A Note About OWLS Experiments.
HenriWilson
experiment.
It must be appreciated that there are two distinctly different configurations
for such experiments.
The first involves a source and receiver that are at rest wrt each other and
the second, a source moving wrt the receiver.
Some experiments are designed to detect OWLS anisotropy.
Consider the first case, where (inertial and identical) clocks A and B are
connected rigidly together. Two light sources are positioned next to the
clocks.
S1----A______________B----S2
Ken has suggested a very worthwhile experiment for measuring any difference in
light travel time going from A > B and B < A. (Unfortunately he didn't explain
it in a language that SRians could readily understand)
The clocks are initially set at zero and are NOT running.
A sharp pulse of light is then emitted by S1. As it passes A, A starts running.
As it passes B, B starts.
(Ken claims wrongly that the two clocks are now E-synched.)
Shortly afterwards, a similar pulse of light is emitted by S2.
As it passes B, B stops; as it passes A, A stops.
The question is, "will there be a difference in the two readings and, if so,
what will that signify?"
Being an aetherist, Ken expects that there might be a difference - and from
this he can calculate the speed of the apparatus through absolute space, AS
LONG AS THE CLOCKS REMAINED IN ABSOLUTE SYNCH AFTER BEING SEPARATED.
(SRians say their synchronization cannot be verified but my 'moving rod' method
allows separated clocks to be absolutely synched at any time.)
If there is no difference, Ken MUST come to the conclusion that the apparatus
is at absolute rest.
On the other hand, if there is an initial difference, an SRian will simply
initially offset one of the clocks so that the readings WILL be the same, thus
ensuring that OWLS is isotropic BY DEFINITION. The clocks are NOW E-synched.
(Note: SRians always use E-synched clocks because the circularity of their
'religion' collapses if they don't.)
If there is NO difference in readings the natural assumption is that light
speed is locally source dependent and that the experiment is therefore pretty
worthless. However there are the well known problems with this explanation.
Now, consider the second type of experiment.
Nobody has directly performed a OWLS measurement from a moving source although
it is claimed (most unconvincingly) by SRians that gammas from decaying pions
are NOT source dependent. Also, light from binary stars does not appear to
follow a simple pattern of source dependency.
Several feasible experiments of this type have been suggested here by myself
and others. One of the type Jim Greenfield suggested is probably the simplest.
Place a powerful EM emitter on, say, the edge of the moon. Fire a high speed
rocket so it just grazes the edge. When the rocket is adjacent, it emits an
intense pulse back to Earth. The pulse also causes the moon emitter to do the
same (maybe at a slightly different wavelength). If the rocket's position
relative to the moon emitter is precisely known, any difference in the arrival
times of the two pulses will indicate source dependency.
Say the rocket moves at 30 kms per second.
Distance to moon = (say) 3.9E5 km.
Light travel time (at 3E5 km/s) = 1.3 secs
Light travel time (at 299970 km/s) = 1.300130013
If light speed were source dependent, the pulse arrival times would be
separated by about 130 us.
In that time, the rocket moves 3.9 m, so for a resolution of 10%, the rocket's
position would have to be known to within about 0.4 m. If the rocket was placed
in orbit around the moon at 1.6 km/s, the difference in pulse travel times
would be only about 7 us, in which time the rocket would move some 1.12 cms.
Even if the response times of the emitters was precisely known, this experiment
would be extremely difficult at this distance. The only way to perform it would
be to arrange for two remote space probes to pass each other very closely at
significant relative speeds.
For instance, consider two emitters placed in similar orbits around Venus or
Mars but moving in opposite directions?
If Mars and Earth were separated by 3E8 kms, light would take 1000 secs to
travel the distance. If the orbiting probe velocity difference is say, 10 km/s,
the difference in pulse arrival times would be about 33 millisecs. In that time
the probes each move 300 metres in opposite directions.
So this experiment is very feasible.
If someone will come up with the necessary few million dollars, we can arrange
for it to be performed and then put an end to all this arguing.
Henri Wilson.
Read all about my H-aether theory and see the funny side of relativity:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:jligpv8kiben7508v...@4ax.com...
...
> Place a powerful EM emitter on, say, the edge of the moon. Fire a high
speed
> rocket so it just grazes the edge. When the rocket is adjacent, it emits
an
> intense pulse back to Earth. The pulse also causes the moon emitter to do
the
> same (maybe at a slightly different wavelength). If the rocket's position
> relative to the moon emitter is precisely known, any difference in the
arrival
> times of the two pulses will indicate source dependency.
The rocket could actually *strike* some feature on the Moon. That way no
synchronization would be required. Sort of like a flashier version of
Shoemaker Levy striking Jupiter...
David A. Smith
Jim Greenfield
G'day I had thought of sending a rocket straight into the moon's
surface, picking up some gravity assisted speed: the environmental
lobby might object (especially if the flashes were nuclear in
production). Have a pre-positioned trigger, say 100 meters above the
surface. So long as emmission is simultaneous, and no clocks........
Jim G
Harry
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:jligpv8kiben7508v...@4ax.com...
> experiment.
>
> It must be appreciated that there are two distinctly different
configurations
> for such experiments.
> The first involves a source and receiver that are at rest wrt each other
and
> the second, a source moving wrt the receiver.
> Some experiments are designed to detect OWLS anisotropy.
>
> Consider the first case, where (inertial and identical) clocks A and B are
> connected rigidly together. Two light sources are positioned next to the
> clocks.
