OWLS Anisotropy Proven Beyond Doubt.
Max Keon
of the zero origin concept of course) that, because the mechanism
involved in reflecting a beam from within a matter environment is
necessarily carried along to some degree with that environment
throughout the reflection process, the resultant beam direction
must be affected.
According to the zero origin concept, the speed of light is uniform
in all directions around any point fixed with the ECI frame. The
speed of light is also isotropic for every (point sized) fundamental
component of matter that's moving relative to the ECI frame. But
that control over local isotropy for light only extends beyond each
point to a degree relative to the mass of the earth and that of the
moving components involved. The isotropic center is then expected
to be dragged along with a relatively moving mass to some degree,
which has been already established as
(relative velocity) * (1-(1/n^2)
The diagram depicts the anticipated path deflection of a light beam
being reflected from the indicated inner face of a glass prism if
that prism is moving relative to the ECI frame, as expected.
. Incident The overall symmetry
l+ . beam is again restored
l + . when the reflected
l . + beam moves out of
East___ l. + ___West the glass environment,
l .. + but the path offset
l . + remains. The beam will
Glass prism--l +. . always point in the
l+ . . Normal same direction. This
Expected . . reflection was later confirmed
reflection . . path using different glass
path . . path lengths.
The predicted path deflection was as obvious as was the cause of
the deflection. The largest beam path deflection occurred when the
reflecting face was oriented perpendicular to the east-west
direction line. Reversing the prism triangle along the east-west
line reverses the beam deflection direction.
If the refractive index for the prism material is 1.6 "n" and the
prism is moving at 400m/sec relative to the ECI frame (where I live),
the isotropic center for the speed of light is dragged along with
the prism by 400 * (1 - 1/n^2)) = 243.75 meters in one second. In
that second, a light beam will have traveled through the same glass
environment a distance of c/n = 3E+8 / 1.6 = 187,500,000 meters.
187,500,000 meters
---------------------------------l
- l
- l 243.75 meters
- l
- l
The deflection angle is 243.75 / 187500000 = 1.3E-6
arctan = 7.45E-5 degrees.
For the .36 meter glass path used in the experiment, the opposite
length of the triangle is .36 * 1.3E-6 = 4.68E-7 meters = 468 nm.
That's the expected one-way path deflection only. The total for
one complete revolution would be 936 nm. That's 936 / 634 = 1.476
interference pattern fringes moving across the screen.
That was only half what was observed, as the linked movie clip
clearly shows. I think it's fairly logical to assume that the angle
of the incident beam is also being affected in the creation of the
reflected beam. But the effect can only be applied at the point of
internal reflection. Anywhere else just doesn't fit.
The movie clip is low quality, and gives the demonstration in the
shortest possible manner, but is still around .5 meg long. It was
also necessary for me to film the image that was generated on my
TV screen by a black and white CCD pinhole camera. Although easily
seen with the naked eye, the contrast between the various intensities
of red in the interference pattern fringes, when directly recorded on
my camcorder, were almost impossible to distinguish between.
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/alaser.mpg
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/alaser.jpg is an arial picture
of the apparatus. Now you have the key to the real universe.
There's no need to thank me.
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/the1-1a.html is the home of the
zero origin concept.
--
Max Keon
Uncle Al
>
> I recently set about testing a theory (which was provided courtesy
> of the zero origin concept of course) that, because the mechanism
> involved in reflecting a beam from within a matter environment is
> necessarily carried along to some degree with that environment
> throughout the reflection process, the resultant beam direction
> must be affected.
Phase conjugate mirror. Dead on Arrival.
[snip crap]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Max Keon
>
>Max Keon wrote:
>> I recently set about testing a theory (which was provided courtesy
>> of the zero origin concept of course) that, because the mechanism
>> involved in reflecting a beam from within a matter environment is
>> necessarily carried along to some degree with that environment
>> throughout the reflection process, the resultant beam direction
>> must be affected.
> Phase conjugate mirror. Dead on Arrival.
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that the phase conjugate
mirror will behave differently when pointed east then west, and will
account for the rather obvious observed fringe shift?
I didn't accept the observed shift as being proof without question
either, I made many adjustments to the setup until I was satisfied
that the cause was as predicted. Even replacing the 40mm by 40mm
glass prism with a 60mm by 60mm prism and removing the rest of the
glass path altogether didn't alter the expected result, which was
then around .4 of a fringe shift. The result seemed to vary slightly
at different times of the day though, for either setup, but that's
perhaps another story. I also tilted the assembly slightly off level
in different directions to see what effect that would have. And the
mirrors are all silvered on the reflecting face.
What else should I have done?
Do the experiment yourself. A 600mm by 450mm by 50mm slab of
concrete provides a rigid base on which to stick your components.
You'll also need a fairly robust turntable, and if you haven't had
much to do with lasers, you're going to need a lot of patience to
set up and align the interference pattern in the correct plane.
HeNe_laser (a 3mw LED laser is not much use)
I I (but the collimator lens is)
I I .l
I_I LED collimator . . . .l
. l-----------------l lens . . . . . . .l
Prism->x xl Added glass. .I. . \. .{}. . . . . Screen---l
edge . xl_________________I . Semi . . . . . . .l
. . silvered mirror . . . .l
\ . . . . . . . . . . . . / .l
l
The beam is split by the edge of the prism. One half travels the
air path while the other travels the glass path.
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/alaser2.gif gives a much clearer
picture.
--
Max Keon
Eric Gisse
wrote:
[snip]
What is your point?
When you split a beam by having it travel through 2 different
materials, it should not be a surprise that the combined beam is out
of phase.
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/alaser2.gif gives a much clearer
> picture.
>
>
From the looks of things you basically shove an edge of a prism into
the beam. Why don't you use a half-silvered mirror? If you have a
decent optical bench, it shouldn't be out of your budget to get a
decent beam splitter....
Harold Ensle
It is called the global sagnac effect.
And it already disproves relativity, though few
are bright enough to realize it.
H.Ellis Ensle
Sam Wormley
Harold Ensle
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:4123F6C2...@mchsi.com...
> Harold Ensle wrote:
> >
> > OWLS in the ECI has already been measured.
> > It is called the global sagnac effect.
> >
> > And it already disproves relativity, though few
> > are bright enough to realize it.
(As exemplified here by Sam Wormley)
Myxococcus xanthus
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/alaser.jpg is an arial picture
> of the apparatus. Now you have the key to the real universe.
I do not often see plywood and particle board sheets used in the
construction of precision optical interferometers.
Myxococcus xanthus
Eric Gisse
xanthus) wrote:
You thought that was funny too?
hehe..
Max Keon
You know a lot about handling lasers then?
Normally, I find that particular construction very adequate. My
problems have arisen because I decided to split the beam with the
edge of the prism instead of a semi silvered mirror, as I would
normally use. And I was looking for an enormous 1.4 fringe shift,
not the usual minute shift that has required me to sit quietly in
a dark room for hours staring at the screen mounted on a very
similar setup to the one I've used here, but not incorporating the
"edge beam splitting" method, trying to notice the vaguest pattern
variation. Don't try to tell me that that setup is not adequate.
The edge beam splitting method would amplify any mechanical fault
dramatically, as it did. But the story doesn't end there. The
directional preference of the apparatus for the east-west
orientation of the left-right pattern shift maxima was still
emerging beyond the mechanical faults.
--
Max Keon
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:412897DD...@ozemail.com.au...
Wood has a very high coefficient of thermal expansion, so variations in
temperature will provide a shift.
Wood has a lot of geometry change due to absorption/loss of moisture to the
air, so the humidity history (like breathing on it, as well as ambient
weather) will provide some interesting results.
Wood also has a great deal of hysteresis (being the world's first composite
material), so positioning history will have an effect also.
Keep in mind that a solar heated wall, such as the west wall during the
night, will provide a temperature gradient anisotropy.
They make these things out of granite and metal for a really good reason,
and to increase cost is not the reason.
David A. Smith
Myxococcus xanthus
> Myxococcus xanthus wrote:
> >
> >Max Keon <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:<411D8559...@ozemail.com.au>...
> >> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/alaser.jpg is an arial picture
> >> of the apparatus. Now you have the key to the real universe.
>
> > I do not often see plywood and particle board sheets used in the
> > construction of precision optical interferometers.
>
> You know a lot about handling lasers then?
I built my own helium-neon laser following a Scientific American "The
Amateur Scientist" article, many years before they became cheaply
available. Learned about glass-blowing, cutting Brewster angles, high
voltage supplies, dielectric mirrors, etc.
This was some 30 years ago.
And you?
> Normally, I find that particular construction very adequate. My
> problems have arisen because I decided to split the beam with the
> edge of the prism instead of a semi silvered mirror, as I would
> normally use. And I was looking for an enormous 1.4 fringe shift,
> not the usual minute shift that has required me to sit quietly in
> a dark room for hours staring at the screen mounted on a very
> similar setup to the one I've used here, but not incorporating the
> "edge beam splitting" method, trying to notice the vaguest pattern
> variation. Don't try to tell me that that setup is not adequate.
I do try to tell you. It isn't adequate.
> The edge beam splitting method would amplify any mechanical fault
> dramatically, as it did. But the story doesn't end there. The
> directional preference of the apparatus for the east-west
> orientation of the left-right pattern shift maxima was still
> emerging beyond the mechanical faults.
Why don't you take Paul Miller up on his bet?
$1000 risk on your part, potential to earn $100,000.
Myxococcus xanthus
Myxococcus xanthus
> And I was looking for an enormous 1.4 fringe shift,
I count three fringe shifts.
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/alaser.mpg
Explain the discrepancy between predicted and observed.
My explanation: Your interferometer warps and bends as you rotate it,
due to its flimsy plywood and particle board construction. Prove me
wrong.
Myxococcus xanthus
Androcles
"Myxococcus xanthus" <mold-g...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ce5e7813.04082...@posting.google.com...
refused to place the money in escrow and sign a contract unless I told him
what the experiment was, and of course then he was in the position to
consult with his physicist buddy and back out.
Androcles
Myxococcus xanthus
> Do the experiment yourself. A 600mm by 450mm by 50mm slab of
> concrete provides a rigid base on which to stick your components.
That's the cream-colored slab, I take it?
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/alaser.jpg
50 mm is very thin, and the concrete slab will sag "a lot" under its
own considerable weight. You have it mounted on a turntable, which
provides uneven and highly variable support during rotation. So the
concrete will warp a lot, and I don't wanna even THINK about what the
plywood and particle board components of your setup will do. Not to
mention the plastic ties, the way the laser beam just grazes the edge
of the prism, the way your equipment dangles off the edge of your
supports, variable tension imposed on your apparatus by the thick
power supply cord, etc.
You might compare your flimsy design with the 1.5 meter square by 0.3
meter thick granite slab (much more rigid than concrete) on a mercury
flotation system that Michelson used a century ago, set up in a
basement lab to minimize temperature variations. Metallic mounts. No
plywood, no particle board.
