast, *your* nutty Henry-Wilsonion belief is that light has no momentum (even though it exerts pressure!) and can be made to run around in circles in terms of an inertial coordinate system, by telepathic magical massless ethers that surround
    each individual particle of matter in an imaginary universe filled with invisible flying pink elephants.

    Isn’t that what is observed?

    No, that is most definitely not what is observed. Every pulse of light has momentum and follows inertial trajectories. Do you understand this?

    Yes...

    Great, so we're agreed that every pulse of light has momentum and follows an inertial trajectory. This falsifies all your beliefs.

    ... you are completely insane.

    That isn't the question. The question is, how do you reconcile your nutty belief with all the logical inconsistencies and sheer nuttiness that have been pointed out? For example, a laser pointer emits a pulse of light into space, and then the laser
    point is disassembled and melted down and vaporized and the atoms are sent in many different directions. Which way does the fantasy momentumless pulse of magical pseudo-light get dragged?

    If a hydrogen atom (proton and electron) emits a pulse of light as the electron drops to a lower energy state near the proton, and then subsequently we split the electron off from the proton and send them in different directions, what happens to your
    magical fantasy pseudo-light pulse?

    And how does something that exerts pressure on an object floating in space not cause the object to acquire momentum?

    And how many degrees of orbital motion does the earth subtend during the 8 minutes it takes light to reach it from the sun?

    You can't answer a single one of these questions. You can't even formulate a single coherent statement of any substantive defense of your nutty belief. So you are in a state of complete intellectual bankruptcy, right?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Bill on Sat Sep 2 02:30:34 2023
    On Friday, 1 September 2023 at 23:49:38 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:42:02 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    Let’s look,at what we actually observe in deSitters binary star:
    The star light is observed to * not pile up*.

    "Piling up" is not an accurate expression of what actual emission theories (like Ritz's) predict. To be precise, they predict that pulses emitted while the star is moving away from earth will catch up with and pass pulses emitted earlier while the
    star was moving toward the earth.

    In contrast, *your* nutty Henry-Wilsonion belief is that light has no momentum (even though it exerts pressure!) and can be made to run around in circles in terms of an inertial coordinate system, by telepathic magical massless ethers that surround
    each individual particle of matter in an imaginary universe filled with invisible flying pink elephants.

    Isn’t that what is observed?

    No, that is most definitely not what is observed. Every pulse of light has momentum and follows inertial trajectories. Do you understand this?

    Yes...

    Great, so we're agreed that every pulse of light has momentum and follows an inertial trajectory. This falsifies all your beliefs.

    ... you are completely insane.

    That isn't the question. The question is, how do you reconcile your nutty belief with all the logical inconsistencies and sheer nuttiness that have been pointed out? For example, a laser pointer emits a pulse of light into space, and then the laser
    point is disassembled and melted down and vaporized and the atoms are sent in many different directions. Which way does the fantasy momentumless pulse of magical pseudo-light get dragged?

    If a hydrogen atom (proton and electron) emits a pulse of light as the electron drops to a lower energy state near the proton, and then subsequently we split the electron off from the proton and send them in different directions, what happens to your
    magical fantasy pseudo-light pulse?

    And how does something that exerts pressure on an object floating in space not cause the object to acquire momentum?

    And how many degrees of orbital motion does the earth subtend during the 8 minutes it takes light to reach it from the sun?

    You can't answer a single one of these questions. You can't even formulate a single coherent statement of any substantive defense of your nutty belief. So you are in a state of complete intellectual bankruptcy, right?

    I understand your stupidity yes. How many times do I have to tell you that atoms
    are not made of imaginary particles, and the Ritzian ether free emission model I am referring to,....DOES NOT have light as a particle. No mass or momentum Just waves. No ether to drag it. No mass and gravity to bend it. So Light always travels
    at constant speeds in the source frame. Confirmed by MMX, lunar ranging experiment and the fact that light does not pile up from binary star.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Bill on Sat Sep 2 05:21:37 2023
    On Friday, 1 September 2023 at 23:49:38 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
    On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:42:02 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    Let’s look,at what we actually observe in deSitters binary star:
    The star light is observed to * not pile up*.

    "Piling up" is not an accurate expression of what actual emission theories (like Ritz's) predict. To be precise, they predict that pulses emitted while the star is moving away from earth will catch up with and pass pulses emitted earlier while the
    star was moving toward the earth.

    In contrast, *your* nutty Henry-Wilsonion belief is that light has no momentum (even though it exerts pressure!) and can be made to run around in circles in terms of an inertial coordinate system, by telepathic magical massless ethers that surround
    each individual particle of matter in an imaginary universe filled with invisible flying pink elephants.

    Isn’t that what is observed?

    No, that is most definitely not what is observed. Every pulse of light has momentum and follows inertial trajectories. Do you understand this?

    Yes...

    Great, so we're agreed that every pulse of light has momentum and follows an inertial trajectory. This falsifies all your beliefs.

    ... you are completely insane.

    That isn't the question. The question is, how do you reconcile your nutty belief with all the logical inconsistencies and sheer nuttiness that have been pointed out? For example, a laser pointer emits a pulse of light into space, and then the laser
    point is disassembled and melted down and vaporized and the atoms are sent in many different directions. Which way does the fantasy momentumless pulse of magical pseudo-light get dragged?


    So let me guess, you’ve tried this experiment and have the data in a paper published
    in a peer reviewed journal as evidence?
    😅😂🤣😂🤣💩💩


    If a hydrogen atom (proton and electron) emits a pulse of light as the electron drops to a lower energy state near the proton, and then subsequently we split the electron off from the proton and send them in different directions, what happens to your
    magical fantasy pseudo-light pulse?


    Ritz and others explained the Hydrogen spectral lines as harmonic emission produced by oscillating magnetic fields. Hence the Ritz Rydberg formula
    which models ALL lines in all spectral series as wavelike harmonics.
    Not imaginary electrons being pulled by angels around a flat earth.
    Bohr, the moron, dreamed up his imaginary electron shells. Unfortunately
    for theoretical physics sh*t always float to the top. Hence we got SR, and QT floating in the swimming pool for the rest of us to choke on.

    And how does something that exerts pressure on an object floating in space not cause the object to acquire momentum?


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_moment

    And how many degrees of orbital motion does the earth subtend during the 8 minutes it takes light to reach it from the sun?


    If in your supreme ignorance you are trying to pretend that abberation of light from the sun is directly related to the 8 minutes it takes for sun light to reach earth,
    Then as usual. You are wrong. It is the *orbital speed of earth around the sun*
    which dictates the angle of aberration. Because for example if you were orbitting
    the sun at twice the average sun- earth distance but still at an orbital speed of 30 ks.
    Then you would still get the same angle of aberration. Even though it took 16 minutes for
    the light to go from sun to earth.

    You can't answer a single one of these questions. You can't even formulate a single coherent statement of any substantive defense of your nutty belief. So you are in a state of complete intellectual bankruptcy, right?

    I answered every question that you made. Yet you are still unable to supply
    any evidence...even though I’ve asked you multiple times, to refute the Ritzian
    prediction that light always travels at c in the source frame.
    You ignore the fact that the Ritzian model successfully predicts MMX ,Sagnac, lunar ranging data and no piling up of binary starlight. Etc.
    And incidentally your standard model and its imaginary particles has failed every prediction since Bohr the moron invented the electron shell model.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Lou on Sat Sep 2 08:21:47 2023
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 5:21:40 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:

    You ignore the fact that the Ritzian model successfully predicts MMX ,Sagnac,


    Sagnac experiment falsified Ritz theory, utter crank. So did Ives-Stilwell experiment.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to Lou on Sat Sep 2 09:22:37 2023
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 5:21:40 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    A laser pointer emits a pulse of light into space, and then the laser point >> is disassembled and melted down and vaporized and the atoms are sent
    in many different directions. Which way does the fantasy momentumless
    pulse of magical pseudo-light get dragged?

    You’ve tried this experiment?

    Of course, for example, countless stars have gone supernova and exploded, and the light that we see from them utterly refutes your insane belief. Likewise the light from our own sub is emitted by plasma particles that have kinetic motions at extremely
    high speeds (thousands of degree temperatures), some toward, some away, some transverse to the earth, with not the slightest trace of the bizarre effects that your belief implies. Remember, when this was pointed out to you a couple of weeks ago you said
    Gosh, I never thought of that before! Duh.

    Atoms are not made of imaginary particles...

    You miss the point. The fact that we are accumulating more and more denialist claims (light has no momentum, electrons and protons don't exist, etc.) shows that what you are imagining is just a fantasy world, but that isn't the point of the example.
    The example applies even in your insane fantasy, because you can disassemble the laser pointer, and separate it into smaller and smaller parts, and you can send those parts in different directions, so your nutty belief that a pulse of light is forever
    telepathically dragged in lock-step with "the emitter" doesn't even make sense, because the emitter no longer exists.

    the Ritzian emission model I am referring to...

    No, you are not referring to a Ritzian model, because Ritz, and every other rational adult, repudiated your nutty belief, and said light has momentum, and accordingly it moves at speed c relative to the frame of the source only as long as the source
    maintains *uniform* (meaning inertial, unaccelerated) motion.

    the ether-free model I am referring to...

    No, your Wilsonian model is not ether-free, to the contrary, it posits that each material object has its own massless and perfectly rigid ether extending to infinity, and not interfering with anything other than pulses of massless light that are emitted
    from that particle, and even if that particle no longer exists, its ghost-ether continues to move around and drag the distant pulses of light.

    [My nutty belief is] Confirmed by MMX, lunar ranging experiment and
    the fact that light does not pile up from binary star.

    Nope, every experiment and indeed every coimmplace observation of the world by any sentient being conclusively refutes your nutty belief, as explained in the preceding messages.

    If a hydrogen atom (proton and electron) emits a pulse of light as the electron drops to a lower energy state near the proton, and then subsequently we split the electron off from the proton and send them in different directions, what happens to your
    magical fantasy pseudo-light pulse?

    Not imaginary electrons being pulled by angels around a flat earth.

    Again, you miss the point. We're not focusing on your denialism about sub-atomic particles, and your belief that electrons don't exist, or your belief that a pulse of electromagnetic radiation has no momentum, or your belief in infinitely many ethers
    and ghost ethers guiding this fantasy "light", we're focusing on the logical incoherence of your belief on its own terms. Feel free to substitute whatever you belief are the smallest irreducible parts of matter that can emit light, or explain that you
    are claiming ththat light is emitted in irreducible pulses, each of which it emnitted by an irreduicible and indestructible quantity of matter?

    And how does something that exerts pressure on an object floating in
    space not cause the object to acquire momentum?

    Magnetic_moment

    Again, light doesn't hgave either charge or magnetic moment, and even if it did, that would not answer the question of how light can exert directional pressure on an object floating in space without imparting momentum to that object.

    How many degrees of orbital motion does the earth subtend during the 8 minutes it takes light to reach it from the sun?

    [no answer]

    Why can't you answer the question?

    If you were orbitting the sun at twice the average sun-earth distance but still at an orbital speed of 30 ks, then you would still get the same angle of
    aberration, even though it took 16 minutes for the light to go from sun to earth.

    And in that case, how many degrees of orbital motion would that earth subtend during the 16 minutes it takes light to reach it from the sun? Think.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Lou on Sat Sep 2 11:29:20 2023
    On September 1, Lou wrote:
    If light travels at c in the source frame it doesn’t pile up
    get “split in 2” or anything else.

    er, yes.
    Are we debating?

    But for more than a century Light has been observed to travel at
    constant speeds and c in the source frame.

    All experiments measure light speed in the receiver frame.
    We're incapable of such experiments in the source frame,
    except when source is stationary relative to the receiver,
    which is the trivial case.

    You display confusion on a basic point of relativity.

    Now let’s look at what the Ritzian model predicts:
    It predicts that in the source frame, (a frame where the *earth observer rotates*),
    light travels at constant speeds isotropically and *does not pile up*.

    In the sun's frame, no pile up, light travels at constant speed c.
    And in the earth's frame, no pile up or other weirdness, we see
    an ellipse. So the light doesn't pile up for anybody, objective
    reality survives, and earth sees light approach at speed c.
    Therefore, source and observer frames agree that, in the c + kv
    formula, k = 0. Which refutes the emission theory.

    What the f? Where did you get this ridiculous v and k?
    There is no formula for light in the source frame for Ritzian emission model.

    According to emission theory, the RECEIVER observes light
    approach at c + kv.

    SR predicts light in the source frame will be at speeds defined by the following
    formula...c+k^2/v-1+dt-y

    That's news to me -

    Normally, to engage in debate, a difference of opinion must
    manifest. Are we debating?

    Not if you falsely pretend that emission theory predicts that light
    travels at variable speeds in the source frame.

    No, emission theory refers specifically to the receiver frame.
    If you run toward me at velocity v, and flick on a flashlight,
    does the light approach me at c + v, in MY frame? That's what
    emission theory claims.

    Your confusion seems to grow by the day.

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Bill on Sat Sep 2 11:34:37 2023
    On Saturday, 2 September 2023 at 17:22:40 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 5:21:40 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    A laser pointer emits a pulse of light into space, and then the laser point
    is disassembled and melted down and vaporized and the atoms are sent
    in many different directions. Which way does the fantasy momentumless
    pulse of magical pseudo-light get dragged?

    You’ve tried this experiment?

    Of course, for example, countless stars have gone supernova and exploded, and the light that we see from them utterly refutes your insane belief. Likewise the light from our own sub is emitted by plasma particles that have kinetic motions at extremely
    high speeds (thousands of degree temperatures), some toward, some away, some transverse to the earth, with not the slightest trace of the bizarre effects that your belief implies. Remember, when this was pointed out to you a couple of weeks ago you said
    Gosh, I never thought of that before! Duh.

    When you have come back from the latest SN detection to confirm it contradicts Ritz’s model then you will have evidence to prove Ritz wrong.
    Until then you are a low IQ fact free relativist fanatic.
    Notice even the latest JWST image of SN 1987a has signs of this effect. They’ve had to pretend the SN started “exploding” at least 20,000 years before it
    it started to explode. 🤣
    And they can’t explain why the images show reverse shockwaves
    clearly observed in the images going backwards towards core. Nor can
    they explain why the overall light from the afterglow is far too red
    for current model predictions to accommodate.
    Explain those effects. Explain why Muons aren’t acting like SM muon theory says they should. Explain why solar G rays emitted by H atoms
    Are 7 times too abundant and at far higher energies than the standard model can explain. Explain why the BBT cannot explain the over abundance of
    mature galaxies at redshifts where there shouldn’t even be galaxies.
    When you can explain all these failures of your crap model then
    maybe you won’t sound like such a fact free religious fanatic.

    Atoms are not made of imaginary particles...

    You miss the point. The fact that we are accumulating more and more denialist claims (light has no momentum, electrons and protons don't exist, etc.) shows that what you are imagining is just a fantasy world, but that isn't the point of the example.
    The example applies even in your insane fantasy, because you can disassemble the laser pointer, and separate it into smaller and smaller parts, and you can send those parts in different directions, so your nutty belief that a pulse of light is forever
    telepathically dragged in lock-step with "the emitter" doesn't even make sense, because the emitter no longer exists.

    the Ritzian emission model I am referring to...

    No, you are not referring to a Ritzian model, because Ritz, and every other rational adult, repudiated your nutty belief, and said light has momentum, and accordingly it moves at speed c relative to the frame of the source only as long as the source
    maintains *uniform* (meaning inertial, unaccelerated) motion.


    You forgot to read his paper. He specifically says light will propagate at c relative
    to source even if the source accelerates . He also says light is a wave.
    And he says there is no imaginary ether. Unlike you and your ether worshipping friends
    And you are still in denial. Because his model correctly predicts Sagnac, MMX, Lunar ranging etc. And you have no evidence to the contrary,

    the ether-free model I am referring to...

    No, your Wilsonian model is not ether-free, to the contrary, it posits that each material object has its own massless and perfectly rigid ether extending to infinity, and not interfering with anything other than pulses of massless light that are
    emitted from that particle, and even if that particle no longer exists, its ghost-ether continues to move around and drag the distant pulses of light.

    Wow you just haven’t even bothered to read his paper at all.
    Read Ritzs 1908 paper. He specifically states that the ether must be disposed of.


    [My nutty belief is] Confirmed by MMX, lunar ranging experiment and
    the fact that light does not pile up from binary star.
    Nope, every experiment and indeed every coimmplace observation of the world by any sentient being conclusively refutes your nutty belief, as explained in the preceding messages.
    If a hydrogen atom (proton and electron) emits a pulse of light as the electron drops to a lower energy state near the proton, and then subsequently we split the electron off from the proton and send them in different directions, what happens to
    your magical fantasy pseudo-light pulse?

    Not imaginary electrons being pulled by angels around a flat earth.
    Again, you miss the point. We're not focusing on your denialism about sub-atomic particles, and your belief that electrons don't exist, or your belief that a pulse of electromagnetic radiation has no momentum, or your belief in infinitely many ethers
    and ghost ethers guiding this fantasy "light", we're focusing on the logical incoherence of your belief on its own terms. Feel free to substitute whatever you belief are the smallest irreducible parts of matter that can emit light, or explain that you
    are claiming ththat light is emitted in irreducible pulses, each of which it emnitted by an irreduicible and indestructible quantity of matter?

