The measurement of the absolute speed of the earth through space
Peri of Pera
This can be done using the speed of light c. If the distance between
source and target remains the same, c is constant. If the target is
moving away from the source, the speed of light is c-v. If the source
and target are approaching each other , the speed of light is c+v. The
speed of the target is given by v.
Establish on the surface of the earth two observation points O1 and
O2. They are 1000km apart. Install at each location one of two
synchronized clocks which are precise to one nanosecond
(0.000000001sec). At a predetermined time a wireless signal is sent
from O1 to O2. From the transit time, the absolute speed of the earth
in the direction O1 to O2 can be calculated.
Example: O1 sends a signal at 0.000000000 seconds past 10am. It is
received by O2 at 0.003333667 seconds past 10am. The transit time
exceeds the time at constant c (0.003333333secs for 1000km).
Therefore, O2 is moving away from O1 and the formula to calculate the
reduced speed of light due to the motion of the earth through space in
the direction of O2 is c-v = d/t or 300000km/sec – v = 1000km/
0.003333667sec = 299970km/sec which gives a value of 30km/sec for v.
Peter Riedt
Sam Wormley
> The measurement of the absolute speed of the earth through space
Speed with respect to what?
Can't be light... all inertial observers measure the speed of
light as c. If you have ever studied modern physics, or even
frequented this newsgroups you would know that.
Suggest reading Physics FAQs currently available from these web sites:
Australia:
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq
Canada:
http://www.stillmoving.ca/physics/faq
England:
http://physicsfaq.co.uk/Faq
Germany:
http://www.desy.de/pub/www/projects/Physics
Netherlands:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/PhysFAQ
Taiwan:
http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq
USA:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics
http://scope.joemirando.net/faqs
http://www.obscure.org/physics-faq
http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq
http://www.ronen.net/physics
Peri of Pera
Sam,
the absolute speed of the earth would be relative to the absolute
speed of light.
Peter Riedt
Mitch Raemsch
Anisotropic Cosmic Background Radiation redshift-blueshift yields our
absolute motion through space.
MItch Raemsch
Peri of Pera
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
MItch,
nicely put but what does 'yield' mean?
Peter Riedt
Eric Gisse
>
> This can be done using the speed of light c. If the distance between
> source and target remains the same, c is constant. If the target is
> moving away from the source, the speed of light is c-v. If the source
> and target are approaching each other , the speed of light is c+v. The
> speed of the target is given by v.
YAWN. Observations of binary systems disprove this.
[snip]
Peri of Pera
Eric,
ROFLOL, binary systems?
Peter Riedt
Eric Gisse
Do you not know what they are, do you not think they exist, or do you
have a special plead that excludes them from disproving your stupidity?
Peri of Pera
>
> - Show quoted text -
Eric,
please explain the relevancy of binary systems to my post.
Peter Riedt
--- -. dotat
Was:
Re: The measurement of the absolute speed of the earth through space
Duck pond physics disproves this, too.
http://www.victoriamonroe.com/art/artimages/DuckPond.jpg
The waves emanating from a puddling duck always run
at the same speed, regardless whether the duch is diving
on the spot, or if it is swimming slowly.
http://jpkeenan.com/images/Lake%20Shore%20Park/duck%20pond%202.jpg
No c+v there.
For Androcles and hanson they made cow ponds to test wave movements:
http://alexandrakent.com/Paintings/NealeFarmDuckPond.jpg
clearly there is no c+v:
http://www.mooseyscountrygarden.com/botanical-gardens/duck-pond-autumn-tree.jpg
http://www.pajarodunesgetaway.com/Duck%20Pond.jpg
http://a6.vox.com/6a00c22522420bf21900f48cf2e2460003-500pi
Does light have wave properties? (No c+v)
Yes, it does, dear Aether dingleberry, it does have wave properties.
Note: wave properties, unlike saying "light is a wave".
Does light have particle properties?
Yes, but be careful, it behaves like a >particle-wave<,
which is something peculiar, not ident to Andro's "light balls".
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/Orbit.htm
What happenes when duck speed approaches wave speed?
http://donvalentinephotography.com/Duck-Pond_lrg.jpg
That mechanical analogy to light waves, does it work anymore?
How far can the analogy go?
Waves NEVER move with c+/- v, N E V E R !
w.
Peri of Pera
> Was:
> Re: The measurement of the absolute speed of the earth through space
>
> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 23:26:17 -0700 (PDT), Eric Gisse
>
> >On Aug 3, 7:46 pm, Peri of Pera <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> The measurement of the absolute speed of the earth through space
>
> >> This can be done using the speed of light c. If the distance between
> >> source and target remains the same, c is constant. If the target is
> >> moving away from the source, the speed of light is c-v. If the source
> >> and target are approaching each other , the speed of light is c+v. The
> >> speed of the target is given by v.
>
> >YAWN. Observations of binary systems disprove this.
>
> Duck pond physics disproves this, too.
>
> http://www.victoriamonroe.com/art/artimages/DuckPond.jpg
>
> The waves emanating from a puddling duck always run
> at the same speed, regardless whether the duch is diving
> on the spot, or if it is swimming slowly.
>
> http://jpkeenan.com/images/Lake%20Shore%20Park/duck%20pond%202.jpg
> No c+v there.
>
> For Androcles and hanson they made cow ponds to test wave movements:http://alexandrakent.com/Paintings/NealeFarmDuckPond.jpg
>
>
> Does light have wave properties? (No c+v)
> Yes, it does, dear Aether dingleberry, it does have wave properties.
> Note: wave properties, unlike saying "light is a wave".
>
> Does light have particle properties?
> Yes, but be careful, it behaves like a >particle-wave<,
>
> What happenes when duck speed approaches wave speed?http://donvalentinephotography.com/Duck-Pond_lrg.jpg
> That mechanical analogy to light waves, does it work anymore?
> How far can the analogy go?
>
> Waves NEVER move with c+/- v, N E V E R !
>
> w.
hwabnig,
your collection of images of waves produced by ducks is very
impressive. However, light not only moves with c but also c+v and c-v.
Peter Riedt
Eric Gisse
Think about it, Peter.
Chalky
You have reinvented the Michelson-Morley experiment (121 years late).
It gave a negative result.
Androcles
"Chalky" <chalk...@bleachboys.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9ce8161c-2021-4451...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
=======================================
Well, a null result. Fortunately Sagnac doesn't.
--- -. dotat
<rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
That's the question :-)
w.
Peri of Pera
>
> - Show quoted text -
Chalky,
There is a difference between MMX and my proposal. MMX gave a null
result trying to prove the ether by racing two light beams at right
angles up and down different paths. My proposal is to prove the
absolute speed of earth through space by sending one signal in one
direction without a return. However, both MMX and I use the logic of c
+v and c-v.
Peter Riedt
Peter Riedt
Eric Gisse
> On Aug 4, 3:16 pm, hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat wrote:
>
>
>
> > Was:
> > Re: The measurement of the absolute speed of the earth through space
>
> > On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 23:26:17 -0700 (PDT), Eric Gisse
>
> > <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Aug 3, 7:46 pm, Peri of Pera <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> The measurement of the absolute speed of the earth through space
>
> > >> This can be done using the speed of light c. If the distance between
> > >> source and target remains the same, c is constant. If the target is
> > >> moving away from the source, the speed of light is c-v. If the source
> > >> and target are approaching each other , the speed of light is c+v. The
> > >> speed of the target is given by v.
>
> > >YAWN. Observations of binary systems disprove this.
>
> > Duck pond physics disproves this, too.
>
> >http://www.victoriamonroe.com/art/artimages/DuckPond.jpg
>
> > The waves emanating from a puddling duck always run
> > at the same speed, regardless whether the duch is diving
> > on the spot, or if it is swimming slowly.
>
> >http://jpkeenan.com/images/Lake%20Shore%20Park/duck%20pond%202.jpg
> > No c+v there.
>
> > For Androcles and hanson they made cow ponds to test wave movements:http://alexandrakent.com/Paintings/NealeFarmDuckPond.jpg
>
> > clearly there is no c+v:http://www.mooseyscountrygarden.com/botanical-gardens/duck-pond-autum...
>
> > Yes, it does, dear Aether dingleberry, it does have wave properties.
> > Note: wave properties, unlike saying "light is a wave".
>
> > Does light have particle properties?
> > Yes, but be careful, it behaves like a >particle-wave<,
> > which is something peculiar, not ident to Andro's "light balls".http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/Orbit.htm
>
> > What happenes when duck speed approaches wave speed?http://donvalentinephotography.com/Duck-Pond_lrg.jpg
> > That mechanical analogy to light waves, does it work anymore?
> > How far can the analogy go?
>
> > Waves NEVER move with c+/- v, N E V E R !
>
> > w.
>
> hwabnig,
> your collection of images of waves produced by ducks is very
> impressive. However, light not only moves with c but also c+v and c-v.
>
> Peter Riedt
Not according to observation, Peter. Direct Earthbound lab experiments
and cosmological observations disprove the assertion.
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/desitter.htm
NINETEEN-FUCKING-THIRTEEN, Peter. Your theory was disproved nearly a
century ago!
Eric Gisse
Yea, and that logic results in fringe shifts in the interferometer.
Except they weren't observed - oops.
