Another Joke! SR Proves Absolute Space.
Henry Wilson
moving in any particular direction travels at the same speed through free
space.
At follows that all light projected in the OPPOSITE direction from all
moving sources will also travel at the same speed (in the opposite
direction).
Therefore the mean ONE-WAY light velocity along any axis is an indicator of
zero velocity in space. By considering OWLS in all three directions an
absolute space is defined.
Of course this cannot be detected this because all measurements of OWLS
will be constant irrespective of velocity. (assuming SR is correct)
The fact remains, SR supports the concept of spatial absolutivity, just as
much as aether theory.
David Evens
You forgot to support your assumption that SR possesses his
inconsistency.
PHILLIP V GLASGOW
Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:3c65a51...@news.bigpond.com...
> As indicated in my demonstration, SR verifies that light from all sources
> moving in any particular direction travels at the same speed through free
> space.
Verifies theoretically? Or are you claiming it is verified by experiment?
It should be noted that experiment only confirms measured light speed in
_coordinate_ space. Coordinate space and free space (space independent of
an observers coordinate construction) are two very different things. If on
the other hand you recognize that the assumption of an absolute (free
space)coordinate system corresponds with a valid SR inertial frame, then you
have discovered that SR is compatible with a free-space which can be
constructed as an absolute coordinate system. Unfortunely, at least in my
opinion, this does not mean that an absolute space is verified or proven to
exist. On the other hand, no relativist has yet to describe a space which
is not absolute in its properties and which is compatible to SR. BTW, to do
so would mean that coordinates transformed between relatively moving FORs do
not correspond to the same events.
Phil
Henry Wilson
wrote:
Actually, I was being a bit provocative here.
So far, what I have said only shows that any observer can regard himself as
being at the centre of his own personal 'absolute space'.
I'm now refining my demo to see what happens when another moving observer
views the two laser pulses.
Eric Prebys
Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> As indicated in my demonstration, SR verifies that light from all sources
> moving in any particular direction travels at the same speed through free
> space.
>
> At follows that all light projected in the OPPOSITE direction from all
> moving sources will also travel at the same speed (in the opposite
> direction).
>
> Therefore the mean ONE-WAY light velocity along any axis is an indicator of
> zero velocity in space. By considering OWLS in all three directions an
> absolute space is defined.
>
Are you really this stupid, or are you just good at pretending?
-Eric
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c679cc2...@news.bigpond.com...
Immortal!
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
Title: "At the centre of his own personal 'absolute space'."
Dirk Vdm
PHILLIP V GLASGOW
Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 06:32:09 GMT, "PHILLIP V GLASGOW"
<pas...@prodigy.net>
> wrote:
> >
> Actually, I was being a bit provocative here.
Not really. Don't take offense, but you are saying something which has no
rational basis.
> So far, what I have said only shows that any observer can regard himself
as
> being at the centre of his own personal 'absolute space'.
Yup. This _is_ relativity, whether Galilean or Lorenztian. But the
_personal 'absolute space'_ is not absolute space at all. It is coordinate
space and there is a big difference.
> I'm now refining my demo to see what happens when another moving observer
> views the two laser pulses.
Its not hurting you to refine your demo, however, you would do well to study
Lorentz' ether and modern relativity. That is, learn how to use them, but
more precisely, learn how to develop the mathematical theorems from their
postulates (ie transforms, velocity addition, doppler shift, etc.). When
you have done this you will understand how they are related mathematically
and logically.
Regards, Phil
Henry Wilson
>
>
>Henry Wilson wrote:
>>
>> As indicated in my demonstration, SR verifies that light from all sources
>> moving in any particular direction travels at the same speed through free
>> space.
>>
>> At follows that all light projected in the OPPOSITE direction from all
>> moving sources will also travel at the same speed (in the opposite
>> direction).
>>
>> Therefore the mean ONE-WAY light velocity along any axis is an indicator of
>> zero velocity in space. By considering OWLS in all three directions an
>> absolute space is defined.
>>
>
>Are you really this stupid, or are you just good at pretending?
I doubt if you can even visualize the point I am making Eric - so I will
have to animate it for you.
---- to be published soon on my website.
Wait for it!
>
Henry Wilson
wrote:
>
>Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>
>Its not hurting you to refine your demo, however, you would do well to study
>Lorentz' ether and modern relativity. That is, learn how to use them, but
>more precisely, learn how to develop the mathematical theorems from their
>postulates (ie transforms, velocity addition, doppler shift, etc.). When
>you have done this you will understand how they are related mathematically
>and logically.
>
>Regards, Phil
I am pretty familiar with the arguments of both theories Phil.
The trouble is, I know they cannot be correct because they are both based
on the same basic misconception. A vertical light beam does NOT tilt and
move diagonally at 'c' in a moving frame.
My demonstrations clearly show why this is true.
Just analyse vertically falling raindrops in a moving observer's frame, if
you want an easy proof.
The time they take to reach the ground does not depend on any observer's
speed.
PHILLIP V GLASGOW
Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 06:39:24 GMT, "PHILLIP V GLASGOW"
<pas...@prodigy.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>
> >
> >Its not hurting you to refine your demo, however, you would do well to
study
> >Lorentz' ether and modern relativity. That is, learn how to use them,
but
> >more precisely, learn how to develop the mathematical theorems from their
> >postulates (ie transforms, velocity addition, doppler shift, etc.). When
> >you have done this you will understand how they are related
mathematically
> >and logically.
> >
> >Regards, Phil
>
> I am pretty familiar with the arguments of both theories Phil.
That is the problem as I see it. You understand neither theory very well.
But what is more unfortunate than misunderstanding or ignorance, is your
insistence on imposing inconsistent functions to the actual models in order
to arrive at your _proofs_. Actually, some of your conclusions are not
consistent, ie you arrive at the conclusion that SR supports both absolute
space and source dependent light speed which are logically incompatible.
Not to mention the fact that source dependent light speed is already
disproven.
Ultimately, if the theory is not properly practiced, one will arrive at
logically inconsistent conclusions.
Henry Wilson
wrote:
>
>Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>news:3c696a67...@news.bigpond.com...
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 06:39:24 GMT, "PHILLIP V GLASGOW"
><pas...@prodigy.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>>
>> >
>> >Its not hurting you to refine your demo, however, you would do well to
>study
>> >Lorentz' ether and modern relativity. That is, learn how to use them,
>but
>> >more precisely, learn how to develop the mathematical theorems from their
>> >postulates (ie transforms, velocity addition, doppler shift, etc.). When
>> >you have done this you will understand how they are related
>mathematically
>> >and logically.