    Have you or anyone else actually SEEN an electron?
    No.

    And how does something that exerts pressure on an object floating in space not cause the object to acquire momentum?

    Magnetic_moment

    Again, light doesn't hgave either charge or magnetic moment, and even if it did, that would not answer the question of how light can exert directional pressure on an object floating in space without imparting momentum to that object.

    Complete denial here from Bill.You think light isn’t electro *magnetic* radiation

    How many degrees of orbital motion does the earth subtend during the 8 minutes it takes light to reach it from the sun?

    [no answer]

    Why can't you answer the question?

    Because you are so stupid you think aberration is directly related
    to the time light takes to get from the sun to earth. It isn’t.
    Aberration is caused by the orbital speed of the earth around the sun.

    If you were orbitting the sun at twice the average sun-earth distance but still at an orbital speed of 30 ks, then you would still get the same angle of
    aberration, even though it took 16 minutes for the light to go from sun to earth.

    And in that case, how many degrees of orbital motion would that earth subtend during the 16 minutes it takes light to reach it from the sun? Think.

    The question you should answer is if the observers orbital speed around the sun was
    30 ks regardless of its distance from the sun would you get the same degree of aberration?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to RichD on Sat Sep 2 11:52:01 2023
    On Saturday, 2 September 2023 at 19:29:22 UTC+1, RichD wrote:
    On September 1, Lou wrote:
    If light travels at c in the source frame it doesn’t pile up
    get “split in 2” or anything else.
    er, yes.
    Are we debating?

    Who knows. Are we?
    You seem to be suggesting that light travelling at c in the source frame refutes
    emission theory.
    I disagree. Not least because the only or most important rule in emission theory
    is ....that it travels at constant speeds c in the source frame.
    I say we also have evidence for this source speed dependence...MMX.

    But for more than a century Light has been observed to travel at
    constant speeds and c in the source frame.
    All experiments measure light speed in the receiver frame.
    We're incapable of such experiments in the source frame,
    except when source is stationary relative to the receiver,
    which is the trivial case.


    If the source frame is the same as the receiver frame as in MMX,
    then we can be sure light is travelling at constant speeds isotropically relative to the source.

    You display confusion on a basic point of relativity.
    Now let’s look at what the Ritzian model predicts:
    It predicts that in the source frame, (a frame where the *earth observer rotates*),
    light travels at constant speeds isotropically and *does not pile up*.

    In the sun's frame, no pile up, light travels at constant speed c.
    And in the earth's frame, no pile up or other weirdness, we see
    an ellipse. So the light doesn't pile up for anybody, objective
    reality survives, and earth sees light approach at speed c.
    Therefore, source and observer frames agree that, in the c + kv
    formula, k = 0. Which refutes the emission theory.

    What the f? Where did you get this ridiculous v and k?
    There is no formula for light in the source frame for Ritzian emission model.
    According to emission theory, the RECEIVER observes light
    approach at c + kv.

    What is this k? If the observer approaches the source at v,..
    they see the light at c+v in emission theory. There is no k.
    That is your fantasy.

    SR predicts light in the source frame will be at speeds defined by the following
    formula...c+k^2/v-1+dt-y
    That's news to me -
    Normally, to engage in debate, a difference of opinion must
    manifest. Are we debating?

    Not if you falsely pretend that emission theory predicts that light travels at variable speeds in the source frame.
    No, emission theory refers specifically to the receiver frame.
    If you run toward me at velocity v, and flick on a flashlight,
    does the light approach me at c + v, in MY frame? That's what
    emission theory claims.

    Ritzian emission theory says light should always propagate at c in the source frame.
    If you move towards the source then yes you will see c+v
    But if you look at the deSitter thought experiment, and do your maths properly you will realise that deSitter has light propagating away from the source at variable
    speeds. This is not only NOT consistent with an emission model. It is not observed or consistent with experiments like MMX or Sagnac where light always travels at c relative to the source.

    Your confusion seems to grow by the day.


    And you aren’t confused when you say emission theory does not predict light at c
    in the source frame, when in fact emission theory explicitly states
    light must always be at c in the c source frame?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Sat Sep 2 16:12:57 2023
    On 9/1/2023 8:37 AM, Lou wrote:
    On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 22:24:05 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 8/30/2023 3:14 PM, Lou wrote:

    Screw your imaginary relativistic inertial coordinate nonsense. There is no such
    thing as an object on an inertial path. All objects in the universe rotate, spiral, revolve,
    accelerate, decelerate etc.

    [...]
    Obviously you understand physics or this emission model I describe.
    Because it doesn’t matter if the sun moves relative to Betelgeuse or the Virgo
    Galaxy cluster. Light will always travel at constant c relative to the sun. So all
    one has to do is place the sun immobile in its own frame. Have light propagate
    away from it isotropically at constant speeds.
    Since you claim there are no inertial coordinates, that means that this
    frame you "place the sun immobile" in is not inertial, so it can
    accelerate. Let's say this necessarily non-inertial frame, after
    emitting light toward the observer, wiggles back and forth, does
    loop-the-loops, figure 8's or whatever. Does the observer see the light
    following the figure 8s so that it appears to come from the sun always,
    or does it come from the place where the sun WAS when the light was emitted?

    OK let’s look,at what we actually observe in deSitters binary star:
    Let’s focus on one star of the two. We see that the star wobbles around roughly in an *ellipse*. I imagine it’s probably a bit more complex
    than that but an ellipse for sake of argument. The star light also
    is observed to * not pile up*.

    Correct.

    We can simplify things by looking at what happens at two points in the
    orbit. At one point, one star is on, say, the left side of the other,
    and is moving away from earth at a speed v. The instantaneous inertial
    source frame of the star is moving away from the earth at a speed v,
    because the star itself is moving away at speed v at that instant. 1/2
    of the orbital period P later, the star is on the right side of the
    other, but is now approaching earth at a speed v. The instantaneous
    inertial source frame of the star is now moving toward the earth at a
    speed v. Obviously, these frames are different, because the star has
    moved non-inertially (it's in orbit).

    SR states light travels at c in all inertial frames at c, regardless of
    the motion of the source. If the star is a distance D away, the time the
    light reaches us will be D/c and D/c+P/2.

    Now the cranks claim the light travels at c-v and c+v respectively, as
    seen on the earth. So the first light pulse will take time D/(c+v) to
    reach us, while the second takes a shorter time, D/(c-v). Earth
    observers will see the first light at time D/(c+v) and the second at
    time D/(c-v) + P/2.

    DeSitter, being much smarter than the average crank, realized the second
    pulse is emitted later but would be moving faster than the first. Could
    they arrive at the same time on earth? That would mean solving the
    equation D/(c+v) = (D/(c-v) + P/2). You can do the algebra yourself, but
    the answer is yes, the faster pulse can catch up to the slower pulse
    when both reach earth.

    Now, what would this mean? What would we earthlings see? We would see
    both lights at the same time. One red shifted, the other blue shifted.
    If we can resolve the stars we'd see TWO images of the star, once to the
    left of the other and once to the right of the other.

    I won't try to figure out what would be seen from light emitted between
    the endpoints, but others have described it as a mess.

    Now when looking at *real* binary stars, we see one going round and
    round the other, alternately becoming blue shifted and red shifted, but
    always one image of the orbiting star, and never both blue shifted and
    red shifted at the same time. Because we see that and not the "pile up"
    mess, DeSitter showed that light cannot be traveling at c+v and c-v from
    the binary stars, and this invalidates all theories which claim light
    travels at c+v and c-v.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to Lou on Sat Sep 2 14:37:12 2023
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 11:34:39 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    A laser pointer emits a pulse of light into space, and then the laser point
    is disassembled and melted down and vaporized and the atoms are sent
    in many different directions. Which way does the fantasy momentumless >> pulse of magical pseudo-light get dragged?

    You’ve tried this experiment?

    Of course, for example, countless stars have gone supernova and exploded, and the light that we see from them utterly refutes your insane belief. Likewise the light from our own sub is emitted by plasma particles that have kinetic motions at
    extremely high speeds (thousands of degree temperatures), some toward, some away, some transverse to the earth, with not the slightest trace of the bizarre effects that your belief implies. Remember, when this was pointed out to you a couple of weeks ago
    you said Gosh, I never thought of that before! Duh.

    When you ... confirm it contradicts Ritz’s model then you will have evidence to prove Ritz wrong.

    Again, the light from supernovas has conclusively falsified both Ritz's model and your utterly nutty belief. (Don't confuse the two, but both have been falsified, because in this case the material particles emitting the light from different states of
    motion continue in uniuform motion, so there is no post-emission acceleration, so your nutty idea gives the same falsified prediction as rational emitter theory in this particular case.

    Ritz specifically says light will propagate at c relative to source even
    if the source accelerates .

    That is a lie. He says the opposite, as you know ("if it continues in uniform motion"). Basing all your cherished beliefs on blatant falsehoods is not a very good idea.

    Your Wilsonian model is not ether-free, to the contrary, it posits that each material object has its own massless and perfectly rigid ether extending to infinity, and not interfering with anything other than pulses of massless light that are emitted
    from that particle, and even if that particle no longer exists, its ghost-ether continues to move around and drag the distant pulses of light.

    Wow you just haven’t even bothered to read his paper at all.

    I don't think you have written a paper on your nutty idea, nor would any sane person publish such a thing if you did. Again, your belief entails that each irreducible particle of matter (capable of emitting fantasy momentumless pseudo-electromagnetic)
    is surrounded by a telepathic ether field to infinity that is massless and moves in lockstep with its particle.

    Again, you miss the point. We're not focusing on your denialism about sub-atomic particles, and your belief that electrons don't exist, or your belief that a pulse of electromagnetic radiation has no momentum, or your belief in infinitely many ethers
    and ghost ethers guiding this fantasy "light", we're focusing on the logical incoherence of your belief on its own terms. Feel free to substitute whatever you belief are the smallest irreducible parts of matter that can emit light, or explain that you
    are claiming ththat light is emitted in irreducible pulses, each of which it emnitted by an irreduicible and indestructible quantity of matter?

    Have you or anyone else actually SEEN an electron?

    Well, old-fashioned television sets with cathode ray tubes had electron guns that shot a stream of electrons toward the scintillating screen. And so on. My point is that you are confessing gradually to more and more denialist beliefs, so you are living
    in a complete fantasy world, where pulses of light have magnetic moments and no momentum but apply pressure but the pressure doesn't impart any momentum, and you deny the existence of inertia, you deny the existence of electrons and all other subatomic
    particles, you both accept and deny lasers (because lasers work fundamentally based on the quantum mechanics of photons, which you reject), and you can't even bring yourself to admit that material objects follow inertial trajectories.

    You think light isn’t electro *magnetic* radiation...

    Light is electromagnetic radiation, but a pulse of light has neither electric charge nor magnetic moment. Again, you are living in a complete fantasy land, in denial of totally mundane facts.

    If you were orbitting the sun at twice the average sun-earth distance but
    still at an orbital speed of 30 ks, then you would still get the same angle of
    aberration, even though it took 16 minutes for the light to go from sun to earth.

    And in that case, how many degrees of orbital motion would that earth subtend
    during the 16 minutes it takes light to reach it from the sun? Think.

    [Again refuses to answer.]

    Why can't you answer that question? We both know why, don't we? It's because the answer is the aberration angle, and you are suffering from cognitive dissonance that prevents you from acknowledging this simple fact.

    If the observer's orbital speed around the sun was 30 ks regardless of its distance
    from the sun would you get the same degree of aberration?

    Of course you would, and [try to concentrate] in each case the sun would appear in the relative direction where it was actually located when the light was emitted. Again, this applies as long as the earth and sun don't significantly change their states
    of relative motion during the transit time of the light. The reason this doesn't cause the components of a binary star system to appear at widely different positions (as your nutty belief predicts) is because they change their states of motion
    significantly during the transit, and the pulses are not affected by the changes in the state of motion of the source after emission. Now do you understand?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Bill on Sat Sep 2 15:45:38 2023
    On Saturday, 2 September 2023 at 22:37:15 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 11:34:39 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    A laser pointer emits a pulse of light into space, and then the laser point
    is disassembled and melted down and vaporized and the atoms are sent >> in many different directions. Which way does the fantasy momentumless >> pulse of magical pseudo-light get dragged?

    You’ve tried this experiment?

    Of course, for example, countless stars have gone supernova and exploded, and the light that we see from them utterly refutes your insane belief. Likewise the light from our own sub is emitted by plasma particles that have kinetic motions at
    extremely high speeds (thousands of degree temperatures), some toward, some away, some transverse to the earth, with not the slightest trace of the bizarre effects that your belief implies. Remember, when this was pointed out to you a couple of weeks ago
    you said Gosh, I never thought of that before! Duh.

    When you ... confirm it contradicts Ritz’s model then you will have evidence to prove Ritz wrong.
    Again, the light from supernovas has conclusively falsified both Ritz's model and your utterly nutty belief. (Don't confuse the two, but both have been falsified, because in this case the material particles emitting the light from different states of
    motion continue in uniuform motion, so there is no post-emission acceleration, so your nutty idea gives the same falsified prediction as rational emitter theory in this particular case.

    Ritz specifically says light will propagate at c relative to source even
    if the source accelerates .
    That is a lie. He says the opposite, as you know ("if it continues in uniform motion"). Basing all your cherished beliefs on blatant falsehoods is not a very good idea.

    Your Wilsonian model is not ether-free, to the contrary, it posits that each material object has its own massless and perfectly rigid ether extending to infinity, and not interfering with anything other than pulses of massless light that are
    emitted from that particle, and even if that particle no longer exists, its ghost-ether continues to move around and drag the distant pulses of light.

    Wow you just haven’t even bothered to read his paper at all.
    I don't think you have written a paper on your nutty idea, nor would any sane person publish such a thing if you did. Again, your belief entails that each irreducible particle of matter (capable of emitting fantasy momentumless pseudo-electromagnetic)
    is surrounded by a telepathic ether field to infinity that is massless and moves in lockstep with its particle.
    Again, you miss the point. We're not focusing on your denialism about sub-atomic particles, and your belief that electrons don't exist, or your belief that a pulse of electromagnetic radiation has no momentum, or your belief in infinitely many
    ethers and ghost ethers guiding this fantasy "light", we're focusing on the logical incoherence of your belief on its own terms. Feel free to substitute whatever you belief are the smallest irreducible parts of matter that can emit light, or explain that
    you are claiming ththat light is emitted in irreducible pulses, each of which it emnitted by an irreduicible and indestructible quantity of matter?

    Have you or anyone else actually SEEN an electron?
    Well, old-fashioned television sets with cathode ray tubes had electron guns that shot a stream of electrons toward the scintillating screen. And so on. My point is that you are confessing gradually to more and more denialist beliefs, so you are living
    in a complete fantasy world, where pulses of light have magnetic moments and no momentum but apply pressure but the pressure doesn't impart any momentum, and you deny the existence of inertia, you deny the existence of electrons and all other subatomic
    particles, you both accept and deny lasers (because lasers work fundamentally based on the quantum mechanics of photons, which you reject), and you can't even bring yourself to admit that material objects follow inertial trajectories.

    You think light isn’t electro *magnetic* radiation...

    Light is electromagnetic radiation, but a pulse of light has neither electric charge nor magnetic moment. Again, you are living in a complete fantasy land, in denial of totally mundane facts.
    If you were orbitting the sun at twice the average sun-earth distance but
    still at an orbital speed of 30 ks, then you would still get the same angle of
    aberration, even though it took 16 minutes for the light to go from sun to earth.

    And in that case, how many degrees of orbital motion would that earth subtend
    during the 16 minutes it takes light to reach it from the sun? Think.

    [Again refuses to answer.]

    Why can't you answer that question? We both know why, don't we? It's because the answer is the aberration angle, and you are suffering from cognitive dissonance that prevents you from acknowledging this simple fact.

    If the observer's orbital speed around the sun was 30 ks regardless of its distance
    from the sun would you get the same degree of aberration?
    Of course you would, and [try to concentrate] in each case the sun would appear in the relative direction where it was actually located when the light was emitted. Again, this applies as long as the earth and sun don't significantly change their states
    of relative motion during the transit time of the light. The reason this doesn't cause the components of a binary star system to appear at widely different positions (as your nutty belief predicts) is because they change their states of motion
    significantly during the transit, and the pulses are not affected by the changes in the state of motion of the source after emission. Now do you understand?

    Answer the question Bill. Emission theory predicts light travels at constant speeds
    c in the source frame. As MMX confirms.
    Where is your evidence to prove that light does not travel at constant speeds in the
    source frame?
    And while you are at it explain why your relativity based SM can’t explain why H atoms
    in the sun are emitting 7 times as much g rays and at far higher energies than is possible under SM. Explain why Muons have just been found to not do as the SM
    predicts or can explain. Explain why the relativity/SM based Big Bang theory just
    failed (again) to predict or even explain why instead of no galaxies at hi redshifts ,...thousands of mature galaxies were observed by JWST. Etc etc.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Sat Sep 2 15:38:12 2023
    On Saturday, 2 September 2023 at 21:13:01 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 9/1/2023 8:37 AM, Lou wrote:
    On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 22:24:05 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 8/30/2023 3:14 PM, Lou wrote:

    Screw your imaginary relativistic inertial coordinate nonsense. There is no such
    thing as an object on an inertial path. All objects in the universe rotate, spiral, revolve,
    accelerate, decelerate etc.