Spaceman
> Peri of Pera wrote:
>> The measurement of the absolute speed of the earth through space
>
> Speed with respect to what?
>
> Can't be light... all inertial observers measure the speed of
> light as c.
BZZZZT
Wrong.
Lightspeed is a speed,
It can not be the same constant speed to all observers.
PD
Excellent suggestion. Already done, many times, over the last 130
years.
It ends up being c, not c+v, not c-v.
Now what?
Do catch up.
PD
Greg Neill
news:aNidnZ8ee48BYwvV...@comcast.com
And yet it is; It is an empirical fact. Arguing against
what *is* seems pointless. The only question is how will
you adjust your model of how you think Nature works to
match what Nature is actually doing.
Spaceman
> "Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
> news:aNidnZ8ee48BYwvV...@comcast.com
>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> Peri of Pera wrote:
>>>> The measurement of the absolute speed of the earth through space
>>>
>>> Speed with respect to what?
>>>
>>> Can't be light... all inertial observers measure the speed of
>>> light as c.
>>
>> BZZZZT
>> Wrong.
>> Lightspeed is a speed,
>> It can not be the same constant speed to all observers.
>
> And yet it is; It is an empirical fact.
You love that word even when you are lying about it.
That is sad Greg.
You persist on ignoring relativity only when it supports
itself.
It is amazing how you can have one speed be constant
to all but any other speed not be.
Talk about a joke to your own worhsipped theory!
LOL
Greg Neill
>> "Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
>> news:aNidnZ8ee48BYwvV...@comcast.com
>>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>> Peri of Pera wrote:
>>>>> The measurement of the absolute speed of the earth through space
>>>>
>>>> Speed with respect to what?
>>>>
>>>> Can't be light... all inertial observers measure the speed of
>>>> light as c.
>>>
>>> BZZZZT
>>> Wrong.
>>> Lightspeed is a speed,
>>> It can not be the same constant speed to all observers.
>>
>> And yet it is; It is an empirical fact.
>
> You love that word even when you are lying about it.
What lie? It *is* an empirical fact! If you think otherwise,
please provide a citation for the results of an experiment
that has measured a value other that c for the speed of
light.
> That is sad Greg.
> You persist on ignoring relativity only when it supports
> itself.
A constant c is one of the fundamental postulates of
Relativity, so how can this be ignoring it?
> It is amazing how you can have one speed be constant
> to all but any other speed not be.
That's what Nature does. Man doesn't make the rules,
he only tries to work out what they are.
Spaceman
> "Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
> news:zoednSOFhZhlmgrV...@comcast.com
>> Greg Neill wrote:
>>> "Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
>>> news:aNidnZ8ee48BYwvV...@comcast.com
>>>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>>> Peri of Pera wrote:
>>>>>> The measurement of the absolute speed of the earth through space
>>>>>
>>>>> Speed with respect to what?
>>>>>
>>>>> Can't be light... all inertial observers measure the speed of
>>>>> light as c.
>>>>
>>>> BZZZZT
>>>> Wrong.
>>>> Lightspeed is a speed,
>>>> It can not be the same constant speed to all observers.
>>>
>>> And yet it is; It is an empirical fact.
>>
>> You love that word even when you are lying about it.
>
> What lie? It *is* an empirical fact!
The lie is you do not have any such proof at all.
And sadly you can't even understand that any "speed"
can not be constant to all even though you will agree
about such for everthing except lightspeed.
Sad Greg.
Ignorance for support is all you have.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
Greg Neill
>> "Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
>> news:zoednSOFhZhlmgrV...@comcast.com
>>> Greg Neill wrote:
>>>> "Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
>>>> news:aNidnZ8ee48BYwvV...@comcast.com
>>>>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>>>> Peri of Pera wrote:
>>>>>>> The measurement of the absolute speed of the earth through space
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Speed with respect to what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can't be light... all inertial observers measure the speed of
>>>>>> light as c.
>>>>>
>>>>> BZZZZT
>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>> Lightspeed is a speed,
>>>>> It can not be the same constant speed to all observers.
>>>>
>>>> And yet it is; It is an empirical fact.
>>>
>>> You love that word even when you are lying about it.
>>
>> What lie? It *is* an empirical fact!
>
> The lie is you do not have any such proof at all.
You need only produce a citation for an experiment that
has measured a value other than c for the speed of light
to make your allegation stick. I, on the other hand,
can produce many citations to experiments that have
measured the value to be c. Simply denying the evidence
is not proof, James.
> And sadly you can't even understand that any "speed"
> can not be constant to all even though you will agree
> about such for everthing except lightspeed.
And yet the speed of light is measured to be constant by
all observers. How do you propose to incorporate that
fact into your model? Simply denying it won't make it
go away.
> Sad Greg.
> Ignorance for support is all you have.
You say so, but it is clearly not so. You're fantasizing
again, James.
Spaceman
> You need only produce a citation for an experiment that
> has measured a value other than c for the speed of light
> to make your allegation stick. I, on the other hand,
> can produce many citations to experiments that have
> measured the value to be c. Simply denying the evidence
> is not proof, James.
You do not have one experiment that proves
0.6c + 1c =1.6c is wrong.
You only have sad ass math that states it is wrong but actually
includes it inside the proof, so you have "Wrong proof"
only.
Where is your proof that 0.6c + 1c does not equal 1.6?
Where is this magical math that can not use the above
since it is supposedly wrong.
Greg Neill
>> You need only produce a citation for an experiment that
>> has measured a value other than c for the speed of light
>> to make your allegation stick. I, on the other hand,
>> can produce many citations to experiments that have
>> measured the value to be c. Simply denying the evidence
>> is not proof, James.
>
> You do not have one experiment that proves
> 0.6c + 1c =1.6c is wrong.
On the contrary. As a simple mathematical statement
without physical context it is fine. If that mathematical
statement is meant to represent the physics of velocity
composition (that is, it is meant to represent part of a
physical model of Nature) then it is empirically
incorrect; countless experiments show that it does not
represent what actually occurs.
> You only have sad ass math that states it is wrong but actually
> includes it inside the proof, so you have "Wrong proof"
> only.
Physical measurement trumps ignorant wishing every time.
>
> Where is your proof that 0.6c + 1c does not equal 1.6?
Do your own literature search. You'll find plenty of
results.
> Where is this magical math that can not use the above
> since it is supposedly wrong.
You've been told this many times, yet you continue to
ignore it; The math represents a physical model. If you
choose to use the wrong model, while your math may be
impeccable the answers will still not match reality.
Spaceman
> "Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
> news:2fCdnV6ojc4xkArV...@comcast.com
>> Greg Neill wrote:
>>> You need only produce a citation for an experiment that
>>> has measured a value other than c for the speed of light
>>> to make your allegation stick. I, on the other hand,
>>> can produce many citations to experiments that have
>>> measured the value to be c. Simply denying the evidence
>>> is not proof, James.
>>
>> You do not have one experiment that proves
>> 0.6c + 1c =1.6c is wrong.
>
> On the contrary. As a simple mathematical statement
> without physical context it is fine. If that mathematical
> statement is meant to represent the physics of velocity
> composition (that is, it is meant to represent part of a
> physical model of Nature) then it is empirically
> incorrect; countless experiments show that it does not
> represent what actually occurs.
Again,
You prove you are clueless Greg.
Brainwashed beyond help.
It seems you really do think that one single speed
can violate relative speeds.
LOL
Sam Wormley
Peter, you think that's funny that you can't grasp why observations
of binary system show that c ± v is wrong?
Sam Wormley
> ... light not only moves with c but also c+v and c-v.
>
> Peter Riedt
Not observed in nature.
Sam Wormley
> There is a difference between MMX and my proposal. MMX gave a null
> result trying to prove the ether by racing two light beams at right
> angles up and down different paths. My proposal is to prove the
> absolute speed of earth through space by sending one signal in one
> direction without a return. However, both MMX and I use the logic of c
> +v and c-v.
>
> Peter Riedt
Galileo's law of inertia (early 1600s)....
Hidden in the law of inertia is the fact that all motion is
relative. Whether a body is in motion or at rest depends strictly
on the point of view of the observer.
Ref: Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler (1992). Spacetime Physics:
Introduction to Special Relativity. W. H. Freeman. ISBN 0-7167-2327-1.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
"Special relativity (SR) (also known as the special theory of relativity (STR))
is the physical theory of measurement in inertial frames of reference proposed
in 1905 by Albert Einstein (after considerable contributions of Hendrik Lorentz
and Henri Poincaré) in the paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".[1]
It generalizes Galileo's principle of relativity – that all uniform motion is
relative, and that there is no absolute and well-defined state of rest (no
privileged reference frames) – from mechanics to all the laws of physics,
including both the laws of mechanics and of electrodynamics, whatever they may
be. In addition, special relativity incorporates the principle that the speed
of light is the same for all inertial observers regardless of the state of
motion of the source.[2]
This theory has a wide range of consequences which have been experimentally
verified. Special relativity overthrows Newtonian notions of absolute space and
time by stating that time and space are perceived differently by observers in
different states of motion. It yields the equivalence of matter and energy,
as expressed in the mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc2, where c is the
speed of light in a vacuum. The predictions of special relativity agree well
with Newtonian mechanics in their common realm of applicability, specifically
in experiments in which all velocities are small compared to the speed of light."
Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
hanson
>
Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> cranked himself
as he dangled and twisted in the breeze of the farts from
Einstein's sphincter & whined that his wabniggering beliefs
in his SR/GR bible are threatened now...
... because the obvious carrying matrix, the Aether and the
registered tiring of the light **would** make him fall off
from his precarious relativistic cozy warmth near Einstein's
sphincter that nourished his wabniggering spirits for his
mental masturbations...about which Wabie wrote in message
news:5p8d94pjksdv32h2l...@4ax.com...
::W:: Duck pond physics disproves this, too.
::W:: For Androcles and hanson they made cow ponds
::W:: to test wave movements:
http://alexandrakent.com/Paintings/NealeFarmDuckPond.jpg
::W:: Waves NEVER move with c+/- v, N E V E R !
>
hanson wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/de6b3653b9a29b30?hl=en
wherein it says **nothing** about any wave speed.
>
ahahahaha... So, wabie, listen, you have managed
to establish yourself now as a wabniggering "me-too
copycat" just like any other pedestrian Einstein Dangleberry
whose emotional amplitude I was raising with the above
link! ... and within these splendid forums that remind me
of the Mayberry Barbershop atmosphere in the old Andy
Griffith shows, wherein Floyd, the barber plays the perfect
role as an Einstein Dingleberry... ahahha... AHAHAHA...
>
Helmut, where did I say anything about the speed of waves?
Would you like to play now Goober or Barney Fife or any
one of the other funny characters, including you trying to be
another fanatical cyber cop like Andy-Paul Draper-Griffith?...
ahahaha....
Wabie, your neurotic "me-too" tripe was hilarious & typical
of the herd mentality that is the hallmark of all geriatric
Einstein Dingleberries.. Congratulations...ahahahAHAHA...
Thanks for the laughs, Wabie.. hahaha... ahahahahanson
>
>
PS:
Wabie, let me take you off the hook... because good as
your English may be... the hardest thing to understand
in/about any foreign language are its expressions of
sarcasm and humor. Wabie study, and study deeply
what a "Dingleberry" is... Your use of that expression
made your post... well... quite "aetheric"... ahahaha...
Greg Neill
I see you have no germaine response, as usual.
Androcles
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:yGFlk.204$7N1.186@trnddc06...
| === AHAHAHAHAHA...jah, ja, jahhh from Austriahhh....
| >
| Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> cranked himself
| as he dangled and twisted in the breeze of the farts from
| Einstein's sphincter & whined that his wabniggering beliefs
| in his SR/GR bible are threatened now...
| ... because the obvious carrying matrix, the Aether and the
| registered tiring of the light **would** make him fall off
| from his precarious relativistic cozy warmth near Einstein's
| sphincter that nourished his wabniggering spirits for his
| mental masturbations...about which Wabie wrote in message
| news:5p8d94pjksdv32h2l...@4ax.com...
| ::W:: Duck pond physics disproves this, too.
| ::W:: For Androcles and hanson they made cow ponds
| ::W:: to test wave movements:
| http://alexandrakent.com/Paintings/NealeFarmDuckPond.jpg
| ::W:: Waves NEVER move with c+/- v, N E V E R !
| >
| hanson wrote:
| http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/de6b3653b9a29b30?hl=en
| wherein it says **nothing** about any wave speed.
Sho' 'nuff, nothing about speed. But since wabnigga is hung up on
speed, ask him what the speed of these waves are:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/waves.htm
| >
| ahahahaha... So, wabie, listen, you have managed
| to establish yourself now as a wabniggering "me-too
| copycat" just like any other pedestrian Einstein Dangleberry
| whose emotional amplitude I was raising with the above
| link! ... and within these splendid forums that remind me
| of the Mayberry Barbershop atmosphere in the old Andy
| Griffith shows, wherein Floyd, the barber plays the perfect
| role as an Einstein Dingleberry... ahahha... AHAHAHA...
| >
| Helmut, where did I say anything about the speed of waves?
| Would you like to play now Goober or Barney Fife or any
| one of the other funny characters, including you trying to be
| another fanatical cyber cop like Andy-Paul Draper-Griffith?...
| ahahaha....
| Wabie, your neurotic "me-too" tripe was hilarious & typical
| of the herd mentality that is the hallmark of all geriatric
| Einstein Dingleberries.. Congratulations...ahahahAHAHA...
| Thanks for the laughs, Wabie.. hahaha... ahahahahanson
| >
| >
| PS:
| Wabie, let me take you off the hook... because good as
| your English may be... the hardest thing to understand
| in/about any foreign language are its expressions of
| sarcasm and humor. Wabie study, and study deeply
| what a "Dingleberry" is... Your use of that expression
| made your post... well... quite "aetheric"... ahahaha...
|
I'll tell him.
Wabnigga, an Einstein dingleberry is a little shit dangling on the
hairs of Einstein's arse. Another name is "Klingon" (for "cling on"),
the bad guys in Star Trek. You fit that description exactly.
You are one of the black hats, Wabnigga, the guys that get
shot and die in Western movies. The white hats only get shot
and wounded.
Uncle Al
>
> The measurement of the absolute speed of the earth through space
Meaningless - from whose perspective?
> This can be done using the speed of light c.
1) Lorentz invariance
2) idiot
> If the distance between
> source and target remains the same, c is constant. If the target is
> moving away from the source, the speed of light is c-v.
[snip rest of crap]
1) Fucking imbecile.
2) Given any achievable velocities V1 and V2 and any finite
lightspeed, the bound on the relative velocities of V1 and V2 as
viewed by any inertial observer in 1 or 2 cannot exceed
(V1 + V2)/[1 +(V1)(V2)/c^2]
This is transformation of velocities parallel to the direction of
motion.
For velocities at an arbitrary angle theta,
u_parallel = (u'_parallel + v)/(1+(v dot u')/c^2)
u_perp = u'_perp/(gamma_v(1+(v dot u')/c^2))
> Peter Riedt
1) http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
2) Empirical idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
hanson
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> who wrote
in message news:r_Flk.115800$Lc6.1...@newsfe18.ams2...
>
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> who wrote to Wabie in
message > news:yGFlk.204$7N1.186@trnddc06...
> | === AHAHAHAHAHA...jah, ja, jahhh from Austriahhh....
> | >
> | Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> cranked himself
> | as he dangled and twisted in the breeze of the farts from
> | Einstein's sphincter & whined that his wabniggering beliefs
> | in his SR/GR bible are threatened now...
> | ... because the obvious carrying matrix, the Aether and the
> | registered tiring of the light **would** make him fall off
> | from his precarious relativistic cozy warmth near Einstein's
> | sphincter that nourished his wabniggering spirits for his
> | mental masturbations...about which Wabie wrote in message
> | news:5p8d94pjksdv32h2l...@4ax.com...
> | ::W:: Duck pond physics disproves this, too.
> | ::W:: For Androcles and hanson they made cow ponds
> | ::W:: to test wave movements:
> | http://alexandrakent.com/Paintings/NealeFarmDuckPond.jpg
> | ::W:: Waves NEVER move with c+/- v, N E V E R !
> | >
> | hanson wrote:
> | http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/de6b3653b9a29b30?hl=en
> | wherein it says **nothing** about any wave speed.
>
> Sho' 'nuff, nothing about speed. But since wabnigga is hung up on
> speed, ask him what the speed of these waves are:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/waves.htm
>
> I'll tell him.
> Wabnigga, an Einstein dingleberry is a little shit dangling on the
> hairs of Einstein's arse. Another name is "Klingon" (for "cling on"),
> the bad guys in Star Trek. You fit that description exactly.
> You are one of the black hats, Wabnigga, the guys that get
> shot and die in Western movies. The white hats only get shot
> and wounded.
>
... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.. ahahaha.. ahahaha..
Andro, you are master in/of communication.--- Wabie
will understand now that Aether, existent or nor, cannot
produce, carry or have Dingleberries, whether Wabie'
likes to "cling on" to that or not, .... even if Wabie is into
fucking ducks which may produce Dingleberries in Wabie's
cock-hair.... ahahaha... which is where Wabie may have
gotten the inspiration for the choice of his subject line.
>
Andro, didn't you post a while back that Wabie lives
in a village called "Fucking, Austria" where Wabie
swims with his Ducks for Fucks?
Don't post Fucking's coordinates or Paul D will take
the next flight despite the high ticket price... ahahaha..
>
Thanks for the laughs, dudes... ahahaha... ahahanson
>
Androcles
many miles from Westeryourthing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fucking,_Austria
The Fucking Duck Pond shows up clearly in the aerial photograph
on Google Earth at 48° 4'4.55"N, 12°51'35.11"E. but its normally
crowded with Gisse (plural of Geese) and Phuckwit Ducks.
Across the German/Austrian border can be found Pocking and Petting,
but Grubing is on the Austrian side.
hanson
Visit the original Einstein Dingleberries in Fucking, Austria
========= ========
>
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:82Klk.132463$wd5....@newsfe17.ams2...
ahahahaha... See Wabie, in Fucking, (where in/at you said
that you were a "Toilet Dweller") and in Pocking and Petting
it is quite possibly that it was at theses historic places where
Einstein was Grubing his first Dingleberries... ahahaha... which
was at one time a very brown place... ahahaha... and BTW how
many miles away is that from Braunau where Hitler was born?