>> >
>> >Regards, Phil
>>
>> I am pretty familiar with the arguments of both theories Phil.
>
>That is the problem as I see it. You understand neither theory very well.
>But what is more unfortunate than misunderstanding or ignorance, is your
>insistence on imposing inconsistent functions to the actual models in order
>to arrive at your _proofs_. Actually, some of your conclusions are not
>consistent, ie you arrive at the conclusion that SR supports both absolute
>space and source dependent light speed which are logically incompatible.
Maybe that is the very point I am trying to emphasize.
>Not to mention the fact that source dependent light speed is already
>disproven.
maybe, maybe not. There could be a lot more to the simplistic model of
source dependency we have at present.
Paul B. Andersen
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c65a51...@news.bigpond.com...
Oh, My dear, Henry. I think you have lost it completely.
Your postings are getting more and more idiotic.
But to give a sensical answer to a nonsensical posting:
You are staring yourself blind on Einstein synchronization method,
and the "one way speed of light", but this is actually of no
importance, and has no real physical significance.
What is experimentally verified, is that the round trip speed
of light is isotropic, invariant and equal to c.
So let us see what this leads to:
At an instant, an infinitely short light flash is emitted.
In an arbitrarily selected, inertial frame we measure the round
trip speed of light in two opposite directions, using one single
clock.
flash
| * |
mirror clock mirror
Of course we get the round trip speed c in both directions.
According to you, we can then conclude that the arbirarily
selected frame must be stationary in absolute space.
(If that is not obvious to you, then show us how the frame
can be NOT stationary in absolute space, USING THE SAME
LOGIC that lead to the conclusion that the frame had to
be statinary in absolute space if the OWLS was the same
in both directions.)
If we did the same experiment in another frame moving
relative to the first, what would we then measure?
What would we then have to conclude according to your
reasoning?
Do I have to say more?
Think not.
I bet you understand nothing whatever I say.
But go ahead, give as yet another demonstration.
Paul
PHILLIP V GLASGOW
Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 04:13:30 GMT, "PHILLIP V GLASGOW"
<pas...@prodigy.net>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I am pretty familiar with the arguments of both theories Phil.
> >
> >That is the problem as I see it. You understand neither theory very
well.
> >But what is more unfortunate than misunderstanding or ignorance, is your
> >insistence on imposing inconsistent functions to the actual models in
order
> >to arrive at your _proofs_. Actually, some of your conclusions are not
> >consistent, ie you arrive at the conclusion that SR supports both
absolute
> >space and source dependent light speed which are logically incompatible.
>
> Maybe that is the very point I am trying to emphasize.
But it is no point at all because it is not possible. Take for example, let
us define 1 and 0 as two distinct and different numerical quantities such
that 1/=/0. If this is a postulate of our mathematical theory then _under
no circumstances_ can our mathematical theory be consistent with the
proposition 1=0. Do you get it? SR _can not_ be compatible with absolute
space and source dependent light speed.
> >Not to mention the fact that source dependent light speed is already
> >disproven.
>
> maybe, maybe not. There could be a lot more to the simplistic model of
> source dependency we have at present.
But there is no support of it experimentally, so why even bother? Further,
it is problematic for what we do observe.
Henry Wilson
<paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c65a51...@news.bigpond.com...
>> As indicated in my demonstration, SR verifies that light from all sources
>> moving in any particular direction travels at the same speed through free
>> space.
>>
>> At follows that all light projected in the OPPOSITE direction from all
>> moving sources will also travel at the same speed (in the opposite
>> direction).
>>
>> Therefore the mean ONE-WAY light velocity along any axis is an indicator of
>> zero velocity in space. By considering OWLS in all three directions an
>> absolute space is defined.
>>
>> Of course this cannot be detected this because all measurements of OWLS
>> will be constant irrespective of velocity. (assuming SR is correct)
>>
>> The fact remains, SR supports the concept of spatial absolutivity, just as
>> much as aether theory.
>
>Oh, My dear, Henry. I think you have lost it completely.
>Your postings are getting more and more idiotic.
>
>But to give a sensical answer to a nonsensical posting:
>
>You are staring yourself blind on Einstein synchronization method,
>and the "one way speed of light", but this is actually of no
>importance, and has no real physical significance.
>
>What is experimentally verified, is that the round trip speed
>of light is isotropic, invariant and equal to c.
It is not verified at all, Paul. It has never been measured to be constant
within 1 part in (v/c)^2, which is most critical.
>So let us see what this leads to:
>
>At an instant, an infinitely short light flash is emitted.
>In an arbitrarily selected, inertial frame we measure the round
>trip speed of light in two opposite directions, using one single
>clock.
>
> flash
> | * |
> mirror clock mirror
>
>Of course we get the round trip speed c in both directions.
Not necessarily - but that is not important for the moment.
>According to you, we can then conclude that the arbirarily
>selected frame must be stationary in absolute space.
>(If that is not obvious to you, then show us how the frame
> can be NOT stationary in absolute space, USING THE SAME
> LOGIC that lead to the conclusion that the frame had to
> be statinary in absolute space if the OWLS was the same
> in both directions.)
I do humbly apologise, Paul. I was having a little joke which I have
already cleared up elsewhere. Of course, it implies space is 'absolute'
only wrt each observer.
>
>If we did the same experiment in another frame moving
>relative to the first, what would we then measure?
>What would we then have to conclude according to your
>reasoning?
>
>Do I have to say more?
>Think not.
>I bet you understand nothing whatever I say.
I DO this time. I deliberately made a false statement to see if you would
pick it up. You were the only one who did.
However, Paul, the fact remains, the light pulses MOVE through space
TOGETHER, irrespective of observer presence.
There must be a property of space that governs that movement. For instance,
why do they move at that particular speed and not some other one?
Maybe 'absolute' is the wrong word - but I think it shows that we have to
completely rethink our whole interpretation of space.
>
>But go ahead, give as yet another demonstration.
The next 'enlightenment masterpiece' is on the way.
>
>Paul
>
>
Henry Wilson
wrote:
There is no support for SR experimentally, either.
Until somebody performs my suggested OWLS experiment, we will just keep on
arguing.
Paul B. Andersen
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c6d4a1e...@news.bigpond.com...
> There is no support for SR experimentally, either.
So there! :-)
I always find it hard to grasp why people will make a fool of themselves
by stating what they know is wrong, and what's more - what everybody
know they know is wrong.
> Until somebody performs my suggested OWLS experiment, we will just keep on
> arguing.