    [...]
    Obviously you understand physics or this emission model I describe.
    Because it doesn’t matter if the sun moves relative to Betelgeuse or the Virgo
    Galaxy cluster. Light will always travel at constant c relative to the sun. So all
    one has to do is place the sun immobile in its own frame. Have light propagate
    away from it isotropically at constant speeds.
    Since you claim there are no inertial coordinates, that means that this >> frame you "place the sun immobile" in is not inertial, so it can
    accelerate. Let's say this necessarily non-inertial frame, after
    emitting light toward the observer, wiggles back and forth, does
    loop-the-loops, figure 8's or whatever. Does the observer see the light >> following the figure 8s so that it appears to come from the sun always, >> or does it come from the place where the sun WAS when the light was emitted?

    OK let’s look,at what we actually observe in deSitters binary star: Let’s focus on one star of the two. We see that the star wobbles around roughly in an *ellipse*. I imagine it’s probably a bit more complex
    than that but an ellipse for sake of argument. The star light also
    is observed to * not pile up*.
    Correct.

    We can simplify things by looking at what happens at two points in the orbit. At one point, one star is on, say, the left side of the other,
    and is moving away from earth at a speed v. The instantaneous inertial source frame of the star is moving away from the earth at a speed v,
    because the star itself is moving away at speed v at that instant. 1/2
    of the orbital period P later, the star is on the right side of the
    other, but is now approaching earth at a speed v. The instantaneous
    inertial source frame of the star is now moving toward the earth at a
    speed v. Obviously, these frames are different, because the star has
    moved non-inertially (it's in orbit).


    Your relativistic inertial nonsense doesn’t cut it. Emission theory
    states that to correctly calculate light speeds...calculate in the source frame.
    Can’t do it ? Thought not. You don’t want to admit deSitter was a liar.


    SR states light travels at c in all inertial frames at c, regardless of
    the motion of the source. If the star is a distance D away, the time the light reaches us will be D/c and D/c+P/2.

    Now the cranks claim the light travels at c-v and c+v respectively, as
    seen on the earth. So the first light pulse will take time D/(c+v) to
    reach us, while the second takes a shorter time, D/(c-v). Earth
    observers will see the first light at time D/(c+v) and the second at
    time D/(c-v) + P/2.


    Problem here with your analysis. If your light pulse was travelling at
    a constant c+-v to get here to earth. It has to be travelling at a variable speed relative to the source. Which ISNT what emission theory predicts.
    And if you tried calculating in the SOURCE FRAME where the earth
    observer rotates. Then you would find that light doesn’t pile up.
    But relativists, like deSitter, are such cowards they know their lies will
    be exposed if they calculated in the source frame.
    So they lie and pretend that emission theory says light travels at variable speeds in the source frame. So as to create the false impression that
    emission theory is refuted.


    DeSitter, being much smarter than the average crank, realized the second pulse is emitted later but would be moving faster than the first. Could
    they arrive at the same time on earth? That would mean solving the
    equation D/(c+v) = (D/(c-v) + P/2). You can do the algebra yourself, but
    the answer is yes, the faster pulse can catch up to the slower pulse
    when both reach earth.

    Try doing your calculation in the source frame.
    Does the light pile up ?
    No
    That’s why you are too scared to even attempt this correct method.
    Don’t talk to me about how to do algebra. You can’t even do basic maths.


    Now, what would this mean? What would we earthlings see? We would see
    both lights at the same time. One red shifted, the other blue shifted.
    If we can resolve the stars we'd see TWO images of the star, once to the left of the other and once to the right of the other.

    I won't try to figure out what would be seen from light emitted between
    the endpoints, but others have described it as a mess.

    Now when looking at *real* binary stars, we see one going round and
    round the other, alternately becoming blue shifted and red shifted, but always one image of the orbiting star, and never both blue shifted and
    red shifted at the same time. Because we see that and not the "pile up" mess, DeSitter showed that light cannot be traveling at c+v and c-v from
    the binary stars, and this invalidates all theories which claim light travels at c+v and c-v.

    Try doing your calculation in the source frame where earth observer
    rotates and emission theory says light always travels at c.
    Can’t do it? Thought not. It would expose deSitters lies.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to Lou on Sat Sep 2 16:56:28 2023
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 3:45:40 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    Emission theory predicts light travels at constant speeds c in
    the source frame.

    Again, emission theory posits, in a Galilean invariant context, that light propagates in vacuum at speed c in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the source was at rest *at the moment of emission*. This is the precise meaning of the
    shorthand phrase "light travels at c in the source frame".

    What appears to have happened is that, many years (decades?) ago, you heard the phrase "moves at c in the source frame", and having no grasp of the concept of inertia or causality or electromagnetism or any other aspect of high school physics, your brain
    imagined a cartoonish world in which there is no distinction between inertial and accelerating trajectories, etc., and you fabricated this silly misunderstanding and devoted your life to it ever since. Very strange... and sad.

    As MMX confirms.

    Again, it suffices for MMX that the light propagates at c in terms of the emitter's frame at the moment of emission, because the emitter does not change it's state of motion appreciably in the short time of transit. This does not in ANY way provide any
    support for your nutty cartoonish belief.

    Where is your evidence to prove that light does not travel at constant speeds in the
    source frame?

    Again, like travels at c in the frame in which the emitter is at rest at the moment of emission, but the pulse is not affected by changing the state of motion of the emitter after the pulse has already been emitted. A multitude of examples of the idiocy
    and incoherence of your belief have already been provided to you.

    Remember, you already agreed that if light has momentum, or if electrons exist, etc., then your belief is wrong. So it suffices to point out that a pulse of light does indeed have inertia, as you yourself have tacitly admitted when you agreed that it
    exerts pressure. If directly pressure is applied to an object floating out in space, are you saying it will not acquire momentum? If this is what you are claiming, then this is yet another example of the fantasy world of invisible pink elephants that
    you reside in.

    Likiewise it suffices to show that electrons do indeed exist (as in the electron guns in your old CRT television set). And so on. You're just fantasizing an alternate pseudo-reality, having nothing to do with the objective world.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Bill on Sat Sep 2 18:31:38 2023
    On Sunday, 3 September 2023 at 00:56:30 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 3:45:40 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    Emission theory predicts light travels at constant speeds c in
    the source frame.
    Again, emission theory posits, in a Galilean invariant context, that light propagates in vacuum at speed c in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the source was at rest *at the moment of emission*. This is the precise meaning of the
    shorthand phrase "light travels at c in the source frame".


    Only if you are a delusional relativist who ignores physics. Emission
    theory says light always travels at c in the source frame. It never claims light
    should travel at variable speeds in the source frame. If you think it does Cite me a paper, post MMX, that claims that under emission theory light
    travels at variable speeds in the source frame.
    I think the only papers you will find that makes this claim will be by a dumbass
    dishonest relativist like deSitter , desperate enough to falsify predictions for
    emission theory.
    Try calculating what happens to light in the source frame for deSitter.
    What happens? The light doesn’t pile up. Neither in the earth frame or
    in the source frame. And guess what? That’s what’s observed.
    Confirming emission theory.

    What appears to have happened is that, many years (decades?) ago, you heard the phrase "moves at c in the source frame", and having no grasp of the concept of inertia or causality or electromagnetism or any other aspect of high school physics, your
    brain imagined a cartoonish world in which there is no distinction between inertial and accelerating trajectories, etc., and you fabricated this silly misunderstanding and devoted your life to it ever since. Very strange... and sad.


    What’s sad is how desperate and dishonest you relativists are.
    You know emission theory is a serious competitor to SR.
    So you pretend that it’s not possible for light to travel at constant
    speeds in the source frame. Ignoring the fact that SR itself says
    this is possible. And ignoring the fact that all observations confirm that light always travels at c in the source frame.
    Very sad.

    As MMX confirms.

    Again, it suffices for MMX that the light propagates at c in terms of the emitter's frame at the moment of emission, because the emitter does not change it's state of motion appreciably in the short time of transit. This does not in ANY way provide any
    support for your nutty cartoonish belief.
    Where is your evidence to prove that light does not travel at constant speeds in the
    source frame?
    Again, like travels at c in the frame in which the emitter is at rest at the moment of emission, but the pulse is not affected by changing the state of motion of the emitter after the pulse has already been emitted. A multitude of examples of the
    idiocy and incoherence of your belief have already been provided to you.


    Where is your evidence that light doesn’t travel at c in the source frame?

    Remember, you already agreed that if light has momentum,

    Light doesn’t have momentum. It is not a particle.
    I’ve said that to you many times. It is a varying magnetic field only.
    And a magnet believe it or not Bill can make another magnet move.
    Without the need for any fantasy particles moving between the two magnets.


    or if electrons exist, etc., then your belief is wrong. So it suffices to point out that a pulse of light does indeed have inertia, as you yourself have tacitly admitted when you agreed that it exerts pressure. If directly pressure is applied to an
    object floating out in space, are you saying it will not acquire momentum? If this is what you are claiming, then this is yet another example of the fantasy world of invisible pink elephants that you reside in.


    Think again Bill. Move the North Pole of one magnet A towards the North Pole of another magnet B floating in space. Contrary to your delusions and lack of understanding of basic physics..the magnet B will be repelled and move away from
    magnet A. No particles or momentum involved. Only magnetic moment.
    And seeing as light is only a self propagating varying magnetic field then lightwaves can exert ‘pressure’ via varying magnetic fields without having any mass.
    But you don’t know even the basics of physics and magnetism. So you will never
    understand.

    Likiewise it suffices to show that electrons do indeed exist (as in the electron guns in your old CRT television set). And so on. You're just fantasizing an alternate pseudo-reality, having nothing to do with the objective world.

    Poor Bill. Thought he saw an electron hitting the screen. Did you see the electron or did you just pretend that you saw the electron?
    Maybe you actually saw a puddy tat? Did you ?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From patdolan@21:1/5 to Lou on Sat Sep 2 18:56:02 2023
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 6:31:40 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    On Sunday, 3 September 2023 at 00:56:30 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 3:45:40 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    Emission theory predicts light travels at constant speeds c in
    the source frame.
    Again, emission theory posits, in a Galilean invariant context, that light propagates in vacuum at speed c in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the source was at rest *at the moment of emission*. This is the precise meaning of the
    shorthand phrase "light travels at c in the source frame".

    Only if you are a delusional relativist who ignores physics. Emission
    theory says light always travels at c in the source frame. It never claims light
    should travel at variable speeds in the source frame. If you think it does Cite me a paper, post MMX, that claims that under emission theory light travels at variable speeds in the source frame.
    I think the only papers you will find that makes this claim will be by a dumbass
    dishonest relativist like deSitter , desperate enough to falsify predictions for
    emission theory.
    Try calculating what happens to light in the source frame for deSitter.
    What happens? The light doesn’t pile up. Neither in the earth frame or
    in the source frame. And guess what? That’s what’s observed.
    Confirming emission theory.
    What appears to have happened is that, many years (decades?) ago, you heard the phrase "moves at c in the source frame", and having no grasp of the concept of inertia or causality or electromagnetism or any other aspect of high school physics, your
    brain imagined a cartoonish world in which there is no distinction between inertial and accelerating trajectories, etc., and you fabricated this silly misunderstanding and devoted your life to it ever since. Very strange... and sad.

    What’s sad is how desperate and dishonest you relativists are.
    You know emission theory is a serious competitor to SR.
    So you pretend that it’s not possible for light to travel at constant speeds in the source frame. Ignoring the fact that SR itself says
    this is possible. And ignoring the fact that all observations confirm that light always travels at c in the source frame.
    Very sad.
    As MMX confirms.

    Again, it suffices for MMX that the light propagates at c in terms of the emitter's frame at the moment of emission, because the emitter does not change it's state of motion appreciably in the short time of transit. This does not in ANY way provide
    any support for your nutty cartoonish belief.
    Where is your evidence to prove that light does not travel at constant speeds in the
    source frame?
    Again, like travels at c in the frame in which the emitter is at rest at the moment of emission, but the pulse is not affected by changing the state of motion of the emitter after the pulse has already been emitted. A multitude of examples of the
    idiocy and incoherence of your belief have already been provided to you.

    Where is your evidence that light doesn’t travel at c in the source frame?
    Remember, you already agreed that if light has momentum,
    Light doesn’t have momentum. It is not a particle.
    I’ve said that to you many times. It is a varying magnetic field only.
    And a magnet believe it or not Bill can make another magnet move.
    Without the need for any fantasy particles moving between the two magnets.
    or if electrons exist, etc., then your belief is wrong. So it suffices to point out that a pulse of light does indeed have inertia, as you yourself have tacitly admitted when you agreed that it exerts pressure. If directly pressure is applied to an
    object floating out in space, are you saying it will not acquire momentum? If this is what you are claiming, then this is yet another example of the fantasy world of invisible pink elephants that you reside in.

    Think again Bill. Move the North Pole of one magnet A towards the North Pole of another magnet B floating in space. Contrary to your delusions and lack of
    understanding of basic physics..the magnet B will be repelled and move away from
    magnet A. No particles or momentum involved. Only magnetic moment.
    And seeing as light is only a self propagating varying magnetic field then lightwaves can exert ‘pressure’ via varying magnetic fields without having any mass.
    But you don’t know even the basics of physics and magnetism. So you will never
    understand.
    Likiewise it suffices to show that electrons do indeed exist (as in the electron guns in your old CRT television set). And so on. You're just fantasizing an alternate pseudo-reality, having nothing to do with the objective world.
    Poor Bill. Thought he saw an electron hitting the screen. Did you see the electron or did you just pretend that you saw the electron?
    Maybe you actually saw a puddy tat? Did you ?
    Lou, I see where you and Legion's exchange touched on De Sitter. I would be interested in hearing the emission theory explanation of the De Sitter double star situation, sometime.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to Lou on Sat Sep 2 19:50:24 2023
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 6:31:40 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    Emission theory says light always travels at c in the source frame.

    Again, emission theory posits, in a Galilean invariant context, that light propagates in vacuum at speed c in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the source was at rest *at the moment of emission*. This is the meaning of the shorthand
    phrase "light travels at c in the source frame".

    It never claims light should travel at variable speeds in the source frame.

    Right, the "source frame" meaning the inertial coordinates in which the source was at rest at the moment of emission. In contrast, your nutty belief is that light has no momentum, even though it exerts pressure, so you are living in a self-contradictory
    fantasy world. You can't even admit to the existence of inertia. Your belief is completely nutty.

    What appears to have happened is that, many years (perhaps decades?) ago, you heard the phrase "moves at c in the source frame", and having no grasp of the concept of inertia or causality or electromagnetism or any other aspect of high school physics,
    your brain imagined a cartoonish world in which there is no distinction between inertial and accelerating trajectories, etc., and you fabricated this silly misunderstanding and devoted your life to it ever since. Very strange... and sad.

    You know emission theory is a serious competitor to SR.

    We're not talking about emission theory, we are talking about your completely nutty belief. If you wanted to talk about emission theory, then emission per se really isn't the issue, because there are Galilean emission theories and Lorentzian emission
    theories. Modern science in quantum electrodynamics is a Lorentz invariant emission theory, in the sense that light always propagates continually in vacuum at speed c in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the emitter was, at the moment of
    emission, at rest. But it also successfully incorporates the wave-like behavior of light. If you were genuinely interested in understanding this, you would learn about it... but clearly you are not.

    Where is your evidence that light doesn’t travel at c in the source frame?

    Again, a pulse of light always travels at c in the frame in which the emitter was, at the moment of emission, at rest. What you stupidly call a "source frame" is not a frame at all. What you meant to ask is for evidence that a pulse of light has
    momentum, but there is an abundance of empirical evidence for this. In fact, you have already admitted it is true, because you conceed that light exerts pressure. So your beliefs are self-contradictory.

    Remember, you already agreed that if light has momentum...

    Light doesn’t have momentum. It is not a particle.

    Your brain seems to imagine that if something is not a material particle it cannot have momentum, but Ritz and every other sentient being knows that you are wrong. Classically light has momentum, which it must in order to exert pressure, which you have
    admitted it does.

    Light is a varying magnetic field only.

    Ah, so we've identified yet another fantasy... you believe electromagnetic radiation consists only of magnetic fields. LOL. Look, this is getting to be so absurd that it is truly bizarre. So now you are asking for evidence that electromagnetic field
    include an electric component. Sheesh.

    Likewise it suffices to show that electrons do indeed exist (as in the electron guns in your old CRT television set). And so on. You're just fantasizing an alternate pseudo-reality, having nothing to do with the objective world.

    Did you see the electron or did you just pretend that you saw the electron?

    We're just tabulating all of your denialist lunacies. "No such thing as electrons". LOL.

    If the observer's orbital speed around the sun was 30 ks regardless of its distance
    from the sun would you get the same degree of aberration?