"Oye weh!"... such a fortunate Trödel you are, Wabie.
"Trust me!"... "Go figure!".... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
Peri of Pera
> On Aug 3, 10:46 pm, Peri of Pera <rie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > This can be done using the speed of light c. If the distance between
> > source and target remains the same, c is constant. If the target is
> > moving away from the source, the speed of light is c-v. If the source
> > and target are approaching each other , the speed of light is c+v. The
> > speed of the target is given by v.
>
> > Establish on the surface of the earth two observation points O1 and
> > O2. They are 1000km apart. Install at each location one of two
> > synchronized clocks which are precise to one nanosecond
> > (0.000000001sec). At a predetermined time a wireless signal is sent
> > in the direction O1 to O2 can be calculated.
>
> > Example: O1 sends a signal at 0.000000000 seconds past 10am. It is
> > received by O2 at 0.003333667 seconds past 10am. The transit time
> > exceeds the time at constant c (0.003333333secs for 1000km).
> > Therefore, O2 is moving away from O1 and the formula to calculate the
> > reduced speed of light due to the motion of the earth through space in
> > the direction of O2 is c-v = d/t or 300000km/sec – v = 1000km/
> > 0.003333667sec = 299970km/sec which gives a value of 30km/sec for v.
>
> > PeterRiedt
>
> Excellent suggestion. Already done, many times, over the last 130
> years.
> It ends up being c, not c+v, not c-v.
> Now what?
> Do catch up.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
PD,
I am not disputing that the speed of light is a constant c and you
know that. Michelson used c+v and c-v in MMX. Do you say he should'nt
have? If you assert that my proposal has been done for 130 years,
since when did science have nanosecond clocks? And what was the result
of this work to determine the absolute speed of the earth that has
been done for 130 years according to you? It is nowhere to be found in
the literature. Science hitherto has insisted that abolute speed
cannot be established. You have no answers, only barefaced bullshit
designed to impress textbook parrots.
Peter Riedt
Chalky
On Aug 4, 11:20 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> "Chalky" <chalkys...@bleachboys.co.uk> wrote in message
> > Peter Riedt
>
> You have reinvented the Michelson-Morley experiment (121 years late).
>
> It gave a negative result.
> =======================================
>
> Well, a null result. Fortunately Sagnac doesn't
Yes, because the Sagnac effect is sensitive to rotation not linear (ie
inertial) motion.
Sam Wormley
>
> Sam,
> the absolute speed of the earth would be relative to the absolute
> speed of light.
>
> Peter Riedt
dx/dt, what's the x with respect to Peter?
Peri of Pera
Sam,
you are using a double standard. If you insist that the speed of light
has a constant speed of 300000km/sec, tell me relative to what? I am
saying that in a possible range of 0 to 300000km/sec the speed of the
earth through space in my example is 30km/sec. My 30km/sec is absolute
and truly relative as it compares to c, your c is neither as it
compares to nothing.
Peter Riedt
Androcles
"Chalky" <chalk...@bleachboys.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5d8b7655-d089-4c6d...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
A team of scientists working under the direction of researchers from the
University of Sussex have recently discovered that Einstein did not say
"inertial".
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/inertial.JPG
Ever heard of a linear motor, Chalky? They are used on roller coasters these
days.
Fortunately Sagnac doesn't give a null result and Sagnac is
the crank Einstein's "thought experiment" wrapped around a circle.
What's so hard to understand about wrapping a linear experiment
around a circle?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/SagnacIdiocy.htm
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
Your answer goes here:
________________________________________________________
Other answers have been:
According to Ian Parker:
"We are not talking about the speed of light here we are talking
classical stability theory." -- Idiot Ian Parker.
______________________________________________________
According to cretin harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch
"Easy: he did NOT say that."
According to moron van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he wrote.
______________________________________________________
According to xxein:
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.
______________________________________________________
According to Lamenting Shubert:
Why do you want to know?
______________________________________________________
According to Imbecile Jimmy Black:
" In neither system (meaning frame of reference in modern-day terminology)
is the speed of light c-v or c+v. In both systems the speed of light is c."
According to the imbecile Jimmy Black, Einstein did not write the equation
he wrote.
______________________________________________________
According to Dork Bruere
"I don't give a damn what Einstein wrote."
______________________________________________________
According to Eric Gisse
"I don't give a shit ____________________" (fill in the blank).
______________________________________________________
According to Spirit of Truth:
that math is correct but WRONG
______________________________________________________
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
______________________________________________________
Would you like to change your idiot statement, Chalky?
PD
> On Aug 5, 1:50 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > Peri of Pera wrote:
>
> > > Sam,
> > > the absolute speed of the earth would be relative to the absolute
> > > speed of light.
>
> > > Peter Riedt
>
> > dx/dt, what's the x with respect to Peter?
>
> > Galileo's law of inertia (early 1600s)....
>
> > Hidden in the law of inertia is the fact that all motion is
> > relative. Whether a body is in motion or at rest depends strictly
> > on the point of view of the observer.
>
> Sam,
> you are using a double standard. If you insist that the speed of light
> has a constant speed of 300000km/sec, tell me relative to what?
Relative to any measuring device that is measuring it. It is still a
relative velocity, Peter. ALL velocities are relative velocities.
PD
What Michelson did is to say IF the light travels at c+v and c-v, THEN
he should see fringe shifts in the interferometer. That was the
hypothesis he was testing, Peter. When he did NOT see fringe shifts in
the interferometer, this was a strong indication that light does NOT
travel at c+v and c-v. The experiment was designed specifically to
measure the Earth's motion through the aether, IF such a motion was
there. The null result showed that this hypothesis is ruled out.
> If you assert that my proposal has been done for 130 years,
> since when did science have nanosecond clocks?
That's the point of clever experimental design, Peter. Michelson could
measure short time differences WITHOUT requiring a clock. To see how
this works requires doing a little reading on how an interferometer
works. The best thing to do is to read Michelson's papers on his
interferometers, where he describes this in detail.
> And what was the result
> of this work to determine the absolute speed of the earth that has
> been done for 130 years according to you? It is nowhere to be found in
> the literature.
"It is nowhere to be found in the literature." That is simply not
correct, Peter. Where are you looking. Are you just trying to do a
Google search and hoping that it will pop up, under the presumption
that if it's in the literature, Google should find it?
> Science hitherto has insisted that abolute speed
> cannot be established. You have no answers, only barefaced bullshit
> designed to impress textbook parrots.
Nonsense, Peter. Your "show me, I dare you" approach to self-education
is transparent, uncompelling, and unseemly. If you are truly
interested in learning more about this subject, I can certainly direct
you to how to find it in your local university library, but it will
require you to move your rear end from your chair and stop acting like
a pouty baby bird: "Feed me! Feed me!"
PD
Sam Wormley
Hey Peter, you forgot to read my lips. Whether a body is in motion
or at rest depends strictly on the point of view of the observer.
The earth's average orbital velocity RELATIVE TO a non-rotating
coordinate system fixed in the barycenter of the solar system is
29.79 km/s... and that is just a convenient choice!
Surfer
<gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>.....
>please provide a citation for the results of an experiment
>that has measured a value other that c for the speed of
>light.
>
"Observation of a significant influence of earth´s motion on the
velocity of photons in our terrestrial laboratory"
MÚNERA OROZCO, HECTOR AUGUSTO, HERNÁNDEZ DECKERS, DANIEL, ARENAS
SICARD, GERMÁN, ALFONSO ORJUELA, JOSÉ EDGAR
In: The Nature of Light: What are photons?, 2007, San Diego,
California.
Proceedings of SPIE. , 2007. v.6664. p.1 - 8
http://garavito.colciencias.gov.co/pls/curriculola/gn_imprime.visualiza_cvlac?f_check=DUMMY&f_check=0&f_check=1&f_check=2&f_check=3&f_check=4&f_check=7&f_check=5&f_check=6&f_check=15&f_check=16&f_check=8&f_check=9&f_check=10&f_check=12&f_check=17&f_check=13&f_check=11&f_check=14&f_check=21&f_check=19&f_check=20&f_tpo=P&f_fmt=H&f_padrao=A&f_plv=0&f_setor=0&f_area=0&f_per_atu=0&f_ano_atu=&f_inf=1&f_cit=1&f_per_prod=0&f_ano_prod=&f_cod=0000270814
Abstract:
"The paper reports the positive results obtained with a stationary
Michelson-Morley interferometer operating during two consecutive years
(2003-2005) in Bogotá, Colombia. After subtracting the environmental
periodical effects, there is still a periodic residual that is no
longer correlated to the environmental variables. There is, however, a
significant correlation between the daily fringe-shift residuals for
each month and the velocity of motion of the earth relative to the
center of our galaxy at that particular time. This hints to a possible
dependence of the velocity of light in our terrestrial laboratory and
the velocity of the earth. This result is contrary to the current
model for the photon that postulates a constant speed of light. From
our data we have calculated the solar velocity consistent with our
observations: 500 km/s, right ascension 16h-40 min, declination -75º."
Greg Neill
news:9d0h941meks82opnu...@4ax.com
> <gnei...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>> .....
>> please provide a citation for the results of an experiment
>> that has measured a value other that c for the speed of
>> light.