Of course - if the one unfeasible, ultimate experiment proposed
by Henry Wilson were performed, then ... :-)
Paul
Eric Prebys
To my knowledge, Wilson has *never* proposed an experiment -
even an unfeasible one. To propose an experiment would imply that
he questioned his faith, and he's too religious a man to do that.
> Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c6c4f8d...@news.bigpond.com...
What the hell does this statement mean, Henry?
1 part in X where X is unknown?
Then it means nothing.
Please explain:
To what precision do you claim the isotropy of the round trip speed
of light is not verified ?
> >So let us see what this leads to:
> >
> >At an instant, an infinitely short light flash is emitted.
> >In an arbitrarily selected, inertial frame we measure the round
> >trip speed of light in two opposite directions, using one single
> >clock.
> >
> > flash
> > | * |
> > mirror clock mirror
> >
> >Of course we get the round trip speed c in both directions.
>
> Not necessarily - but that is not important for the moment.
This experiment is performed.
We know the result.
> >According to you, we can then conclude that the arbirarily
> >selected frame must be stationary in absolute space.
> >(If that is not obvious to you, then show us how the frame
> > can be NOT stationary in absolute space, USING THE SAME
> > LOGIC that lead to the conclusion that the frame had to
> > be statinary in absolute space if the OWLS was the same
> > in both directions.)
>
> I do humbly apologise, Paul. I was having a little joke which I have
> already cleared up elsewhere. Of course, it implies space is 'absolute'
> only wrt each observer.
And since you now have realized that the joke in the subject
field is on you, you will have to pretend that it was meant
as a joke all the time, eh?
I don't buy it, Henry.
All your other subject fields are just as incredible stupid
as this one.
> >
> >If we did the same experiment in another frame moving
> >relative to the first, what would we then measure?
> >What would we then have to conclude according to your
> >reasoning?
> >
> >Do I have to say more?
> >Think not.
> >I bet you understand nothing whatever I say.
>
> I DO this time. I deliberately made a false statement to see if you would
> pick it up. You were the only one who did.
This is just the most stupid thing you have said so far.
You have uttered a lot - a BIG LOT - of false statements lately.
And pople have picked them all up.
> However, Paul, the fact remains, the light pulses MOVE through space
> TOGETHER, irrespective of observer presence.
> There must be a property of space that governs that movement. For instance,
> why do they move at that particular speed and not some other one?
Turtles all the way down?
I have no idea why nature behaves as it does.
I have however observed that SR invariably describes
it behaviour correctly.
That's no belief, Henry. It is an OBSERVATION.
Your problem is that you do not accept that it behaves as it does,
but insist that it MUST behave according to YOUR beliefs.
> Maybe 'absolute' is the wrong word - but I think it shows that we have to
> completely rethink our whole interpretation of space.
I think you are born a couple of centuries to late, Henry.
Your thoughts belong in the 19th century.
(Not quite fair to the 19th century, most of your thoughts
are but confused nonsense which doesn't belong at all.)
> >But go ahead, give as yet another demonstration.
>
> The next 'enlightenment masterpiece' is on the way.
You have produced a lot of masterpieces lately, Henry.
You have always seemed to be very close to the edge.
Lately you have advanced several steps.
Paul
Henry Wilson
Either we would learn a great deal or, in the unlikely event of a null
result, we would learn practically nothing.
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>
Henry Wilson, Henry Wilson's free thought Laboratory,
The frontier of scientific invention.
www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
Henry Wilson
Prebys, anyone who has been an experimental physicist for as long as I have
thinks of designing experiments as a matter of course. It is as natural for
me as breathing the air.
Henry Wilson
<paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c6c4f8d...@news.bigpond.com...
>> >
>> >You are staring yourself blind on Einstein synchronization method,
>> >and the "one way speed of light", but this is actually of no
>> >importance, and has no real physical significance.
>> >
>> >What is experimentally verified, is that the round trip speed
>> >of light is isotropic, invariant and equal to c.
>>
>> It is not verified at all, Paul. It has never been measured to be constant
>> within 1 part in (v/c)^2, which is most critical.
>
>What the hell does this statement mean, Henry?
>1 part in X where X is unknown?
>Then it means nothing.
You know what I meant. In many of these experiments v is known to be at
least twice the earth's peripheral velocity.
>
>Please explain:
>To what precision do you claim the isotropy of the round trip speed
>of light is not verified ?
Paul, I am well aware that some people claim to have measured the isotropy
to about 1 in 10^16. If you study their experiments you will see that they
were destined to give a null result.
But, of course, SR thrives on null results!
>
>> >So let us see what this leads to:
>> >
>> >At an instant, an infinitely short light flash is emitted.
>> >In an arbitrarily selected, inertial frame we measure the round
>> >trip speed of light in two opposite directions, using one single
>> >clock.
>> >
>> > flash
>> > | * |
>> > mirror clock mirror
>> >
>> >Of course we get the round trip speed c in both directions.
>>
>> Not necessarily - but that is not important for the moment.
>
>This experiment is performed.
>We know the result.
OK, it has been measured as constant to about 10^9 with confidence. No
worries there.
>
>> >According to you, we can then conclude that the arbirarily
>> >selected frame must be stationary in absolute space.
>> >(If that is not obvious to you, then show us how the frame
>> > can be NOT stationary in absolute space, USING THE SAME
>> > LOGIC that lead to the conclusion that the frame had to
>> > be statinary in absolute space if the OWLS was the same
>> > in both directions.)
>>
>> I do humbly apologise, Paul. I was having a little joke which I have
>> already cleared up elsewhere. Of course, it implies space is 'absolute'
>> only wrt each observer.
>
>And since you now have realized that the joke in the subject
>field is on you, you will have to pretend that it was meant
>as a joke all the time, eh?
Not really Paul. As I said elsewhere, what property of space makes light
pulses travel together at the speed they do travel at and not some other
one?
If you could 'see' photons moving without actually detecting them, you
would be able to define a local 'absolute' space.
Theoretically, this kind of absolutivity DOES exist.
>
>I don't buy it, Henry.
>All your other subject fields are just as incredible stupid
>as this one.
Paul, do you deny that light is moving past the earth without hitting it,
IN BOTH DIRECTIONS along any line?
>
>> >Do I have to say more?
>> >Think not.
>> >I bet you understand nothing whatever I say.
>>
>> I DO this time. I deliberately made a false statement to see if you would
>> pick it up. You were the only one who did.
>
>This is just the most stupid thing you have said so far.
>You have uttered a lot - a BIG LOT - of false statements lately.
>And pople have picked them all up.
>
>> However, Paul, the fact remains, the light pulses MOVE through space
>> TOGETHER, irrespective of observer presence.