    Of course you would, and [try to concentrate] in each case the sun would appear in the relative direction where it was actually located when the light was emitted. Again, this applies as long as the earth and sun don't significantly change their states
    of relative motion during the transit time of the light. The reason this doesn't cause the components of a binary star system to appear at widely different positions (as your nutty belief predicts) is because although they change their states of motion
    significantly during the transit, the pulses are not affected by the changes in the state of motion of the source after emission. Now do you understand?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Sun Sep 3 01:18:53 2023
    On 9/2/2023 6:38 PM, Lou wrote:
    On Saturday, 2 September 2023 at 21:13:01 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 9/1/2023 8:37 AM, Lou wrote:
    On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 22:24:05 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 8/30/2023 3:14 PM, Lou wrote:

    Screw your imaginary relativistic inertial coordinate nonsense. There is no such
    thing as an object on an inertial path. All objects in the universe rotate, spiral, revolve,
    accelerate, decelerate etc.

    [...]
    Obviously you understand physics or this emission model I describe.
    Because it doesn’t matter if the sun moves relative to Betelgeuse or the Virgo
    Galaxy cluster. Light will always travel at constant c relative to the sun. So all
    one has to do is place the sun immobile in its own frame. Have light propagate
    away from it isotropically at constant speeds.
    Since you claim there are no inertial coordinates, that means that this >>>> frame you "place the sun immobile" in is not inertial, so it can
    accelerate. Let's say this necessarily non-inertial frame, after
    emitting light toward the observer, wiggles back and forth, does
    loop-the-loops, figure 8's or whatever. Does the observer see the light >>>> following the figure 8s so that it appears to come from the sun always, >>>> or does it come from the place where the sun WAS when the light was emitted?

    OK let’s look,at what we actually observe in deSitters binary star:
    Let’s focus on one star of the two. We see that the star wobbles around >>> roughly in an *ellipse*. I imagine it’s probably a bit more complex
    than that but an ellipse for sake of argument. The star light also
    is observed to * not pile up*.
    Correct.

    We can simplify things by looking at what happens at two points in the
    orbit. At one point, one star is on, say, the left side of the other,
    and is moving away from earth at a speed v. The instantaneous inertial
    source frame of the star is moving away from the earth at a speed v,
    because the star itself is moving away at speed v at that instant. 1/2
    of the orbital period P later, the star is on the right side of the
    other, but is now approaching earth at a speed v. The instantaneous
    inertial source frame of the star is now moving toward the earth at a
    speed v. Obviously, these frames are different, because the star has
    moved non-inertially (it's in orbit).


    Your relativistic inertial nonsense doesn’t cut it. Emission theory
    states that to correctly calculate light speeds...calculate in the source frame.

    Which one?

    Can’t do it ? Thought not.

    Which source frame? The star as it recedes or the star as it approaches?

    You don’t want to admit deSitter was a liar.


    SR states light travels at c in all inertial frames at c, regardless of
    the motion of the source. If the star is a distance D away, the time the
    light reaches us will be D/c and D/c+P/2.

    Now the cranks claim the light travels at c-v and c+v respectively, as
    seen on the earth. So the first light pulse will take time D/(c+v) to
    reach us, while the second takes a shorter time, D/(c-v). Earth
    observers will see the first light at time D/(c+v) and the second at
    time D/(c-v) + P/2.


    Problem here with your analysis. If your light pulse was travelling at
    a constant c+-v to get here to earth. It has to be travelling at a variable speed relative to the source.

    Say what? It travels at c+v or c-v, according to the cranks. v was
    constant at the moment of emission so the speed is purportedly c+v or c-v.

    Which ISNT what emission theory predicts.
    And if you tried calculating in the SOURCE FRAME

    Which source frame? I simplified things to two frames even if there
    really are an infinite number of them.

    where the earth
    observer rotates.

    You are talking about the earth's rotation now? How does that factor in?

    Then you would find that light doesn’t pile up.

    I explained how light piles up when the fast (c+v) later light catches
    up to the slow (c-v) earlier light.

    DeSitter, being much smarter than the average crank, realized the second
    pulse is emitted later but would be moving faster than the first. Could
    they arrive at the same time on earth? That would mean solving the
    equation D/(c+v) = (D/(c-v) + P/2). You can do the algebra yourself, but
    the answer is yes, the faster pulse can catch up to the slower pulse
    when both reach earth.

    Try doing your calculation in the source frame.

    Which source frame?

    Does the light pile up ?
    No

    Yes.

    That’s why you are too scared to even attempt this correct method.
    Don’t talk to me about how to do algebra. You can’t even do basic maths.


    Now, what would this mean? What would we earthlings see? We would see
    both lights at the same time. One red shifted, the other blue shifted.
    If we can resolve the stars we'd see TWO images of the star, once to the
    left of the other and once to the right of the other.

    I won't try to figure out what would be seen from light emitted between
    the endpoints, but others have described it as a mess.

    Now when looking at *real* binary stars, we see one going round and
    round the other, alternately becoming blue shifted and red shifted, but
    always one image of the orbiting star, and never both blue shifted and
    red shifted at the same time. Because we see that and not the "pile up"
    mess, DeSitter showed that light cannot be traveling at c+v and c-v from
    the binary stars, and this invalidates all theories which claim light
    travels at c+v and c-v.

    Try doing your calculation in the source frame where earth observer
    rotates and emission theory says light always travels at c.

    Again, which source frame?

    And earth rotating? How does that factor in? Earth revolving around the
    sun? I hope you don't mean an effect of the star's orbiting...(looks at
    earlier posts)...oh dear, I see what Bill means about your 'utterly
    nutty belief' where you seem to believe waving a flashlight around
    affects the light it emitted earlier, and moving the star around in its
    orbit also affects the light the star emitted earlier.

    Can’t do it? Thought not. It would expose deSitters lies.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Sep 3 02:16:35 2023
    On Sunday, 3 September 2023 at 06:18:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 9/2/2023 6:38 PM, Lou wrote:
    On Saturday, 2 September 2023 at 21:13:01 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 9/1/2023 8:37 AM, Lou wrote:
    On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 22:24:05 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 8/30/2023 3:14 PM, Lou wrote:

    Screw your imaginary relativistic inertial coordinate nonsense. There is no such
    thing as an object on an inertial path. All objects in the universe rotate, spiral, revolve,
    accelerate, decelerate etc.

    [...]
    Obviously you understand physics or this emission model I describe. >>>>> Because it doesn’t matter if the sun moves relative to Betelgeuse or the Virgo
    Galaxy cluster. Light will always travel at constant c relative to the sun. So all
    one has to do is place the sun immobile in its own frame. Have light propagate
    away from it isotropically at constant speeds.
    Since you claim there are no inertial coordinates, that means that this >>>> frame you "place the sun immobile" in is not inertial, so it can
    accelerate. Let's say this necessarily non-inertial frame, after
    emitting light toward the observer, wiggles back and forth, does
    loop-the-loops, figure 8's or whatever. Does the observer see the light >>>> following the figure 8s so that it appears to come from the sun always, >>>> or does it come from the place where the sun WAS when the light was emitted?

    OK let’s look,at what we actually observe in deSitters binary star: >>> Let’s focus on one star of the two. We see that the star wobbles around
    roughly in an *ellipse*. I imagine it’s probably a bit more complex >>> than that but an ellipse for sake of argument. The star light also
    is observed to * not pile up*.
    Correct.

    We can simplify things by looking at what happens at two points in the
    orbit. At one point, one star is on, say, the left side of the other,
    and is moving away from earth at a speed v. The instantaneous inertial
    source frame of the star is moving away from the earth at a speed v,
    because the star itself is moving away at speed v at that instant. 1/2
    of the orbital period P later, the star is on the right side of the
    other, but is now approaching earth at a speed v. The instantaneous
    inertial source frame of the star is now moving toward the earth at a
    speed v. Obviously, these frames are different, because the star has
    moved non-inertially (it's in orbit).


    Your relativistic inertial nonsense doesn’t cut it. Emission theory states that to correctly calculate light speeds...calculate in the source frame.
    Which one?

    Nice try. How many source frames are there in MMX as it
    rotates around the earths axis?
    1

    Can’t do it ? Thought not.
    Which source frame? The star as it recedes or the star as it approaches?

    Nice try. How many frames is the MMX setup in as it rotates around the earths axis?
    And if you pretend it’s more than one...then how is it that SR treats it as one lab frame ?


    You don’t want to admit deSitter was a liar.


    SR states light travels at c in all inertial frames at c, regardless of >> the motion of the source. If the star is a distance D away, the time the >> light reaches us will be D/c and D/c+P/2. ,

    Now the cranks claim the light travels at c-v and c+v respectively, as
    seen on the earth. So the first light pulse will take time D/(c+v) to
    reach us, while the second takes a shorter time, D/(c-v). Earth
    observers will see the first light at time D/(c+v) and the second at
    time D/(c-v) + P/2.


    Problem here with your analysis. If your light pulse was travelling at
    a constant c+-v to get here to earth. It has to be travelling at a variable
    speed relative to the source.
    Say what? It travels at c+v or c-v, according to the cranks. v was
    constant at the moment of emission so the speed is purportedly c+v or c-v.

    Imagine your light leaving a point on one of your binary stars and heading
    up directly towards the earth observer..
    Now..Do the same on earth. Have light leave a laser as you stand beside it. (Barring atmospheric extinction) DeSitter and you say that the light in the beam slows down and speeds up as it travels away from your laser.
    Yet MMX, and the lunar ranging experiment show no such variability
    in light speed. And it takes 2.6 seconds round trip so you can’t pretend
    that no appreciable rotation of earth occurs during the round trip as relativists pretend with MMX.

    DeSitter, being much smarter than the average crank, realized the second >> pulse is emitted later but would be moving faster than the first. Could >> they arrive at the same time on earth? That would mean solving the
    equation D/(c+v) = (D/(c-v) + P/2). You can do the algebra yourself, but >> the answer is yes, the faster pulse can catch up to the slower pulse
    when both reach earth.

    Try doing your calculation in the source frame.
    Which source frame?

    Choose one one of the two stars. Obviously each star
    is a seperate source. And if you are desperate...choose one atom
    on that star.

    Does the light pile up ?
    No
    Yes.

    Where’s your evidence?
    No such piling up occurs. Looks like emission theory has been
    Confirmed by observation.

    Try doing your calculation in the source frame where earth observer rotates and emission theory says light always travels at c.
    Again, which source frame?

    Use either star.

    And earth rotating? How does that factor in? Earth revolving around the
    sun? I hope you don't mean an effect of the star's orbiting...(looks at earlier posts)...oh dear, I see what Bill means about your 'utterly
    nutty belief' where you seem to believe waving a flashlight around
    affects the light it emitted earlier, and moving the star around in its orbit also affects the light the star emitted earlier.

    Looks like you and Bill still haven’t any evidence to refute Ritzian
    emission theory. Seeing as emission theory so far...correctly predicts
    no piling up of light from binary stars, Sagnac, Lunar Ranging, MMX,
    Ives Stillwell, Filipas Fox. Etc
    Oh Well I suppose that doesn’t matter to relativists. You guys don’t
    like dara and observations. It always refutes relativity.
    After all your Relativity/Standard model concoctions can’t explain why
    solar Hydrogen emits 7 times more radiation and far more energetic g rays
    than can be explained theoretically. Can’t explain thousands of mature galaxies
    in early universe when your theories say there should be none, can’t explain recent behaviour of muons not acting like muons etc etc etc.
    I think the real problem you guys have is you know a Ritzian emission model
    is better than SR, and not as ridiculous or as counter intuitive as magic action
    at a distance, constant speeds in all frames, and having trillions upon trillions of galaxy mass condensed into a space smaller than an atom.
    So you pretend an emission theory which correctly predicts all known observations
    isn’t acceptable physics.😂🤣

    Can’t do it? Thought not. It would expose deSitters lies.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to patdolan on Sun Sep 3 02:57:24 2023
    On Sunday, 3 September 2023 at 02:56:04 UTC+1, patdolan wrote:
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 6:31:40 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    On Sunday, 3 September 2023 at 00:56:30 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
    On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 3:45:40 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    Emission theory predicts light travels at constant speeds c in
    the source frame.
    Again, emission theory posits, in a Galilean invariant context, that light propagates in vacuum at speed c in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the source was at rest *at the moment of emission*. This is the precise meaning of the
    shorthand phrase "light travels at c in the source frame".

    Only if you are a delusional relativist who ignores physics. Emission theory says light always travels at c in the source frame. It never claims light
    should travel at variable speeds in the source frame. If you think it does Cite me a paper, post MMX, that claims that under emission theory light travels at variable speeds in the source frame.
    I think the only papers you will find that makes this claim will be by a dumbass
    dishonest relativist like deSitter , desperate enough to falsify predictions for
    emission theory.
    Try calculating what happens to light in the source frame for deSitter. What happens? The light doesn’t pile up. Neither in the earth frame or in the source frame. And guess what? That’s what’s observed. Confirming emission theory.
    What appears to have happened is that, many years (decades?) ago, you heard the phrase "moves at c in the source frame", and having no grasp of the concept of inertia or causality or electromagnetism or any other aspect of high school physics, your
    brain imagined a cartoonish world in which there is no distinction between inertial and accelerating trajectories, etc., and you fabricated this silly misunderstanding and devoted your life to it ever since. Very strange... and sad.

    What’s sad is how desperate and dishonest you relativists are.
    You know emission theory is a serious competitor to SR.
    So you pretend that it’s not possible for light to travel at constant speeds in the source frame. Ignoring the fact that SR itself says
    this is possible. And ignoring the fact that all observations confirm that light always travels at c in the source frame.
    Very sad.
    As MMX confirms.

    Again, it suffices for MMX that the light propagates at c in terms of the emitter's frame at the moment of emission, because the emitter does not change it's state of motion appreciably in the short time of transit. This does not in ANY way provide
    any support for your nutty cartoonish belief.
    Where is your evidence to prove that light does not travel at constant speeds in the
    source frame?
    Again, like travels at c in the frame in which the emitter is at rest at the moment of emission, but the pulse is not affected by changing the state of motion of the emitter after the pulse has already been emitted. A multitude of examples of the
    idiocy and incoherence of your belief have already been provided to you.

    Where is your evidence that light doesn’t travel at c in the source frame?
    Remember, you already agreed that if light has momentum,
    Light doesn’t have momentum. It is not a particle.
    I’ve said that to you many times. It is a varying magnetic field only. And a magnet believe it or not Bill can make another magnet move.
    Without the need for any fantasy particles moving between the two magnets.
    or if electrons exist, etc., then your belief is wrong. So it suffices to point out that a pulse of light does indeed have inertia, as you yourself have tacitly admitted when you agreed that it exerts pressure. If directly pressure is applied to an
    object floating out in space, are you saying it will not acquire momentum? If this is what you are claiming, then this is yet another example of the fantasy world of invisible pink elephants that you reside in.

    Think again Bill. Move the North Pole of one magnet A towards the North Pole
    of another magnet B floating in space. Contrary to your delusions and lack of
    understanding of basic physics..the magnet B will be repelled and move away from
    magnet A. No particles or momentum involved. Only magnetic moment.
    And seeing as light is only a self propagating varying magnetic field then lightwaves can exert ‘pressure’ via varying magnetic fields without having any mass.
    But you don’t know even the basics of physics and magnetism. So you will never
    understand.
    Likiewise it suffices to show that electrons do indeed exist (as in the electron guns in your old CRT television set). And so on. You're just fantasizing an alternate pseudo-reality, having nothing to do with the objective world.
    Poor Bill. Thought he saw an electron hitting the screen. Did you see the electron or did you just pretend that you saw the electron?
    Maybe you actually saw a puddy tat? Did you ?
    Lou, I see where you and Legion's exchange touched on De Sitter. I would be interested in hearing the emission theory explanation of the De Sitter double star situation, sometime.

    If you read Ritz’s 1908 paper he says a few very important things. He like Einstein
    and all other theorists of the day knew that the MMX null result was a paradigm moment in physics. Because it could not be explained with any ether model.
    It showed that light propagated away from the source, reflected at mirrors and travelled back to the interference plane on both paths at the same speed.
    Light appeared to propagate in this source frame isotropically regardless
    of the labs motion around earths axis, around sun, around galaxy core.
    Yet ether theory said one path should have been at a different speed.
    !
    So Einstein and Ritz, both close friends who met up and talked frequently
    had to develop theoretical explanations for this. As you know Einstein
    did his version where he gave each observer their own entrained ether
    and performed this sleight of hand by falsifying the data with a
    mathematical translation.
    Ritz, being the better theorist, understood that what was actually
    happening in MMX was that light travelled away from any source at constant speeds isotropically. Regardless of the sources motion relative to
    the rest of the universe. So he began to work on a final paper
    outlining this new approach to physics in a preliminary 1908 paper
    part of which is here in an English trans. http://www.shadetreephysics.com/crit/Ritz-CML.pdf
    In this 1908 article he says that emission theory must ditch any ether.
    He says it must be a wave only model of light. No particles. It
    must have light always travelling away from source at c. And to
    do so he knew he had a huge job ahead of him because unlike Einstein
    who cherry picked and fudged his way by keeping theories by Hertz,
    Lorentz, Maxwell, ...Ritz knew all these theories were based on the assumption that there was an ether.
    In other words to prove that light always travelled at c relative to a source even if it moved in a circle relative to another object....he had to basically ditch pretty well every notable theory on atoms electricity and light
    up till 1908 because they all were ether based theories. And rewrite policy them.
    A massive task. But he died soon after in 1909
    And scum like deSitter took advantage of this and made up imaginary
    effects that Ritzs ether free model does not predict. Like light piling
    up. But Ritz specifies on page 151 that he was going to accommodate acceleration in his emission model. Ie...rotation of the source.
    Unfortunately Ritz wasn’t alive to defend his proposals.
    And as sh*t floats to the top...so did DeSitters and Einsteins theories.