>>
> velocity of photons in our terrestrial laboratory"
> SICARD, GERMAN, ALFONSO ORJUELA, JOSI EDGAR
> In: The Nature of Light: What are photons?, 2007, San Diego,
> California.
> Proceedings of SPIE. , 2007. v.6664. p.1 - 8
> http://garavito.colciencias.gov.co/pls/curriculola/gn_imprime.visualiza_cvlac?f_check=DUMMY&f_check=0&f_check=1&f_check=2&f_check=3&f_check=4&f_check=7&f_check=5&f_check=6&f_check=15&f_check=16&f_check=8&f_check=9&f_check=10&f_check=12&f_check=17&f_check=13&f_check=11&f_check=14&f_check=21&f_check=19&f_check=20&f_tpo=P&f_fmt=H&f_padrao=A&f_plv=0&f_setor=0&f_area=0&f_per_atu=0&f_ano_atu=&f_inf=1&f_cit=1&f_per_prod=0&f_ano_prod=&f_cod=0000270814
>
> Abstract:
> "The paper reports the positive results obtained with a stationary
> Michelson-Morley interferometer operating during two consecutive years
> periodical effects, there is still a periodic residual that is no
> longer correlated to the environmental variables. There is, however, a
> significant correlation between the daily fringe-shift residuals for
> each month and the velocity of motion of the earth relative to the
> center of our galaxy at that particular time. This hints to a possible
> dependence of the velocity of light in our terrestrial laboratory and
> the velocity of the earth. This result is contrary to the current
> model for the photon that postulates a constant speed of light. From
> our data we have calculated the solar velocity consistent with our
"...hints to a possible dependence of the velocity of light..."
So the team found they have some unexplained residuals in
their data.
I note no confirming experiments done elsewhere and no mention
of this result in the usual literature where one would expect
it to show up.
A replicated (by a third party) and repeatable result would be
significant. A lone anomaly amongst the (very) many negative
results from M&M experiments performed the world over is not
persuasive.
PD
>
> >.....
> >please provide a citation for the results of an experiment
> >that has measured a value other that c for the speed of
> >light.
>
> "Observation of a significant influence of earth´s motion on the
> velocity of photons in our terrestrial laboratory"
> MÚNERA OROZCO, HECTOR AUGUSTO, HERNÁNDEZ DECKERS, DANIEL, ARENAS
> SICARD, GERMÁN, ALFONSO ORJUELA, JOSÉ EDGAR
> In: The Nature of Light: What are photons?, 2007, San Diego,
> California.
>
> Abstract:
> "The paper reports the positive results obtained with a stationary
> Michelson-Morley interferometer operating during two consecutive years
> (2003-2005) in Bogotá, Colombia. After subtracting the environmental
> periodical effects, there is still a periodic residual that is no
> longer correlated to the environmental variables. There is, however, a
> significant correlation between the daily fringe-shift residuals for
> each month and the velocity of motion of the earth relative to the
> center of our galaxy at that particular time. This hints to a possible
> dependence of the velocity of light in our terrestrial laboratory and
> the velocity of the earth. This result is contrary to the current
> model for the photon that postulates a constant speed of light. From
> our data we have calculated the solar velocity consistent with our
> observations: 500 km/s, right ascension 16h-40 min, declination -75º."
If this experimental result can be confirmed by independent
researchers, as is the norm in experimental physics, then it would be
a landmark finding.
The Ghost In The Machine
<rie...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote
on Sun, 3 Aug 2008 20:46:06 -0700 (PDT)
<ab9ac067-1a12-49d3...@z11g2000prl.googlegroups.com>:
> The measurement of the absolute speed of the earth through space
>
> This can be done using the speed of light c. If the distance between
> source and target remains the same, c is constant. If the target is
> moving away from the source, the speed of light is c-v. If the source
> and target are approaching each other , the speed of light is c+v. The
> speed of the target is given by v.
Sorry, you're flat wrong.
Granted, I have no direct data -- I wish I did -- but I can
point out that a number of experiments have established
beyond a reasonable doubt (at least from a scientific
standpoint, anyway), that if one has a point motionless
with respect to the Sun some distance away radiating at,
say, 589.592 nm [*] (508.474 THz), then, since the Earth
is moving at about 10^-4 c, one will get about 589.651 nm
(508.424 THz) at one part of the Earth's orbit, and about
589.533 nm (508.525 THz) at the other. [+]
The product turns out to be constant -- lightspeed.
[rest snipped]
[*] the sodium D1 line. The frequency is a computed value.
[+] I'll admit I'd be surprised if some astronomer type
hasn't tried this.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
/dev/signature: Resource temporarily unavailable
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Peri of Pera
PD,
No it wasn't. In the interferometer experiment, he expected a fringe
shift of .4 rings if the ether existed. He recombined the parallel
light beam with the perpendicular light beam and expected them to
interfere which they didn't. This null result made the search for the
ether to be abandoned and Lorentz to postulate a contraction theory of
the parallel arm of the interferometer equipment. In respect of c-v
and c+v, it is a mathematical device to account for the motion of the
mirror at the end of the parallel arm away from the source and for the
shortening of the distance mirror to beamsplitter on the return trip.
The speed of light is always c but if the distance between source and
target varies, an adjustment to c is made. It does not affect the
constant speed of light which is always c i.e (c-v+c+v)/2=c. As for my
proposal to measure the absolute speed of the earth, if it would have
been done already as you claim, it would be in every textbook. But
there is no record or procedure to measure absolute speed (up to now)
anywhere. Work has been done to measure relative speeds but not
absolute speeds.
Peter Riedt
rie...@yahoo.co.uk
Sam,
you are correct, it is not observed in nature. It is a mathematical
device to account for the extra distance light has to cover to catch
up with a target that is moving away from the source (in this case c-
v) and the reduced distance when the source and the target are
approching each other (in this case c+v). This logic has been used by
Michelson in MMX and by me in my proposal to measure the absolute
speed of the earth.
Peter Riedt
rie...@yahoo.co.uk
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> In sci.physics.relativity, Peri of Pera
> <rie...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote
> on Sun, 3 Aug 2008 20:46:06 -0700 (PDT)
Ghost,
what is your message? Please be assured that the speed of light is
always c and that the speed of the earth around the sun is about 30km/
sec but the absolute speed of the earth through space has not been
determined yet but can be using my proposal. Did you read me as
something else?
Peter Riedt
Peter Riedt
PD
Be careful here, Peter. The mirror is not moving away from the source
in the interferometer. I would suggest you reread whatever you are
using to learn about this, or find another reference.
> The speed of light is always c but if the distance between source and
> target varies, an adjustment to c is made. It does not affect the
> constant speed of light which is always c i.e (c-v+c+v)/2=c. As for my
> proposal to measure the absolute speed of the earth, if it would have
> been done already as you claim, it would be in every textbook.
That isn't correct, Peter. It is wrong to think that every important
experimental result is recorded in each and every introductory
textbook. There isn't space in 1200 pages to do that and explain the
principles and provide practice as well. If that was your hope, that
you could avoid digging in the literature as long as you had a good
textbook, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to severely dash your
hopes. I'll give you an example, Peter. In your textbook (and you
should tell me which one you're looking at), you will be hard pressed
to find the experiments of Aspect et al, which were the practical
execution of the tests proposed by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen. This
is one of the most important experiments of this century. Is it in
your textbook? Where? Cite the reference.
> But
> there is no record or procedure to measure absolute speed (up to now)
> anywhere. Work has been done to measure relative speeds but not
> absolute speeds.
There certainly has. But you're going to have to find it in journal
articles, Peter, in a university library. I'm sorry, it's just not
something you're going to find easily from amazon.com.
Sam Wormley
>
> Sam,
> you are correct, it is not observed in nature. It is a mathematical
> device to account for the extra distance light has to cover to catch
> up with a target that is moving away from the source (in this case c-
> v) and the reduced distance when the source and the target are
> approching each other (in this case c+v). This logic has been used by
> Michelson in MMX and by me in my proposal to measure the absolute
> speed of the earth.
>
> Peter Riedt
Peter, you would be a good fellow to learn from Michelson's mistake
Physics that came along science that thinking more than a century ago.
We have now concluded the speed of light is a universal constant in
nature.
We have long known that motion is relative. Whether a body is in
motion or at rest depends strictly on the point of view of the
observer.
We now understand that distance and time are not absolute or fixed,
but are malleable and again dependent of the perspective of the
observer.... all confirmed again and again by observation and
experiment.
Suggest reading Physics FAQs currently available from these web sites:
Australia:
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq
Canada:
http://www.stillmoving.ca/physics/faq
England:
http://physicsfaq.co.uk/Faq
Germany:
http://www.desy.de/pub/www/projects/Physics
Netherlands:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/PhysFAQ
Taiwan:
http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq
USA:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics
http://scope.joemirando.net/faqs
http://www.obscure.org/physics-faq
http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq
http://www.ronen.net/physics
Sam Wormley
>
> Ghost,
> what is your message? Please be assured that the speed of light is
> always c and that the speed of the earth around the sun is about 30km/
> sec but the absolute speed of the earth through space has not been
> determined yet but can be using my proposal. Did you read me as
> something else?