>> There must be a property of space that governs that movement. For instance,
>> why do they move at that particular speed and not some other one?
>
>Turtles all the way down?
>
>I have no idea why nature behaves as it does.
and you don't even want to find out!
All you want to do is defend some silly theory.
>I have however observed that SR invariably describes
>it behaviour correctly.
>That's no belief, Henry. It is an OBSERVATION.
and my observation is that no observation DIRECTLY supports or proves the
postulates of SR.
>
>Your problem is that you do not accept that it behaves as it does,
>but insist that it MUST behave according to YOUR beliefs.
I don't have beliefs!
>
>> Maybe 'absolute' is the wrong word - but I think it shows that we have to
>> completely rethink our whole interpretation of space.
>
>I think you are born a couple of centuries to late, Henry.
>Your thoughts belong in the 19th century.
>(Not quite fair to the 19th century, most of your thoughts
>are but confused nonsense which doesn't belong at all.)
I have exposed Einy's little mathematical joke.
>
>> >But go ahead, give as yet another demonstration.
>>
>> The next 'enlightenment masterpiece' is on the way.
>
>You have produced a lot of masterpieces lately, Henry.
>You have always seemed to be very close to the edge.
>Lately you have advanced several steps.
Have a look at my upgraded 'photons.exe'
Stephen Speicher
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 16:21:14 -0600, Eric Prebys <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote:
>
> >
> >To my knowledge, Wilson has *never* proposed an experiment -
> >even an unfeasible one. To propose an experiment would imply that
> >he questioned his faith, and he's too religious a man to do that.
>
> Prebys, anyone who has been an experimental physicist for as long as I have
> thinks of designing experiments as a matter of course. It is as natural for
> me as breathing the air.
He says as he gasps for his last breath...
If Henry's nose is still on his face -- even Pinnochio could not
exceed a certain cantilevered distance -- it's interesting to
note that Henry the "experimental physicist" has truly
implemented his own brand of relativity. Henry has made several
different claims, to several different people, in regard to how
long he has worked as an experimental/research physicist.
Alternately, Henry has stated 20, 30, and 45 years. Clearly then,
Henry has developed a relativity of work, where the years he has
worked in the field is dependent on the person to whom is
braying.
Of course, we all know that, based on the extreme ignorance of
physics which Henry exhibits, the closest Henry ever really comes
to an experimental physicist, is when he converses with Eric
Prebys.
>
> Henry Wilson, Henry Wilson's free thought Laboratory,
>
You get what you pay for it.
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Welcome to California. Bring your own batteries.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------
Paul B. Andersen
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c78aeac...@news.bigpond.com...
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 16:21:14 -0600, Eric Prebys <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
> >>
> >> "Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c6d4a1e...@news.bigpond.com...
> >>
> >> > There is no support for SR experimentally, either.
> >>
> >> So there! :-)
> >>
> >> I always find it hard to grasp why people will make a fool of themselves
> >> by stating what they know is wrong, and what's more - what everybody
> >> know they know is wrong.
> >>
> >> > Until somebody performs my suggested OWLS experiment, we will just keep on
> >> > arguing.
> >>
> >> Of course - if the one unfeasible, ultimate experiment proposed
> >> by Henry Wilson were performed, then ... :-)
> >>
> >
> >To my knowledge, Wilson has *never* proposed an experiment -
> >even an unfeasible one. To propose an experiment would imply that
> >he questioned his faith, and he's too religious a man to do that.
>
> Prebys, anyone who has been an experimental physicist for as long as I have
> thinks of designing experiments as a matter of course. It is as natural for
> me as breathing the air.
You are not fooling anyone, Henry.
You have never made a physical experiment in your life, Henry.
You don't even know what it is!
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c78b0b6...@news.bigpond.com...
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:49:35 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c6c4f8d...@news.bigpond.com...
>
>
> >> >
> >> >You are staring yourself blind on Einstein synchronization method,
> >> >and the "one way speed of light", but this is actually of no
> >> >importance, and has no real physical significance.
> >> >
> >> >What is experimentally verified, is that the round trip speed
> >> >of light is isotropic, invariant and equal to c.
> >>
> >> It is not verified at all, Paul. It has never been measured to be constant
> >> within 1 part in (v/c)^2, which is most critical.
> >
> >What the hell does this statement mean, Henry?
> >1 part in X where X is unknown?
> >Then it means nothing.
>
> You know what I meant. In many of these experiments v is known to be at
> least twice the earth's peripheral velocity.
Could you be more specific, please?
1 part in what?
> >Please explain:
> >To what precision do you claim the isotropy of the round trip speed
> >of light is not verified ?
>
> Paul, I am well aware that some people claim to have measured the isotropy
> to about 1 in 10^16. If you study their experiments you will see that they
> were destined to give a null result.
Could you be more specific, please?
Which experiments were destined to give a null result?
>
> But, of course, SR thrives on null results!
> >
> >> >So let us see what this leads to:
> >> >
> >> >At an instant, an infinitely short light flash is emitted.
> >> >In an arbitrarily selected, inertial frame we measure the round
> >> >trip speed of light in two opposite directions, using one single
> >> >clock.
> >> >
> >> > flash
> >> > | * |
> >> > mirror clock mirror
> >> >
> >> >Of course we get the round trip speed c in both directions.
> >>
> >> Not necessarily - but that is not important for the moment.
> >
> >This experiment is performed.
> >We know the result.
>
> OK, it has been measured as constant to about 10^9 with confidence. No
> worries there.
Are you saying that the isotropy of the TWSL is verified to
1 part in 10^9 but: "It is not verified at all, Paul."
You sure make a lot of sense, Henry.
Nonsense, that is.
> If you could 'see' photons moving without actually detecting them, you
> would be able to define a local 'absolute' space.
> Theoretically, this kind of absolutivity DOES exist.
No, my dear Henry.
You BELIEVE it must exist because you BELIEVE that the Galilelean
transform MUST apply in nature.
But experiments show you are wrong.
[..]
> >Your problem is that you do not accept that it behaves as it does,
> >but insist that it MUST behave according to YOUR beliefs.
>
> I don't have beliefs!
That's all you have got, Henry.
Wrong beliefs.
Experimentally falsified beliefs.
Which you assert over and over.
You are staring yourself blind on Einstein synchronization method,
and the "one way speed of light", but this is actually of no
importance, and has no real physical significance.
What is experimentally verified, is that the round trip speed
of light is isotropic, invariant and equal to c.
So let us see what this leads to:
At an instant, an infinitely short light flash is emitted.