    Because a Ritzian ether free wave model of light has no photons
    with mass, and no ether. So one can calculate light speed in the
    source frame where the earth observer rotates. Get no piling up
    and confirm what MMX already tells us....that light is like gravity.
    Light that’s already left the source appears to be “dragged” around
    by the source after its left. Not rotated. Just dragged. Just like a
    Newtonian gravitational field. It can’t be rotated, but it will always
    be static in the source frame. And always appear to be dragged
    (to any low IQ relativist observer) in another frame.
    In other words Ritz said that if you shine a brief lightbeam pulse
    towards a distant point in the universe. That wave will always
    travel towards that distant spot. It can’t get rotated after its left the source
    if the source rotates . But it WILL appear to get dragged around by the source in any other observer frame. This is an illusion though.
    As in the source frame , as in MMX , the source doesn’t move...the
    observer in another frame rotates. Which is the problem that low IQ relativists have. They can’t stand a competing model like this. So they pretend
    that Ritz said that light travels at variable speeds in the source frame.
    This is an outright lie from a pack of pathalogical liars.
    Because Ritz specified very clearly that his model must have light
    * propagate away * from the source at c. Not just at c at the moment
    it left. But *always travel away* from the source at a constant speed c.

    And not only does this type emission model correctly model light from binary stars.
    It can correctly model Lunar ranging, MMX, Sagnac, Filipas Fox,
    Ives Stillwell etc etc etc.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to Lou on Sun Sep 3 09:00:54 2023
    On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 2:57:27 AM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    The MMX null result could not be explained with any ether model.

    You are mistaken. For example, Lorentz explained it with his ether model.

    Light appeared to propagate in this source frame isotropically regardless
    of the labs motion around earths axis, around sun, around galaxy core.
    Yet ether theory said one path should have been at a different speed !

    Again, the null MMX result is entirely consistent with Lorentz's ether theory, as explained in Lorentz's 1904 paper, and in Poincare's follow-up paper, and Lorentz's subsequent writings. Note that the Lorentz contraction was not
    an ad hoc assumption, he simply overlooked this consequence of the laws
    of electrodynamics in his previous paper.

    Einstein gave each observer their own entrained ether ...

    No, you have the backwards. Einstein's account dispenses with ether and is based solidly on the principle of inertia, creating a Lorentz-invariant emission
    theory (in effect), combining Galileo's principle of relativity with the recognition
    that energy has inertia. It was Ritz who suggested (vaguely, he didn't actually
    develop a theory) the somewhat strange idea that each time a pulse of light
    is emitted a new inertial ether is created, and thereafter that pulse propagates at c in that ether, even after interacting with other mirrors and particles, etc.

    *Your* belief is even nuttier that Ritz's, because your multiple ethers
    are dragged eternally and telepathically in lockstep with the source
    object, even if the source object no longer exists (ghost ethers), and you deny that light has momentum, and you deny pulses follow inertial
    trajectories and you deny the existence of electrons and you deny that electromagnetic fields have an electric component, and so on.

    He says it must be a wave only model of light. No particles.

    Well, it was already clear in 1900 with Planck's work on black body
    radiation, and especially by 1905 with Einstein's work on the photo-electric effect that the classical wave model of electromagnetic radiation was inadequate to account for all the phenomena. In quantum electrodynamics
    the wave-like and the particle-like attributes of light are accurately represented. This confirms, among other things, that the phenomena
    of physics are Lorentz invariant.

    To prove that light always travelled at c relative to a source
    even if it moved in a circle relative to another object....he had to basically
    ditch pretty well every notable theory on atoms electricity and light ...

    Ritz did not claim that a pulse of light in vacuum could move in a circle relative to some other object, because he was not crazy enough to suggest
    your completely idiotic idea that the ether is dragged in lockstep with an accelerating source AFTER the pulse has been emitted, nor did he insanely
    deny that light conveys momentum, etc. But yes, his suggestions did
    entail the rejection of much of classical science, and would only have
    created far more problems than it solved. Again, it is not the same as
    your belief, which is like Ritz on crack.

    And scum like deSitter took advantage of this and made up imaginary
    effects that Ritzs ether free model does not predict.

    Not true. Ritz's suggestion clearly entails the effect that deSitter looked for, i.e., the phases of light from binary star components would pass each other and get all scrambled up if Ritz's suggestion applied. Of course,
    if you had suggested YOUR crazy idea, deSitter would have pointed out
    all the things wrong with it, including (but not limited to) the 800" offset between the positions of binary components, etc.

    Ritz specifies on page 151 that he was going to accommodate
    acceleration in his emission model. Ie...rotation of the source.

    No, that is a gross mis-reading. In fact, when Ritz discusses this issue
    he explicitly states that the source remains at the center of the expanding wave ONLY if it continues in uniform motion, and at no point in the paper
    does he retract that statement. The mention of acceleration on page 151
    has absolutelyt nothing to do with this, and your dishonest attribution
    of your nutjob belief to Ritz, who cannot defend himself, is simply disagraceful.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Bill on Sun Sep 3 10:40:13 2023
    On Sunday, 3 September 2023 at 18:00:56 UTC+2, Bill wrote:

    No, you have the backwards. Einstein's account dispenses with ether and is based solidly on the principle of inertia,

    A pity that his insane mumble was not even consistent.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Sun Sep 3 17:02:04 2023
    On 9/3/2023 5:16 AM, Lou wrote:
    On Sunday, 3 September 2023 at 06:18:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 9/2/2023 6:38 PM, Lou wrote:
    On Saturday, 2 September 2023 at 21:13:01 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 9/1/2023 8:37 AM, Lou wrote:
    On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 22:24:05 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 8/30/2023 3:14 PM, Lou wrote:

    Screw your imaginary relativistic inertial coordinate nonsense. There is no such
    thing as an object on an inertial path. All objects in the universe rotate, spiral, revolve,
    accelerate, decelerate etc.

    [...]
    Obviously you understand physics or this emission model I describe. >>>>>>> Because it doesn’t matter if the sun moves relative to Betelgeuse or the Virgo
    Galaxy cluster. Light will always travel at constant c relative to the sun. So all
    one has to do is place the sun immobile in its own frame. Have light propagate
    away from it isotropically at constant speeds.
    Since you claim there are no inertial coordinates, that means that this >>>>>> frame you "place the sun immobile" in is not inertial, so it can
    accelerate. Let's say this necessarily non-inertial frame, after
    emitting light toward the observer, wiggles back and forth, does
    loop-the-loops, figure 8's or whatever. Does the observer see the light >>>>>> following the figure 8s so that it appears to come from the sun always, >>>>>> or does it come from the place where the sun WAS when the light was emitted?

    OK let’s look,at what we actually observe in deSitters binary star: >>>>> Let’s focus on one star of the two. We see that the star wobbles around >>>>> roughly in an *ellipse*. I imagine it’s probably a bit more complex >>>>> than that but an ellipse for sake of argument. The star light also
    is observed to * not pile up*.
    Correct.

    We can simplify things by looking at what happens at two points in the >>>> orbit. At one point, one star is on, say, the left side of the other,
    and is moving away from earth at a speed v. The instantaneous inertial >>>> source frame of the star is moving away from the earth at a speed v,
    because the star itself is moving away at speed v at that instant. 1/2 >>>> of the orbital period P later, the star is on the right side of the
    other, but is now approaching earth at a speed v. The instantaneous
    inertial source frame of the star is now moving toward the earth at a
    speed v. Obviously, these frames are different, because the star has
    moved non-inertially (it's in orbit).


    Your relativistic inertial nonsense doesn’t cut it. Emission theory
    states that to correctly calculate light speeds...calculate in the source frame.

    Which one?

    Nice try. How many source frames are there in MMX as it
    rotates around the earths axis?

    One.

    Can’t do it ? Thought not.

    Which source frame? The star as it recedes or the star as it approaches?

    Nice try. How many frames is the MMX setup in as it rotates around the earths axis?

    One, since the rotation of the earth in a few nanoseconds is much, much
    less than other sources of error.

    And if you pretend it’s more than one...then how is it that SR treats it as one lab frame ?

    It is perfectly acceptable to write off errors far too small to affect
    the outcome.

    SR states light travels at c in all inertial frames at c, regardless of >>>> the motion of the source. If the star is a distance D away, the time the >>>> light reaches us will be D/c and D/c+P/2. ,

    Now the cranks claim the light travels at c-v and c+v respectively, as >>>> seen on the earth. So the first light pulse will take time D/(c+v) to
    reach us, while the second takes a shorter time, D/(c-v). Earth
    observers will see the first light at time D/(c+v) and the second at
    time D/(c-v) + P/2.


    Problem here with your analysis. If your light pulse was travelling at
    a constant c+-v to get here to earth. It has to be travelling at a variable >>> speed relative to the source.

    Say what? It travels at c+v or c-v, according to the cranks. v was
    constant at the moment of emission so the speed is purportedly c+v or c-v.

    Imagine your light leaving a point on one of your binary stars and heading
    up directly towards the earth observer..
    Now..Do the same on earth. Have light leave a laser as you stand beside it. (Barring atmospheric extinction) DeSitter and you say that the light in the beam slows down and speeds up as it travels away from your laser.

    Say what? I believe in constant speed of light c. DeSitter concluded
    that the speed of light must not be affected by the source's velocity
    otherwise light would bunch up, so concluded the speed of light was
    constant.

    Yet MMX, and the lunar ranging experiment show no such variability
    in light speed.

    Proving deSitter and Einstein were correct.

    And it takes 2.6 seconds round trip so you can’t pretend
    that no appreciable rotation of earth occurs during the round trip as relativists pretend with MMX.

    Lunar ranging could be modeled as light moving along two sides of a thin triangle A B C, where A is the source laser, B the lunar reflector, C
    the detector. The times the light pulse is at A B C are the only times
    which matter. The position of the detector C has to account for the
    earth rotating 2𝜋*(2.6/86400) rotations times the distance that
    latitude rotates and the angles to the moon. Lots of algebra, but easy
    peasy.

    DeSitter, being much smarter than the average crank, realized the second >>>> pulse is emitted later but would be moving faster than the first. Could >>>> they arrive at the same time on earth? That would mean solving the
    equation D/(c+v) = (D/(c-v) + P/2). You can do the algebra yourself, but >>>> the answer is yes, the faster pulse can catch up to the slower pulse
    when both reach earth.

    Try doing your calculation in the source frame.

    Which source frame?

    Choose one one of the two stars. Obviously each star
    is a seperate source. And if you are desperate...choose one atom
    on that star.

    Is that the frame where the star is receding from earth or approaching
    earth?
    What about the other light pulse?

    Does the light pile up ?
    No

    Yes.

    Where’s your evidence?

    Solve the equation where D/(c+v) = D/(c-v) + P/2. That's the time when
    the two lights reach earth at the same time.

    No such piling up occurs. Looks like emission theory has been
    Confirmed by observation.

    The above refutes it.

    Try doing your calculation in the source frame where earth observer
    rotates and emission theory says light always travels at c.

    Again, which source frame?

    Use either star.

    Which source frame? When the star approaches or recedes?

    [bla bla bla]

    It's obvious that you are accusing Bill/Ritz of believing what you
    yourself believe in. That is, the star as it wiggles back and forth/goes
    round and round the other star makes the already emitted light wiggle
    and change speed. It is you who believes wiggling the flashlight causes
    the already emitted light to be affected.

    But I am late to this subthread. Convince me why the orbiting of the
    star magically changes the speed of light previously emitted from it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Sep 4 06:01:50 2023
    On Sunday, 3 September 2023 at 22:02:08 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 9/3/2023 5:16 AM, Lou wrote:
    On Sunday, 3 September 2023 at 06:18:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 9/2/2023 6:38 PM, Lou wrote:
    On Saturday, 2 September 2023 at 21:13:01 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 9/1/2023 8:37 AM, Lou wrote:
    On Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 22:24:05 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 8/30/2023 3:14 PM, Lou wrote:

    Screw your imaginary relativistic inertial coordinate nonsense. There is no such
    thing as an object on an inertial path. All objects in the universe rotate, spiral, revolve,
    accelerate, decelerate etc.

    [...]
    Obviously you understand physics or this emission model I describe. >>>>>>> Because it doesn’t matter if the sun moves relative to Betelgeuse or the Virgo
    Galaxy cluster. Light will always travel at constant c relative to the sun. So all
    one has to do is place the sun immobile in its own frame. Have light propagate
    away from it isotropically at constant speeds.
    Since you claim there are no inertial coordinates, that means that this
    frame you "place the sun immobile" in is not inertial, so it can >>>>>> accelerate. Let's say this necessarily non-inertial frame, after >>>>>> emitting light toward the observer, wiggles back and forth, does >>>>>> loop-the-loops, figure 8's or whatever. Does the observer see the light
    following the figure 8s so that it appears to come from the sun always,
    or does it come from the place where the sun WAS when the light was emitted?

    OK let’s look,at what we actually observe in deSitters binary star: >>>>> Let’s focus on one star of the two. We see that the star wobbles around
    roughly in an *ellipse*. I imagine it’s probably a bit more complex >>>>> than that but an ellipse for sake of argument. The star light also >>>>> is observed to * not pile up*.
    Correct.

    We can simplify things by looking at what happens at two points in the >>>> orbit. At one point, one star is on, say, the left side of the other, >>>> and is moving away from earth at a speed v. The instantaneous inertial >>>> source frame of the star is moving away from the earth at a speed v, >>>> because the star itself is moving away at speed v at that instant. 1/2 >>>> of the orbital period P later, the star is on the right side of the >>>> other, but is now approaching earth at a speed v. The instantaneous >>>> inertial source frame of the star is now moving toward the earth at a >>>> speed v. Obviously, these frames are different, because the star has >>>> moved non-inertially (it's in orbit).


    Your relativistic inertial nonsense doesn’t cut it. Emission theory >>> states that to correctly calculate light speeds...calculate in the source frame.

    Which one?

    Nice try. How many source frames are there in MMX as it
    rotates around the earths axis?
    One.

    Can’t do it ? Thought not.

    Which source frame? The star as it recedes or the star as it approaches?

    Nice try. How many frames is the MMX setup in as it rotates around the earths axis?
    One, since the rotation of the earth in a few nanoseconds is much, much
    less than other sources of error.
    And if you pretend it’s more than one...then how is it that SR treats it as
    one lab frame ?
    It is perfectly acceptable to write off errors far too small to affect
    the outcome.

    It’s perfectly acceptable to assume an experiment (MMX) that
    doesn’t measure any aether drift...would have measured it but
    it was too small to measure!!
    I think that’s a no-no in physics (Pretending that an assumption is the
    same as an observation.)

    SR states light travels at c in all inertial frames at c, regardless of >>>> the motion of the source. If the star is a distance D away, the time the
    light reaches us will be D/c and D/c+P/2. ,

    Now the cranks claim the light travels at c-v and c+v respectively, as >>>> seen on the earth. So the first light pulse will take time D/(c+v) to >>>> reach us, while the second takes a shorter time, D/(c-v). Earth
    observers will see the first light at time D/(c+v) and the second at >>>> time D/(c-v) + P/2.


    Problem here with your analysis. If your light pulse was travelling at >>> a constant c+-v to get here to earth. It has to be travelling at a variable
    speed relative to the source.

    Say what? It travels at c+v or c-v, according to the cranks. v was
    constant at the moment of emission so the speed is purportedly c+v or c-v.

    Imagine your light leaving a point on one of your binary stars and heading up directly towards the earth observer..
    Now..Do the same on earth. Have light leave a laser as you stand beside it.
    (Barring atmospheric extinction) DeSitter and you say that the light in the
    beam slows down and speeds up as it travels away from your laser.
    Say what? I believe in constant speed of light c. DeSitter concluded
    that the speed of light must not be affected by the source's velocity otherwise light would bunch up, so concluded the speed of light was constant.

    If he and emission theory thought light was at a constant speed
    in the source frame...then why did he pretend it was at a variable
    speed in the source frames. Just for emission theory, but not for
    SR!!😂🤣

    Yet MMX, and the lunar ranging experiment show no such variability
    in light speed.
    Proving deSitter and Einstein were correct.
    And it takes 2.6 seconds round trip so you can’t pretend
    that no appreciable rotation of earth occurs during the round trip as relativists pretend with MMX.
    Lunar ranging could be modeled as light moving along two sides of a thin triangle A B C, where A is the source laser, B the lunar reflector, C
    the detector. The times the light pulse is at A B C are the only times
    which matter. The position of the detector C has to account for the
    earth rotating 2𝜋*(2.6/86400) rotations times the distance that
    latitude rotates and the angles to the moon. Lots of algebra, but easy peasy.

    Thats hilarious Volney. Have you ever thought about doing stand up comedy?