And yes. Don't forget to explain the discrepancy between the observed
3 fringe shift displacement versus your 1.4 fringe shift prediction.
Myxococcus xanthus
Myxococcus xanthus
> Paul Miller is a lying troll that never once intended to wager. He flatly
> refused to place the money in escrow and sign a contract unless I told him
> what the experiment was, and of course then he was in the position to
> consult with his physicist buddy and back out.
Paul Miller doesn't intend to lose money, and placing money in escrow
means loss of control over his money for the duration of the escrow
period. During the escrow period, the money would be in a low-interest
savings account, as opposed to higher-earnings investments. Loss of
earnings equals loss of money.
So until he knows what your experiment is, and could confirm that the
experiment is feasible and provides a genuine test of relativity, why
should he place money in escrow? Paul naturally wants to minimize the
escrow period.
Wouldn't you want to minimize the escrow period, if YOU were the one
with the money? Try reversing roles. Suppose you had $100,000 to play
with, and wanted to challenge me to perform an experiment producing
results CONSISTENT with relativity.
Would you be willing to put $100,000 into an escrow account, just
because I'd be willing to put $1,000 into an escrow account, before
you had a chance to hear what I proposed?
Myxococcus xanthus
Androcles
Certainly would, if I were serious. $100,000 invested at 5% per annum in
escrow yields $5,000, whereas invested wisely elsewhere it might yield
$10,000. So I'd give you one month to produce your result. If I were
concerned with making money, I might reap $12,000 a year from those that
took the challenge and failed, plus a month's interest on the escrow.
Totally confident bullshitter Miller doesn't have the money, he can only
raise $40,000 and claims he can raise the difference, which can only mean he
has to mortgage his property. He is nowhere near as confident as he claims,
and I'm not taking his bet unless he's prepared to put the money up front.
He'll back out if I tell him how I'll win.
All his bs about a doing science a favour is pure confidence trickster
tactics.
Let him put his money up, sign a legally binding contract so that I have the
opportunity of winning instead of years of litigation trying to get it out
of him
and I'll take his bet. Same goes for you. You place a bet, you put your
chips down before the roullette wheel spins. If you don't want to play,
simply walk away. Miller wants to see whether to ball will come up zero
before he places his bet. He's a bull shitter.
Androcles
|
| Myxococcus xanthus
Dirk Van de moortel
"Myxococcus xanthus" <mold-g...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:ce5e7813.0408...@posting.google.com...
One more time:
"Never argue with an idiot. He drags you down
to his level and beat you with experience."
I told Paul Miller (or probably "Paul Miller") that he
wouldn't win this game. No one wants to play because
they all shit their pants and they know they will lose.
So they need another set of rules. None of these idiots
will bet, and none of them wil admit not wanting to bet.
Either they will ignore the challenge, or they will try
the dirty trick our fraudulent idiot Androcles is trying
to pull here.
Besides, malicious crackpots never follow any rules
when they "play" to begin with.
Dirk Vdm
Myxococcus xanthus
> "Myxococcus xanthus" <mold-g...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ce5e7813.0408...@posting.google.com...
> | Paul Miller doesn't intend to lose money, and placing money in escrow
OK. Between me and you, would you be willing to put up $5000 against
my $50 to reproduce Max Keon's experiment, only doing it properly?
There is an old engineering trick (three point suspension on sponge
rubber balls, multiple tiers) that I can use to eliminate most of the
warping that plagues Max's apparatus, without resorting to toxic
mercury float. I send my check to Dirk, you send your check to Dirk,
and I get 60 days from the date both checks clear to perform the
experiment. If I get more than 25% of the predicted OWLS anisotropy,
you win. If I get less than 25% of the predicted OWLS anisotropy, I
win.
Or heck, since it's only $50 of my money, why not let YOU set up the
experiment according to my specifications. If you're a liar, you could
claim that you observed an effect, and I'd be out $50, but EVERYBODY
here will know what sort of scum you are.
A win-win situation for me.
Myxococcus xanthus
Dirk Van de moortel
"Myxococcus xanthus" <mold-g...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:ce5e7813.04082...@posting.google.com...
and then I send a check of $2550 to you ;-)
> and I get 60 days from the date both checks clear to perform the
> experiment. If I get more than 25% of the predicted OWLS anisotropy,
> you win. If I get less than 25% of the predicted OWLS anisotropy, I
> win.
>
> Or heck, since it's only $50 of my money, why not let YOU set up the
> experiment according to my specifications. If you're a liar, you could
> claim that you observed an effect, and I'd be out $50, but EVERYBODY
> here will know what sort of scum you are.
We already know.
For free ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
I didn't challenge you to prove or disprove Max Keon's experiment. Nor would
I come close to trusting de Torquemada with my money.What I might do is
wager that a laser aimed at the mirror on the moon from the ISS (or similar
orbiter) will return its reflection from the mirror later than predicted by
Einstein when the moon is vanishing over the limb of the Earth (moonset) and
sooner at moonrise some 45 minutes or so later, time and distance to be
determined by GPS, cesium clock and automatic control by a computer.
The round trip time will be 2D/c, approximately 2 * 238,000/186000 = 2.56
seconds for Einstein, whether approaching or receding, and D/(c-v), D/(c+v)
for me on opposites sides of the Earth. Do the math, remember the ISS will
move some real distance in that time, and determine the tolerance acceptable
to us both.
If we agree on that, send your $50 to sal (if he's agreeable), he'll let me
know (here on this ng) that he has it, I'll put up $50, and we'll wait and
see until somebody does it.
BTW, that is NOT the experiment I would use against Miller, which is far
simpler. That will cost you a little more that $50, my time is not cheap and
I do need to eat. However, you'll be doing a favour to science, so feel
proud. Or maybe everybody here will know what kind of scum you are.
Androcles.
|
| Myxococcus xanthus
Myxococcus xanthus
> I didn't challenge you to prove or disprove Max Keon's experiment. Nor would
> I come close to trusting de Torquemada with my money.What I might do is
> wager that a laser aimed at the mirror on the moon from the ISS (or similar
> orbiter) will return its reflection from the mirror later than predicted by
> Einstein when the moon is vanishing over the limb of the Earth (moonset) and
> sooner at moonrise some 45 minutes or so later, time and distance to be
> determined by GPS, cesium clock and automatic control by a computer.
> The round trip time will be 2D/c, approximately 2 * 238,000/186000 = 2.56
> seconds for Einstein, whether approaching or receding, and D/(c-v), D/(c+v)
> for me on opposites sides of the Earth. Do the math, remember the ISS will
> move some real distance in that time, and determine the tolerance acceptable
> to us both.
(sigh)
You are obviously not interested in a realistic experiment that could
be readily set up for a few hundred dollars in equipment.
> If we agree on that, send your $50 to sal (if he's agreeable), he'll let me
> know (here on this ng) that he has it, I'll put up $50, and we'll wait and
> see until somebody does it.
> BTW, that is NOT the experiment I would use against Miller, which is far
> simpler. That will cost you a little more that $50, my time is not cheap and
> I do need to eat. However, you'll be doing a favour to science, so feel
> proud. Or maybe everybody here will know what kind of scum you are.
Convert your utterly fanciful source dependency experiment into
something realistic. You obviously have no idea of the difficulty of
what you propose.
Myxococcus xanthus
Androcles
"Myxococcus xanthus" <mold-g...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ce5e7813.04082...@posting.google.com...
Yes I am. I'm just not going to disclose it to Miller unless he wants to put
his money where his mouth is first.
|
| > If we agree on that, send your $50 to sal (if he's agreeable), he'll let
me
| > know (here on this ng) that he has it, I'll put up $50, and we'll wait
and
| > see until somebody does it.
| > BTW, that is NOT the experiment I would use against Miller, which is far
| > simpler. That will cost you a little more that $50, my time is not cheap
and
| > I do need to eat. However, you'll be doing a favour to science, so feel
| > proud. Or maybe everybody here will know what kind of scum you are.
|
| Convert your utterly fanciful source dependency experiment into
| something realistic. You obviously have no idea of the difficulty of
| what you propose.
Now you are blabbering nonsense. Anyone that can design and construct a
particle accelerator or the International Space Station would have no
difficulty in pointing a flashlight at the moon. The hardest part is getting
a mirror there, but Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin already did that in 1969.
I notice you are not interested on the outcome, because you know full well
you'd lose the bet. Go away, troll.
Androcles
|
| Myxococcus xanthus
Myxococcus xanthus
> "Myxococcus xanthus" <mold-g...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ce5e7813.04082...@posting.google.com...
> | Convert your utterly fanciful source dependency experiment into
> | something realistic. You obviously have no idea of the difficulty of
> | what you propose.
>
> Now you are blabbering nonsense. Anyone that can design and construct a
> particle accelerator or the International Space Station would have no
> difficulty in pointing a flashlight at the moon. The hardest part is getting
> a mirror there, but Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin already did that in 1969.
> I notice you are not interested on the outcome, because you know full well
> you'd lose the bet. Go away, troll.
Who is the troll? There is NO SUCH EXPERIMENT as you suggest in queue
to be performed on the ISS. The only way to get such an experiment up
to the ISS is if you yourself push for the experiment to be conducted.
And I repeat, you have NO IDEA of the difficulties involved. It is not
enough merely to come up with a vaporous, hand-waving idea such as you
have presented; you need to submit a research proposal, pass a
competitive peer review at NASA (or in your case, the ESA), raise
money, design the equipment, build it, certify the equipment for
space, put together a training program for the astronauts who will be
performing your experiment, etc.
Let's just start with the proposal part of the process:
http://spaceresearch.nasa.gov/research_projects/themes.html
Wade through the space research site and you will find PDF forms to
fill out for submitting your proposal.
Myxococcus xanthus
Max Keon
Get some hands on experience using lasers and mirrors David, and
stop dreaming. 634 nanometers is a lot bigger than you think.
--
Max Keon
Androcles
"Myxococcus xanthus" <mold-g...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ce5e7813.04082...@posting.google.com...
| "Androcles" <andr...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<H_GWc.5906$C54.73...@news-text.cableinet.net>...
| > "Myxococcus xanthus" <mold-g...@comcast.net> wrote in message
| > news:ce5e7813.04082...@posting.google.com...
|
| > | Convert your utterly fanciful source dependency experiment into
| > | something realistic. You obviously have no idea of the difficulty of
| > | what you propose.
| >
| > Now you are blabbering nonsense. Anyone that can design and construct a
| > particle accelerator or the International Space Station would have no
| > difficulty in pointing a flashlight at the moon. The hardest part is
getting
| > a mirror there, but Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin already did that in
1969.
| > I notice you are not interested on the outcome, because you know full
well
| > you'd lose the bet. Go away, troll.
|
| Who is the troll? There is NO SUCH EXPERIMENT as you suggest in queue
| to be performed on the ISS.