In an arbitrarily selected, inertial frame we measure the round
trip speed of light in two opposite directions, using one single
clock.
flash
| * |
mirror clock mirror
Of course we get the round trip speed c in both directions.
According to you, we can then conclude that the arbirarily
selected frame must be stationary in absolute space.
(If that is not obvious to you, then show us how the frame
can be NOT stationary in absolute space, USING THE SAME
LOGIC that lead to the conclusion that the frame had to
be statinary in absolute space if the OWLS was the same
in both directions.)
If we did the same experiment in another frame moving
relative to the first, what would we then measure?
What would we then have to conclude according to your
reasoning?
Do I have to say more?
Think not.
I bet you understand nothing whatever I say.
But go ahead, give as yet another demonstration.
Paul
Bilge
[...]
>
>Prebys, anyone who has been an experimental physicist for as long as
>I have thinks of designing experiments as a matter of course.
There's a big difference in "thinks about designing experiments"
"designs experiments which succeed in answering the question for
which it was designed". Posting trolls to usenet for years does not make
you a physicist. Since you seem bewildered by any lab equipment built
after the turn of the (20th) century, the experiments you "think of
designing" are more on par with the witchtrial from "The Holy Grail"
than science. Finally, your total disinterest in even understanding
the objections made to your arguments so that you make the same blatant
mistakes over and over, indicates that you don't have enough curiosity
to be a physicist or at least not a very good one.
>It is as natural for me as breathing the air.
In otherwords, your family doctor is an ichthyologist.
>Henry Wilson, Henry Wilson's free thought Laboratory,
That's "thought free lavatory". I know you think any building
with a couple of knobs and running water qualifies as an advanced
scientific research park, but try asking yourself if a room with
a porcelain chair and a literature rack consisting of the comic pages
from the newspaper is really all you need to do precision expermental
work.
>The frontier of scientific invention.
Does that mean the comics are from a recent newspaper?
Gregory L. Hansen
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 16:21:14 -0600, Eric Prebys <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
> >
> >To my knowledge, Wilson has *never* proposed an experiment -
> >even an unfeasible one. To propose an experiment would imply that
> >he questioned his faith, and he's too religious a man to do that.
>
> Prebys, anyone who has been an experimental physicist for as long as I have
> thinks of designing experiments as a matter of course. It is as natural for
> me as breathing the air.
As an experimental physicist, which experiments have you conducted?
As far as I've seen, you've only proposed thought experiments and then
declared what the results would be.
Eric Prebys
Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 16:21:14 -0600, Eric Prebys <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
> >>
> >> "Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c6d4a1e...@news.bigpond.com...
> >>
> >> > There is no support for SR experimentally, either.
> >>
> >> So there! :-)
> >>
> >> I always find it hard to grasp why people will make a fool of themselves
> >> by stating what they know is wrong, and what's more - what everybody
> >> know they know is wrong.
> >>
> >> > Until somebody performs my suggested OWLS experiment, we will just keep on
> >> > arguing.
> >>
> >> Of course - if the one unfeasible, ultimate experiment proposed
> >> by Henry Wilson were performed, then ... :-)
> >>
> >
> >To my knowledge, Wilson has *never* proposed an experiment -
> >even an unfeasible one. To propose an experiment would imply that
> >he questioned his faith, and he's too religious a man to do that.
>
> Prebys, anyone who has been an experimental physicist for as long as I have
> thinks of designing experiments as a matter of course. It is as natural for
> me as breathing the air.
And how long was that? 25/35/45/275 years?
Look, Henry, I'm sure your therapist occasionally lets you play
dress-up as part of your treatment, but you need to
understand that there's a thin line between fantasizing and
outright lying,
...and you've just crossed it.
> >
> >> Paul
>
> Henry Wilson, Henry Wilson's free thought Laboratory,
> The frontier of scientific invention.
> www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Prebys, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Office: 630-840-8369, Email: pre...@fnal.gov
WWW: http://home.fnal.gov/~prebys
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Wilson
This is the kind of rabid nonsense I would expect from someone who had
great ambitions to become a scientist but failed physics1!
For your info, Speicher, here is a very small photo of my degrees.
Sorry about the .jpg
Henry Wilson, Henry Wilson's free thought Laboratory,
Henry Wilson
wrote:
I have papers published in 'Nature' and 'Science' amongst other smaller
ones.
Henry Wilson
Sorry that didn't work. I'll put them on my web page.
Paul B. Andersen
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c7c76b4...@news.bigpond.com...
> On 25 Feb 2002 11:43:37 -0800, glha...@indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen)
> wrote:
>
> >He...@the.edge(Henry Wilson) wrote in message news:<3c78aeac...@news.bigpond.com>...
> >> On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 16:21:14 -0600, Eric Prebys <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> >To my knowledge, Wilson has *never* proposed an experiment -
> >> >even an unfeasible one. To propose an experiment would imply that
> >> >he questioned his faith, and he's too religious a man to do that.
> >>
> >> Prebys, anyone who has been an experimental physicist for as long as I have
> >> thinks of designing experiments as a matter of course. It is as natural for
> >> me as breathing the air.
> >
> >As an experimental physicist, which experiments have you conducted?
> >
> >As far as I've seen, you've only proposed thought experiments and then
> >declared what the results would be.
>
> I have papers published in 'Nature' and 'Science' amongst other smaller
> ones.
How gullible do you think we are, Henry? :-)
Paul
Gregory L. Hansen
> On 25 Feb 2002 11:43:37 -0800, glha...@indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen)
> wrote:
>
> >He...@the.edge(Henry Wilson) wrote in message news:<3c78aeac...@news.bigpond.com>...
> >> On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 16:21:14 -0600, Eric Prebys <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>
> >> >
> >> >To my knowledge, Wilson has *never* proposed an experiment -
> >> >even an unfeasible one. To propose an experiment would imply that
> >> >he questioned his faith, and he's too religious a man to do that.
> >>
> >> Prebys, anyone who has been an experimental physicist for as long as I have
> >> thinks of designing experiments as a matter of course. It is as natural for
> >> me as breathing the air.
> >
> >As an experimental physicist, which experiments have you conducted?
> >
> >As far as I've seen, you've only proposed thought experiments and then
> >declared what the results would be.
>
> I have papers published in 'Nature' and 'Science' amongst other smaller
> ones.
Uh, help me out. The only "Wilson H" I could find in Nature was
Henrietta Wilson reviewing a book on chemical weapons, and I found
none in Science.
Stephen Speicher
In the past 20 years there have been three papers in _Nature_,
H. R. Wilson, 412 (6850): 907-910 Aug 30 2001
H. Wilson, 389 (6649): 346-347 SEP 25 1997
H. J. Wilson, 349 (6305): 109-109 JAN 10 1991
> and I found none in Science.