>
> S1----A______________B----S2
>
> Ken has suggested a very worthwhile experiment for measuring any
difference in
> light travel time going from A > B and B < A. (Unfortunately he didn't
explain
> it in a language that SRians could readily understand)
Same problem for LETians I'm afraid...
> The clocks are initially set at zero and are NOT running.
> A sharp pulse of light is then emitted by S1. As it passes A, A starts
running.
> As it passes B, B starts.
>
> (Ken claims wrongly that the two clocks are now E-synched.)
>
> Shortly afterwards, a similar pulse of light is emitted by S2.
>
> As it passes B, B stops; as it passes A, A stops.
>
> The question is, "will there be a difference in the two readings and, if
so,
> what will that signify?"
>
> Being an aetherist, Ken expects that there might be a difference - and
from
> this he can calculate the speed of the apparatus through absolute space,
AS
> LONG AS THE CLOCKS REMAINED IN ABSOLUTE SYNCH AFTER BEING SEPARATED.
> (SRians say their synchronization cannot be verified but my 'moving rod'
method
> allows separated clocks to be absolutely synched at any time.)
What method is that?!
SNIP
Harald
Perfectly Innocent
> There seems to be some confusion about what constitutes a direct OWLS
> experiment.
Why not simply accept what the experts are saying?
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v45/i2/p403_1
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=648
Eugene Shubert
Jem
Yes, but SR doesn't actually claim source independence but rather a
particular form of dependence that results in a speed limit. So when
experiments confirm the existence of a speed limit, aren't they also
confirming the form of the source dependency?
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c4afb26.03102...@posting.google.com...
> G'day I had thought of sending a rocket straight into the moon's
> surface, picking up some gravity assisted speed: the environmental
> lobby might object (especially if the flashes were nuclear in
> production). Have a pre-positioned trigger, say 100 meters above the
> surface. So long as emmission is simultaneous, and no clocks........
There would still be a clock to measure the difference in signal arrival
times, but no synchronization to worry about.
The problem is, you should see the ship still *nearing* the Moon when the
flash of collision occurs. If the SOL is source dependent, light from the
ship would arrive after light from the ship's destruction. With a big
enough recessional velocity, that is.
The converse would also be true. If the ship were coming towards us, light
from the ship would stop before light from its destruction did. It would
have to be a glancing blow, of course...
Shoemaker Levy struck Jupiter at hundreds of kilometers per second. We had
photographic evidence of some of the arrivals, although the picture quality
might have been too poor to analyze. It also was not a solid surface, so a
discrete "flash" and sharp cutoff would not be evident.
David A. Smith
kenseto
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:jligpv8kiben7508v...@4ax.com...
> experiment.
>
> It must be appreciated that there are two distinctly different
configurations
> for such experiments.
> The first involves a source and receiver that are at rest wrt each other
and
> the second, a source moving wrt the receiver.
> Some experiments are designed to detect OWLS anisotropy.
>
> Consider the first case, where (inertial and identical) clocks A and B are
> connected rigidly together. Two light sources are positioned next to the
> clocks.
>
> S1----A______________B----S2
>
> Ken has suggested a very worthwhile experiment for measuring any
difference in
> light travel time going from A > B and B < A. (Unfortunately he didn't
explain
> it in a language that SRians could readily understand)
You are wrong. I suggested a way to measure OWLS using two clocks. The
assumption I made is the same as Einstein's assumption that the flight time
from A--->B=B--->A. The predicted result is:
c=2AB/(tA-tB)
>
> The clocks are initially set at zero and are NOT running.
> A sharp pulse of light is then emitted by S1. As it passes A, A starts
running.
> As it passes B, B starts.
>
> (Ken claims wrongly that the two clocks are now E-synched.)
This is E-synched according to Alan Lightman's Book "Great Ideas In Physics"
Page 120. So you are wrong again.
>
> Shortly afterwards, a similar pulse of light is emitted by S2.
>
> As it passes B, B stops; as it passes A, A stops.
>
> The question is, "will there be a difference in the two readings and, if
so,
> what will that signify?"
The isortopy speed of light is already assumed and supported by experiments
such as the MMX and KTX. Your assumption that there will be a difference in
the transit time from A to B than from B to A has no is refuted by
experiment.
>
> Being an aetherist, Ken expects that there might be a difference -
You made this up. My aether theory supports the isotropy of the speed of
light.
>and from
> this he can calculate the speed of the apparatus through absolute space,
AS
> LONG AS THE CLOCKS REMAINED IN ABSOLUTE SYNCH AFTER BEING SEPARATED.
This is absurd. I assume isotropy of the speed of light and the proposed
experiment will confirm that.
> (SRians say their synchronization cannot be verified but my 'moving rod'
method
> allows separated clocks to be absolutely synched at any time.)
SR says that slow clock transport of two touching synchroneous clocks in the
opposite directions.... the two clocks will remain synchronized. Your
moving rod method is irrelevant. One can also synchronized two clocks
without moving the rod.
>
> If there is no difference, Ken MUST come to the conclusion that the
apparatus
> is at absolute rest.
This is bull shit. If there is no difference I will assume that my initial
assumption and Einstein's assumption is correct....that the speed of light
is isotropic.
>
> On the other hand, if there is an initial difference, an SRian will simply
> initially offset one of the clocks so that the readings WILL be the same,
thus
> ensuring that OWLS is isotropic BY DEFINITION. The clocks are NOW
E-synched.
> (Note: SRians always use E-synched clocks because the circularity of their
> 'religion' collapses if they don't.)
I am afraid that you don't understand the meaning of e-synch.
>
> If there is NO difference in readings the natural assumption is that light
> speed is locally source dependent and that the experiment is therefore
pretty
> worthless. However there are the well known problems with this
explanation.