    DeSitter, being much smarter than the average crank, realized the second
    pulse is emitted later but would be moving faster than the first. Could >>>> they arrive at the same time on earth? That would mean solving the
    equation D/(c+v) = (D/(c-v) + P/2). You can do the algebra yourself, but
    the answer is yes, the faster pulse can catch up to the slower pulse >>>> when both reach earth.

    Try doing your calculation in the source frame.

    Which source frame?

    Choose one one of the two stars. Obviously each star
    is a seperate source. And if you are desperate...choose one atom
    on that star.
    Is that the frame where the star is receding from earth or approaching earth?

    Both.

    What about the other light pulse?

    Does the light pile up ?
    No

    Yes.

    Where’s your evidence?
    Solve the equation where D/(c+v) = D/(c-v) + P/2. That's the time when
    the two lights reach earth at the same time.

    Two lights? What lights?

    No such piling up occurs. Looks like emission theory has been
    Confirmed by observation.
    The above refutes it.

    Oh yes...I see your problem now. You think MMX didnt give a null result.

    Try doing your calculation in the source frame where earth observer
    rotates and emission theory says light always travels at c.

    Again, which source frame?

    Use either star.
    Which source frame? When the star approaches or recedes?


    Both.

    [bla bla bla]

    It's obvious that you are accusing Bill/Ritz of believing what you
    yourself believe in. That is, the star as it wiggles back and forth/goes round and round the other star makes the already emitted light wiggle
    and change speed. It is you who believes wiggling the flashlight causes
    the already emitted light to be affected.

    But I am late to this subthread. Convince me why the orbiting of the
    star magically changes the speed of light previously emitted from it.

    Easy. Tell me you have proof that light “piles up” and travels
    at variable speeds as the beam travels away from your pocket laser.
    Therein lies your magic.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 4 08:06:23 2023
    In 1908 Ritz wrote:
    "The pulses of luminous radiation emitted [from source P] at the
    instant t move with constant radial speed and form a sphere for
    which the center is animated with the motion of translation w that
    had P at the instant of emission. If w is constant, this center will
    continue therefore to coincide with P. It is this fundamental image
    only that we will borrow from the theory of emission."

    The MMX null result could not be explained with any ether model.

    You're mistaken. For example, Lorentz explained it with his ether model.

    Light appeared to propagate in this source frame isotropically regardless
    of the labs motion around earths axis, around sun, around galaxy core.
    Yet ether theory said one path should have been at a different speed !

    Again, the null MMX result is entirely consistent with Lorentz's ether theory, as explained in Lorentz's 1904 paper, and in Poincare's follow-up paper, and Lorentz's subsequent writings. Note that the Lorentz contraction was not
    an ad hoc assumption, he just overlooked this consequence of the laws
    of electrodynamics in his previous paper.

    Einstein gave each observer their own entrained ether ...

    No, you have that backwards. Einstein's account dispenses with ether, and is based solidly on the principle of inertia, creating a Lorentz-invariant emission
    theory (in effect), combining Galileo's principle of relativity with the recognition
    that energy has inertia. It was Ritz who suggested (vaguely, he didn't actually develop a theory) the somewhat strange idea that each time a pulse of light
    is emitted a new inertial ether is created (in effect), and thereafter that pulse
    propagates at c in that particular ether, even after interacting with other mirrors
    and particles, etc.

    *Your* belief is even nuttier that Ritz's, because your multiple ethers
    are dragged eternally and telepathically in lockstep with the source
    object, even if the source object no longer exists (ghost ethers), and you
    deny that light has momentum, and you deny pulses follow inertial
    trajectories, and you deny the existence of electrons, and you deny that electromagnetic fields have an electric component, and you claim a
    pulse of light has a magnetic moment, and so on.

    He says it must be a wave only model of light. No particles.

    Well, it was already clear in 1900 with Planck's work on black body
    radiation, and especially by 1905 with Einstein's work on the photo-electric effect, that the classical wave model of electromagnetic radiation was inadequate to account for all the phenomena. In quantum electrodynamics
    the wave-like and the particle-like attributes of light are accurately represented. This confirms, among other things, that the phenomena
    of physics are Lorentz invariant.

    To prove that light always travelled at c relative to a source
    even if it moved in a circle relative to another object....he had to basically
    ditch pretty well every notable theory on atoms electricity and light ...

    Ritz did not claim that a pulse of light in vacuum could move in a circle relative to some other object, because he was not crazy enough to suggest
    your completely idiotic idea that the ethers are dragged in lockstep with an accelerating source AFTER the pulse has been emitted, nor did he insanely
    deny that light conveys momentum, nor did he insanely deny electric fields,
    nor did he insanely claim a pulse of light has a magnetic moment, etc. But
    yes, his suggestions did entail the rejection of much of classical science,
    and would only have created far more problems than it solved. Again, it is
    not the same as your belief, which is like Ritz on crack.

    And scum like deSitter took advantage of this and made up imaginary
    effects that Ritzs ether free model does not predict.

    Not true. Ritz's suggestion clearly entails the effect that deSitter looked for, i.e., the phases of light from binary star components would pass each other and get all scrambled up if Ritz's suggestion applied. Of course,
    if you had suggested YOUR crazy idea, deSitter would have pointed out
    all the things wrong with it, including (but not limited to) the 800" offset between the positions of binary components, the falsification of supernovas, etc., not to mention the logically self-contradictory aspects of your nutty belief.

    Ritz specifies on page 151 that he was going to accommodate
    acceleration in his emission model. Ie...rotation of the source.

    No, that's a gross mis-reading. In fact, when Ritz discusses this issue
    he explicitly states that the source remains at the center of the expanding wave ONLY if it continues in uniform motion, and at no point in the paper
    does he retract that statement. In fact, he repeats the point when he says:

    "The pulses of luminous radiation emitted [from source P] at the
    instant t move with constant radial speed and form a sphere for
    which the center is animated with the motion of translation w that
    had P at the instant of emission. If w is constant, this center will
    continue therefore to coincide with P. It is this fundamental image
    only that we will borrow from the theory of emission."

    So, he emphasizes TWICE that this is the fundamental basis of his idea
    for a theory (which he admits is not really an emission theory, but merely borrows the above from emission theories). The mention of acceleration
    on page 151 has absolutely nothing to do with this, and your dishonest
    denial of what he actually said, and your false attribution of your nutjob belief to Ritz, who can't defend himself, is simply disagraceful.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Bill on Mon Sep 4 14:30:29 2023
    On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 16:06:25 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
    In 1908 Ritz wrote:
    "The pulses of luminous radiation emitted [from source P] at the
    instant t move with constant radial speed and form a sphere for
    which the center is animated with the motion of translation w that
    had P at the instant of emission. If w is constant, this center will continue therefore to coincide with P. It is this fundamental image
    only that we will borrow from the theory of emission."
    The MMX null result could not be explained with any ether model.
    You're mistaken. For example, Lorentz explained it with his ether model.

    So did Einstein with his ether model where every observer has their
    own entrained ether. But only possible still by falsifying the data
    with a mathematical translation.
    Truth is...there is no ether. And any theory that relies on it
    is out of date.

    Light appeared to propagate in this source frame isotropically regardless of the labs motion around earths axis, around sun, around galaxy core.
    Yet ether theory said one path should have been at a different speed !

    Again, the null MMX result is entirely consistent with Lorentz's ether theory,
    as explained in Lorentz's 1904 paper, and in Poincare's follow-up paper, and Lorentz's subsequent writings. Note that the Lorentz contraction was not
    an ad hoc assumption, he just overlooked this consequence of the laws
    of electrodynamics in his previous paper.

    Einstein gave each observer their own entrained ether ...
    No, you have that backwards. Einstein's account dispenses with ether, and is

    Thats what the SR propaganda says yes.

    based solidly on the principle of inertia, creating a Lorentz-invariant emission
    theory (in effect), combining Galileo's principle of relativity with the recognition
    that energy has inertia. It was Ritz who suggested (vaguely, he didn't actually
    develop a theory) the somewhat strange idea that each time a pulse of light is emitted a new inertial ether is created (in effect), and thereafter that pulse
    propagates at c in that particular ether, even after interacting with other mirrors
    and particles, etc.

    *Your* belief is even nuttier that Ritz's, because your multiple ethers
    are dragged eternally and telepathically in lockstep with the source
    object, even if the source object no longer exists (ghost ethers), and you deny that light has momentum, and you deny pulses follow inertial trajectories, and you deny the existence of electrons, and you deny that electromagnetic fields have an electric component, and you claim a
    pulse of light has a magnetic moment, and so on.
    He says it must be a wave only model of light. No particles.


    Obviously Ritz was right. You wouldn’t be so upset if you
    really thought it was a non starter.

    Well, it was already clear in 1900 with Planck's work on black body radiation, and especially by 1905 with Einstein's work on the photo-electric effect, that the classical wave model of electromagnetic radiation was inadequate to account for all the phenomena. In quantum electrodynamics
    the wave-like and the particle-like attributes of light are accurately represented. This confirms, among other things, that the phenomena
    of physics are Lorentz invariant.

    To prove that light always travelled at c relative to a source
    even if it moved in a circle relative to another object....he had to basically
    ditch pretty well every notable theory on atoms electricity and light ...

    Ritz did not claim that a pulse of light in vacuum could move in a circle relative to some other object, because he was not crazy enough to suggest your completely idiotic idea that the ethers are dragged in lockstep with an accelerating source AFTER the pulse has been emitted, nor did he insanely deny that light conveys momentum, nor did he insanely deny electric fields, nor did he insanely claim a pulse of light has a magnetic moment, etc. But yes, his suggestions did entail the rejection of much of classical science, and would only have created far more problems than it solved. Again, it is not the same as your belief, which is like Ritz on crack.

    And scum like deSitter took advantage of this and made up imaginary effects that Ritzs ether free model does not predict.

    Not true. Ritz's suggestion clearly entails the effect that deSitter looked for, i.e., the phases of light from binary star components would pass each other and get all scrambled up if Ritz's suggestion applied. Of course,
    if you had suggested YOUR crazy idea, deSitter would have pointed out
    all the things wrong with it, including (but not limited to) the 800" offset between the positions of binary components, the falsification of supernovas, etc., not to mention the logically self-contradictory aspects of your nutty belief.

    You seem very worried that a theory that has light constant c
    only in the source frame can explain all observations. And not
    end up with all the problems that the photon and Relativity gave us.

    Ritz specifies on page 151 that he was going to accommodate
    acceleration in his emission model. Ie...rotation of the source.
    No, that's a gross mis-reading. In fact, when Ritz discusses this issue
    he explicitly states that the source remains at the center of the expanding wave ONLY if it continues in uniform motion, and at no point in the paper does he retract that statement. In fact, he repeats the point when he says:

    "The pulses of luminous radiation emitted [from source P] at the
    instant t move with constant radial speed and form a sphere for
    which the center is animated with the motion of translation w that
    had P at the instant of emission. If w is constant, this center will continue therefore to coincide with P. It is this fundamental image
    only that we will borrow from the theory of emission."

    He also says he can accommodate acceleration. Which is fundamentally
    linked to rotation. You can’t edit his paper just because it’s a good theory.

    So, he emphasizes TWICE that this is the fundamental basis of his idea
    for a theory (which he admits is not really an emission theory, but merely borrows the above from emission theories). The mention of acceleration
    on page 151 has absolutely nothing to do with this, and your dishonest denial of what he actually said, and your false attribution of your nutjob belief to Ritz, who can't defend himself, is simply disagraceful.

    I’ll stick with physics,Ritz, no ether, no photons and wave only light.
    Magic isn’t my scene.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Mon Sep 4 18:21:02 2023
    On 9/4/2023 5:30 PM, Lou wrote:
    On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 16:06:25 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
    In 1908 Ritz wrote:
    "The pulses of luminous radiation emitted [from source P] at the
    instant t move with constant radial speed and form a sphere for
    which the center is animated with the motion of translation w that
    had P at the instant of emission. If w is constant, this center will
    continue therefore to coincide with P. It is this fundamental image
    only that we will borrow from the theory of emission."
    The MMX null result could not be explained with any ether model.
    You're mistaken. For example, Lorentz explained it with his ether model.

    So did Einstein with his ether model where every observer has their
    own entrained ether.

    Oh good grief. Obviously you never read the 1905 SR paper where Einstein explicitly states that he's not going to be involving any sort of ether
    in his paper. And never mentions it again.

    Truth is...there is no ether.

    Which is what Einstein said. (actually he said he wasn't going to use
    any sort of ether)

    And any theory that relies on it
    is out of date.

    So SR isn't out of date according to that criterion.

    Einstein gave each observer their own entrained ether ...
    No, you have that backwards. Einstein's account dispenses with ether, and is

    Thats what the SR propaganda says yes.

    No, that's what Einstein said, at the beginning of the SR paper.

    (why do relativity cranks try to dig up the grave of the ether and then
    blame that on Einstein?)

    You seem very worried that a theory that has light constant c
    only in the source frame can explain all observations. And not
    end up with all the problems that the photon and Relativity gave us.

    SR starts off with light traveling at c for all destination frames, not
    source frames. Later derivation that it applies to all (inertial) frames implies it applies to the (inertial) source frame as well.

    Ritz specifies on page 151 that he was going to accommodate
    acceleration in his emission model. Ie...rotation of the source.

    No, that's a gross mis-reading. In fact, when Ritz discusses this issue
    he explicitly states that the source remains at the center of the expanding >> wave ONLY if it continues in uniform motion, and at no point in the paper
    does he retract that statement. In fact, he repeats the point when he says: >>
    "The pulses of luminous radiation emitted [from source P] at the
    instant t move with constant radial speed and form a sphere for
    which the center is animated with the motion of translation w that
    had P at the instant of emission. If w is constant, this center will
    continue therefore to coincide with P. It is this fundamental image
    only that we will borrow from the theory of emission."

    He also says he can accommodate acceleration. Which is fundamentally
    linked to rotation. You can’t edit his paper just because it’s a good theory.

    What good theory? He never came up with one that accommodates
    acceleration, so all anyone has from him is discussing uniform motion (inertial, no acceleration).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 4 19:41:01 2023
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 2:30:32 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    In 1908 Ritz wrote:
    "The pulses of luminous radiation emitted [from source P] at the
    instant t move with constant radial speed and form a sphere for
    which the center is animated with the motion of translation w that
    had P at the instant of emission. If w is constant, this center will continue therefore to coincide with P. It is this fundamental image
    only that we will borrow from the theory of emission."

    Notice that Ritz says the center of the spherical wave moves with the
    velocity w that the source P had *at the instant of emission*. And the source will continue to be at the center of that spherical wave only if its velocity is constant.

    The MMX null result could not be explained with any ether model.

    You're mistaken. For example, Lorentz explained it with his ether model.

    Only possible still by falsifying the data...

    That is a lie. It is an empirical fact that the readings on two grids of standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in two different inertial frames are related by Lorentz transformations, not Galilean transformations. This is not
    the result of any falsification of data.

    Any theory that relies on it is out of date.

    Right, and the two different ideas that rely on ethers are Ritz's and Henry Wilson's. Remember, Ritz admitted that his idea for a theory was not an emission theory, it just borrowed the single fact from emission theory described in the quote above.
    Beyond that he imagined, in effect, a multiple ether theory, although his ethers were at least inertial, whereas Wilson's idea is like "Ritz on crack", i.e., it posits infinitely many NON-inertial ethers.

    To fully appreciate the sheer nuttiness of Wilson's idea, consider three consecutive pulses of light emitted by a revolving laser, and consider three observers moving along at the average speed of those pulses. One observer is at the center of the
    pulses as they revolve around him in a circle, but notice that the three pulses are always arranged in the original order along the axis of the center's motion. The other two observers are at the radius of revolution of the laser pointer, on either side
    transversely of the center observer. What do these observers see if they were to intercept the pulses? The observer on the retrograde side would be struck by the pulses *in reverse order*. The phase relations would be completely reversed. Do you
    understand this?

    Obviously Ritz was right.

    You keep confusing Ritz's idea with Wilson's idea. They were both wrong, as is abundantly clear from all the evidence, but Wilson's idea (which you espouse) was not just wrong, it was utterly insane, for the reasons outlined above.

    You seem very worried that a theory that has light constant c
    only in the source frame can explain all observations.

    To the contrary, Wilson's nutty idea is blatantly contrary to all experience and observations, and doesn't even deal with the world as it is, i.e., it deals with a fantasy world in which light has no momentum and is animated telepathically by magical
    lockstep dragging, and leading to infinite and negative frequencies and all the numerous other idiocies that have been explained to you.

    And not end up with all the problems that the photon and Relativity gave us.

    What problems are you referring to? Remember, standard inertial coordinate systems are empirically related by Lorentz transformations. There is nothing you or anyone else can do to change that.

    Also, bear in mind that Ritz was an advocate of relativity, he just advocated Galilean relativity rather than Lorentzian relativity.

    Ritz also says he can accommodate acceleration.