Of course not. I thought of it first.
| The only way to get such an experiment up
| to the ISS is if you yourself push for the experiment to be conducted.
| And I repeat, you have NO IDEA of the difficulties involved.
Every experiment will have some dificulties, but the greatest is m_o_n_e_y.
| It is not
| enough merely to come up with a vaporous, hand-waving idea such as
| you have presented; you need to submit a research proposal, pass a
| competitive peer review at NASA (or in your case, the ESA), raise
| money, design the equipment, build it, certify the equipment for
| space, put together a training program for the astronauts who will be
| performing your experiment, etc.
Well, of course. I don't deny those difficulties, that's all part of ANY
experiment. But it certainly isn't handwaving, I've done the calculations,
and so could anyone on the back of an envelope or with a spreadsheet.
What I will predict is that someday someone else will think of it
independently and actually do it, and the outcome will show Einstein's
second 'postulate' was blarney, as were the calculations he produced from
it.
|
| Let's just start with the proposal part of the process:
| http://spaceresearch.nasa.gov/research_projects/themes.html
| Wade through the space research site and you will find PDF forms to
| fill out for submitting your proposal.
|
| Myxococcus xanthus
Go ahead, I'll do the same. If the proposal is accepted, I'll put my $50 up.
Perhaps we'll see what kind of scum you are.
Androcles.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:412BCF5E...@ozemail.com.au...
You are right, it is huge. It is about 1/10th the distance that wood will
change size for a 1 degC temperature change, in a 1 meter geometry.
Think before acting. It will help you.
David A. Smith
Myxococcus xanthus
> "Myxococcus xanthus" <mold-g...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ce5e7813.04082...@posting.google.com...
> Well, of course. I don't deny those difficulties, that's all part of ANY
> experiment. But it certainly isn't handwaving, I've done the calculations,
> and so could anyone on the back of an envelope or with a spreadsheet.
If you've done the calculations, then perhaps you are aware of the
following facts, which I quote from the McDonald Lunar Ranging Station
web site. Please note that the McDonald Lunar Ranging Station has used
telescopes ranging from 0.76 to 2.7 meters aperture.
http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/
"The MLRS laser pulse contains 3 x 10^17 photons. In lunar mode only a
few return to pass through the receive system. A typical lunar return
rate is a few signal photons per minute. We use single photo-electron
detection devices and as large an optical throughput in the green as
possible. With the large number of noise sources, it is impossible to
identify a returning photon from the moon without filtering, both
physical and mathematical. Range gating provides a temporal filter. A
pin-hole aperture provides a spatial filter. A spectral filter allows
only the proper color photons to pass through to the receive system.
The spectral filter must be as narrow as possible in wavelength to
eliminate as many noise photons as possible, transmitting as many
proper photons as possible."
Do you understand the implications of the above? The return signal
generally consists of only a single photon above background, and most
of the laser pulses do not result in ANY return signal. It is only
through prolonged observation and extensive data reduction that enough
signal photons are detected to reliably distinguish them from
background.
> What I will predict is that someday someone else will think of it
> independently and actually do it, and the outcome will show Einstein's
> second 'postulate' was blarney, as were the calculations he produced from
> it.
>
> |
> | Let's just start with the proposal part of the process:
> | http://spaceresearch.nasa.gov/research_projects/themes.html
> | Wade through the space research site and you will find PDF forms to
> | fill out for submitting your proposal.
> |
> | Myxococcus xanthus
> Go ahead, I'll do the same. If the proposal is accepted, I'll put my $50 up.
> Perhaps we'll see what kind of scum you are.
It's your baby, so YOU go ahead and do it.
Myxococcus xanthus
Max Keon
>
>Max Keon <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:<412897DD...@ozemail.com.au>...
>> Myxococcus xanthus wrote:
>>>
>>>Max Keon <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:<411D8559...@ozemail.com.au>...
>>>> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/alaser.jpg is an arial picture
>>>> of the apparatus. Now you have the key to the real universe.
>>>
>>> I do not often see plywood and particle board sheets used in the
>>> construction of precision optical interferometers.
>>
>> You know a lot about handling lasers then?
> I built my own helium-neon laser following a Scientific American "The
> Amateur Scientist" article, many years before they became cheaply
> available. Learned about glass-blowing, cutting Brewster angles, high
> voltage supplies, dielectric mirrors, etc.
>
> This was some 30 years ago.
Monkey see, monkey do. It would appear that you didn't learn too
much from the experience.
> And you?
Not meaning to be antagonistic, but judging from your replies,
a hell of a lot more than you.
--
Max Keon
Androcles
Of course. The signal has to penetrate atmosphere, both ways.
Why do you think the best images are from HST when there are larger
reflecting telescopes on Mauna Kea?
Bloody obvious, isn't it?
You are picking nits that are not there to pick.
Mount the laser on HST, problem solved, and the McDonald Lunar Ranging
Station would love the idea. They'd be well on the way to Mars Ranging as
well, especially if the planned jaunt Bush wants done is going to happen.
Do you understand the implications of the above?
No, of course you don't. I'll tell you.
Once it is established and understood that the velocity of light is source
dependent, someone is going to devise a light accelerator. That will vastly
improve communications, not only for the manned mission but for probes
as well. The scum that are preventing this from happening are the same scum
that want to appropriate funds for experiments that are unproductive
nonsense,
based on a stupid guess by Einstein and never once tested. And you call that
"science"? It is utter bullshit.
The evidence for source dependence is contained in the stars, once you learn
how to read it.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/actual_data.htm
That light curve is observation, nobody made it up. I've duplicated it with
a program that was created BEFORE August 1999. But to you, that is purely
coincidence, I suppose. You'd rather believe the velocity of light travels
through space at one universal speed based on the word of one man who said
so and produced some faulty math to back up his claim. If you knew any
mathematics at all, you'd be capable of realizing that the Einstein equation
稼tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
should be (at least)
稼tau(0',0,0,t)+tau(0',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
because x' = x-vt and 0' is 0-vt.
It is scum like you that want to place obstacles in the path of progress,
as you have been doing throughout this thread.
I dont really give a shit about Miller and his stupid bet, nor do I give
a damn about $50 with you. I know enough about human nature to
recognize a con artist when I see one, and that is just what Miller is.
As for you, well, you are just another of the gullible fools taken in
by Einstein, so I'll withdraw scum (unless you try to capitalize on
relativity, that is, as Baez, Roberts and their ilk are doing.)
Androcles.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <andr...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:1g_Wc.391$VA6.4...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>
> "Myxococcus xanthus" <mold-g...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ce5e7813.04082...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag
you down to his level and beat you with
experience" - Rerererererererevisited.
Dirk Vdm
Eric Gisse
<andr...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
Full circle.
That didn't take long.
Myxococcus xanthus
> The scum that are preventing this from happening are the same scum
> that want to appropriate funds for experiments that are unproductive
> nonsense,
> based on a stupid guess by Einstein and never once tested.
Wrong. Source dependency has already been disproven many times over in
the laser ranging data. Laser ranging is regularly performed not only
to the retroreflectors placed on the moon, but to dozens of satellite
retroreflectors.
http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/mlrs_targets.html
These satellites move at velocities of SEVERAL MILES PER SECOND
relative to the observatory site.
According to your source dependency hypothesis, light bouncing off the
satellite retroreflectors should not only be Doppler shifted, but
should gain or lose up to several miles per second.
The timing accuracy of the return pulses is approximately 35
picoseconds. Any gain or loss of light velocity should have resulted
in SERIOUS ANOMALIES that should long ago have been noticed, and
should have resulted in a plethora of publications spelling the
downfall of relativity. This hasn't happened.
Your proposed experiment has, in effect, already been done MANY TIMES
OVER with negative results.
Your proposed experiment has, in effect, already been done MANY TIMES
OVER with negative results.
Your proposed experiment has, in effect, already been done MANY TIMES
OVER with negative results.
Your proposed experiment has, in effect, already been done MANY TIMES
OVER with negative results.
Your proposed experiment has, in effect, already been done MANY TIMES
OVER with negative results.
Your proposed experiment has, in effect, already been done MANY TIMES
OVER with negative results.
Your proposed experiment has, in effect, already been done MANY TIMES
OVER with negative results.
Your proposed experiment has, in effect, already been done MANY TIMES
OVER with negative results.
Your proposed experiment has, in effect, already been done MANY TIMES
OVER with negative results.
Your proposed experiment has, in effect, already been done MANY TIMES
OVER with negative results.
Your proposed experiment has, in effect, already been done MANY TIMES
OVER with negative results.
Your proposed experiment has, in effect, already been done MANY TIMES
OVER with negative results.
Your proposed experiment has, in effect, already been done MANY TIMES
OVER with negative results.
Your proposed experiment has, in effect, already been done MANY TIMES
OVER with negative results.
Your proposed experiment has, in effect, already been done MANY TIMES
OVER with negative results.
Your proposed experiment has, in effect, already been done MANY TIMES
OVER with negative results.
Your proposed experiment has, in effect, already been done MANY TIMES
OVER with negative results.
Your proposed experiment has, in effect, already been done MANY TIMES
OVER with negative results.
Your proposed experiment has, in effect, already been done MANY TIMES
OVER with negative results.
Your proposed experiment has, in effect, already been done MANY TIMES
OVER with negative results.
Your proposed experiment has, in effect, already been done MANY TIMES
OVER with negative results.
Your proposed experiment has, in effect, already been done MANY TIMES
OVER with negative results.
Your proposed experiment has, in effect, already been done MANY TIMES
OVER with negative results.
Your proposed experiment has, in effect, already been done MANY TIMES
OVER with negative results.
Your proposed experiment has, in effect, already been done MANY TIMES
OVER with negative results.
Your proposed experiment has, in effect, already been done MANY TIMES
OVER with negative results.
Your proposed experiment has, in effect, already been done MANY TIMES
OVER with negative results.
Myxococcus xanthus
Androcles
"Myxococcus xanthus" <mold-g...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ce5e7813.04082...@posting.google.com...
news:<1g_Wc.391$VA6.4...@news-text.cableinet.net>...
|
| > The scum that are preventing this from happening are the same scum
| > that want to appropriate funds for experiments that are unproductive
| > nonsense,
| > based on a stupid guess by Einstein and never once tested.
|
| Wrong. Source dependency has already been disproven many times over in
| the laser ranging data.
Wrong. Source dependency has NEVER been disproven in ANY test you care to
name, which is why I suggested using the ISS and the moon.
Laser ranging is regularly performed not only
| to the retroreflectors placed on the moon, but to dozens of satellite
| retroreflectors.
The Earth isn't moving toward the moon, dumbo. How in the hell do you
disprove c+v if v is always zero? You clearly have no clue what a proof is.
c+ 0 = c... that proves source independency! Duh!
| http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/mlrs_targets.html
|
| These satellites move at velocities of SEVERAL MILES PER SECOND
| relative to the observatory site.