No...locally source dependent had already been refuted....If there is no
difference then the only explanation is that the speed of light is a math
ratio in all frames as follows:
Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a
clock second co-moving with the rod.
>
> Now, consider the second type of experiment.
>
> Nobody has directly performed a OWLS measurement from a moving source
although
> it is claimed (most unconvincingly) by SRians that gammas from decaying
pions
> are NOT source dependent.
So what is your explanation for this source independency experiment??
>Also, light from binary stars does not appear to
> follow a simple pattern of source dependency.
\
So what is your explanation for this source independency?
Ken Seto
Tom Roberts
> Consider the first case, where (inertial and identical) clocks A and B are
> connected rigidly together. Two light sources are positioned next to the
> clocks.
>
> S1----A______________B----S2
>
> Ken has suggested a very worthwhile experiment for measuring any difference in
> light travel time going from A > B and B < A. (Unfortunately he didn't explain
> it in a language that SRians could readily understand)
>
> The clocks are initially set at zero and are NOT running.
> A sharp pulse of light is then emitted by S1. As it passes A, A starts running.
> As it passes B, B starts.
>
> (Ken claims wrongly that the two clocks are now E-synched.)
>
> Shortly afterwards, a similar pulse of light is emitted by S2.
>
> As it passes B, B stops; as it passes A, A stops.
>
> The question is, "will there be a difference in the two readings and, if so,
> what will that signify?"
That setup does NOT measure any "anisotropy" in OWLS, it merely measures
different delays in light propagation over different paths. Replace S2
by a mirror, and you'll see that the clock at A simply MUST display a
longer elapsed time than the clock at B -- A measures the time for light
to go A->S2->A, and B measures the time for light to go the manifestly
shorter distance B->S2->B. Making S2 an independent light source (not a
mirror) does not change this.
Don't you ever read what you write? And then THINK about it?
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Androcles
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@Lucent.com> wrote in message
news:3F99425E...@Lucent.com...
> Don't you ever read what you write? And then THINK about it?
>
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
You may have read what you've written, Tom, but it was only "Don't you ever
read what you write? And then THINK about it?", which doesn't need much
thinking about.
Did you ever consider some logical objections to relativity and actually
think? Objections such as I presented in
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Fundamental.htm
which I'm prepared to uphold.
Androcles
HenriWilson
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>news:jligpv8kiben7508v...@4ax.com...
>> There seems to be some confusion about what constitutes a direct OWLS
>> experiment.
>>
>> It must be appreciated that there are two distinctly different
>configurations
>> for such experiments.
>> The first involves a source and receiver that are at rest wrt each other
>and
>> the second, a source moving wrt the receiver.
>> Some experiments are designed to detect OWLS anisotropy.
>>
>> Consider the first case, where (inertial and identical) clocks A and B are
>> connected rigidly together. Two light sources are positioned next to the
>> clocks.
>>
>> S1----A______________B----S2
>>
>> Ken has suggested a very worthwhile experiment for measuring any
>difference in
>> light travel time going from A > B and B < A. (Unfortunately he didn't
>explain
>> it in a language that SRians could readily understand)
>
>Same problem for LETians I'm afraid...
Well I have dscribed it more clearly above. I assume this is the experiment he
was talking about.
>
>> The clocks are initially set at zero and are NOT running.
>> A sharp pulse of light is then emitted by S1. As it passes A, A starts
>running.
>> As it passes B, B starts.
>>
>> (Ken claims wrongly that the two clocks are now E-synched.)
>>
>> Shortly afterwards, a similar pulse of light is emitted by S2.
>>
>> As it passes B, B stops; as it passes A, A stops.
>>
>> The question is, "will there be a difference in the two readings and, if
>so,
>> what will that signify?"
>>
>> Being an aetherist, Ken expects that there might be a difference - and
>from
>> this he can calculate the speed of the apparatus through absolute space,
>AS
>> LONG AS THE CLOCKS REMAINED IN ABSOLUTE SYNCH AFTER BEING SEPARATED.
>> (SRians say their synchronization cannot be verified but my 'moving rod'
>method
>> allows separated clocks to be absolutely synched at any time.)
>
>What method is that?!
see my demo: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingrod.exe
>
>SNIP
>
>Harald
HenriWilson
As I pointed out last year, SR assumes source depedency but then uses its
velocity addition equation to alsways get light speed equal to c.
Substitute c for v in the equation w=(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2) and you always get w=c.
Clever but circular.
SR proves is own postulate.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:lkemb.887$5w3...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
Shouldn't you of all people shut your foul mouth about logic?
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Chuckle.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndersenLogic.html
And about physics?
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SpeedInvariant.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EnergyConservation.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Equation.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Relativist.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AboutTheories.html
Dirk Vdm
HenriWilson
>On 10/23/2003 8:04 PM, HenriWilson wrote:
>> Consider the first case, where (inertial and identical) clocks A and B are
>> connected rigidly together. Two light sources are positioned next to the
>> clocks.
>>
>> S1----A_______<D>_______B----S2
>>
>> Ken has suggested a very worthwhile experiment for measuring any difference in
>> light travel time going from A > B and B < A. (Unfortunately he didn't explain
>> it in a language that SRians could readily understand)
>>
>> The clocks are initially set at zero and are NOT running.
>> A sharp pulse of light is then emitted by S1. As it passes A, A starts running.
>> As it passes B, B starts.
>>
>> (Ken claims wrongly that the two clocks are now E-synched.)
>>
>> Shortly afterwards, a similar pulse of light is emitted by S2.