    Again, the sentence you are referring to has absolutely nothing to do with Ritz's premise that the center of the emanating wave maintains the velocity w that the source had at the instant of emission. You are free to go on entertaining yourself with
    self-indulgent lies, but the facts are clear for all rational adults to see.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Sep 4 21:52:33 2023
    On Tuesday, 5 September 2023 at 00:21:07 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 9/4/2023 5:30 PM, Lou wrote:
    On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 16:06:25 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
    In 1908 Ritz wrote:
    "The pulses of luminous radiation emitted [from source P] at the
    instant t move with constant radial speed and form a sphere for
    which the center is animated with the motion of translation w that
    had P at the instant of emission. If w is constant, this center will
    continue therefore to coincide with P. It is this fundamental image
    only that we will borrow from the theory of emission."
    The MMX null result could not be explained with any ether model.
    You're mistaken. For example, Lorentz explained it with his ether model.

    So did Einstein with his ether model where every observer has their
    own entrained ether.
    Oh good grief. Obviously you never read the 1905 SR paper where Einstein


    And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
    is some "Newton mode"? You're such an agnorant idiot,
    stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
    moronic religion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Tue Sep 5 06:38:44 2023
    On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 23:21:07 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 9/4/2023 5:30 PM, Lou wrote:
    On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 16:06:25 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
    In 1908 Ritz wrote:
    "The pulses of luminous radiation emitted [from source P] at the
    instant t move with constant radial speed and form a sphere for
    which the center is animated with the motion of translation w that
    had P at the instant of emission. If w is constant, this center will
    continue therefore to coincide with P. It is this fundamental image
    only that we will borrow from the theory of emission."
    The MMX null result could not be explained with any ether model.
    You're mistaken. For example, Lorentz explained it with his ether model.

    So did Einstein with his ether model where every observer has their
    own entrained ether.
    Oh good grief. Obviously you never read the 1905 SR paper where Einstein explicitly states that he's not going to be involving any sort of ether
    in his paper. And never mentions it again.

    🤣. Yes I’ve heard this sort of BS many times from scientists to politicians.
    Promiseveveryone gets a gold bar if they vote for Donny. And then when Don gets the job...no gold bar materialises. Except in Donnys bank account.


    Truth is...there is no ether.
    Which is what Einstein said. (actually he said he wasn't going to use
    any sort of ether)
    And any theory that relies on it
    is out of date.
    So SR isn't out of date according to that criterion.
    Einstein gave each observer their own entrained ether ...
    No, you have that backwards. Einstein's account dispenses with ether, and is

    Thats what the SR propaganda says yes.
    No, that's what Einstein said, at the beginning of the SR paper.

    Exactly. Albert was a hypocrite. He promised to get rid of the ether.
    And then made sure EVERY observer had one when he was elected
    genius of the century by fellow mafia bosses.

    (why do relativity cranks try to dig up the grave of the ether and then blame that on Einstein?)
    You seem very worried that a theory that has light constant c
    only in the source frame can explain all observations. And not
    end up with all the problems that the photon and Relativity gave us.
    SR starts off with light traveling at c for all destination frames, not source frames. Later derivation that it applies to all (inertial) frames implies it applies to the (inertial) source frame as well.

    Ritz specifies on page 151 that he was going to accommodate
    acceleration in his emission model. Ie...rotation of the source.

    No, that's a gross mis-reading. In fact, when Ritz discusses this issue >> he explicitly states that the source remains at the center of the expanding
    wave ONLY if it continues in uniform motion, and at no point in the paper >> does he retract that statement. In fact, he repeats the point when he says:

    "The pulses of luminous radiation emitted [from source P] at the
    instant t move with constant radial speed and form a sphere for
    which the center is animated with the motion of translation w that
    had P at the instant of emission. If w is constant, this center will
    continue therefore to coincide with P. It is this fundamental image
    only that we will borrow from the theory of emission."

    He also says he can accommodate acceleration. Which is fundamentally linked to rotation. You can’t edit his paper just because it’s a good theory.

    What good theory? He never came up with one that accommodates
    acceleration, so all anyone has from him is discussing uniform motion (inertial, no acceleration).

    Only true if you ignore the fact he says on page 151 he will include acceleration
    in his model. Problem was he died before he had a chance to formalise this. Fortunately for Albert the cuckoo.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Bill on Tue Sep 5 06:31:35 2023
    On Tuesday, 5 September 2023 at 03:41:03 UTC+1, Bill wrote:
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 2:30:32 PM UTC-7, Lou wrote:
    In 1908 Ritz wrote:
    "The pulses of luminous radiation emitted [from source P] at the
    instant t move with constant radial speed and form a sphere for
    which the center is animated with the motion of translation w that
    had P at the instant of emission. If w is constant, this center will continue therefore to coincide with P. It is this fundamental image
    only that we will borrow from the theory of emission."
    Notice that Ritz says the center of the spherical wave moves with the velocity w that the source P had *at the instant of emission*. And the source
    will continue to be at the center of that spherical wave only if its velocity
    is constant.
    The MMX null result could not be explained with any ether model.

    You're mistaken. For example, Lorentz explained it with his ether model.

    Only possible still by falsifying the data...

    That is a lie. It is an empirical fact that the readings on two grids of standard rulers and clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in two different inertial frames are related by Lorentz transformations, not Galilean transformations. This is not
    the result of any falsification of data.

    Any theory that relies on it is out of date.

    Right, and the two different ideas that rely on ethers are Ritz's and Henry Wilson's. Remember, Ritz admitted that his idea for a theory was not an emission theory, it just borrowed the single fact from emission theory described in the quote above.
    Beyond that he imagined, in effect, a multiple ether theory, although his ethers were at least inertial, whereas Wilson's idea is like "Ritz on crack", i.e., it posits infinitely many NON-inertial ethers.

    To fully appreciate the sheer nuttiness of Wilson's idea, consider three consecutive pulses of light emitted by a revolving laser, and consider three observers moving along at the average speed of those pulses. One observer is at the center of the
    pulses as they revolve around him in a circle, but notice that the three pulses are always arranged in the original order along the axis of the center's motion. The other two observers are at the radius of revolution of the laser pointer, on either side
    transversely of the center observer. What do these observers see if they were to intercept the pulses? The observer on the retrograde side would be struck by the pulses *in reverse order*. The phase relations would be completely reversed. Do you
    understand this?

    Obviously Ritz was right.

    You keep confusing Ritz's idea with Wilson's idea. They were both wrong, as is abundantly clear from all the evidence, but Wilson's idea (which you espouse) was not just wrong, it was utterly insane, for the reasons outlined above.
    You seem very worried that a theory that has light constant c
    only in the source frame can explain all observations.
    To the contrary, Wilson's nutty idea is blatantly contrary to all experience and observations, and doesn't even deal with the world as it is, i.e., it deals with a fantasy world in which light has no momentum and is animated telepathically by magical
    lockstep dragging, and leading to infinite and negative frequencies and all the numerous other idiocies that have been explained to you.
    And not end up with all the problems that the photon and Relativity gave us.
    What problems are you referring to? Remember, standard inertial coordinate systems are empirically related by Lorentz transformations. There is nothing you or anyone else can do to change that.

    Also, bear in mind that Ritz was an advocate of relativity, he just advocated Galilean relativity rather than Lorentzian relativity.

    Ritz also says he can accommodate acceleration.

    Again, the sentence you are referring to has absolutely nothing to do with Ritz's premise that the center of the emanating wave maintains the velocity w that the source had at the instant of emission. You are free to go on entertaining yourself with
    self-indulgent lies, but the facts are clear for all rational adults to see.



    I understand your problem. What you are trying to say is when Ives Stillwell calculated offset for SR they assumed no aether existed. But when they calculate
    offset for a classical model they assumed an aether existed. Hypocrites !
    Not unusual for fact free dishonest relativists desperate to get good jobs
    as physics professors at local universities.
    Shame though that they hadn’t read Ritz’s 1908 paper. On Page 207 he says, quoted below, that his emission model discards the aether:
    “ The only conclusion is that the ether does not exist, or more exactly we should remove its use of this expression”
    They probably did read it. And knew it was the end for their BS
    relativity. So ignored it and pretended Ritz never existed.

    What you have to accept is that relativists are all ether fanatics.
    Pretending to not be ether fanatics! As one can see from alberts
    Special Relativity theory which is essentially an ether theory where every observer gets their own entrained ether. Even though Al admitted that
    MMX proved there was no aether.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Tue Sep 5 09:35:50 2023
    On Tuesday, 5 September 2023 at 18:25:54 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 9/5/2023 9:38 AM, Lou wrote:
    On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 23:21:07 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 9/4/2023 5:30 PM, Lou wrote:
    On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 16:06:25 UTC+1, Bill wrote:

    No, that's a gross mis-reading. In fact, when Ritz discusses this issue >>>> he explicitly states that the source remains at the center of the expanding
    wave ONLY if it continues in uniform motion, and at no point in the paper
    does he retract that statement. In fact, he repeats the point when he says:

    "The pulses of luminous radiation emitted [from source P] at the
    instant t move with constant radial speed and form a sphere for
    which the center is animated with the motion of translation w that
    had P at the instant of emission. If w is constant, this center will >>>> continue therefore to coincide with P. It is this fundamental image >>>> only that we will borrow from the theory of emission."

    He also says he can accommodate acceleration. Which is fundamentally
    linked to rotation. You can’t edit his paper just because it’s a good theory.

    What good theory? He never came up with one that accommodates
    acceleration, so all anyone has from him is discussing uniform motion
    (inertial, no acceleration).

    Only true if you ignore the fact he says on page 151 he will include acceleration
    in his model. Problem was he died before he had a chance to formalise this.
    Fortunately for Albert the cuckoo.

    Why wouldn't anyone ignore a claim about a mystery paper accommodating

    And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
    is some "Newton mode"? You're such an agnorant idiot,
    stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
    moronic religion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Tue Sep 5 12:25:49 2023
    On 9/5/2023 9:38 AM, Lou wrote:
    On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 23:21:07 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 9/4/2023 5:30 PM, Lou wrote:
    On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 16:06:25 UTC+1, Bill wrote:

    No, that's a gross mis-reading. In fact, when Ritz discusses this issue >>>> he explicitly states that the source remains at the center of the expanding
    wave ONLY if it continues in uniform motion, and at no point in the paper >>>> does he retract that statement. In fact, he repeats the point when he says:

    "The pulses of luminous radiation emitted [from source P] at the
    instant t move with constant radial speed and form a sphere for
    which the center is animated with the motion of translation w that
    had P at the instant of emission. If w is constant, this center will
    continue therefore to coincide with P. It is this fundamental image
    only that we will borrow from the theory of emission."

    He also says he can accommodate acceleration. Which is fundamentally
    linked to rotation. You can’t edit his paper just because it’s a good theory.

    What good theory? He never came up with one that accommodates
    acceleration, so all anyone has from him is discussing uniform motion
    (inertial, no acceleration).

    Only true if you ignore the fact he says on page 151 he will include acceleration
    in his model. Problem was he died before he had a chance to formalise this. Fortunately for Albert the cuckoo.

    Why wouldn't anyone ignore a claim about a mystery paper accommodating acceleration which didn't exist, doesn't exist and will never exist? You
    have no idea what he would have said about acceleration, it could have
    been a simple claim that acceleration couldn't be handled at all, or
    only handled in certain specific cases. It could have been outright
    wrong as well.

    I may as well claim that I'll write a best-selling novel, but if I die
    before I ever write any novel would you expect anyone to praise my
    nonexistent novel? That's what you are doing, you are praising this
    nonexistent paper handling acceleration which Ritz never wrote.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 5 11:54:35 2023
    In 1908 Ritz wrote: In 1908 Ritz wrote:
    The pulses of luminous radiation emitted [from source P] at the
    instant t move with constant radial speed and form a sphere for
    which the center is animated with the motion of translation w that
    had P at the instant of emission. If w is constant, this center will
    continue therefore to coincide with P. It is this fundamental image
    only that we will borrow from the theory of emission."

    Notice that Ritz says the center of the spherical wave moves with the
    elocity w that the source P had *at the instant of emission*. And the source will continue to be at the center of that spherical wave only if its velocity is constant.

    In 1908 Ritz wrote:
    The velocity of light then depends on that possessed by the body that
    emits it at the instant of emission.

    Notice again that Ritz directly contradicts your nutty idea.

    In 1908 Ritz wrote:
    Poincare has shown that by givng momentum to the radiant energy
    everything falls into place [action-reaction, and conservation of momentum].

    Notice again that Ritz directly contradicts your nutty idea that light has
    no momentum.

    You are trying to say is when Ives Stillwell calculated offset for SR they assumed no aether existed. But when they calculate offset for a classical model they assumed an aether existed. Hypocrites !

    Well, there is more than one "classical" model. The classical model that Ives favored was an ether model, so he was contrasting that prediction with the special relativistic (etherless) prediction. For the classical emission theories,
    the predicted outcome for Ives-Stilwell would be null, which is ruled out even more strongly, but Ives didn't bother to discuss that, because those theories were already ruled out by other observations.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Wed Sep 6 05:52:44 2023
    On Tuesday, 5 September 2023 at 17:25:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 9/5/2023 9:38 AM, Lou wrote:
    On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 23:21:07 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 9/4/2023 5:30 PM, Lou wrote:
    On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 16:06:25 UTC+1, Bill wrote:

    No, that's a gross mis-reading. In fact, when Ritz discusses this issue >>>> he explicitly states that the source remains at the center of the expanding
    wave ONLY if it continues in uniform motion, and at no point in the paper
    does he retract that statement. In fact, he repeats the point when he says:

    "The pulses of luminous radiation emitted [from source P] at the
    instant t move with constant radial speed and form a sphere for
    which the center is animated with the motion of translation w that
    had P at the instant of emission. If w is constant, this center will >>>> continue therefore to coincide with P. It is this fundamental image >>>> only that we will borrow from the theory of emission."

    He also says he can accommodate acceleration. Which is fundamentally
    linked to rotation. You can’t edit his paper just because it’s a good theory.

    What good theory? He never came up with one that accommodates
    acceleration, so all anyone has from him is discussing uniform motion
    (inertial, no acceleration).

    Only true if you ignore the fact he says on page 151 he will include acceleration
    in his model. Problem was he died before he had a chance to formalise this.
    Fortunately for Albert the cuckoo.

    Why wouldn't anyone ignore a claim about a mystery paper accommodating acceleration which didn't exist, doesn't exist and will never exist? You have no idea what he would have said about acceleration, it could have
    been a simple claim that acceleration couldn't be handled at all, or
    only handled in certain specific cases. It could have been outright
    wrong as well.


    Fact free statement ...As usual for a relativist.
    Notice Ritz very specifically stated in his 1908 preliminary paper
    that his emission model...DISPOSED of the ether.
    Notice that in the Ives Stillwell 1941 paper, on *page 1* they specifically acknowledge Ritzs 1908 paper. Obviously they read it. Contrary to
    your false claims.
    Not to mention that it is a well known fact that Ritz and
    Einstein were close friends up to Ritzs death and regularly discussed
    their own theories. In fact both referred to their theories as relativity theories! Yes ...it’s true. Ritzs Emission model was actually a relativity theory!!

    Anyways ..Ives Stillwell being the usual typical dishonest, fact free relativists...
    go on to ignore the fact they knew Ritzian emission emission theory specifically disposed of the aether. But 🤣 pretended they didn’t know.
    And calculated their imaginary prediction for emission theory assuming
    There WAS an aether for emission theory. 💩
    And then in an even more bizarre twist of logic and rationale,
    calculated the SR predictions assuming SR has *no aether*!!
    Despite the fact that SR relies on an entrained aether for every observer
    and Ritzian emission theory specifically has no aether!!
    Talk about hypocricy from relativists.

    Just to remind everyone that an *aether free* Ritzian emission theory
    CAN correctly predict observations in I-S. For a classical model at c+v:

    Rest frame is 486.1 nm = 616730010 MHz
    For c+v:
    616730010*1.005c=619813660Mhz=483.681nm
    For c-v:
    616730010*.0995c= 613646359Mhz=488.542nm

    Average of the c+-v is 486.111nm
    Which gives a correct predicted offset of 0.11A for a classical model.
    Ives Stillwell 1941 experiment observed an offset of 0.11A

    I may as well claim that I'll write a best-selling novel, but if I die before I ever write any novel would you expect anyone to praise my nonexistent novel? That's what you are doing, you are praising this nonexistent paper handling acceleration which Ritz never wrote.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Wed Sep 6 12:36:01 2023
    On 9/6/2023 8:52 AM, Lou wrote:
    On Tuesday, 5 September 2023 at 17:25:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 9/5/2023 9:38 AM, Lou wrote:
    On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 23:21:07 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 9/4/2023 5:30 PM, Lou wrote:
    On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 16:06:25 UTC+1, Bill wrote:

    No, that's a gross mis-reading. In fact, when Ritz discusses this issue >>>>>> he explicitly states that the source remains at the center of the expanding
    wave ONLY if it continues in uniform motion, and at no point in the paper
    does he retract that statement. In fact, he repeats the point when he says:

    "The pulses of luminous radiation emitted [from source P] at the
    instant t move with constant radial speed and form a sphere for
    which the center is animated with the motion of translation w that >>>>>> had P at the instant of emission. If w is constant, this center will >>>>>> continue therefore to coincide with P. It is this fundamental image >>>>>> only that we will borrow from the theory of emission."

    He also says he can accommodate acceleration. Which is fundamentally >>>>> linked to rotation. You can’t edit his paper just because it’s a good theory.