Pure nonsense. If they did they'd soon crash into the observatory. From an
altitude of 500 miles and a velocity of 5 m/sec, it would take 500/5 = 1
minute and 40 seconds. I haven't heard any news reports of satellites
hitting observatories, but obviously you have.
Remainder snipped, you haven't a fucking clue.
Androcles
Tom Roberts
Androcles wrote:
> "Myxococcus xanthus" <mold-g...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ce5e7813.04082...@posting.google.com...
> | Wrong. Source dependency has already been disproven many times over in
> | the laser ranging data.
>
> The Earth isn't moving toward the moon, dumbo.
The issue is not whether or not the earth is "moving towards" the moon.
For a "source dependency" theory, the issue is whether the
retroreflector on the moon is moving towards or away from the
laser-ranging station on the earth. Quite clearly just after moonrise
the station is moving towards the reflector ~300 meters/sec, and at
moonset it is moving away ~300 meters/sec.
Now 300 m/s is about 1 part per million of the speed of light. 1 part
per million of the earth-moon distance is roughly 1/4 mile -- such a
difference every 10-12 hours is utterly ENORMOUS compared to their
accuracy ~1 cm.
So any theory in which light travels at c wrt the source, and returns at
c wrt the reflector, is utterly and soundly refuted by these
measurements -- by assuming light travels at c wrt the ECI frame they
achieve good orbits; so assuming source dependency cannot possibly
obtain good orbits (the moon does not, and cannot, "bounce up and down
by ~1/4 mile every 10-12 hours" to account for this supposed source
dependency).
BTW You are invited to download their data yourself and
perform your own analysis. http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/
Note that low-orbit satellites have MUCH larger relative velocities....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Androcles
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:cgilvt$k...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
| [I just happened to see this]
Yeah, we know you never pay attention.
|
| Androcles wrote:
| > "Myxococcus xanthus" <mold-g...@comcast.net> wrote in message
| > news:ce5e7813.04082...@posting.google.com...
| > | Wrong. Source dependency has already been disproven many times over in
| > | the laser ranging data.
| >
| > The Earth isn't moving toward the moon, dumbo.
|
| The issue is not whether or not the earth is "moving towards" the moon.
| For a "source dependency" theory, the issue is whether the
| retroreflector on the moon is moving towards or away from the
| laser-ranging station on the earth. Quite clearly just after moonrise
| the station is moving towards the reflector ~300 meters/sec, and at
| moonset it is moving away ~300 meters/sec.
|
| Now 300 m/s is about 1 part per million of the speed of light. 1 part
| per million of the earth-moon distance is roughly 1/4 mile -- such a
| difference every 10-12 hours is utterly ENORMOUS compared to their
| accuracy ~1 cm.
And has never been measured because the laser is never aimed at the horizon.
To do so is absurd, given that the moon appears red at moonrise or moonset,
just as the sun does. As usual, Roberts, you have no idea what you are
blabbering about.
|
| So any theory in which light travels at c wrt the source, and returns at
| c wrt the reflector, is utterly and soundly refuted by these
| measurements --
What measurements? The ones you pretend are done but are not?
Why don't you think, man, instead of blabbering nonsense?
| by assuming light travels at c wrt the ECI frame they
| achieve good orbits; so assuming source dependency cannot possibly
| obtain good orbits (the moon does not, and cannot, "bounce up and down
| by ~1/4 mile every 10-12 hours" to account for this supposed source
| dependency).
|
| BTW You are invited to download their data yourself and
| perform your own analysis. http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/
|
| Note that low-orbit satellites have MUCH larger relative velocities....
Yes, which is why I suggested the experiment be carried out from the ISS.
|
| Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
BTW you are invited to think instead of fabricating measurements.
Androcles.
YBM
> And has never been measured because the laser is never aimed at the horizon.
> To do so is absurd, given that the moon appears red at moonrise or moonset,
> just as the sun does. As usual, Roberts, you have no idea what you are
> blabbering about.
Is there something preventing the use of the Moon reflectors when the
moon is red ? Vampires ? Witches ? Errant werewolf ?
Eric Gisse
I have never seen a red moon :(
Alaska is too far north for that, I think.
Tom Roberts
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:cgilvt$k...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> | per million of the earth-moon distance is roughly 1/4 mile -- such a
> | difference every 10-12 hours is utterly ENORMOUS compared to their
> | accuracy ~1 cm.
>
> And has never been measured because the laser is never aimed at the horizon.
Go look at their data.
> To do so is absurd, given that the moon appears red at moonrise or moonset,
> just as the sun does.
There are corrections required due to a longer path through the
atmosphere. But, of course, they must model the atmosphere rather well
to obtain ~1 cm accuracy.
The moon and sun appearing read near the horizon has nothing to do with
laser ranging.
> What measurements? The ones you pretend are done but are not?
Go look at their data.
> BTW you are invited to think instead of fabricating measurements.
Go look at their data.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Myxococcus xanthus
> "Myxococcus xanthus" <mold-g...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ce5e7813.04082...@posting.google.com...
> | "Androcles" <andr...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<1g_Wc.391$VA6.4...@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> |
> | > The scum that are preventing this from happening are the same scum
> | > that want to appropriate funds for experiments that are unproductive
> | > nonsense,
> | > based on a stupid guess by Einstein and never once tested.
> |
> | Wrong. Source dependency has already been disproven many times over in
> | the laser ranging data.
>
> Wrong. Source dependency has NEVER been disproven in ANY test you care to
> name, which is why I suggested using the ISS and the moon.
>
> Laser ranging is regularly performed not only
> | to the retroreflectors placed on the moon, but to dozens of satellite
> | retroreflectors.
>
> The Earth isn't moving toward the moon, dumbo. How in the hell do you
> disprove c+v if v is always zero? You clearly have no clue what a proof is.
> c+ 0 = c... that proves source independency! Duh!
You are ALWAYS in motion relative to the Moon. The Earth rotates and
the Moon orbits the Earth, so depending on your exact position on the
Earth and the exact relative orientation of the Earth and Moon, you
may at any moment be approaching or receding the Moon by as much as
1600 km per hour (if you happen to be on the Equator and the Moon
happens to be at the horizon).
But even if you live quite far north or south of the Equator, and the
Moon happens to be high up in the sky, there will amost always be a
measureable degree of motion with respect to the Moon.
Remember, laser ranging is capable of measuring distances to the Moon
to within centimeters.
> | http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/mlrs_targets.html
> |
> | These satellites move at velocities of SEVERAL MILES PER SECOND
> | relative to the observatory site.
>
> Pure nonsense. If they did they'd soon crash into the observatory. From an
> altitude of 500 miles and a velocity of 5 m/sec, it would take 500/5 = 1
> minute and 40 seconds. I haven't heard any news reports of satellites
> hitting observatories, but obviously you have.
> Remainder snipped, you haven't a fucking clue.
Are you are claiming that orbiting satellites always maintain exactly
the same distance from an Earth-bound observer?
Amazingly stupid argument, even for you.
Immortal Fumble?
Myxococcus xanthus
Myxococcus xanthus
> Myxococcus xanthus wrote:
> >
> >Max Keon <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:<412897DD...@ozemail.com.au>...
> >> Myxococcus xanthus wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Max Keon <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:<411D8559...@ozemail.com.au>...
> >>>> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/alaser.jpg is an arial picture
> >>>> of the apparatus. Now you have the key to the real universe.
> >>>
> >>> I do not often see plywood and particle board sheets used in the
> >>> construction of precision optical interferometers.
> >>
> >> You know a lot about handling lasers then?
>
> > I built my own helium-neon laser following a Scientific American "The
> > Amateur Scientist" article, many years before they became cheaply
> > available. Learned about glass-blowing, cutting Brewster angles, high
> > voltage supplies, dielectric mirrors, etc.
> >
> > This was some 30 years ago.
>
> Monkey see, monkey do. It would appear that you didn't learn too
> much from the experience.
I learned how to vibration-isolate a homemade optical bench so I could
make holographs.
Mostly though, I had this neat idea that I could devise a binary code
of numbers into stripes, and if you labeled an item with stripes, you
could identify it as it passed a monitoring station.
I never really got it to working, and I was mostly thinking in terms
of timing sprinters as they crossed a finishing line...
Oh, well.
Myxococcus xanthus
Dirk Van de moortel
"Myxococcus xanthus" <mold-g...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:ce5e7813.04082...@posting.google.com...
> "Androcles" <andr...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<v74Xc.635$GO1.7...@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> > "Myxococcus xanthus" <mold-g...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:ce5e7813.04082...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
> > | http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/mlrs_targets.html
> > |
> > | These satellites move at velocities of SEVERAL MILES PER SECOND
> > | relative to the observatory site.
> >
> > Pure nonsense. If they did they'd soon crash into the observatory. From an
> > altitude of 500 miles and a velocity of 5 m/sec, it would take 500/5 = 1
> > minute and 40 seconds. I haven't heard any news reports of satellites
> > hitting observatories, but obviously you have.
> > Remainder snipped, you haven't a fucking clue.
>
> Are you are claiming that orbiting satellites always maintain exactly
> the same distance from an Earth-bound observer?
>
> Amazingly stupid argument, even for you.
>
> Immortal Fumble?
You bet :-)
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PureNonsense.html
Title: Pure nonsense. Satellites don't move.
Dirk Vdm
Max Keon
>
> Dear Max Keon:
>> "Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:412BCF5E...@ozemail.com.au...
>> N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
>>> Dear Max Keon:
>>>
>>> in temperature will provide a shift.
>>> Wood has a lot of geometry change due to absorption/loss of moisture
>>> to the air, so the humidity history (like breathing on it, as well
>>> as ambient weather) will provide some interesting results.
>>> Wood also has a great deal of hysteresis (being the world's first
>>> composite material), so positioning history will have an effect also.
>>>
>>> Keep in mind that a solar heated wall, such as the west wall during
>>> the night, will provide a temperature gradient anisotropy.
>>
>> Get some hands on experience using lasers and mirrors David, and
>> stop dreaming. 634 nanometers is a lot bigger than you think.
> You are right, it is huge. It is about 1/10th the distance that wood
> will change size for a 1 degC temperature change, in a 1 meter
> geometry.
David! I didn't realize how badly my reply read. I didn't mean
to offend you then and I don't mean to offend you now, but the
arguments you have put forward relating to room temperature
variations are of no consequence to my experiment. By indexing the
unit around its rotation path in discrete steps for a set time at
each step, around its entire rotation path, I can plot the
time/temperature affect map of the room any time I like.
When the unit is freely rotating, for the short duration that any
component of the apparatus is in a segment of the rotation cycle,
the degree of heat transfer can only be minimal. To change the
pattern by half a wavelength through the duration of one revolution
would require a fairly hot object in very close proximity to the
unit. I would surely notice something like that in the room. Even
at relatively slow rotation rates e.g. 1 rev per minute, the effects
from normal room temperature variations would barely move the
pattern.