>>
>> As it passes B, B stops; as it passes A, A stops.
>>
>> The question is, "will there be a difference in the two readings and, if so,
>> what will that signify?"
>
>That setup does NOT measure any "anisotropy" in OWLS, it merely measures
>different delays in light propagation over different paths. Replace S2
>by a mirror, and you'll see that the clock at A simply MUST display a
>longer elapsed time than the clock at B -- A measures the time for light
>to go A->S2->A, and B measures the time for light to go the manifestly
>shorter distance B->S2->B. Making S2 an independent light source (not a
>mirror) does not change this.
>
>Don't you ever read what you write? And then THINK about it?
Sorry Tom. In my haste to understand what Ken was getting at, I forgot to
mention that the quantity 2D/c had to be subtracted from the difference in
final clock readings. For the aether model, that difference is
2D/c[1/(1-(v/c)^2] ........ (c being the accepted value for OWLS)
You should have realized that. Note I said, "...from the difference, if any,
Ken can calculate the absolute speed......".
So, in future, please read what you write and think about it, Tom.
Incidentally, I doubt if this experiment when done on Earth can ever give a
positive result because the value of (v/c)^2 is unlikely to exceed the
tolerance of 'c' as determined using TWLS methods.
>
>
>Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
HenriWilson
Ah! The fumble-mumbler again reveals the extent of his knowledge of Physics.
Dirk Van de moortel
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:jligpv8kiben7508v...@4ax.com...
[snip unread]
> So this experiment is very feasible.
>
> If someone will come up with the necessary few million
> dollars, we can arrange for it to be performed and then
> put an end to all this arguing.
I propose that the idiots who are arguing that "The
Experiment Must Be Done To Stop The Arguing"
come up with the few million dollars, so meanwhile
they can stop arguing and do something useful.
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
little relativist's clerk, Henry.
If I wasn't replying to your post, I wouldn't have known he was there. The
little shit is on my "can't be seen list". As you can see by his post, it
pisses him off.
As I've said, "Objections such as I presented in
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Fundamental.htm
which I'm prepared to uphold.", although that remark was directed to Tom
Roberts, not his pet, yipping and barking with nothing else to say like a
puppy following the hounds after the fox.
Honestly, H, the clerk isn't worth responding to, and that is pure logic.
Androcles
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
I'll second this motion.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:jligpv8kiben7508v...@4ax.com...
...
> Place a powerful EM emitter on, say, the edge of the moon. Fire a high
speed
> rocket so it just grazes the edge. When the rocket is adjacent, it emits
an
> intense pulse back to Earth. The pulse also causes the moon emitter to do
the
> same (maybe at a slightly different wavelength). If the rocket's position
> relative to the moon emitter is precisely known, any difference in the
arrival
> times of the two pulses will indicate source dependency.
I just had a bright idea:
http://www.powerlabs.org/railgun.htm
Use a rail gun in a vacuum chamber (up to 16 km/sec for a 0.1gm mass).
Monitor the infrared being emitted from the projectile, up to and including
striking the edge of the target, from in "front" and/or "behind" the
projectile. See if there are discontinuities in when the projectile
contacts the plate, and when the plate is heated by the contact. Use a
very high speed camera.
I'd have said to use illumination on the projectile, but some of the people
who are in favor of performing this experiment would have issues with
whether or not reflected light is "sourced" by the reflective surface.
Using the projectile's own internal heat (from the driving charge) as the
light source would not have this issue.
What do you think? Less than a million dollars, I'd think...
David A. Smith
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:Koimb.223$b54...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> news:4d7jpvc1fu9op8p2h...@4ax.com...
> > Ah! The fumble-mumbler again reveals the extent of his knowledge of
> Physics.
> >
> > Henri Wilson.
> The best thing to do about Twinky fanny d'grumble is to ignore the the
> little relativist's clerk, Henry.
> If I wasn't replying to your post, I wouldn't have known he was there. The
> little shit is on my "can't be seen list".
Correction: on your ``pretend-"can't be seen list"``.
> As you can see by his post, it
> pisses him off.
Silly idiot. I just *love* it :-)
> As I've said, "Objections such as I presented in
> http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Fundamental.htm
> which I'm prepared to uphold.", although that remark was directed to Tom
> Roberts, not his pet, yipping and barking with nothing else to say like a
> puppy following the hounds after the fox.
> Honestly, H, the clerk isn't worth responding to, and that is pure logic.
> Androcles
Title: "Help me pretending that I can't see it!"
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HelpPretend.html
Dear Ralph Henri Wilson Rabbidge, *please* help the man
by doing the same? Thanks.
Dirk Vdm
HenriWilson
wrote:
>Dear HenriWilson:
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>news:jligpv8kiben7508v...@4ax.com...
>...
>> Place a powerful EM emitter on, say, the edge of the moon. Fire a high
>speed
>> rocket so it just grazes the edge. When the rocket is adjacent, it emits
>an
>> intense pulse back to Earth. The pulse also causes the moon emitter to do
>the
>> same (maybe at a slightly different wavelength). If the rocket's position
>> relative to the moon emitter is precisely known, any difference in the
>arrival
>> times of the two pulses will indicate source dependency.
>
>I just had a bright idea:
>http://www.powerlabs.org/railgun.htm
>Use a rail gun in a vacuum chamber (up to 16 km/sec for a 0.1gm mass).
>Monitor the infrared being emitted from the projectile, up to and including
>striking the edge of the target, from in "front" and/or "behind" the
>projectile.
That isn't as easy as it sounds.