>
> Peter Riedt
>
Peter, I hate to burst your bubble, but you need to understand that
"absolute" velocities (dx/dt) require "absolute" reference frames.
There is no such thing.
Velocity is relative. Whether a body is in motion or at rest depends
The Ghost In The Machine
<rie...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote
on Wed, 6 Aug 2008 01:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
<8a9fa84a-8e01-4fc9...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com>:
The message is simple: lightspeed in vacuo is always c,
no matter where it comes from, goes to, goes through,
or how its measured.
> Please be assured that the speed of light is
> always c and that the speed of the earth around the sun is about 30km/
> sec but the absolute speed of the earth through space has not been
> determined yet but can be using my proposal.
Absolute speed of a massive body is not a meaningful
notion. One can of course measure the speed of a massive
body relative to something.
Absolute lightspeed is not a meaningful notion either,
but it turns out that lightspeed in vacuo is c relative to
*everything*; the adjustments are in measured wavelength
and frequency, whose product is lightspeed.
> Did you read me as
> something else?
Maybe.
>
> Peter Riedt
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #1123133:
void f(FILE * fptr, char *p) { fgets(p, sizeof(p), fptr); }
Androcles
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:sqpnm5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Peri of Pera
| <rie...@yahoo.co.uk>
| wrote
| on Sun, 3 Aug 2008 20:46:06 -0700 (PDT)
| <ab9ac067-1a12-49d3...@z11g2000prl.googlegroups.com>:
| > The measurement of the absolute speed of the earth through space
| >
| > This can be done using the speed of light c. If the distance between
| > source and target remains the same, c is constant. If the target is
| > moving away from the source, the speed of light is c-v. If the source
| > and target are approaching each other , the speed of light is c+v. The
| > speed of the target is given by v.
|
| Sorry, you're flat wrong.
|
| Granted, I have no direct data -- I wish I did -- but I can
| point out that a number of experiments have established
| beyond a reasonable doubt (at least from a scientific
| standpoint, anyway), that if one has a point motionless
| with respect to the Sun some distance away radiating at,
| say, 589.592 nm [*] (508.474 THz), then, since the Earth
| is moving at about 10^-4 c, one will get about 589.651 nm
| (508.424 THz) at one part of the Earth's orbit, and about
| 589.533 nm (508.525 THz) at the other. [+]
|
| The product turns out to be constant -- lightspeed.
|
| [rest snipped]
If one has a gun motionless with respect to the Sun some distance away
firing bullets at, say, 1 a second then, since the Earth is moving at about
18.5 miles/sec, one will get about 18.5 miles between bullets (1 Hz) at one
part of the
Earth's orbit, and about 1/18.5 miles = 285.4 feet between bullets ( 30
kHz) at the other.
O = Earth, . = bullet
bullet #1 #2 #3 <- bullets going <-
t0 . . .
t0 O > Earth
goes ->
bullet #2 #3 #4
t1 . . .
t1 O
distance Earth to bullet #1 at t0 is this much >||<
distance Earth to bullet #3 at t1 is this much >||<
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bullet #3 #2 #1 >- bullets going >-
t0 . . .
t0 O > Earth
goes ->
bullet #4 #3 #2
t1 . . .
t1 O
distance Earth to bullet #1 at t0 is this much >|
|<
distance Earth to bullet #1 at t1 is this much >|
|<
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The product turns out to be constant - bullet speed. Sorry, you're flat
wrong.
Granted, you have no direct data -- you wish you did, but you don't
and you are a fuckhead (at least from a mathematical standpoint, anyway).
[idiot drool snipped]
Peter Riedt
>
> Peter, you would be a good fellow to learn from Michelson's mistake
Sam,
What actually was Michelson's mistake?
where did he go wrong?
Peter Riedt
Peter Riedt
> On Aug 6, 10:52 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Peter, you would be a good fellow to learn from Michelson's mistake
>
> Sam,
> What actually was Michelson's mistake?
>
> Peter Riedt
Sam Wormley
I suppose Michelson's mistake was not accepting what the data was
telling him.
Quoting from Einstein's 1905 paper.. the last part of the second
paragraph... "The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove
to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not
require an "absolutely stationary space" provided with special
properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty
space in which electromagnetic processes take place".
And, of course the paper goes on to develop the ideas and make his
case...
Sam Wormley
I suppose Michelson's mistake was not accepting what the data was
bsr...@my-deja.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
How did you plan on synchronizing the clocks?
If you move them after setting how do you know they still agree after
being moved?
Bruce
Peter Riedt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bruce,
the American agency NIST in Colorado sends signals to many
organisations to synchronise clocks. They have a master clock F1 which
is accurate to +-1sec in 100000000 years. The timekeeping of the clock
is used for NASA space exploration, GPS, TV and Radio broadcasts etc.
No need to question atomic cesium clocks for terrestrial and space
purposes but they cannot be applied to time dilation and length
contraction problems simply because they always tick at the same rate
regardless of any speed they or observed objects might be travelling
at.
Peter Riedt
bsr...@my-deja.com
The clock may be perfectly accurate but it takes time for its signal
to reach other clocks. how do you know how long it takes the signal
to reach the distant clock?
Bruce
Sue...
Are two sides of an isosceles triangle equal?
<< Since the path delay is usually affected by
various environmental parameters (such as ambient
temperature), the common-view method generally works
best if the distance between the receiver stations
(the baseline) is small relative to the distance
between either receiver and the transmitter.
This geometry tends to ensure that the delay fluctuations
(caused by the atmosphere for example) in the two paths
will be highly correlated. >>
http://tf.nist.gov/time/commonviewgps.htm
Even tighter accuracy is achived by recording
VLBI data and correlating it at a single
location.
Sue...
>
> Bruce
PD
And that clock is a good standard for clocks that are at rest relative
to the earth and at the same latitude.
However clocks at different latitudes and clocks that are in motion
relative to the earth need to have explicit corrections applied to
them, in accordance with what relativity predicts, in order for them
to have a chance of staying in synch with the central clock within the
precision and stability of the clocks themselves. This relativity
*physics* algorithm is precisely what is applied to interplanetary
probes, GPS satellites, and so on.
bsr...@my-deja.com
Think about what he is testing for. He is timing the one way speed of
light to detect any difference in the speed of light for different
directions so that he can detect the Earth's motion through space. If
radio or light signals are used to sync the clocks then the difference
in light speed will affect their sync. If you assume light travels at
constant c when you set the clocks you will measure it to travel at
c. If you assume that the speed of light is biased in some direction,
and allow for that when you set the clocks, you will find that the
speed of light is biased in the direction you assumed.
Bruce
>
> > The timekeeping of the clock
> > is used for NASA space exploration, GPS, TV and Radio broadcasts etc.
> > No need to question atomic cesium clocks for terrestrial and space
> > purposes but they cannot be applied to time dilation and length
> > contraction problems simply because they always tick at the same rate
> > regardless of any speed they or observed objects might be travelling
> > at.
>
> > Peter Riedt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
PD
yup
Tom Potter
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:ElQmk.288523$yE1.228674@attbi_s21...
Sam makes a good point when he points out
that a common tactic of Einstein was to create
a "strawman" like the "luminiferous ether"
and using it to tar the very people he stole ideas from.
Can you imagine any respectable physicist today,
cherry picking one of the numerous concepts
extant in the field, and using it as a "strawman" to tar
everyone.
An honest and good scientists does NOT need
to create "strawmen", all they need to do
is say, "Here is my model,
and here is how you can use it to save time and money and energy."
--
Tom Potter
http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm
Peter Riedt
Bruce,
correct. The time for a wireless signal from the master clock to a
receiving clock is subject to c+v or c-v depending on the motion of
the earth through space. If the earth were at rest, the time for
1000km would be exactly 1000km/300000km/sec. As the earth does not
stand still, to synchronise two clocks precisely, they should be
synchronised while they touch each other and then one of them can be
taken to the observation location. During the journey and thereafter
the clock that is moved will stay in synch for 100000000 years to an
accuracy of +-1sec. As my proposed experiment can be performed within
24 hours, any loss or gain over this period is immaterial.
Peter Riedt
bsr...@my-deja.com
You are assuming that moving the clock does not affect its reading. I
can show you that according to aether theory and SR time is position
dependent. Move the clock and it will gain or lose ticks. Move it
back and it will gain or lose ticks to get back in sync with the clock
that wasn't moved. This happens reguardless of how slow you move the
clock. Even without considering SR, if the atomic clock works by
counting pulses in an atom, and those pulses are caused by photons
traveling within the atom or between atoms, doesn't it make sense that
moving the atom affects how far those photons travel in or between
atoms?
Bruce
Peter Riedt
Bruce,
yes I have made this assumption. I do not believe that the ether
affects the accuracy of clocks if moved or not. SR is ambiguous about
REAL time dilation as against perceived time dilation and photons are
supposed to travel always at c, the most stable of all natural
phenomena.
Peter Riedt
bsr...@my-deja.com
The affect of motion on clocks is one of the basic concepts of aether
theory. Picture a space ship flying by with a light beam bouncing
vertically between the ends of a tube. The path of the beam is a zig
zag. If the ship speeds up the path becomes elongated and the clock
slows down. Slow the ship and the path gets shorter and the clock
speeds up. Have a second ship hold a steady speed while the first
speeds up and then slows enough for the other to catch up. When they
are back together their clocks will for all practical purposes ticked
the same number of times, so long as the speed difference was not too
great.