Some of the wee folk around can't seem to grasp the fact that the
light path lengths on my setup are only around 350mm, and are thus
63 times less than the light path length from the beam split point,
along an 11 meter path through a maze of mirrors, where it is
reflected back along the same 11 meter path through the same maze
of mirrors, to be reunited with its counterpart, which has also
traveled a similar path along the other arm, all carried on the
turntable of the MMX monster interferometer.
As I said before, get some hands on experience using lasers and
mirrors.
--
Max Keon
Androcles
| Androcles wrote:
| > "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
| > news:cgilvt$k...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
| > | Now 300 m/s is about 1 part per million of the speed of light. 1 part
| > | per million of the earth-moon distance is roughly 1/4 mile -- such a
| > | difference every 10-12 hours is utterly ENORMOUS compared to their
| > | accuracy ~1 cm.
| >
| > And has never been measured because the laser is never aimed at the
horizon.
|
| Go look at their data.
|
|
| > To do so is absurd, given that the moon appears red at moonrise or
moonset,
| > just as the sun does.
|
| There are corrections required due to a longer path through the
| atmosphere. But, of course, they must model the atmosphere rather well
| to obtain ~1 cm accuracy.
Which is rather difficult to do, and when you take into consideration the
difficulties the microbe pointed out:
quote:
"The MLRS laser pulse contains 3 x 10^17 photons. In lunar mode only a
| few return to pass through the receive system. A typical lunar return
| rate is a few signal photons per minute. We use single photo-electron
| detection devices and as large an optical throughput in the green as
| possible. With the large number of noise sources, it is impossible to
| identify a returning photon from the moon without filtering, both
| physical and mathematical. Range gating provides a temporal filter. A
| pin-hole aperture provides a spatial filter. A spectral filter allows
| only the proper color photons to pass through to the receive system.
| The spectral filter must be as narrow as possible in wavelength to
| eliminate as many noise photons as possible, transmitting as many
| proper photons as possible."
unquote,
it is only too obvious you are clutching at straws in defence of your faith.
| The moon and sun appearing read near the horizon has nothing to do with
| laser ranging.
Of course not. Having the jet stream in the path doesn't matter either, I
suppose. Laser ranging is NOT carried out at moonrise or moonset. Heck, you
only need to look at the picture
http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/pictures/lunar_ra.jpg
to observe the backscatter from atmospheric dust particles, and you want
even more of that. You are bluffing as usual.
|
|
| > What measurements? The ones you pretend are done but are not?
|
| Go look at their data.
I did. Nothing there about the tangential velocity of the Earth. You are
bluffing.
Go look at this data:
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/actual_data.htm
Look at this analysis:
稼tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) -
Einstein
x' = x-vt, so 0' = 0 - vt, and 0' is the origin of system k, and not 0 as
appears in the equation, which should read:
稼tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)).
Now derive the Lorentz Transforms from that.
You cannot. Neither could Einstein.
|
|
| > BTW you are invited to think instead of fabricating measurements.
|
| Go look at their data.
I did. You are bluffing.
The only way to test "light is always propagated in empty space with a
definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
emitting body"
is to get into vacuum and emit the light from a moving body. The ISS
together with the lunar reflector provides the ideal laboratory.
Androcles.
|
|
| Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Androcles
A totally irrelevant argument.
As you yourself pointed out the difficulties of obtaining the data, it is
quite obvious that ranging is not going to be carried out with the moon on
the horizon. Didn't you say only a few photons were detected? There'll be
even less when there is more atmosphere to penetrate, BOTH WAYS. Even a
source as bright as the sun is SERIOUSLY attenuated at dawn and sunset, the
ball appears red.
|
| But even if you live quite far north or south of the Equator, and the
| Moon happens to be high up in the sky, there will amost always be a
| measureable degree of motion with respect to the Moon.
Really? And how are you going to do that? Doppler? Where are you going to do
it? At apogee or perigee? Or perhaps divide the difference by two weeks to
get the mean velocity?
|
| Remember, laser ranging is capable of measuring distances to the Moon
| to within centimeters.
When the moon is at apogee or perigee, yes. Otherwise there is a tolerance
to apply.
Look, you and Roberts continually protest against my suggestion that the
correct way to test Einstein's second 'postulate', "light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of
the state of motion of the emitting body" is to use a laser from the ISS and
shoot the moon. Now, what is your motive for all the protests? Why wouldn't
you be eager for such a test if you were so fucking certain Einstein was
right? After all, it would settle the matter, wouldn't it?
So obviously, you are not in the least bit certain, are you? And certainly
not ready to put a lousy $50 on the outcome. That's the kind of scum you are
for EVERYODY to see.
|
| > | http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/mlrs_targets.html
| > |
| > | These satellites move at velocities of SEVERAL MILES PER SECOND
| > | relative to the observatory site.
| >
| > Pure nonsense. If they did they'd soon crash into the observatory. From
an
| > altitude of 500 miles and a velocity of 5 m/sec, it would take 500/5 = 1
| > minute and 40 seconds. I haven't heard any news reports of satellites
| > hitting observatories, but obviously you have.
| > Remainder snipped, you haven't a fucking clue.
|
| Are you are claiming that orbiting satellites always maintain exactly
| the same distance from an Earth-bound observer?
|
| Amazingly stupid argument, even for you.
Not at all, so that attempt to put words in my mouth was a particularly
stupid ploy, but typical for a dumb relativist.
I've refuted your claim above: "These satellites move at velocities of
SEVERAL MILES PER SECOND relative to the observatory site.",
which is a typically stupid argument any dumb relativist would make in
defence of his religion, and trying to defend it yet again makes you even
dumber.
|
| Immortal Fumble?
You certainly made one, didn't you?
Androcles
|
| Myxococcus xanthus
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:412DAF98...@ozemail.com.au...
It was not minimal for Miller, and he built form steel. Do the analysis.
> To change the
> pattern by half a wavelength through the duration of one revolution
> would require a fairly hot object in very close proximity to the
> unit. I would surely notice something like that in the room. Even
> at relatively slow rotation rates e.g. 1 rev per minute, the effects
> from normal room temperature variations would barely move the
> pattern.
You are waving your hands. Do the analysis. Wiser minds than yours have.
That is why they build from granite. They don't want to make it expensive,
but they do want to make it stable.
> Some of the wee folk around can't seem to grasp the fact that the
> light path lengths on my setup are only around 350mm, and are thus
> 63 times less than the light path length from the beam split point,
> along an 11 meter path through a maze of mirrors, where it is
> reflected back along the same 11 meter path through the same maze
> of mirrors, to be reunited with its counterpart, which has also
> traveled a similar path along the other arm, all carried on the
> turntable of the MMX monster interferometer.
>
> As I said before, get some hands on experience using lasers and
> mirrors.
Get some hands on experience yourself, with materials. And accelerating
frames.
David A. Smith
The Ghost In The Machine
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
on Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:04:00 +0200
<412d9a69$1...@usenet01.boi.hp.com>:
Pedant Point: Geosynchronous Satellites do not move,
as observed from the Earth (except maybe for a little
visible wiggle or something). However, they do have
to have a velocity of some miles per second (I'd have
to work out/find out how much), lest they fall into the
observatory. :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Androcles
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:sf7102-...@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
Right on. If you want the approximate figures, 22,300 miles above the
surface, add the radius of the Earth, 4000 miles =~ 26,000, multiply by 2
pi, 82000 miles in 24 hours or 3400 mph, or roughly 1 mile per second. Use 5
miles per second for ISS as an approximation, it isn't so far away. Nothing
that required as much has a calculator.
Obviously you can see the pathetic mentality I deal with around here, when
a so-called relativist can't so much as consider a rotating frame of
reference with a satellite at x1 on the rotating X-axis and the
"observatory" (my neighbour's dish antenna) at x0.
Amusingly, the microbe puts his statement in capital letters to emphasize
his stupidity, and Dinky van de Torquemada gloats over it. If you ever want
to hear idiocy, listen to two schoolgirls entering puberty and discussing
sex, or two relativists trying to understand physics. The giggles are a dead
giveaway and the conversation at the same level.
Androcles
Androcles.
Myxococcus xanthus
> A totally irrelevant argument.
> As you yourself pointed out the difficulties of obtaining the data, it is
> quite obvious that ranging is not going to be carried out with the moon on
> the horizon. Didn't you say only a few photons were detected? There'll be
> even less when there is more atmosphere to penetrate, BOTH WAYS. Even a
> source as bright as the sun is SERIOUSLY attenuated at dawn and sunset, the
> ball appears red.
The lunar laser ranging stations have had DECADES of experience
working out the details.
My point was to indicate to you that YOU hadn't the foggiest idea of
the problems involved.
> Now, what is your motive for all the protests? Why wouldn't
> you be eager for such a test if you were so fucking certain Einstein was
> right?
(sigh)
Because the tests have already been done, and your source-dependency
hypothesis has long been disproven.
> I've refuted your claim above: "These satellites move at velocities of
> SEVERAL MILES PER SECOND relative to the observatory site.",
> which is a typically stupid argument any dumb relativist would make in
> defence of his religion, and trying to defend it yet again makes you even
> dumber.
You STILL don't understand how utterly stupid your remarks were?
Myxococcus xanthus
Androcles
"Myxococcus xanthus" <mold-g...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ce5e7813.04082...@posting.google.com...
news:<QukXc.1124$F21.11...@news-text.cableinet.net>...
|
| > A totally irrelevant argument.
| > As you yourself pointed out the difficulties of obtaining the data, it
is
| > quite obvious that ranging is not going to be carried out with the moon
on
| > the horizon. Didn't you say only a few photons were detected? There'll
be
| > even less when there is more atmosphere to penetrate, BOTH WAYS. Even a
| > source as bright as the sun is SERIOUSLY attenuated at dawn and sunset,
the
| > ball appears red.
|
| The lunar laser ranging stations have had DECADES of experience
| working out the details.
|
| My point was to indicate to you that YOU hadn't the foggiest idea of
| the problems involved.
|
| > Now, what is your motive for all the protests? Why wouldn't
| > you be eager for such a test if you were so fucking certain Einstein was
| > right?
|
| (sigh)
| Because the tests have already been done, and your source-dependency
| hypothesis has long been disproven.
That is simply a lie. The test to measure the speed of light from a movng
source, in a vacuum, has never been carried out. You and Roberts are the
idiots claiming the ranging is carried out with moon on the horizon, and you
are the same idiot explaining just how difficult that is. You obviously
don't have a clue what you are talking about, full of contradiction.
|
| > I've refuted your claim above: "These satellites move at velocities of
| > SEVERAL MILES PER SECOND relative to the observatory site.",
| > which is a typically stupid argument any dumb relativist would make in
| > defence of his religion, and trying to defend it yet again makes you
even
| > dumber.
|
| You STILL don't understand how utterly stupid your remarks were?