>See if there are discontinuities in when the projectile
>contacts the plate, and when the plate is heated by the contact. Use a
>very high speed camera.
>
>I'd have said to use illumination on the projectile, but some of the people
>who are in favor of performing this experiment would have issues with
>whether or not reflected light is "sourced" by the reflective surface.
>Using the projectile's own internal heat (from the driving charge) as the
>light source would not have this issue.
You still have to find a way to measure the infrared's speed.
I don't understand what you are getting at.
>
>What do you think? Less than a million dollars, I'd think...
>
>David A. Smith
>
Henri Wilson.
See the funny side of relativity:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
HenriWilson
<jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/EnergyConservation.html
>> > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Equation.html
>> > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Relativist.html
>> >
>http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AboutTheories.html
>> >
>> >Dirk Vdm
>> >
>>
>> Ah! The fumble-mumbler again reveals the extent of his knowledge of
>Physics.
>>
>> Henri Wilson.
>The best thing to do about Twinky fanny d'grumble is to ignore the the
>little relativist's clerk, Henry.
>If I wasn't replying to your post, I wouldn't have known he was there. The
>little shit is on my "can't be seen list". As you can see by his post, it
>pisses him off.
>As I've said, "Objections such as I presented in
> http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Fundamental.htm
>which I'm prepared to uphold.", although that remark was directed to Tom
>Roberts, not his pet, yipping and barking with nothing else to say like a
>puppy following the hounds after the fox.
>Honestly, H, the clerk isn't worth responding to, and that is pure logic.
>Androcles
>
But what more would you expect from a black quadraplegic Portugese pedophilic
gay muslim who only gets a few minutes a day on the infirmary's computer?
Henri Wilson.
See the funny side of relativity:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
YBM
[...]
>>I just had a bright idea:
>>http://www.powerlabs.org/railgun.htm
>>Use a rail gun in a vacuum chamber (up to 16 km/sec for a 0.1gm mass).
>>Monitor the infrared being emitted from the projectile, up to and including
>>striking the edge of the target, from in "front" and/or "behind" the
>>projectile.
>
>
> That isn't as easy as it sounds.
Is it more difficult than you last proposed "experiment" :
"... just remove the Earth and see what happens. If that's too hard, try
doubling its rotational speed. "
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:jligpv8kiben7508v...@4ax.com...
> There seems to be some confusion about what constitutes a direct OWLS
> experiment.
>
> It must be appreciated that there are two distinctly different configurations
> for such experiments.
> The first involves a source and receiver that are at rest wrt each other and
> the second, a source moving wrt the receiver.
> Some experiments are designed to detect OWLS anisotropy.
>
> Consider the first case, where (inertial and identical) clocks A and B are
> connected rigidly together. Two light sources are positioned next to the
> clocks.
>
> S1----A______________B----S2
>
> Ken has suggested a very worthwhile experiment for measuring any difference in
> light travel time going from A > B and B < A. (Unfortunately he didn't explain
> it in a language that SRians could readily understand)
>
> The clocks are initially set at zero and are NOT running.
> A sharp pulse of light is then emitted by S1. As it passes A, A starts running.
> As it passes B, B starts.
>
> (Ken claims wrongly that the two clocks are now E-synched.)
>
> Shortly afterwards, a similar pulse of light is emitted by S2.
>
> As it passes B, B stops; as it passes A, A stops.
>
> The question is, "will there be a difference in the two readings and, if so,
> what will that signify?"
I wonder ...
Are you actually serious, or are you making fun of Ken? :-)
Paul
HenriWilson
Well I could not understand your experiment.
Mine is a lot better anyway - even though it doesn't work..
>
>>
>> The clocks are initially set at zero and are NOT running.
>> A sharp pulse of light is then emitted by S1. As it passes A, A starts
>running.
>> As it passes B, B starts.
>>
>> (Ken claims wrongly that the two clocks are now E-synched.)
>
>This is E-synched according to Alan Lightman's Book "Great Ideas In Physics"
>Page 120. So you are wrong again.
That is NOT E-synching. E-synching is setting the clocks so that lights signal
sent in both directions will take the same time. Ta>b=Tb>a
>>
>> Shortly afterwards, a similar pulse of light is emitted by S2.
>>
>> As it passes B, B stops; as it passes A, A stops.
>>
>> The question is, "will there be a difference in the two readings and, if
>so,
>> what will that signify?"
>
>The isortopy speed of light is already assumed and supported by experiments
>such as the MMX and KTX. Your assumption that there will be a difference in
>the transit time from A to B than from B to A has no is refuted by
>experiment.
Ken you really surprise me. I didn't know you had any faith in the MMX.
>>
>> Being an aetherist, Ken expects that there might be a difference -
>
>You made this up. My aether theory supports the isotropy of the speed of
>light.
Not wrt moving observers surely.
Oh, OK. I get it.
You reckon they will still measure TWLS to be constantno matter how they move
through the 'aether'..
>
>>and from
>> this he can calculate the speed of the apparatus through absolute space,
>AS
>> LONG AS THE CLOCKS REMAINED IN ABSOLUTE SYNCH AFTER BEING SEPARATED.
>
>This is absurd. I assume isotropy of the speed of light and the proposed
>experiment will confirm that.
Like all good aetherists, you should assume that the speed of lightis isotropic
wrt the absolute aether.
>
>> (SRians say their synchronization cannot be verified but my 'moving rod'
>method
>> allows separated clocks to be absolutely synched at any time.)
>
>SR says that slow clock transport of two touching synchroneous clocks in the
>opposite directions.... the two clocks will remain synchronized. Your
>moving rod method is irrelevant. One can also synchronized two clocks
>without moving the rod.
