"Androcles" <androcles@home.com> wrote in message
>        news:OOh17.63$Y6.83172@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...

> You know you have seen Special Relativity challenged often, usually by some
> well-meaning youngster with a logical mind that says "if two spaceships fly
> away from the Earth in opposite directions at 0.75c, don't they separate
> from each other at 1.5c?" and along comes some relativist with his nose in
> the air, puffs himself up with his own importance (he's usually an
> intelligent chap, knows  it, has  gone through life with a little more up
> top than the average mortal) and points out the equation that shows the
> ships separate at less than c.

A Bad Teacher as an Argument.

> Perplexed, the youngster comes back next week, having read some more and now
> produces his own version of the twin paradox, once again reinventing the
> wheel, and of course the wheel turns the usual cycle and throws him off.
> Now either the youngster is convinced that relativity is correct, endorses
> it, or just gives up and becomes a pharmacist or pilot or engineer or bus
> driver or telemarketer, giving up physics because he thinks he is too stupid
> to understand it.

Disillusion as an Argument.

> Years roll by, and after a moderately successful career the guy gets himself
> a computer, some time on his hands and starts thinking again. He thinks...
> What would actually happen if the speed of light were constant with respect
> to the source? So  he writes a program that models a point of light in
> elliptical orbit that obeys the laws of Kepler, that he can pitch and yaw
> into any attitude. He divides the orbit up into many points, and at each
> point he fires off a 'photon' that travels for hundreds of light years with
> a velocity c+v with respect to the observer, v being the motion of the star
> in the observer's direction. He drops the photon into an array, indexed by
> its time of arrival. If the index extends beyond the upper limit of the
> array, which represents the orbital period, he wraps back to the start of
> the array and drops it there. He repeats the process for the entire orbit,
> then finds that the array contains not the same number of photons per array
> element as it would if the speed of light were constant with respect to him,
> but there are some array elements that have more, and some less. He
> considers that the number of photons are an indication of the intensity
> (magnitude) of the star, and that the eye sees logarithmically, so he takes
> the logarithm of each element and plots the curve on the screen. He finds
> that he has reproduced the luminosity curve of the cepheid. Next, he repeats
> the experiment, turning the major axis toward the observer, and finds that
> he can reproduce the luminosity curve of the so-called 'eclipsing' binary.
> He suspects that he is onto something, and wonders if he can make an extreme
> case. He stretches the eccentricity and the distance, works with different
> orientations off the ellipse, and finds that he make nearly all the light
> from the orbit arrive at the same time. He plots the luminosity curve, and
> finds that it mimics that of Nova Herculis 1934, a curve he has previously
> seen in an astronomy text book. Of he goes to the local university library,
> digs out more data, and finds this nova has a rapidly changing spectrum. So
> he reprograms, builds another array, this time two dimensional, still
> indexed by time of arrival but vertically indexed by doppler, with some
> emission lines modeled. He finds a rapidly changing spectrum. By now he is
> pretty darned certain that the speed of light is constant with respect to
> the source, but realizes that a star seen in two positions by both slow
> light and fast light would appear smeared. Then he finds an image of Mira,
> which appears smeared, seen with HST. That's the clincher.

Romantics as an Argument.

> So he writes a little puzzle for the relativists, based on the writing of
> one of their own, and presents it to them.

A Puzzle as an Argument.

> Then along comes Dirk, and says... "I'm going to try to show you your little
> puzzle is invalid."
> "Why?", he asks.
> "For a hobby", says Dirk.

Ridiculization as an Argument.

> Dirk has no idea what he's up against. The guy has done his own hobby
> homework, done his experiment with the biggest lab in the Universe, the
> Universe itself, one that is full of empty space and light sources that
> move, millions to choose from.

Intimidation as an Argument.

> He didn't say "I'll believe what Einstein  tells me because I think his math
> is kinda neat and everyone else believes him". He actually did his own
> experiment. The guy is an experimentalist, not a theoretician, and now he
> has enormous insight.
> But Dirk is welcome to try.

Challenge as an Argument.

> The strange thing is, if Dirk wasn't so stubbornly certain that relativists
> were right and anyone that disagreed with Einstein must be a crackpot, Dirk
> would find new insight into the world of physics. It takes a little
> mind-opening, which few relativists are capable of, but it is possible.

Hope as an Argument.

> The guy never did become a pharmacist or a bus driver, though. That part is
> fiction.
> Here's some of the code, BTW.
> It's pretty simple, really. 

[snip part of a C-program as an Argument]

I honestly feel sorry that this series of events has permanently upset
you and caused this blinding bitterness.
Yes, I know, you say that you are not bitter or upset or anything.
But looking at your advertising campaign, I just don't buy that.

I don't look at emotions in terms of right or wrong.
They can be something between useful and useless,
or between pleasant and annoying.

Read "The Ascent of Man" by Jacob Bronowski. Or don't.
Your choice.
Good night, perhaps goodbye, but good luck anyway...

Dirk Vdm