Seems Ghost understands how utterly ridiculous your claim is, he pointed out
that the 1 mile per second transverse motion of communications satellites do
not cause them to crash into the observatory, or for anyone to move their
dish to track them. You are obviously too stupid to see that the velocity in
the direction of the observer is practically zero, and nothing like "These
satellites move at velocities of SEVERAL MILES PER SECOND relative to the
observatory site." as you so stupidly claimed. You are clearly a moron who
doesn't know the meaning of transverse velocity, and the scum that refuses
to take a bet on whether a laser from ISS will prove or disprove your
precious religion. You are no different to Miller, all mouth and no
substance. Go away, scum, I'm done with you.
Androcles
| Myxococcus xanthus
The Ghost In The Machine
<andr...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk>
wrote
on Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:24:19 GMT
<7ysXc.1378$cu6.16...@news-text.cableinet.net>:
Look, if you want to get somewhere with your arguments, you're
going to have to at least think about not insulting your
debating opponent every other sentence. :-P Also, it's clear
that SI has yet to make significant inroads into your personal
measurement system, though I can convert in a pinch.
But it may depend on one's positioning. If one were to stand
on the equator one is already moving at about 450-500 m/s,
for example. relative to someone standing on the pole. The
person on the pole might see the satellite motion, except
that he's rotating 2pi radians every 24 hours -- or 1 radian
in just under 4 hours.
The satellites should move relative to the background starfield, though.
> Androcles
>
>
> Androcles.
Myxococcus xanthus
> Pedant Point: Geosynchronous Satellites do not move,
> as observed from the Earth (except maybe for a little
> visible wiggle or something). However, they do have
> to have a velocity of some miles per second (I'd have
> to work out/find out how much), lest they fall into the
> observatory. :-)
Doubly pedant point:
"Geosynchronous" is not the same as "geostationary." :-)
A geosynchronous orbit is any orbit with a period equal to one
sidereal day. Geosynchronous orbits may have non-zero inclination and
non-zero eccentricity.
A geostationary orbit is a geosynchronous orbit with zero inclination
and zero eccentricity.
Myxococcus xanthus
Myxococcus xanthus
> "Myxococcus xanthus" <mold-g...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ce5e7813.04082...@posting.google.com...
> Seems Ghost understands how utterly ridiculous your claim is, he pointed out
> that the 1 mile per second transverse motion of communications satellites do
> not cause them to crash into the observatory, or for anyone to move their
> dish to track them. You are obviously too stupid to see that the velocity in
> the direction of the observer is practically zero, and nothing like "These
> satellites move at velocities of SEVERAL MILES PER SECOND relative to the
> observatory site." as you so stupidly claimed. You are clearly a moron who
> doesn't know the meaning of transverse velocity, and the scum that refuses
> to take a bet on whether a laser from ISS will prove or disprove your
> precious religion. You are no different to Miller, all mouth and no
> substance. Go away, scum, I'm done with you.
> Androcles
(sigh again)
Seems to me you intentionally misremember the exchange. Let me refresh
your memory:
>> Wrong. Source dependency has already been disproven many times over
in
>> the laser ranging data. Laser ranging is regularly performed not
only
>> to the retroreflectors placed on the moon, but to dozens of
satellite
>> retroreflectors.
>> http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/mlrs_targets.html
>> These satellites move at velocities of SEVERAL MILES PER SECOND
>> relative to the observatory site.
By "these satellites", I meant, of course, the retroreflector-equipped
satellites listed in the link that I provided.
You will see them classified into "High Satellites", "Medium
Satellites", and "Low Satellites".
The "High Satellites" are Etalon 1, Etalon 2, GPS 35 and GPS 36, and
MeteoSat P-2. Of these High Satellites, the only geostationary
satellite is the MeteoSat; the Etalons are in 11.25 hour orbits, while
the GPS satellites are in 12 hour orbits.
The "Medium" and "Low" satellites are LAGEOS 1, LAGEOS 2,
Topex/Poseidon, Adeos, Ajisai, Starlette, Stella, ERS 1, ERS 2, Meteor
3, MST-II, Fizeau, GFZ-1, and SunSat.
With the sole exception of the MeteoSat, all of the satellites listed
in the High, Medium and Low categories will show a significant radial
component of velocity with respect to you, the observer, provided that
they are not near your local meridian.
>Pure nonsense. If they did they'd soon crash into the observatory.
From an
>altitude of 500 miles and a velocity of 5 m/sec, it would take 500/5
= 1
>minute and 40 seconds. I haven't heard any news reports of satellites
>hitting observatories, but obviously you have.
>Remainder snipped, you haven't a fucking clue.
>Androcles
Are you ignorant of vector algebra? From your local viewpoint as an
observer standing on a rotating Earth, the velocities of these
satellites can be resolved into radial and tangential components.
Except as they cross your local meridian, the radial velocity
components of these satellites will be nonzero.
Source dependency would imply serious anomalies in laser ranging
measurements performed on these satellites everywhere except as they
cross the local meridians of the ranging stations.
SUCH ANOMALIES HAVE NEVER BEEN OBSERVED. SOURCE DEPENDENCY IS
DISPROVEN.
Myxococcus xanthus
> >> http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/mlrs_targets.html
>
> >> These satellites move at velocities of SEVERAL MILES PER SECOND
> >> relative to the observatory site.
>
> By "these satellites", I meant, of course, the retroreflector-equipped
> satellites listed in the link that I provided.
>
> You will see them classified into "High Satellites", "Medium
> Satellites", and "Low Satellites".
>
> The "High Satellites" are Etalon 1, Etalon 2, GPS 35 and GPS 36, and
> MeteoSat P-2. Of these High Satellites, the only geostationary
> satellite is the MeteoSat; the Etalons are in 11.25 hour orbits, while
> the GPS satellites are in 12 hour orbits.
Seems I missed three: GLONASS 5, GLONASS 35, and GLONASS 36, with 11.5
hour orbits. Also, the three Apollo and two Lunakhod sites are listed
among the "High Satellites".
> The "Medium" and "Low" satellites are LAGEOS 1, LAGEOS 2,
> Topex/Poseidon, Adeos, Ajisai, Starlette, Stella, ERS 1, ERS 2, Meteor
> 3, MST-II, Fizeau, GFZ-1, and SunSat.
>
> With the sole exception of the MeteoSat, all of the satellites listed
> in the High, Medium and Low categories will show a significant radial
> component of velocity with respect to you, the observer, provided that
> they are not near your local meridian.
Myxococcus xanthus
The Ghost In The Machine
<mold-g...@comcast.net>
wrote
on 26 Aug 2004 21:06:18 -0700
<ce5e7813.04082...@posting.google.com>:
Heh...I stand corrected. Of course I meant geostationary. :-)
In any event, neither one would fall into the observatory, though
both would probably be moving several km/sec relative to the Earth
(or, perhaps more pedantically, a point in the Earth's core that
is not rotating with respect to the sidereal reference frame, but
is orbiting the common mass-point between Earth and Sun).
Androcles
I snipped nothing. You, on the other hand, deliberately and maliciously
snipped the points I made that you were unable to answer. That's the kind of
scum you are.
Let me refresh
| your memory:
Bollocks. Google is the record of our exchanges and the record of the kind
of scum you are, for EVERYBODY to see.
|
| >> Wrong. Source dependency has already been disproven many times over
| in
| >> the laser ranging data. Laser ranging is regularly performed not
| only
| >> to the retroreflectors placed on the moon, but to dozens of
| satellite
| >> retroreflectors.
| >> http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/mlrs_targets.html
|
| >> These satellites move at velocities of SEVERAL MILES PER SECOND
| >> relative to the observatory site.
|
| By "these satellites", I meant, of course, the retroreflector-equipped
| satellites listed in the link that I provided.
I have no interest in debating the viability of the experiment with you, or
any other argument you may present. Either put up, or shut up. I can shut
you up very easily, my kill-file is in easy reach.
Do you want to place the bet ($50 says that a laser from a moving source
such as ISS, aimed at the moon, will disprove Einstein's assertion "light is
always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body") or not? Y/N.
If yes, quit squirming like a worm on a hook and put your money where your
fucking mouth is.
Send the money to sal. I'll do the same, and we'll go on talking about it
until it happens, AFTER sal tell me he has it. If not, you've demonstrated
the kind of scum you are to EVERYBODY. You and your words to me are not
forgotten, and I'm calling your bluff.
Remainder snipped, unread. (I've shut you up)
Androcles.
Androcles
You had it coming the moment you wrote " If you're a liar, you could claim
that you observed an effect, and I'd be out $50, but EVERYBODY here will
know what sort of scum you are". Open the floodgates, suffer the deluge.
Fuck you.
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=1g_Wc.391%24VA6.4700163%40news-text.cableinet.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dscum%2Bgroup:sc
i.physics.relativity%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26as_drrb%3Db%26as_mind%
3D12%26as_minm%3D5%26as_miny%3D2004%26as_maxd%3D27%26as_maxm%3D8%26as_maxy%3
D2004%26start%3D0%26sa%3DN
Also, it's clear
| that SI has yet to make significant inroads into your personal
| measurement system, though I can convert in a pinch.
|
| But it may depend on one's positioning. If one were to stand
| on the equator one is already moving at about 450-500 m/s,
| for example. relative to someone standing on the pole. The
| person on the pole might see the satellite motion, except
| that he's rotating 2pi radians every 24 hours -- or 1 radian
| in just under 4 hours.
|
| The satellites should move relative to the background starfield, though.
Wow... what a brilliant observation. The sun crosses the sky by day and the
stars by night. I think is was Copernicus that figured out the Earth was
turning about 400 years ago, and you've just caught up. Well done.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <andr...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:IWHXc.1721$x96.20...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>
> "Myxococcus xanthus" <mold-g...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ce5e7813.0408...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
> | (sigh again)
> | Seems to me you intentionally misremember the exchange.
>
> I snipped nothing. You, on the other hand, deliberately and maliciously
> snipped the points I made that you were unable to answer. That's the kind of
> scum you are.
>
> | Let me refresh
> | your memory:
>
> Bollocks. Google is the record of our exchanges and the record of the kind
> of scum you are, for EVERYBODY to see.
[snip]
> | By "these satellites", I meant, of course, the retroreflector-equipped
> | satellites listed in the link that I provided.
>
> I have no interest in debating the viability of the experiment with you, or
> any other argument you may present. Either put up, or shut up. I can shut
> you up very easily, my kill-file is in easy reach.
>
>
> Do you want to place the bet ($50 says that a laser from a moving source
> such as ISS, aimed at the moon, will disprove Einstein's assertion "light is
> always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
> independent of the state of motion of the emitting body") or not? Y/N.
> If yes, quit squirming like a worm on a hook and put your money where your
> fucking mouth is.
> Send the money to sal. I'll do the same, and we'll go on talking about it
> until it happens, AFTER sal tell me he has it. If not, you've demonstrated
> the kind of scum you are to EVERYBODY. You and your words to me are not
> forgotten, and I'm calling your bluff.
> Remainder snipped, unread. (I've shut you up)
> Androcles.