You cannot check the synch between two clocks that are separated.
One can only assume (rightly) that they stay in synch.
My method allows this to be checked without reuniting the clocks..
How can you say it is irrelevant?
I think it is one of the most important things ever to appear on this NG. It
ridicules the RoS.
>>
>> If there is no difference, Ken MUST come to the conclusion that the
>apparatus
>> is at absolute rest.
>
>This is bull shit. If there is no difference I will assume that my initial
>assumption and Einstein's assumption is correct....that the speed of light
>is isotropic.
Then why would you bother to do the experiment at all if you already know the
'answer'.
Do you still have doubts?
>
>>
>> On the other hand, if there is an initial difference, an SRian will simply
>> initially offset one of the clocks so that the readings WILL be the same,
>thus
>> ensuring that OWLS is isotropic BY DEFINITION. The clocks are NOW
>E-synched.
>> (Note: SRians always use E-synched clocks because the circularity of their
>> 'religion' collapses if they don't.)
>
>I am afraid that you don't understand the meaning of e-synch.
Of course I do.
E-synching make OWLS appear to = TWLS
>>
>> If there is NO difference in readings the natural assumption is that light
>> speed is locally source dependent and that the experiment is therefore
>pretty
>> worthless. However there are the well known problems with this
>explanation.
>
>No...locally source dependent had already been refuted....
Bull!
>If there is no
>difference then the only explanation is that the speed of light is a math
>ratio in all frames as follows:
>Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a
>clock second co-moving with the rod.
Well, I suppoise any good aetherist believes that both rods and clocks contract
by gamma. So L/t is constant.
>>
>> Now, consider the second type of experiment.
>>
>> Nobody has directly performed a OWLS measurement from a moving source
>although
>> it is claimed (most unconvincingly) by SRians that gammas from decaying
>pions
>> are NOT source dependent.
>
>So what is your explanation for this source independency experiment??
The particles were probably at rest when they decayed. Also, the experiment was
insufficiently accurate to measure the speed of the gammas.
>
>>Also, light from binary stars does not appear to
>> follow a simple pattern of source dependency.
>\
>So what is your explanation for this source independency?
H-aether theory.
>
>Ken Seto
>
>
>
>
>
Henri Wilson.
See the funny side of relativity:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:gl4jpv4g4v0ufsr2f...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:16:46 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjro...@Lucent.com> wrote:
>
> >On 10/23/2003 8:04 PM, HenriWilson wrote:
> >> Consider the first case, where (inertial and identical) clocks A and B are
> >> connected rigidly together. Two light sources are positioned next to the
> >> clocks.
> >>
> >> S1----A_______<D>_______B----S2
> >>
> >> Ken has suggested a very worthwhile experiment for measuring any difference in
> >> light travel time going from A > B and B < A. (Unfortunately he didn't explain
> >> it in a language that SRians could readily understand)
> >>
> >> The clocks are initially set at zero and are NOT running.
> >> A sharp pulse of light is then emitted by S1. As it passes A, A starts running.
> >> As it passes B, B starts.
> >>
> >> (Ken claims wrongly that the two clocks are now E-synched.)
Indeed. And it is glaringly obvious that the time for the pulse
to go from A to B as measured with these clocks is zero.
(Supposing the unstarted clocks were set to show zero, as
Ken said they should.)
> >> Shortly afterwards, a similar pulse of light is emitted by S2.
> >>
> >> As it passes B, B stops; as it passes A, A stops.
> >>
> >> The question is, "will there be a difference in the two readings and, if so,
> >> what will that signify?"
There is obviously no question of whether or not there will be a difference.
The time t_A'-t_B will obviously be the round trip time for the light
to go from A to B and back to A.
(t_A' being the reading of the A clock when the light from B hits it.)
> >That setup does NOT measure any "anisotropy" in OWLS, it merely measures
> >different delays in light propagation over different paths. Replace S2
> >by a mirror, and you'll see that the clock at A simply MUST display a
> >longer elapsed time than the clock at B -- A measures the time for light
> >to go A->S2->A, and B measures the time for light to go the manifestly
> >shorter distance B->S2->B. Making S2 an independent light source (not a
> >mirror) does not change this.
Indeed.
It is a round trip measurement. And it doesn't actually matter
what the clocks are set to show before they are started.
If the clocka are arbitrary set, the measurement (t_B - t_A) and (t_A'-t_B)
will give an arbitrary numbers which individually mean nothing, but their sum
(t_B - t_A)+(t_A'-t_B) = (t_A'-tA) will always give the round trip time.
> >Don't you ever read what you write? And then THINK about it?
>
> Sorry Tom. In my haste to understand what Ken was getting at, I forgot to
> mention that the quantity 2D/c had to be subtracted from the difference in
> final clock readings. For the aether model, that difference is
> 2D/c[1/(1-(v/c)^2] ........ (c being the accepted value for OWLS)
Henry...
You are so funny when you try to explain why you weren't wrong. :-)
To see if the OWLS is the same in both directions,
we measure the TWLS and subtract the accepted value
of the OWLS. If there is a difference, then the OWLS
is greater - in which direction? - than it is in the other direction.
Right? :-)
(I won't even try to figure out what weird reasoning
there is behind your "ether model".
That could be because I am brainwashed by knowledge.)
> You should have realized that. Note I said, "...from the difference, if any,
> Ken can calculate the absolute speed......".
He should have realized that Henry Wilson never said what he said,
and if he did, he didn't mean to say what he said.
Right? :-)
> So, in future, please read what you write and think about it, Tom.
