From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity
amirjf nin wrote:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdTWHOo5TW0GKKyGN6HGLhYkI5JWTqMl/view
Crackpottery.
His claim
| Such a tilt [requiring the telescope to be tilted in order to observe a
| star] could be discovered only because the Earth's velocity is
| continuously changing.
is wrong. Does he not realize that stellar aberration is observed on a *rotating* planet?
<
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy)#Diurnal_aberration>
("diurnal" means "daily", from Latin /dies/ [di'es] "day")
This was known in 1993 when this paper was published as it was already documented by Newcomb in 1960 (see the reference in the article). So
I would rate this paper an exercise in dishonesty, at best.
And then
| We conclude that
|
| Experimentally, Bradley aberration is due to the Earth's orbital velocity
| and NOT to relative velocity of Earth and star.
What a ridiculous nonsense. So there is no relative motion of the star
when Earth is orbiting and we choose an ECI as the rest frame? How can he seriously claim this in the journal/section "Galilean Electrodynamics" when
it was Galilei who discovered the principle of relativity?
He even uses the term
| Relativists
in this paper which is strongly indicative of a crackpot, and a crackpot paper.
It fits such a dishonest way of arguing that he is retired since 1999, and
a climate change denier who is quoted by other climate change deniers:
<
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Howard_Hayden> <
https://www.desmog.com/howard-hayden/>
<
https://idee.frank-siebert.de/article/der-beweis-von-howard-hayden-die-prognose-ergebnisse-der-ipcc-klima-modelle-sind-falsch.html>
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2