"Never argue with an ...."?
"They drag you down to their ..."?
"and beat you with ..."?
Right!
Dirk Vdm
Myxococcus xanthus
> | (sigh again)
> | Seems to me you intentionally misremember the exchange.
>
> I snipped nothing. You, on the other hand, deliberately and maliciously
> snipped the points I made that you were unable to answer. That's the kind of
> scum you are.
I prefer to conserve bandwidth, replying only to points that I wish to
respond to. Since Google maintains a permanent record of our
exchanges, I see no need to preserve the entire history of our
exchanges in messages that otherwise grow ad nauseam.
It is only crackpots who object to judicious, reasoned editing. When
it became apparent that you were deliberately distorting points that
we had covered before, in an attempt to cover your ass, I simply went
to the archives to recover your previous statements.
That is the purpose of the archives. What do you find wrong with that?
> Let me refresh
> | your memory:
>
> Bollocks. Google is the record of our exchanges and the record of the kind
> of scum you are, for EVERYBODY to see.
> I have no interest in debating the viability of the experiment with you, or
> any other argument you may present. Either put up, or shut up. I can shut
> you up very easily, my kill-file is in easy reach.
Oh, yes. Your famous killfile.
:-)
> Do you want to place the bet ($50 says that a laser from a moving source
> such as ISS, aimed at the moon, will disprove Einstein's assertion "light is
> always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
> independent of the state of motion of the emitting body") or not? Y/N.
(sigh)
The experiment you propose will never be done, being completely
purposeless. Why should I tie up $50 in a bet that depends an
experiment that has no hope of ever being performed?
Source dependency has already been disproven many times over, and a
proposal to conduct such an experiment as you suggest will never see
the light of day.
> If yes, quit squirming like a worm on a hook and put your money where your
> fucking mouth is.
My, my. You are foul-mouthed today. Have I upset you?
> Send the money to sal. I'll do the same, and we'll go on talking about it
> until it happens,
But the point is, that it will NEVER happen.
That is because
THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC NEED FOR THE EXPERIMENT YOU PROPOSE TO BE
CONDUCTED.
> AFTER sal tell me he has it. If not, you've demonstrated
> the kind of scum you are to EVERYBODY. You and your words to me are not
> forgotten, and I'm calling your bluff.
> Remainder snipped, unread. (I've shut you up)
In the mean time, why don't you address the scientific points that
you've snipped?
My following comments are slightly expanded from my previous post:
----- Begin expanded comments from previous post -----
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ce5e7813.0408270037.b0d960%40posting.google.com
>> Source dependency has already been disproven many times over in
>> the laser ranging data. Laser ranging is regularly performed not
>> only to the retroreflectors placed on the moon, but to dozens of
>> satellite retroreflectors.
>> http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/mlrs_targets.html
>> These satellites move at velocities of SEVERAL MILES PER SECOND
>> relative to the observatory site.
By "these satellites", I meant, of course, the retroreflector-equipped
satellites listed in the link that I provided.
You will see them classified into "High Satellites", "Medium
Satellites", and "Low Satellites".
The "High Satellites" are Etalon 1, Etalon 2, GPS 35 and GPS 36, and
MeteoSat P-2, GLONASS 5, GLONASS 35, and GLONASS 36. Also, the three
Apollo and two Lunakhod sites are listed among the "High Satellites".
[expanded from previous post]
Of these High Satellites, the only geostationary satellite is the
MeteoSat; the Etalons are in 11.25 hour orbits, the GPS satellites are
in 12 hour orbits, and the GLONASS satellites are in 11.5 hour orbits.
[expanded from previous post]
----- end expanded comments from previous post ----
Myxococcus xanthus
Androcles
Androcles
Myxococcus xanthus
> *plonk*
> Androcles
I really didn't expect you to concede defeat so EARLY in our debate.
Thanks!
Myxococcus xanthus
Max Keon
Well bully for him. I had always built from steel too because that's
the world I live in. But I was fed up with the resonant vibrations
that followed any minute contact with the setup. I thought it was
time to try something else.
>> To change the
>> pattern by half a wavelength through the duration of one revolution
>> would require a fairly hot object in very close proximity to the
>> unit. I would surely notice something like that in the room. Even
>> at relatively slow rotation rates e.g. 1 rev per minute, the effects
>> from normal room temperature variations would barely move the
>> pattern.
> You are waving your hands. Do the analysis.
When does analysis override observation? Room temperature
variations are **easily** accounted for. That was **not** a
problem, and there's **no** doubt about that.
Some years ago I set up a lightweight steel framed interferometer
to test, not a theory, but the possibility of a change in the pull
of gravity toward the earth on the night and day sides of the earth.
Anything residing on the daytime side of the earth is in freefall
toward the sun, as is the earth. The pull to the earth could be
lessened by this fact. On the nighttime side the pull to the earth
could possibly increase. I really didn't know what to expect.
The laser-mirror construction was again rectangular, with one major
difference. The second last mirror in the set was fixed to a freely
moving arm which was pivoted on hardened steel knife edges and
suspended by a light tension spring. The whole assembly was oriented
in a perpendicular plane to the earth's surface while the arm
carrying the floating mirror was roughly 45 degrees to the earth's
surface.
/. . /. <-Laser
Up . .
\ . .
\ . .
\ s. . .
\ c . . . .
\ r. . . . ()../ . ./ Floating mirror.
\ e . . Collimator
\ e. lens
Down n
As you can probably imagine, setting the mirrors was something of
a nightmare. My first attempt at that was when it was mounted in a
vice on a wooden bench on a concrete floor in a steel garage. The
interference pattern was constantly vibrating and oscillating. Then
a small bird landed on the garage roof and that sent the pattern
into absolute chaos. Godzilla had apparently arrived. The vibration
from that landing was obviously transferred through all the solid
object to the unit because the pattern would not respond to e.g.
hand clapping (or waving).
I then suspended the assembly on long tension springs within a
framework and mounted it all in a particle board enclosure. Vibration
problems had been overcome, but the thing would never stay still,
no matter how long it was left alone. In the end, I had completely
filled the framework supporting tension spring with grease to act
as a shock absorber. But the floating arm still continued to
oscillate. That was overcome with a permanent magnet induction
brake.
All was now ready for the test. But temperature change affecting
the spring on the floating mirror arm would of course prove to be
an almost insurmountable hurdle. But should I give up that easily?
Of course not.
I then mounted resistance wires around the inside of the enclosure
that were driven by a temperature sensitive amplifier, which was
based on an old LM741 op amp that had no feedback resistor (all
shielded of course). The trigger point was then very sensitive to
temperature change. That too was a fizza because the heating
elements set up minor thermal currents flowing around the floating
arm.
Then I built another enclosure to house the smaller one, and that
was made of 50mm thick polystyrene foam blocks. Now the task was
to maintain a constant temperature in the outer enclosure, and that
would stabilize the temperature within the inner enclosure. A small
fan was added to cycle the air so as to eliminate the possibility
of hot and cold spots forming around the inner enclosure. I also
upgraded the heater to a motor car headlamp. The driver for that
was initially water cooled, but that proved to be a pain in the
neck, so I changed to a rather huge air cooled heat sink (the 2N3055
driver was always in limbo land, never fully on, never fully off).
Then the next problem arose. The laser tube itself was raising the
inner enclosure temperature above that set by the outer enclosure.
I then added an open window to the inner enclosure which was vented
to the very outside, and that could be closed off by a plate which
was also mounted on a knife edge pivoted arm. The control mechanism
for that was another 2N3055 transistor unit driving an electromagnet,
and that was driven directly from inside the inner enclosure by
another temperature sensitive unit. After adding a few baffles to
stop the thermal currents interfering with the floating arm, I was
ready to run a proper test.
Most of the test were from 4pm to 8pm, or 4am to 8am. I found no
sign of any change.
The op amp trigger was a thermistor with a 17 second response time.
You may have a problem with that. But the response time at the
trigger point for the op amp appeared to be almost instantaneous.
The interference pattern was displayed on the face of a digital
voltmeter so that I could monitor any variation in temperature
and identify that with any change in interference pattern. The
monitoring was done via a CCD camera inside the enclosure.
Now do you believe me when I say room temperature variations
are not a problem? Do the test, don't just talk about it.
You only see the truth with your eyes.
And even that is not as it seems.
> Wiser minds than yours have.
> That is why they build from granite. They don't want to make it expensive,
> but they do want to make it stable.
>> Some of the wee folk around can't seem to grasp the fact that the
>> light path lengths on my setup are only around 350mm, and are thus
>> 63 times less than the light path length from the beam split point,
>> along an 11 meter path through a maze of mirrors, where it is
>> reflected back along the same 11 meter path through the same maze
>> of mirrors, to be reunited with its counterpart, which has also
>> traveled a similar path along the other arm, all carried on the
>> turntable of the MMX monster interferometer.
>>
>> As I said before, get some hands on experience using lasers and
>> mirrors.
> Get some hands on experience yourself, with materials. And
> accelerating frames.
--
Max Keon
The Ghost In The Machine
<c7IXc.1727$sF5.19...@news-text.cableinet.net>:
Sorry, I'm afraid you're confusing me with someone else. :-)
I can't say who without some research.
>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=1g_Wc.391%24VA6.4700163%40news-text.cableinet.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dscum%2Bgroup:sc
> i.physics.relativity%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26as_drrb%3Db%26as_mind%
> 3D12%26as_minm%3D5%26as_miny%3D2004%26as_maxd%3D27%26as_maxm%3D8%26as_maxy%3
> D2004%26start%3D0%26sa%3DN
>
> Also, it's clear
> | that SI has yet to make significant inroads into your personal
> | measurement system, though I can convert in a pinch.
> |
> | But it may depend on one's positioning. If one were to stand
> | on the equator one is already moving at about 450-500 m/s,
> | for example. relative to someone standing on the pole. The
> | person on the pole might see the satellite motion, except
> | that he's rotating 2pi radians every 24 hours -- or 1 radian
> | in just under 4 hours.
> |
> | The satellites should move relative to the background starfield, though.
>
> Wow... what a brilliant observation. The sun crosses the sky
> by day and the stars by night.
Not quite. If one's standing near the North Pole during the
solstice, for example, one will observe the sun orbiting at a
more or less constant 23 degrees latitude.
If one's standing at the South Pole during said solstice, the
sun will not be visible.
(All this, of course, is predicated on weather not obscuring
one's view. AIUI, winter storms near the poles can get
rather nasty.)
> I think is was Copernicus that figured out the Earth was
> turning about 400 years ago, and you've just caught up. Well done.
Thanks, I think. :-P
[.sigsnip]
Androcles
Response was to Myxococcus xanthus, whose name appears above.
Ghost is someone I find to be capable of reason, lacking the religious-like
fervour of the crazed relativist who does not think but repeats parrot style
the words of his tin god, Einstein.