>
In the past 20 years there have been two papers in _Science_ by
H. B. Wilson:
290 (5497): 1758-1761 Dec 1 2000
283 (5403): 843-845 Feb 5 1999
Both are ecological/biological papers.
Perhaps Henry was published under the name of another of his
personas, recently discovered by Tim Shuba, "Ralph Rabbidge."
In the past 20 years there are are two papers by "Rabbidge," one
with initial "N" and another with initials "JJ." Neither of these
two are papers in _Nature_ or _Science_.
So, there are several possibilities:
(1) Henry has published under H* Wilson more than 20 years ago.
(2) Henry has published under R* Rabbidge more than 20 years ago.
(3) Henry has published under some other persona which has yet
to be revealed.
(4) Henry is an ignorant cuckoo bird with severe psychological
problems.
If I had to make a guess...hmm...I'll go with (4).
Eric Prebys
Now you've run completely off the rails. You're citing papers that
don't exist and on another thread you're referring to
imaginary "small pictures of your degrees".
I suggest you check your dosage, Henry.
Henry Wilson
Henry Wilson
Who is Tim Shuba?
>
>In the past 20 years there are are two papers by "Rabbidge," one
>with initial "N" and another with initials "JJ." Neither of these
>two are papers in _Nature_ or _Science_.
>
>So, there are several possibilities:
>
>(1) Henry has published under H* Wilson more than 20 years ago.
>
>(2) Henry has published under R* Rabbidge more than 20 years ago.
>
>(3) Henry has published under some other persona which has yet
> to be revealed.
>
>(4) Henry is an ignorant cuckoo bird with severe psychological
> problems.
>
>If I had to make a guess...hmm...I'll go with (4).
>
>Stephen
>s...@compbio.caltech.edu
>
>Welcome to California. Bring your own batteries.
>
>Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
Maybe Henry changed his name when he got himself married.
Maybe you should try 40 years ago.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.102022...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu...
Knowing that very probably "Henry Wilson" = "Ralph Rabbidge"
then we have the following publications:
http://www.cbr.clw.csiro.au/pyelab/papers/bypubno.htm
| 136. Peck, A.J., and Rabbidge, R.M. (1966).
| Soil-water potential: direct measurement by a new technique.
| Science 151, 1385-1386.
http://www.cbr.clw.csiro.au/pyelab/papers/byauthnz.htm
| Peck, A.J., and R.M. Rabbidge. 1966. Soil-water potential: direct
| measurement by a new technique. Science 151:1385-1386.
| Peck, A.J., and R.M. Rabbidge. 1967. Note on an instrument for
| measuring water potentials particularly in soils. Aust. J. Instrum.
| Contr. 23:59.
| Peck, A.J., and R.M. Rabbidge. 1969. Direct measurement of moisture
| potential: a new technique. In "Water in the Unsaturated Zone", Proc.
| IASH/UNESCO Symp., Vol. 1. Editors R.E. Rijtema and H. Wassink,
| Wageningen, 1966, 165-170 (UNESCO: Paris).
| Peck, A.J., and R.M. Rabbidge. 1969. Design and performance of an
| osmotic tensiometer for measuring capillary potential. Proc. Soil
| Sci. Soc. Amer. 33:196-202.
More recently:
http://www.acr.net.au/~coastwatchers/charcoalition/rabbage.html
Of course it's possible that mr Ralph is just an old friend of Henry's
who is kind enough to allow him to use his computer and his website.
Dirk Vdm
Stephen Speicher
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:28:33 -0800, Stephen Speicher
> <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> >On 27 Feb 2002, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Uh, help me out. The only "Wilson H" I could find in Nature was
> >> Henrietta Wilson reviewing a book on chemical weapons,
> >
> >In the past 20 years there have been three papers in _Nature_,
> >
> >H. R. Wilson, 412 (6850): 907-910 Aug 30 2001
> >H. Wilson, 389 (6649): 346-347 SEP 25 1997
> >H. J. Wilson, 349 (6305): 109-109 JAN 10 1991
> >
> >> and I found none in Science.
> >>
> >
> >In the past 20 years there have been two papers in _Science_ by
> >H. B. Wilson:
> >
> >290 (5497): 1758-1761 Dec 1 2000
> >283 (5403): 843-845 Feb 5 1999
> >
> >Both are ecological/biological papers.
> >
> >Perhaps Henry was published under the name of another of his
> >personas, recently discovered by Tim Shuba, "Ralph Rabbidge."
>
> Who is Tim Shuba?
>
Tim Shuba is, evidently, a long-time poster to this group, one
who recently pointed out that you, ignorant troll "Henry Wilson,"
are the same ignorant troll who previously posted here under the
name of "Rabbo," whose web site shows the name "Ralph Rabbidge."
Tim pointed out that because of your ignorant trolling as "Rabbo"
you ran out of people who would take you seriously, so you seem
to have reinvented yourself as "Henry Wilson" to ensnare new
suckers...er...customers. Apparently, it has worked, at least to
the extent that there are a couple of otherwise intelligent
people who treat you seriously enough to actually discuss issues
with you. You may have noticed, "Henry," that I am not one who
does so, and I either ignore you completely or ridicule you, as I
am doing right now.
Stephen Speicher
>
> For your info, Speicher, here is a very small photo of my degrees.
>
Vanishingly small.
Stephen Speicher
>
> Sorry that didn't work. I'll put them on my web page.
>
And which web page would that be?
The one for you as "Henry Wilson?"
The one for you as "Ralph Rabbidge?"
Or, perhaps today you are "Ralph Cramden!"
("One of these days...")
Do you even know who you are anymore?
Does it matter?
Eric Prebys
Stephen Speicher wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> >
> > Sorry that didn't work. I'll put them on my web page.
> >
>
> And which web page would that be?
>
> The one for you as "Henry Wilson?"
>
> The one for you as "Ralph Rabbidge?"
>
Well, if you look at his "real" (??) webpage
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/
the logical place would be under "Biographical Information",
but alas, this contains only a placeholder for
"Description of noteworthy personal achievements".
Presumably, it will remain so until he has some.
> Or, perhaps today you are "Ralph Cramden!"
>
> ("One of these days...")
>
> Do you even know who you are anymore?
>
> Does it matter?
>
> Stephen
> s...@compbio.caltech.edu
>
> Welcome to California. Bring your own batteries.
>
> Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
> --------------------------------------------------------
--
Stephen Speicher
>
> Stephen Speicher wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Henry Wilson wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Sorry that didn't work. I'll put them on my web page.