Like you did when you were "explaining" Ken's experiment? :-)
You may think I am making fun or you, Henry.
But I am not.
I am only noticing how funny you actually are.
Paul
Gregory L. Hansen
HenriWilson <He...@the.edge> wrote:
>If someone will come up with the necessary few million dollars, we can arrange
>for it to be performed and then put an end to all this arguing.
It wouldn't work. If the experiment were done and relativity validated,
arguments will continue unabated by those that demand another The One
Experiment That Will End The Arguing, by those unaware of or not
interested in experiments, and by those that are already saying the
predictions of relativity are right but the theory is wrong because it
gives the wrong reasons.
--
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé
jmfb...@aol.com
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>In article <3f992fca$1...@usenet01.boi.hp.com>, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:jligpv8kiben7508v...@4ax.com...
>>
>>[snip unread]
>>
>>> So this experiment is very feasible.
>>>
>>> If someone will come up with the necessary few million
>>> dollars, we can arrange for it to be performed and then
>>> put an end to all this arguing.
>>
>>I propose that the idiots who are arguing that "The
>>Experiment Must Be Done To Stop The Arguing"
>>come up with the few million dollars, so meanwhile
>>they can stop arguing and do something useful.
>
>I'll second this motion.
I'll support the monion IFF the ones arguing do the work.
Otherwise, they'll be back with more inanity.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Jem
:)
kenseto
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
news:bndmj5$22f$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
Why is the time for the pulse to go from A to B as measure with these clocks
is zero if they both were set at zero and activated by the same light
signal? Doesn't clock A is offset (advanced) by an amount of the flight time
of light from A to B?
Using my procedure the two clocks are e-synched automatically. The
difference between the two clock readings is the flight time for light to
traverse AB. When you do the OWLS measurement from the B location the "A"
clock is now offset by an amount of BA/c (this is assuming the isotopy of
light and that the distance AB=BA). The beauty of this procedure is that you
don't have to assume c to get c. In other words, this procedure eliminates
the need to manually advance the "B" clock by an amount of AB/c when the
light signal arrives at the B location and also eliminates the need to
assume that clock A and B are running and are synchroneous to start out.
BTW, if you assume that A and B are synchroneous to start out why don't you
use these two clocks to measure OWLS????
The final calculation: according to my procedure:
Speed of light=c=(AB+BA)/(tA-tB)
Ken Seto
kenseto
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
This is stupid. Your experiment is the same as mine. When you send a signal
from S2 to stop the clocks the difference in clock readings between A and B
is as follows:
Flight time from A to B +Flight time from B to A
With my procedure the clocks are running after the
e-synch procedure and clock "A" is offset (advanced) by an amount of the
flight time from A to B. At the start of the OWLS measurement from the B
location a light signal is sent from B to A at time tB. When the light
signal arrives at A the clock reading is tA.
tA- tB=Flight time from A to B + Flight time from B to A.
I will now accept an apology from you.
>
> >
> >>
> >> The clocks are initially set at zero and are NOT running.
> >> A sharp pulse of light is then emitted by S1. As it passes A, A starts
> >running.
> >> As it passes B, B starts.
> >>
> >> (Ken claims wrongly that the two clocks are now E-synched.)
> >
> >This is E-synched according to Alan Lightman's Book "Great Ideas In
Physics"
> >Page 120. So you are wrong again.
>
> That is NOT E-synching. E-synching is setting the clocks so that lights
signal
> sent in both directions will take the same time. Ta>b=Tb>a
ROTFLOL....what you said is already assumed by Einstein. He assumed that the
flight time is the same in all directions. E-synching is a way to offset two
running and synchroneous clocks to make the measurement of the speed of
light equal to c.
>
>
> >
> >The isortopy speed of light is already assumed and supported by
experiments
> >such as the MMX and KTX. Your assumption that there will be a difference
in
> >the transit time from A to B than from B to A has no is refuted by
> >experiment.
>
> Ken you really surprise me. I didn't know you had any faith in the MMX.
The MMX null result shows that the speed of light is isotropic in the
horizontal directions. So why is that surprised you that I agree with that??
>
> >>
> >> Being an aetherist, Ken expects that there might be a difference -
> >
> >You made this up. My aether theory supports the isotropy of the speed of
> >light.
>
> Not wrt moving observers surely.
Yes wrt to the observers. Why? The speed of light is a math ratio for all
observers as follows:
Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a
clock second co-moving with the rod.
>
> Oh, OK. I get it.
NO...you don't get it.
> You reckon they will still measure TWLS to be constantno matter how they
move
> through the 'aether'..
They will measure TWLS or OWLS (using e-synched clocks) to be a constant c
because the speed of light is a math ratio as I shown above.
>
> >
> >>and from
> >> this he can calculate the speed of the apparatus through absolute
space,
> >AS
> >> LONG AS THE CLOCKS REMAINED IN ABSOLUTE SYNCH AFTER BEING SEPARATED.
> >
> >This is absurd. I assume isotropy of the speed of light and the proposed
> >experiment will confirm that.
>
> Like all good aetherists, you should assume that the speed of lightis
isotropic
> wrt the absolute aether.
NO....wrt all observers.
>
> >
> >> (SRians say their synchronization cannot be verified but my 'moving
rod'
> >method
> >> allows separated clocks to be absolutely synched at any time.)
> >
> >SR says that slow clock transport of two touching synchroneous clocks in
the
> >opposite directions.... the two clocks will remain synchronized. Your
> >moving rod method is irrelevant. One can also synchronized two clocks
> >without moving the rod.