It would seem I'd mixed up the responses and taken your words as that of the
microbe. My error, and my apology, Ghost. Sorry.
Androcles.
Mike
[snip]
> My sentiment is that the shift should be used to determine reference
> frame rather than vise versa, takes the guesswork out of it. Apparently
> Michelson couldn't make sense of the anomaly that I've heard he
> detected. Does anyone know the exact details of that anomaly, or did
> Michelson fail to share them?
>
> Richard Perry
Why do you have to go as back as Michelson? Look up towards the moon
this evening. Moon illusion or what?
Mike
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:413035CC...@ozemail.com.au...
> N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
...
>>> When the unit is freely rotating, for the short duration that any
>>> component of the apparatus is in a segment of the rotation cycle,
>>> the degree of heat transfer can only be minimal.
>
>> It was not minimal for Miller, and he built form steel. Do the
>> analysis.
>
> Well bully for him. I had always built from steel too because that's
> the world I live in. But I was fed up with the resonant vibrations
> that followed any minute contact with the setup. I thought it was
> time to try something else.
Bad direction.
>>> To change the
>>> pattern by half a wavelength through the duration of one revolution
>>> would require a fairly hot object in very close proximity to the
>>> unit. I would surely notice something like that in the room. Even
>>> at relatively slow rotation rates e.g. 1 rev per minute, the effects
>>> from normal room temperature variations would barely move the
>>> pattern.
>
>> You are waving your hands. Do the analysis.
>
> When does analysis override observation? Room temperature
> variations are **easily** accounted for. That was **not** a
> problem, and there's **no** doubt about that.
>
> Some years ago I set up a lightweight steel framed interferometer
> to test, not a theory, but the possibility of a change in the pull
> of gravity toward the earth on the night and day sides of the earth.
> Anything residing on the daytime side of the earth is in freefall
> toward the sun, as is the earth. The pull to the earth could be
> lessened by this fact. On the nighttime side the pull to the earth
> could possibly increase. I really didn't know what to expect.
Tides are a good indication of what could be expected, Max.
...
> Most of the test were from 4pm to 8pm, or 4am to 8am. I found no
> sign of any change.
Not sensitive enough.
> The op amp trigger was a thermistor with a 17 second response time.
> You may have a problem with that. But the response time at the
> trigger point for the op amp appeared to be almost instantaneous.
Response time to a step change is not as critical, when you are operating
near a threshold with a monotonic tendency. I'd be more concerned with the
time constant to get the heat to the sensor.
> The interference pattern was displayed on the face of a digital
> voltmeter so that I could monitor any variation in temperature
> and identify that with any change in interference pattern. The
> monitoring was done via a CCD camera inside the enclosure.
>
> Now do you believe me when I say room temperature variations
> are not a problem? Do the test, don't just talk about it.
No, I still believe it is a problem.
> You only see the truth with your eyes.
> And even that is not as it seems.
Never is. Truth is in the mind.
David A. Smith
The Ghost In The Machine
<%BZXc.299$Pg7.3...@news-text.cableinet.net>:
Just be advised that I for one think there's far more evidence
for Einstein's theory than for Galileo's. However, there's
no reason to parrot, and in any event Einstein's theory did not
beat or subdue Galileo's -- it *swallowed* it. For v << c, the two
are almost the same; one might see a shrinkage of about 1
atomic nucleus in a car travelling down a freeway at 65 mph,
for example.
Apology accepted. I get confused rather easily myself. :-)
Androcles
That is because you've heard about the emporer's
invisible clothes but haven't examined the cloth yet. :-)
The Ghost In The Machine
<KdiYc.845$yF2.10...@news-text.cableinet.net>:
I need more data. What you've provided is interesting but
I've not seen how well they match yet (you've produced
two graphs side-by-side, but no superpositions, on your
website), nor have I seen a control where the theoretical
computations are done with SR (and, if the suns are close
enough, GR as well) in mind.
Did you have such? Which one fits more precisely?
[rest snipped]
Androcles
[snip material no longer referred to by either corespondent]
| > | Just be advised that I for one think there's far more evidence
| > | for Einstein's theory than for Galileo's.
| >
| > That is because you've heard about the emporer's
| > invisible clothes but haven't examined the cloth yet. :-)
|
| I need more data.
Look up. The sky is filled with stars. If you want someone else's data,
there are many websites. Here's a nice one.
http://www.student.oulu.fi/~ktikkane/AST/UCEP.html
Usually people are honest in telling you what they see. Why it behaves
the way it does is up to you to find out. You can listen to me or you can
listen to Einstein, but the only way to actually know is to find out for
yourself.
Because more people come down in favour of Einstein dosn't mean there is
another more plausible explanation.
Tell me, why is it that I can model U Cep with the same program I used to
model V1493 Aql? They are very different curves, are they not?
As Al Schwarz said, I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for
you.
| What you've provided is interesting but
| I've not seen how well they match yet (you've produced
| two graphs side-by-side, but no superpositions, on your
| website), nor have I seen a control where the theoretical
| computations are done with SR (and, if the suns are close
| enough, GR as well) in mind.
Ok, I stretched the time axis a little too far. Scaling is quite difficult
and I don't have all day to play with it. Keep in mind that the program
displays two full cycles and the observer isn't going to continue
watching for the next 200 years to see it happen again.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/temp.bmp
|
| Did you have such?
Data is data. There is no explanation at all from GR/SR. If you want
that as a control, fine. Relativity cannot reproduce the curve of
U Cep, delta Cep, beta Per, V1493 Aql or a miriad other stars
and must give a different explanation for each type. There is no one
underlying principle behind all of them, because Relativity has denied
the one principle under which they all operate to provide the data.
With emission theory, the light curves can be modelled.
Which one fits more precisely?
For V1493 Aql:=================
There are two maxima to the curve.
A) SR offers the explanation that the star blows up twice.
B) Emission theory offers the explanation that the star is in
a long period orbit.
For U Cepheus or beta Perseus.===============
There is a sudden dip in the curve.
A) SR offers the explanation that the star is eclipsed by another,
imagined, darker star with a very short period. An eclipsing binary.
B) Emission theory offers the explanation that the star is in
a very short period orbit.
For delta Cepheus and the cepheids named for it.========
A) SR offers the explanation that the star is pulsating, puffing itself
up and down like a blowfish.
B) Emission theory offers the explanation that the star is in
a short period orbit.
For a flare star: ============
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/119171.stm
A) See the page for the explanation. Very exciting, I'm sure.
B) Emission theory offers the explanation that the star is in
a long period orbit.
Every explanation from SR/GR comes up with some new idea, and all because
Einstein made an assumption and made a calculation about time being
relative. His calculations do not pass the test any mathematician
would apply, see the Seven Deadly Sins of Relativity.
Every explanation from Emission Theory comes up with the
old and very simple one. Light's speed is source dependent.
Once it leaves the star it is on its own, and faster light emitted
later can pass slower light emitted earlier.
Androcles.
Henri Wilson
<andr...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
>message news:8em902-...@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
>
>Because more people come down in favour of Einstein dosn't mean there is
>another more plausible explanation.
>Tell me, why is it that I can model U Cep with the same program I used to
>model V1493 Aql? They are very different curves, are they not?
>As Al Schwarz said, I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for
>you.
U Cep is easy to simulate with the ballistic theory.
It is a single star (orbiting a cool companion) with eccentricity around 0.5 to
0.7 and its perihelion pointing in our direction.
>
>
>|
>| Did you have such?
>
>Data is data. There is no explanation at all from GR/SR. If you want
>that as a control, fine. Relativity cannot reproduce the curve of
>U Cep, delta Cep, beta Per, V1493 Aql or a miriad other stars
>and must give a different explanation for each type. There is no one
>underlying principle behind all of them, because Relativity has denied
>the one principle under which they all operate to provide the data.
>With emission theory, the light curves can be modelled.
Delta Cep is a common curve when some time compression is involved.
>
>Which one fits more precisely?
>
>For V1493 Aql:=================
>There are two maxima to the curve.
>
>
>A) SR offers the explanation that the star blows up twice.
>B) Emission theory offers the explanation that the star is in
>a long period orbit.
>
>For U Cepheus or beta Perseus.===============
>There is a sudden dip in the curve.
Of course we know Algol is similar to U Cep and is completely explained by the
ballistic theory.
>
>A) SR offers the explanation that the star is eclipsed by another,
>imagined, darker star with a very short period. An eclipsing binary.
>
>B) Emission theory offers the explanation that the star is in
>a very short period orbit.
>
>For delta Cepheus and the cepheids named for it.========
>
>A) SR offers the explanation that the star is pulsating, puffing itself
>up and down like a blowfish.
>B) Emission theory offers the explanation that the star is in
>a short period orbit.
>
>
>Every explanation from Emission Theory comes up with the
>old and very simple one. Light's speed is source dependent.
>Once it leaves the star it is on its own, and faster light emitted
>later can pass slower light emitted earlier.
>
>Androcles.
>
>
Just backing up what you say, A.
Henri Wilson.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
See proof that light speed is source dependent.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
Androcles
"Henri Wilson" <h@..> wrote in message
news:64h7j0599ocaogtou...@4ax.com...
| On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 11:56:40 GMT, "Androcles"
| <andr...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
|
| >
| >"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
| >message news:8em902-...@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
| >
|
| >Because more people come down in favour of Einstein dosn't mean there is
| >another more plausible explanation.
| >Tell me, why is it that I can model U Cep with the same program I used to
| >model V1493 Aql? They are very different curves, are they not?
| >As Al Schwarz said, I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it
for
| >you.
|
| U Cep is easy to simulate with the ballistic theory.
| It is a single star (orbiting a cool companion) with eccentricity around
0.5 to
| 0.7 and its perihelion pointing in our direction.
Yep. One of the easiest and certainly the second most convincing. V1493 Aql
was not quite so easy, but is the more convincing. There is no known theory
to account for that curve other than emission theory.
|
| >
|
| >
| >|
| >| Did you have such?
| >
| >Data is data. There is no explanation at all from GR/SR. If you want
| >that as a control, fine. Relativity cannot reproduce the curve of
| >U Cep, delta Cep, beta Per, V1493 Aql or a miriad other stars
| >and must give a different explanation for each type. There is no one
| >underlying principle behind all of them, because Relativity has denied
| >the one principle under which they all operate to provide the data.
| >With emission theory, the light curves can be modelled.
|
| Delta Cep is a common curve when some time compression is involved.
Yes, but the apparent time compression is minor. The entire period is only
5 days. V1493 Aql has apparent time reversal, reducing 100 years worth of
light into
three months, with the star apparently running backwards between the two
maxima.
H, I think V1493 Aql is a Sirius type system ( two observable stars 8 light
years away, period 50 yrs) with a period similar to that of Pluto. Being
at a greater distance, we cannot resolve the two stars. However, there
should be an outburst from the companion coming at 1/2 period.
You've found the same result I did, and independently.
That cannot be a coincidence. :-)
Androcles.