In SR put three clocks, A, B, and C on a train and sync them
together. Using slow transport move clock B some distance from A.
Then transport C from A to B and Back.
Viewed from the tracks SR says that clock B will be out of sync with A
after the move due to relative simultanity. Clock C reads the same as
A before it is moved, but must change time to be in agreement with B
when it gets there. The process must reverse itself so that it is in
sync with A when it returns.
Bruce
Yua...@gmail.com
>
> Peter, I hate to burst your bubble, but you need to understand that
> "absolute" velocities (dx/dt) require "absolute" reference frames.
That's true.
> There is no such thing.
It's very difficult to prove such things.
But let's have a try.
Take Minkowski spacetime (M).
Select *any* possible direction for your temporal coordinate and use
any possible spatial coordinate directions you wish.
Select *any* event in spacetime as origin (0,0,0,0),
Construct 4 dimensional spatial manifold (S) mathematically isometric
to M.
Take S as an absolute reference frame. (Noting carefully that S is not
an inertial frame).
Perform an isomorphic and isometric transformation from M to S,
relating any event (x,y,z,t) in M to the point (x,y,z,ct) in S (where
c = the velocity of light).
The path of any object in M is thereby transformed isomorphically and
isometrically into a path in S.
The 4-velocity of that object (and every object) in M is c, and
therefor its velocity is also c relative to our coordinate system in
S.
Treating S as our absolute frame, with c as the velocity of every
object relative to that frame, it follows that every object has an
absolute velocity of c.
It seems to me that in this way we can envision an absolute frame in
which all objects have an absolute velocity of c.
> Velocity is relative. Whether a body is in motion or at rest depends
> strictly on the point of view of the observer.
When it comes to measuring velocities, distances and time, we have a
problem.
In another thread I've done to death the idea that we can only make
relative measurements.
I still hold that position even though nobody was willing to agree
with me, even on that small point.
Al we are able to *measure* is relative velocities, distances and
times but it seems to me that (unmeasurable) absolute velocities,
distances and times can exist.
After this small step, we can even think about taking another small
step and relating gravitation to time dilation - directly from SR.
But sometimes (far from marching a thousand miles) we can't take a
second step because we won't take the first one.
So the discussion never gets that far.
Love,
Jenny
Love,
Jenny
Sue...
Huh?
<<The key to understanding special relativity is
Einstein's relativity principle, which states that:
All inertial frames are totally equivalent
for the performance of all physical experiments.
In other words, it is impossible to perform a
physical experiment which differentiates in
any fundamental sense between different inertial
frames. By definition, Newton's laws of motion
take the same form in all inertial frames.
Einstein generalized this result in his special
theory of relativity by asserting that all
laws of physics take the same form in all
inertial frames.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
> theory. Picture a space ship flying by with a light beam bouncing
> vertically between the ends of a tube.
Picture your nose in a modern physics text.
"Relativity and electromagnetism"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node106.html
Sue...
PD
Actually, SR is quite clear about it, but I'm not surprised your
understanding is ambiguous, as you've not taken the time to read up on
it.
Tom Potter
<bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:f80a0170-d9aa-4aff...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
It is interesting to see that <bsr...@my-deja.com>
asserts that running at an oscillator changes the
frequency of the oscillator,
and also the counts on any counters (Clocks)
that have accumulated counts of the oscillator output.
It seems to me,
that with all the runners in the universe,
that all oscillators would have a random output
if this were true.
And of course, it is NOT true.
There is only ONE master oscillator,
and only ONE master tick accumulator (Clock),
and all other oscillators and tick accumulators
are INSTRUMENTS, that can be used to
determine how the environment and history
of various points compare to the environment and history
of the point at which one's master oscillator and clock is located.
bsr...@my-deja.com
Go back to sleep you sleepy headed ho.
> <<The key to understanding special relativity is
> Einstein's relativity principle, which states that:
>
> All inertial frames are totally equivalent
> for the performance of all physical experiments.
>
> In other words, it is impossible to perform a
> physical experiment which differentiates in
> any fundamental sense between different inertial
> frames. By definition, Newton's laws of motion
> take the same form in all inertial frames.
> Einstein generalized this result in his special
> theory of relativity by asserting that all
> laws of physics take the same form in all
> inertial frames.
>
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
That was not my statement. If you have something to say to Peter try
responding to his post.
> > theory. Picture a space ship flying by with a light beam bouncing
> > vertically between the ends of a tube.
>
> Picture your nose in a modern physics text.
>
> "Relativity and electromagnetism"http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node106.html
>
> Sue...
>
Picture your nose up the crack of my ass. Now take a deep snort.
Bruce
>
> > The path of the beam is a zig
> > zag. If the ship speeds up the path becomes elongated and the clock
> > slows down. Slow the ship and the path gets shorter and the clock
> > speeds up. Have a second ship hold a steady speed while the first
> > speeds up and then slows enough for the other to catch up. When they
> > are back together their clocks will for all practical purposes ticked
> > the same number of times, so long as the speed difference was not too
> > great.
>
> > In SR put three clocks, A, B, and C on a train and sync them
> > together. Using slow transport move clock B some distance from A.
> > Then transport C from A to B and Back.
>
> > Viewed from the tracks SR says that clock B will be out of sync with A
> > after the move due to relative simultanity. Clock C reads the same as
> > A before it is moved, but must change time to be in agreement with B
> > when it gets there. The process must reverse itself so that it is in
> > sync with A when it returns.
>
> > Bruce- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
bsr...@my-deja.com
> <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote in messagenews:f80a0170-d9aa-4aff...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> asserts that running at an oscillator changes the
> frequency of the oscillator,
> and also the counts on any counters (Clocks)
> that have accumulated counts of the oscillator output.
It is interesting that you are so stupid as to misunderstand what I
wrote. I clearly stated that the clock was moved in what had been its
rest frame.
Snip the rest of your confused ramblings.
Bruce
Tom Potter
<bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:dab7efd0-5074-421e...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
Regarding Bruce's assertion:
"Move the clock and it will gain or lose ticks.
Move it back and it will gain or lose ticks
to get back in sync with the clock that wasn't moved.",
as I pointed out,
a rational, logical system ( Physics????)
that is used to quantize and order data,
uses only ONE master oscillator
( Source of time units.)
and accumulates these time units
in ONE accumulator ( Master clock),
and if you run at the master oscillator
this does not change the frequency of the oscillator,
and running at the Master clock does not change
the count of the time units accumulated by the clock.
My pal Bruce makes the same mistake that Einstein did,
and that is he confuses instruments with
the ONE master source of time units,
and the ONE master time unit accumulator.
Physics is the process of accumulating and ordering data,
and constructing logical models that attempt to fit the past
and predict the future.
It is "stupid" to allow every oscillator
in the universe be a master oscillator,
and every event accumulator be a master clock,
as this leads to double talk and "confused rambling".
What Einstein and my pal Bruce call a clock,
is in fact an accumulator driven by
events that science makes an effort to quantize and order.
ALL oscillators and ALL accumulators
other than the master oscillator and the master clock
are INSTRUMENTS,
and the data associated with these INSTRUMENTS
is mapped against the master oscillator and the master clock
in order to obtain information about the oscillator
and it's environment and the history of the accumulator.
No doubt, one can use tree rings, pocket watches, moon cycles,
hour glasses, the Earth's annual cycle, exponential growth and decay, etc.
as temporary transfer clocks, BUT science is predicated on using
ONE standard time unit, and ONE time base (Clock) on which to
order objects and events.
Using everything that oscillates as a time standard,
and everything that accumulates change as a clock
creates a Tower of Babel.
Einstein created a Tower of Babel
where anything that oscillates is considered
a time and space unit reference,
and where anything that accumulates change
is looked at as a clock,
and like Moses, Jesus, Freud, and Marx,
he has a large cult following.
Data does not become science UNTIL
the data is referenced to the ONE standard unit,
and ordered on the ONE master clock/calendar.
Thanks to my pal Bruce
for bringing up this important issue.
Yua...@gmail.com
> It seems to me that in this way we've envisioned an absolute frame in
> which all material objects have an absolute velocity of c.
A "quasi-stationary" frame in which inertial frames are whizzing
about. Is that what you mean?
So stationary particles would have velocity c relative to all these
inertial frames?
Wouldn't that be just like photons?
Are you suggesting that this absolute frame might actually be
constructed of stationary photons?
Wouldn't that mean that photons were elementary ether particles?
What might be the physical properties of such a photon dust cloud, do
you think?
Love,
Jenny
Uncle Al
Idiot.
http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
<http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf>
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html>
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
No Lorentz violation
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
bsr...@my-deja.com
> <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote in messagenews:dab7efd0-5074-421e...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
I see, you prefer absolute time to SR and are on a mission to show the
physics comunity the error of their ways.
> and if you run at the master oscillator
> this does not change the frequency of the oscillator,
>
> and running at the Master clock does not change
> the count of the time units accumulated by the clock.
And even after pointing out that your example is not equivelent to
what I said you continue to repeat your misconceptions. My example
involves accelerations of the clock when it is moved while yours does
not. Since the discussion was about moving clocks your comments don't
apply.