> > >
> >
> > And which web page would that be?
> >
> > The one for you as "Henry Wilson?"
> >
> > The one for you as "Ralph Rabbidge?"
> >
>
> Well, if you look at his "real" (??) webpage
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/
> the logical place would be under "Biographical Information",
> but alas, this contains only a placeholder for
> "Description of noteworthy personal achievements".
>
> Presumably, it will remain so until he has some.
>
I also like the pointer labelled, in caps, IDEAS.
When you click on it you get, so appropriately,
"The page cannot be found."
Henry Wilson
<s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>>
>> Sorry that didn't work. I'll put them on my web page.
>>
>
>And which web page would that be?
>
>The one for you as "Henry Wilson?"
>
>The one for you as "Ralph Rabbidge?"
Ralph is an old friend who set up my web page on one of his sites for free.
I would have to actually PAY money to get 'Henry_Wilson.com' and I hate
spending money on the internet.
He has also helped me a bit, with programming.
>
>Or, perhaps today you are "Ralph Cramden!"
I thought only dogs were named Ralph!
>
>("One of these days...")
>
>Do you even know who you are anymore?
>
>Does it matter?
Speicher, you would probably be better off studying something like flower
arranging than physics. You don't appear to have a sufficiently
investigative mind.
>
>Stephen
>s...@compbio.caltech.edu
>
>Welcome to California. Bring your own batteries.
>
>Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
Henry Wilson, Henry Wilson's free thought Laboratory,
Henry Wilson
<s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
No, He actually introduced me to these groups. He apparently got sick and
tired of trying to educate you fellows so gave up.
I have a little more time and patience.
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
Henry Wilson
>
>
>Henry Wilson wrote:
>>
>> On 25 Feb 2002 11:43:37 -0800, glha...@indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >He...@the.edge(Henry Wilson) wrote in message news:<3c78aeac...@news.bigpond.com>...
>> >> On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 16:21:14 -0600, Eric Prebys <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >To my knowledge, Wilson has *never* proposed an experiment -
>> >> >even an unfeasible one. To propose an experiment would imply that
>> >> >he questioned his faith, and he's too religious a man to do that.
>> >>
>> >> Prebys, anyone who has been an experimental physicist for as long as I have
>> >> thinks of designing experiments as a matter of course. It is as natural for
>> >> me as breathing the air.
>> >
>> >As an experimental physicist, which experiments have you conducted?
>> >
>> >As far as I've seen, you've only proposed thought experiments and then
>> >declared what the results would be.
>>
>> I have papers published in 'Nature' and 'Science' amongst other smaller
>> ones.
>> Henry Wilson, Henry Wilson's free thought Laboratory,
>> The frontier of scientific invention.
>> www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
>
>Now you've run completely off the rails. You're citing papers that
>don't exist and on another thread you're referring to
>imaginary "small pictures of your degrees".
apparently .jpgs aren't accepted here. I thought if I made it small enough
it might get through - but it didn't. I will put the photos on my website
when I can.
>
>I suggest you check your dosage, Henry.
>
>
>--
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Eric Prebys, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
>Office: 630-840-8369, Email: pre...@fnal.gov
>WWW: http://home.fnal.gov/~prebys
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Wilson, Henry Wilson's free thought Laboratory,
Henry Wilson
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Stephen Speicher" <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message
>> > > >As an experimental physicist, which experiments have you conducted?
That's correct, he's an old uni friend - and aren't we having a good laugh
at all this!
Actually I will admit, I'm not Henry Wilson at all. I'm Alfred Einstein's
illegitimate son. (the only one I think) When he was on the way out, he
told me in confidence that his theory was one helluva joke. He asked me to
prolong it for as long as possible because the way the physics
establishment had lapped it up was the funniest thing he had ever seen.
>
>Dirk Vdm
Henry Wilson
<paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c78b0b6...@news.bigpond.com...
>> >> It is not verified at all, Paul. It has never been measured to be constant
>> >> within 1 part in (v/c)^2, which is most critical.
>> >
>> >What the hell does this statement mean, Henry?
>> >1 part in X where X is unknown?
>> >Then it means nothing.
>>
>> You know what I meant. In many of these experiments v is known to be at
>> least twice the earth's peripheral velocity.
>
>Could you be more specific, please?
>1 part in what?
If the equatorial speed is .45 km/s, (v/c)^2 = about 1/(5.10^11). Not
resolveable
Orbital velocity is about 30 times that so (v/c)^2=1/(5.10^8)
right on the limit of resolution of light speed experiments.
>
>> >Please explain:
>> >To what precision do you claim the isotropy of the round trip speed
>> >of light is not verified ?
>>
>> Paul, I am well aware that some people claim to have measured the isotropy
>> to about 1 in 10^16. If you study their experiments you will see that they
>> were destined to give a null result.
>
>Could you be more specific, please?
>Which experiments were destined to give a null result?
crossed laser doppler shift ones.
the doppler shift occurs in the lasers themselves.
Henry Wilson, Henry Wilson's free thought Laboratory,
Bilge
You should find better help.
[...]
Henry Wilson's thought free Lavatory,
The frontier of precision flushing
"Waste is a terrible thing to mind"
--
Eric Prebys
I notice you nicely sidestep the issue of your imaginary
publications!
Eric Prebys
Nice try, but anyone who searches the Google archives for the
author "Rabbo"
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group:sci.physics.relativity+author:rabbo&hl=en&start=40&sa=N
can see for themselves how you morphed from "Ralph Rabbidge" -
failed inventor of unworkable refrigeration systems, to
the primordial "Henry Wilson" - enemy of all that is scientific.
> >
> >
>
> >--------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> Henry Wilson, Henry Wilson's free thought Laboratory,
> The frontier of scientific invention.
> www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
--
Paul B. Andersen
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c7e8fa...@news.bigpond.com...
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 14:17:54 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c78b0b6...@news.bigpond.com...
>
> >> >> It is not verified at all, Paul. It has never been measured to be constant
> >> >> within 1 part in (v/c)^2, which is most critical.
> >> >
> >> >What the hell does this statement mean, Henry?
> >> >1 part in X where X is unknown?
> >> >Then it means nothing.
> >>
> >> You know what I meant. In many of these experiments v is known to be at
> >> least twice the earth's peripheral velocity.
> >
> >Could you be more specific, please?
> >1 part in what?
>
> If the equatorial speed is .45 km/s, (v/c)^2 = about 1/(5.10^11). Not
> resolveable
And what is so special with this speed?
But it is resolved in the Brillet & Hall experiment.