    What good theory? He never came up with one that accommodates
    acceleration, so all anyone has from him is discussing uniform motion
    (inertial, no acceleration).

    Only true if you ignore the fact he says on page 151 he will include acceleration
    in his model. Problem was he died before he had a chance to formalise this. >>> Fortunately for Albert the cuckoo.

    Why wouldn't anyone ignore a claim about a mystery paper accommodating
    acceleration which didn't exist, doesn't exist and will never exist? You
    have no idea what he would have said about acceleration, it could have
    been a simple claim that acceleration couldn't be handled at all, or
    only handled in certain specific cases. It could have been outright
    wrong as well.


    Fact free statement ...As usual for a relativist.

    You provided no facts to discuss, only a nonexistent unwritten mystery
    paper.

    Notice Ritz very specifically stated in his 1908 preliminary paper
    that his emission model...DISPOSED of the ether.

    So Einstein disposed of the ether. Ritz disposed of the ether...

    Notice that in the Ives Stillwell 1941 paper, on *page 1* they specifically acknowledge Ritzs 1908 paper. Obviously they read it. Contrary to
    your false claims.

    But obviously they didn't read the nonexistent paper discussing
    acceleration!

    Not to mention that it is a well known fact that Ritz and
    Einstein were close friends up to Ritzs death and regularly discussed
    their own theories. In fact both referred to their theories as relativity theories! Yes ...it’s true. Ritzs Emission model was actually a relativity theory!!

    Anyways ..Ives Stillwell being the usual typical dishonest, fact free relativists...
    go on to ignore the fact they knew Ritzian emission emission theory specifically disposed of the aether. But 🤣 pretended they didn’t know. And calculated their imaginary prediction for emission theory assuming
    There WAS an aether for emission theory. 💩

    Again, why to relativity cranks dig up the dead and buried ether and try
    to blame it on actual scientists who enhanced relativity?

    And then in an even more bizarre twist of logic and rationale,
    calculated the SR predictions assuming SR has *no aether*!!

    Einstein said he wasn't going to use any ether. You said Ritz dismissed
    the ether. So calculating the SR predictions assuming SR has no aether
    is obviously the correct thing to do!

    Despite the fact that SR relies on an entrained aether for every observer

    Yet again, why to relativity cranks dig up the dead and buried ether and
    try to blame it on actual scientists who enhanced relativity?

    and Ritzian emission theory specifically has no aether!!
    Talk about hypocricy from relativists.

    The hypocrisy is only from the anti-relativity cranks out in the
    cemetery with a shovel.

    Just to remind everyone that an *aether free* Ritzian emission theory
    CAN correctly predict observations in I-S.

    Good. Now put down the shovel and let the ether rest in peace.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Thu Sep 7 05:27:37 2023
    On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 18:36:06 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

    Good. Now put down the shovel and let the ether rest in peace.

    See, stupid Mike: in 1920 your idiot guru said: "According to the
    general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Thu Sep 7 05:21:51 2023
    On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 17:36:06 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 9/6/2023 8:52 AM, Lou wrote:
    On Tuesday, 5 September 2023 at 17:25:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 9/5/2023 9:38 AM, Lou wrote:
    On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 23:21:07 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 9/4/2023 5:30 PM, Lou wrote:
    On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 16:06:25 UTC+1, Bill wrote:

    No, that's a gross mis-reading. In fact, when Ritz discusses this issue
    he explicitly states that the source remains at the center of the expanding
    wave ONLY if it continues in uniform motion, and at no point in the paper
    does he retract that statement. In fact, he repeats the point when he says:

    "The pulses of luminous radiation emitted [from source P] at the >>>>>> instant t move with constant radial speed and form a sphere for >>>>>> which the center is animated with the motion of translation w that >>>>>> had P at the instant of emission. If w is constant, this center will >>>>>> continue therefore to coincide with P. It is this fundamental image >>>>>> only that we will borrow from the theory of emission."

    He also says he can accommodate acceleration. Which is fundamentally >>>>> linked to rotation. You can’t edit his paper just because it’s a good theory.

    What good theory? He never came up with one that accommodates
    acceleration, so all anyone has from him is discussing uniform motion >>>> (inertial, no acceleration).

    Only true if you ignore the fact he says on page 151 he will include acceleration
    in his model. Problem was he died before he had a chance to formalise this.
    Fortunately for Albert the cuckoo.

    Why wouldn't anyone ignore a claim about a mystery paper accommodating
    acceleration which didn't exist, doesn't exist and will never exist? You >> have no idea what he would have said about acceleration, it could have
    been a simple claim that acceleration couldn't be handled at all, or
    only handled in certain specific cases. It could have been outright
    wrong as well.


    Fact free statement ...As usual for a relativist.
    You provided no facts to discuss, only a nonexistent unwritten mystery paper.

    You just proved to the rest of the world you don’t believe in doing research before you jump.

    http://www.shadetreephysics.com/crit/Ritz-CML.pdf


    Notice Ritz very specifically stated in his 1908 preliminary paper
    that his emission model...DISPOSED of the ether.
    So Einstein disposed of the ether. Ritz disposed of the ether...

    Yeah!! In that case why the f*** did I -Stilwell pretend Ritz hadn’t?

    Notice that in the Ives Stillwell 1941 paper, on *page 1* they specifically
    acknowledge Ritzs 1908 paper. Obviously they read it. Contrary to
    your false claims.
    But obviously they didn't read the nonexistent paper discussing acceleration!

    Exactly what we’re I-S referring to “Ritz 30 years ago” in their
    1938 and 1941 papers?
    Ritzs birthday party?

    Not to mention that it is a well known fact that Ritz and
    Einstein were close friends up to Ritzs death and regularly discussed their own theories. In fact both referred to their theories as relativity theories! Yes ...it’s true. Ritzs Emission model was actually a relativity theory!!

    Anyways ..Ives Stillwell being the usual typical dishonest, fact free relativists...
    go on to ignore the fact they knew Ritzian emission emission theory specifically disposed of the aether. But 🤣 pretended they didn’t know.
    And calculated their imaginary prediction for emission theory assuming There WAS an aether for emission theory. 💩
    Again, why to relativity cranks dig up the dead and buried ether and try
    to blame it on actual scientists who enhanced relativity?
    And then in an even more bizarre twist of logic and rationale,
    calculated the SR predictions assuming SR has *no aether*!!
    Einstein said he wasn't going to use any ether. You said Ritz dismissed
    the ether. So calculating the SR predictions assuming SR has no aether
    is obviously the correct thing to do!


    Exactly, so answer the question. Why did relativity Cranks Ives Stillwell calculate emission theory predictions assuming emission theory
    used an aether? When they knew this wasn’t true?


    Despite the fact that SR relies on an entrained aether for every observer
    Yet again, why to relativity cranks dig up the dead and buried ether and
    try to blame it on actual scientists who enhanced relativity?
    and Ritzian emission theory specifically has no aether!!
    Talk about hypocricy from relativists.
    The hypocrisy is only from the anti-relativity cranks out in the
    cemetery with a shovel.

    Just to remind everyone that an *aether free* Ritzian emission theory
    CAN correctly predict observations in I-S.
    Good. Now put down the shovel and let the ether rest in peace.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Lou on Thu Sep 7 22:38:23 2023
    On 9/7/2023 8:21 AM, Lou wrote:
    On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 17:36:06 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 9/6/2023 8:52 AM, Lou wrote:
    On Tuesday, 5 September 2023 at 17:25:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 9/5/2023 9:38 AM, Lou wrote:
    On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 23:21:07 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 9/4/2023 5:30 PM, Lou wrote:
    On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 16:06:25 UTC+1, Bill wrote:

    No, that's a gross mis-reading. In fact, when Ritz discusses this issue
    he explicitly states that the source remains at the center of the expanding
    wave ONLY if it continues in uniform motion, and at no point in the paper
    does he retract that statement. In fact, he repeats the point when he says:

    "The pulses of luminous radiation emitted [from source P] at the >>>>>>>> instant t move with constant radial speed and form a sphere for >>>>>>>> which the center is animated with the motion of translation w that >>>>>>>> had P at the instant of emission. If w is constant, this center will >>>>>>>> continue therefore to coincide with P. It is this fundamental image >>>>>>>> only that we will borrow from the theory of emission."

    He also says he can accommodate acceleration. Which is fundamentally >>>>>>> linked to rotation. You can’t edit his paper just because it’s a good theory.

    What good theory? He never came up with one that accommodates
    acceleration, so all anyone has from him is discussing uniform motion >>>>>> (inertial, no acceleration).

    Only true if you ignore the fact he says on page 151 he will include acceleration
    in his model. Problem was he died before he had a chance to formalise this.
    Fortunately for Albert the cuckoo.

    Why wouldn't anyone ignore a claim about a mystery paper accommodating >>>> acceleration which didn't exist, doesn't exist and will never exist? You >>>> have no idea what he would have said about acceleration, it could have >>>> been a simple claim that acceleration couldn't be handled at all, or
    only handled in certain specific cases. It could have been outright
    wrong as well.


    Fact free statement ...As usual for a relativist.

    You provided no facts to discuss, only a nonexistent unwritten mystery
    paper.

    You just proved to the rest of the world you don’t believe in doing research
    before you jump.

    http://www.shadetreephysics.com/crit/Ritz-CML.pdf

    So did Ritz literally ghost write his nonexistent unwritten mystery paper?

    Oh. 1908. So the nonexistent unwritten mystery paper remains a
    nonexistent unwritten mystery paper. So you provided no facts to
    discuss, just allusions to the nonexistent unwritten mystery paper.

    Notice Ritz very specifically stated in his 1908 preliminary paper
    that his emission model...DISPOSED of the ether.
    So Einstein disposed of the ether. Ritz disposed of the ether...

    Yeah!! In that case why the f*** did I -Stilwell pretend Ritz hadn’t?

    Because they did no such thing. They only referred to the predictions of Galilean and relativistic Doppler shifts.

    Notice that in the Ives Stillwell 1941 paper, on *page 1* they specifically >>> acknowledge Ritzs 1908 paper. Obviously they read it. Contrary to
    your false claims.
    But obviously they didn't read the nonexistent paper discussing
    acceleration!

    Exactly what we’re I-S referring to “Ritz 30 years ago” in their
    1938 and 1941 papers?
    Ritzs birthday party?

    But not the nonexistent unwritten acceleration paper.

    Not to mention that it is a well known fact that Ritz and
    Einstein were close friends up to Ritzs death and regularly discussed
    their own theories. In fact both referred to their theories as relativity >>> theories! Yes ...it’s true. Ritzs Emission model was actually a relativity theory!!

    Anyways ..Ives Stillwell being the usual typical dishonest, fact free relativists...
    go on to ignore the fact they knew Ritzian emission emission theory
    specifically disposed of the aether. But 🤣 pretended they didn’t know. >>> And calculated their imaginary prediction for emission theory assuming
    There WAS an aether for emission theory. 💩
    Again, why to relativity cranks dig up the dead and buried ether and try
    to blame it on actual scientists who enhanced relativity?
    And then in an even more bizarre twist of logic and rationale,
    calculated the SR predictions assuming SR has *no aether*!!

    Einstein said he wasn't going to use any ether. You said Ritz dismissed
    the ether. So calculating the SR predictions assuming SR has no aether
    is obviously the correct thing to do!


    Exactly, so answer the question. Why did relativity Cranks Ives Stillwell calculate emission theory predictions assuming emission theory
    used an aether? When they knew this wasn’t true?

    They made no such assumptions.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Volney on Fri Sep 8 09:32:03 2023
    On Friday, 8 September 2023 at 03:38:34 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 9/7/2023 8:21 AM, Lou wrote:
    On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 17:36:06 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 9/6/2023 8:52 AM, Lou wrote:
    On Tuesday, 5 September 2023 at 17:25:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 9/5/2023 9:38 AM, Lou wrote:
    On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 23:21:07 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
    On 9/4/2023 5:30 PM, Lou wrote:
    On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 16:06:25 UTC+1, Bill wrote:

    No, that's a gross mis-reading. In fact, when Ritz discusses this issue
    he explicitly states that the source remains at the center of the expanding
    wave ONLY if it continues in uniform motion, and at no point in the paper
    does he retract that statement. In fact, he repeats the point when he says:

    "The pulses of luminous radiation emitted [from source P] at the >>>>>>>> instant t move with constant radial speed and form a sphere for >>>>>>>> which the center is animated with the motion of translation w that >>>>>>>> had P at the instant of emission. If w is constant, this center will
    continue therefore to coincide with P. It is this fundamental image >>>>>>>> only that we will borrow from the theory of emission."

    He also says he can accommodate acceleration. Which is fundamentally >>>>>>> linked to rotation. You can’t edit his paper just because it’s a good theory.

    What good theory? He never came up with one that accommodates
    acceleration, so all anyone has from him is discussing uniform motion >>>>>> (inertial, no acceleration).

    Only true if you ignore the fact he says on page 151 he will include acceleration
    in his model. Problem was he died before he had a chance to formalise this.
    Fortunately for Albert the cuckoo.

    Why wouldn't anyone ignore a claim about a mystery paper accommodating >>>> acceleration which didn't exist, doesn't exist and will never exist? You
    have no idea what he would have said about acceleration, it could have >>>> been a simple claim that acceleration couldn't be handled at all, or >>>> only handled in certain specific cases. It could have been outright >>>> wrong as well.


    Fact free statement ...As usual for a relativist.

    You provided no facts to discuss, only a nonexistent unwritten mystery
    paper.

    You just proved to the rest of the world you don’t believe in doing research
    before you jump.

    http://www.shadetreephysics.com/crit/Ritz-CML.pdf
    So did Ritz literally ghost write his nonexistent unwritten mystery paper?

    Oh. 1908. So the nonexistent unwritten mystery paper remains a
    nonexistent unwritten mystery paper. So you provided no facts to
    discuss, just allusions to the nonexistent unwritten mystery paper.

    Yes Volney, Harvard ADS regularly publishes nonexistent ghost papers.
    Here’s a link to the ADS written by Ritz in 1908.

    https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1908AChPh..13..145R/abstract

    The original French version that you are desperate
    to pretend doesn’t exist is translated to English at

    http://www.shadetreephysics.com/crit/Ritz-CML.pdf

    on page 207 of the english translation Ritz clearly states
    “ “ The only conclusion is that the ether does not exist, or more
    exactly we should remove its use of this expression”

    Notice Ritz very specifically stated in his 1908 preliminary paper
    that his emission model...DISPOSED of the ether.
    So Einstein disposed of the ether. Ritz disposed of the ether...

    Yeah!! In that case why the f*** did I -Stilwell pretend Ritz hadn’t?
    Because they did no such thing. They only referred to the predictions of Galilean and relativistic Doppler shifts.

    Notice that in the Ives Stillwell 1941 paper, on *page 1* they specifically
    acknowledge Ritzs 1908 paper. Obviously they read it. Contrary to
    your false claims.
    But obviously they didn't read the nonexistent paper discussing
    acceleration!

    Exactly what we’re I-S referring to “Ritz 30 years ago” in their 1938 and 1941 papers?
    Ritzs birthday party?
    But not the nonexistent unwritten acceleration paper.


    In 1908 Ritz wrote only one paper on electrodynamics theory.
    In fact between then and his death in 1909 only one:
    The cited example above.
    The first page of the I-S 1938 paper clearly refers to Ritzs
    theoretical assumptions on emission theory “30 years ago”. Which, if you can do
    the maths....is 1908.

    Not to mention that it is a well known fact that Ritz and
    Einstein were close friends up to Ritzs death and regularly discussed >>> their own theories. In fact both referred to their theories as relativity
    theories! Yes ...it’s true. Ritzs Emission model was actually a relativity theory!!

    Anyways ..Ives Stillwell being the usual typical dishonest, fact free relativists...
    go on to ignore the fact they knew Ritzian emission emission theory
    specifically disposed of the aether. But 🤣 pretended they didn’t know.
    And calculated their imaginary prediction for emission theory assuming >>> There WAS an aether for emission theory. 💩
    Again, why to relativity cranks dig up the dead and buried ether and try >> to blame it on actual scientists who enhanced relativity?
    And then in an even more bizarre twist of logic and rationale,
    calculated the SR predictions assuming SR has *no aether*!!

    Einstein said he wasn't going to use any ether. You said Ritz dismissed >> the ether. So calculating the SR predictions assuming SR has no aether
    is obviously the correct thing to do!


    Exactly, so answer the question. Why did relativity Cranks Ives Stillwell calculate emission theory predictions assuming emission theory
    used an aether? When they knew this wasn’t true?
    They made no such assumptions.

    Do your research instead of contemplating your navel.
    The whole point of their (I-S)experiment was to test relativity* against
    an aether based emission theory-prediction where a predicted no offset
    would be observed. (*They refer to SR as Lorentz Lamor)
    The second last paragraph on the last page of the I-S paper
    also clearly states the experiment provides evidence in their opinion
    against the existence of an “entrained ether “ associated with emission theories.
    This is also insinuated in the wiki I-S page quoted below:
    “We will not present Ives' 1937 analysis, but instead will compare the predictions of special relativity against the predictions of "*classical" aether* theory with the apparatus stationary in the hypothetical aether, even though the classical aether
    had already long been ruled out by MMX and KTX.[11][12]”

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)