Bruce
[snip]
Spaceman
Do you know what happens to people not using absolute time?
hint: They crash into things that supposedly should not be there yet
according to "dilated" timing methods, but sure enough that absolute time
predictions show the object would be there and use basic
math (that has never been proven wrong) as the facts and the crash occurs
just as the "absolute timing methods" predict.
Do you know that?
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
PD
wrote:
Really? When did this last happen? Cite a case.
Spaceman
Train collisions back in the old on board clock days.
I am not going to go over this history again PD, since you
are truly too stupid to understand anything about using absolute
timing.
PD
wrote:
Really? Train clocks desynchronization was due to using rubber rulers
and dilated clocks?
Spaceman
Oh boy PD..
Lets try this simple one with you PD,
A particle is accelerated to 0.9c and it is whipping around
a particle accelerator at that speed according to a
sub "control" room that it keeps passing by.
The accelerator track happens to be 167,400 miles
measured by hundreds of engineers using "non rubber rulers".
so the particle according to them passes by each second
right on the dot so they say it is doing 0.9c
(167,400 mile per second)
Now please tell me what speed the particle thinks it is doing
according to your "time dilation" that should be occuring since
it is goign so fast?
PD
wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > On Aug 13, 5:18 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> > wrote:
> >> PD wrote:
> >>> Really? When did this last happen? Cite a case.
>
> >> Train collisions back in the old on board clock days.
>
> > Really? Train clocks desynchronization was due to using rubber rulers
> > and dilated clocks?
>
> Oh boy PD..
> Lets try this simple one with you PD,
> A particle is accelerated to 0.9c and it is whipping around
> a particle accelerator at that speed according to a
> sub "control" room that it keeps passing by.
> The accelerator track happens to be 167,400 miles
> measured by hundreds of engineers using "non rubber rulers".
Hey, I just want you to tell me a crash happened in a case like this,
and then I'll ask you when and where that happened.
:>)
Spaceman
So you are affraid as usual to post your "dilation" bullshit
about the particles "time".
Figures.
PD
Nah, I'm just focused on YOUR claim that using "dilation" time results
in crashes. Looking to see if you're just making crap up.
PD
Spaceman
I am trying to give you a clue about such but you just refuse
to use the answer that will prove you are wrong and would actually
cause a "crash" to occur.
I see you are still affraid.
hmm?
I better look up Stritchs excuse number you are using right now Mr con man
Paul Draper.
Yua...@gmail.com
> Yuan...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > What might be the physical properties of such a photon dust cloud, do
> > you think?
> Idiot.
>
Hi Uncle Al,
You still haven't explained how to measure something, without using
some kinde of reference.
Keep thinking about it.
> http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
> Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
> <http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf>
> No aether
>
No mention of aether in those documents, you're right. Aether
deficiency in the extreme.
Won't they be embarassed when they find out?
It's amazing that people can't even see something even when they're
staring right at it. That's the human condition,I suppose.
> http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
> <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html>http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
> No Lorentz violation
>
No violations there, certainly not any speeding tickets.
In any case, you missed the point. What might the physical properties
of a photon dust cloud be, do you think?
I suppose we could think of the photons as oscillators, each with its
own orientation.
If they're lined up with the same orientation in some region, they'd
appear to us as a laser beam as we passed through.
If they were randomly oriented, we would observe a black body
radiation as we passed through.
I think we're making progress.
It's strange to think that in the old days people used to think that
the Earth was flat, dinosaurs were cold blooded, Iraq had WMD's and
weeny bits of light moved about from place to place, like tiny little
sprites
Love,
Jenny
Traveler
I have been saying for many years that we are moving in a 4-D lattice
of stationary photons of which there are four types, 3 for the
magnetic field and 1 for the electric field. These photons have
specific properties and do not move in the way people think they move.
The primary purpose of the lattice is to enable movement. Without it,
nothing could move. One of the biggest deficiencies of modern physics
is that it does not explain how objects can move all by themselves, as
if by magic. If you accept a causal universe, you must posit a cause
for movement. The cause is, of course, a reaction between two
particles. The idea that bodies can move in empty space is one of the
worst crackpotteries in the history physics, IMO, even worse than the
flat earth hypothesis. It is the greatest impediment to progress in
physics.
The lattice not only serves as the causal substrate for the movement
of particles, it also gives rise to the magnetic and electric fields,
which are the result of interactions between moving bodies and the
photons of the lattice. The lattice also gives rise to gravity as a
side effect of electric interactions having to do with energy
conservation.
PS. Don't listen to that ass kisser, Uncle Alan Schwartz and the other
Einstein dingleberries on sci.physics. ahahaha... Uncle Schwartz has
been trying for years to get the physics establishment to agree to
take him seriously but nobody gives a shit about Uncle Schwartz. So he
vents his rage and frustration on others. Like the old Smashing
Pumpkin song says, "in spite of his rage, he's still just a rat in a
cage". And he will die that way. ahahaha...
Whatever you do, don't be an ass kisser.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Rebel Science News:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
Tom Potter
<bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:aad89ae4-bfb2-4378...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Let's examine what my pal Bruce said:
"Move the clock and it will gain or lose ticks.
Move it back and it will gain or lose ticks
to get back in sync with the clock that wasn't moved."
1. Note that a clock is an accumulator,
that accumulates units of time.
2. Note that Bruce asserts that
if you "move" a clock,
that the "units of time" accumulated by the clock changes.
3. The problem is that Bruce, Einstein, and the Einstein Cultists
all confuse INSTRUMENTS and artifact with
the ONE clock/calendar that sentient beings order objects and events on.
4. The purpose of having ONE time unit standard,
and ONE clock/calendar, is to inhibit "Towers of Babel".
To inhibit," he saw", "she saw", "they saw", "I" know for a fact", etc.
5. When divers sentient people agree upon
a standard time unit, and a standard clock/calendar,
all other so-called time units and clock/calendars
become INSTRUMENTS,
and the agreed upon standard time unit, and standard clock/calendar
are used to consolidate the observations from divers sources.
6. Note that many things affect the period of oscillators.
a. distance - Hubble Effect
b. velocity - Doppler Effect
c. acceleration - Galileo Effect.
d. temperature - temperature effect
e. pressure - tribo effect.
7. And note that many things affect the
accumulated counts in the non-standard clock/calendars.
a. Variations in the time standard from that of
the master time standard due the effects
noted in item "6".
b. Artifact in the accumulators.
(Glitches, dropped and extraneous counts)
c. The remote accumulator is not identical to
the master clock/calendar.
For example, tree rings and pocket watches
are not the ONE real clock/calendar of SCIENCE,
but are basically instruments used
to accumulate remote data which can be
ordered onto the ONE SCIENTIFIC clock/calendar
driven by the ONE standard time unit generator.
The bottom line is that SCIENCE is not
little boys with pocket watches,
nor tree rings, nor geological deposits,
nor spectrums from numerous celestial fires,
but science is the bringing together of
divers observations and ordering the
observations on ONE clock/calendar,
that is driven by ONE time unit generator.
( Or the composite from several time unit generators,
where the data from the deviants is ignored.)
bsr...@my-deja.com
[snip]
> The bottom line is that SCIENCE is not
> little boys with pocket watches,
> nor tree rings, nor geological deposits,
> nor spectrums from numerous celestial fires,
>
> but science is the bringing together of
> divers observations and ordering the
> observations on ONE clock/calendar,
> that is driven by ONE time unit generator.
> ( Or the composite from several time unit generators,
> where the data from the deviants is ignored.)
For some events it doesn't matter what their timing is in relation to
events elsewhere so we don't need to deal with some remote clock.
When it is important to relate events at one location to those at
another, how do you know what time it is at your master clock since it
is not at the event in question? That is pretty much what this
discussion has been about. If you don't know whether signals sent out
by the clock travel at the same speed in all directions then you can't
know that your local clock is in sync with the master. Sure, you can
make an assumption, but you don't *know* that it is correct. By the
same token you can't sync a clock with the master and then move it to
the remote location since you don't *know* that it stays in sync when
you move it.
So even accepting for the momment your veiw that the order of all
events should be determined by a master clock, how do you know what
time it is when you are at any location other than the master clock?
Bruce
Tom Potter
<bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:2d31cbef-8682-48bc...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Regarding Bruce's comment:
"you can't sync a clock with the master and then move it to
the remote location since you don't *know* that it stays in sync when
you move it."
As I pointed out,
there is only ONE master clock/calendar,
and all other so-called objects like
pocket watches, tree rings, etc
are NOT "clocks" but are INSTRUMENTS.
Hopefully Bruce will explain why
he insists on calling a secondary tine unit accumulator
a "clock" when there is only ONE clock/calendar
in science?
The bottom line is:
1. If you take two identical oscillators
and move them relative to one another,
one is used as a reference,
and the other becomes an INSTRUMENT,
than can be used to determine how various
physical properties affect the instrument.
2. If you take two identical
( trees, animals, tick accumulators, etc.)
and move them relative to one another,
one is used as a reference,
and the other becomes an INSTRUMENT,
than can be used to determine how various
histories affect the instrument.
3. If you take two identical devices
and move them relative to one another,
and zero out any effects due to specific causes
then one can determine what the aggregate
affect of other causes on the devices.