> Orbital velocity is about 30 times that so (v/c)^2=1/(5.10^8)
> right on the limit of resolution of light speed experiments.
(v/c)^2 = 10^-8.
Easily resolvable, even in the original MMX.
> >> >Please explain:
> >> >To what precision do you claim the isotropy of the round trip speed
> >> >of light is not verified ?
> >>
> >> Paul, I am well aware that some people claim to have measured the isotropy
> >> to about 1 in 10^16. If you study their experiments you will see that they
> >> were destined to give a null result.
> >
> >Could you be more specific, please?
> >Which experiments were destined to give a null result?
>
> crossed laser doppler shift ones.
> the doppler shift occurs in the lasers themselves.
Please be specific.
Which experiment are you referring to?
Brillet and Hall?
You are handwaving.
Your usual claim that any experiment confirming SR must be invalid.
> >> But, of course, SR thrives on null results!
> >> >
> >> >> >So let us see what this leads to:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >At an instant, an infinitely short light flash is emitted.
> >> >> >In an arbitrarily selected, inertial frame we measure the round
> >> >> >trip speed of light in two opposite directions, using one single
> >> >> >clock.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > flash
> >> >> > | * |
> >> >> > mirror clock mirror
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Of course we get the round trip speed c in both directions.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not necessarily - but that is not important for the moment.
> >> >
> >> >This experiment is performed.
> >> >We know the result.
> >>
> >> OK, it has been measured as constant to about 10^9 with confidence. No
> >> worries there.
> >
> >Are you saying that the isotropy of the TWSL is verified to
> >1 part in 10^9 but: "It is not verified at all, Paul."
> >
> >You sure make a lot of sense, Henry.
> >Nonsense, that is.
No comment, Henry?
Out of arguments?
No comment, Henry?
I can see why.
Paul
Stephen Speicher
>
> Knowing that very probably "Henry Wilson" = "Ralph Rabbidge"
> then we have the following publications:
> http://www.cbr.clw.csiro.au/pyelab/papers/bypubno.htm
>
> | 136. Peck, A.J., and Rabbidge, R.M. (1966).
> | Soil-water potential: direct measurement by a new technique.
> | Science 151, 1385-1386.
>
> http://www.cbr.clw.csiro.au/pyelab/papers/byauthnz.htm
>
> | Peck, A.J., and R.M. Rabbidge. 1966. Soil-water potential: direct
> | measurement by a new technique. Science 151:1385-1386.
>
> | Peck, A.J., and R.M. Rabbidge. 1967. Note on an instrument for
> | measuring water potentials particularly in soils. Aust. J. Instrum.
> | Contr. 23:59.
>
> | Peck, A.J., and R.M. Rabbidge. 1969. Direct measurement of moisture
> | potential: a new technique. In "Water in the Unsaturated Zone", Proc.
> | IASH/UNESCO Symp., Vol. 1. Editors R.E. Rijtema and H. Wassink,
> | Wageningen, 1966, 165-170 (UNESCO: Paris).
>
> | Peck, A.J., and R.M. Rabbidge. 1969. Design and performance of an
> | osmotic tensiometer for measuring capillary potential. Proc. Soil
> | Sci. Soc. Amer. 33:196-202.
>
So, perhaps "Henry" worked for 3 years in soil engineering, and
then moved on. So much for Henry's 20/30/45 years as a
research/experimental physicist.
None of which would matter if he actually knew anything about
physics.
> More recently:
> http://www.acr.net.au/~coastwatchers/charcoalition/rabbage.html
>
The signature shows: "R.M. Rabbidge, BSc, ASTC.nt."
So "Henry" has a bachelor of science (presumably almost 50 years
ago) and is a member of the Alice Springs Town Council, Northern
Territory.
So much for Henry's 20/30/45 years as a research/experimental
physicist. None of which would matter if he actually knew
anything about physics.
> Of course it's possible that mr Ralph is just an old friend of Henry's
> who is kind enough to allow him to use his computer and his website.
>
At this point I'd believe almost anything with this fruitcake.
Apparently he doesn't know for sure who he is, nor what he is.
The only thing which has been firmly established is that "Henry"
is an ignorant fool.
Stephen Speicher
You are mentally ill. Beyond repair.
Curlew
Be very careful with henry wilson. He has a way of turning very nasty
when he is concincingly proven to be wrong. He also claims to have a
taste for very young women. This from one of his lunatic ravings in
aus.environment.conservation -
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=3be1a943.2564606%40nsw.nnrp.telstra.net
"... Vasectomies don't require removal of yer testicles. That's just
vatican
propaganda. They just involve a few reversible knots tied in the right
places. ..... I was tied thirty years ago. Have been screwing my head
off ever since. No
worries about making schollgirls (sic) pregnant.
Best thing I ever did..."
Henry is obbviously someone who has a slim grip on reality. He made a
fool of himself in the above NG until he at last crawled away bloody
and beaten. He hasn't been back since. When henry comes to town, lock
your girls inside.
Oct 2001
Henry Wilson
We haven't laughed so much in years!
Haven't you got anything useful to do, Prebys?
Does your boss know you spend all day on the internet trying to find out
who's who?? and getting it all wrong at that!
Ha Ha!
Henry Wilson
Please don't pollute this newsgroup with your crap curlew. You are out of
your depth here.
Stephen Speicher
>
> Be very careful with henry wilson.
>
Oh, everyone here is _very_ careful with ol' Henry. No one would
want to offend his most delicate senses.
> He has a way of turning very nasty when he is concincingly
> proven to be wrong.
>
If by nasty you meant nasty with words, then I do not see a
problem. To be nasty with words presumes a level of intelligence
able enough to use words as a weapon, and ol' Henry is far too
ignorant to ever achieve such a level.
> He also claims to have a taste for very young women. This from
> one of his lunatic ravings in aus.environment.conservation -
[...]
>
> Henry is obbviously someone who has a slim grip on reality.
>
Yep. That sure sounds like ol' Henry.
> He made a fool of himself in the above NG until he at last
> crawled away bloody and beaten. He hasn't been back since.
>
Hmm. Now I wonder if we talking about the same fool, or two
different fools. Our ol' Henry continually gets "bloody and
beaten," but he keeps coming back for more. He seems to be a
glutton for punishment, and has no sense of personal
embarrassment.
Stephen Speicher
Stephen
Henry Wilson
You, Speicher, are a waste of molecular bonds.
>
>Stephen
>s...@compbio.caltech.edu
>
>Welcome to California. Bring your own batteries.
>
>Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
Henry Wilson, Henry Wilson's free thought Laboratory,