>
> You cannot check the synch between two clocks that are separated.
Why not? I can check if they are next to each other. So if I have a line of
a series of clocks next to each other I can check if they are synched.
> One can only assume (rightly) that they stay in synch.
>
> My method allows this to be checked without reuniting the clocks..
I don't have to reunite the clocks if they are in a line next to each other.
>
> How can you say it is irrelevant?
> I think it is one of the most important things ever to appear on this NG.
It
> ridicules the RoS.
NO. It will not ridicule RoS and it is not the most important thing ever
appear on this NG.
>
> >>
> >> If there is no difference, Ken MUST come to the conclusion that the
> >apparatus
> >> is at absolute rest.
> >
> >This is bull shit. If there is no difference I will assume that my
initial
> >assumption and Einstein's assumption is correct....that the speed of
light
> >is isotropic.
>
> Then why would you bother to do the experiment at all if you already know
the
> 'answer'.
> Do you still have doubts?
Silly...the experiment confirms the assumption.
Ken Seto
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:58gkpv47c4gl6iv9j...@4ax.com...
But possible, without multi-agency involvement.
> >See if there are discontinuities in when the projectile
> >contacts the plate, and when the plate is heated by the contact. Use a
> >very high speed camera.
> >
> >I'd have said to use illumination on the projectile, but some of the
people
> >who are in favor of performing this experiment would have issues with
> >whether or not reflected light is "sourced" by the reflective surface.
> >Using the projectile's own internal heat (from the driving charge) as
the
> >light source would not have this issue.
>
> You still have to find a way to measure the infrared's speed.
> I don't understand what you are getting at.
Here's the whole picture, spelled out.
ASSUMING that light speed is source dependent...
- the front camera would see the heat from the projectile *extinguish*
before the heat of the target expressed. There would be some null time in
there (detectable or not) where neither action nor reaction were connected.
The more source dependency, the longer the interval.
- the rear camera would see the heat from the projectile *approaching* the
target and the heat of the target expressed at the same time. There would
be some interval in there (detectable or not) where both action and
reaction occured at the same time, but were not seen to be cause and effect
(since one happened before the projectile struck). The more source
dependency, the longer the interval.
Not trying to measure speed, per se. But this could be determined from the
offset interval, should one be detected.
David A. Smith
Paul B. Andersen
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> skrev i melding news:vpkuvfo...@corp.supernews.com...
You said it right there.
Didn't you notice? :-)
Paul
kenseto
No...I didn't notice. I notice that clock A is offset (advanced) by an
amount of the flight time of light from A to B.
Ken Seto
HenriWilson
wrote:
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:gl4jpv4g4v0ufsr2f...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:16:46 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjro...@Lucent.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On 10/23/2003 8:04 PM, HenriWilson wrote:
>> >> Consider the first case, where (inertial and identical) clocks A and B are
>> >> connected rigidly together. Two light sources are positioned next to the
>> >> clocks.
>> >>
>> >> S1----A_______<D>_______B----S2
>> >>
>> >> Ken has suggested a very worthwhile experiment for measuring any difference in
>> >> light travel time going from A > B and B < A. (Unfortunately he didn't explain
>> >> it in a language that SRians could readily understand)
>> >>
>> >> The clocks are initially set at zero and are NOT running.
>> >> A sharp pulse of light is then emitted by S1. As it passes A, A starts running.
>> >> As it passes B, B starts.
>> >>
>> >> (Ken claims wrongly that the two clocks are now E-synched.)
>
>Indeed. And it is glaringly obvious that the time for the pulse
>to go from A to B as measured with these clocks is zero.
>(Supposing the unstarted clocks were set to show zero, as
>Ken said they should.)
Correct.
>
>> >> Shortly afterwards, a similar pulse of light is emitted by S2.
>> >>
>> >> As it passes B, B stops; as it passes A, A stops.
>> >>
>> >> The question is, "will there be a difference in the two readings and, if so,
>> >> what will that signify?"
>
>There is obviously no question of whether or not there will be a difference.
>The time t_A'-t_B will obviously be the round trip time for the light
>to go from A to B and back to A.
>(t_A' being the reading of the A clock when the light from B hits it.)
Yes Paul, I know.
I left out the it about subtracting D/c.
I'm surprised that neither you nor Tom picked that up.
>
>> >That setup does NOT measure any "anisotropy" in OWLS, it merely measures
>> >different delays in light propagation over different paths. Replace S2
>> >by a mirror, and you'll see that the clock at A simply MUST display a
>> >longer elapsed time than the clock at B -- A measures the time for light
>> >to go A->S2->A, and B measures the time for light to go the manifestly
>> >shorter distance B->S2->B. Making S2 an independent light source (not a
>> >mirror) does not change this.
>
>Indeed.
>It is a round trip measurement. And it doesn't actually matter
>what the clocks are set to show before they are started.
>If the clocka are arbitrary set, the measurement (t_B - t_A) and (t_A'-t_B)
>will give an arbitrary numbers which individually mean nothing, but their sum
>(t_B - t_A)+(t_A'-t_B) = (t_A'-tA) will always give the round trip time.
Now subtract 2D/c, where c is the accpeted OWLS derived from the best TWLS
experiments.
>
>> >Don't you ever read what you write? And then THINK about it?
>>
>> Sorry Tom. In my haste to understand what Ken was getting at, I forgot to
>> mention that the quantity 2D/c had to be subtracted from the difference in
>> final clock readings. For the aether model, that difference is
>> 2D/c[1/(1-(v/c)^2] ........ (c being the accepted value for OWLS)
>
>Henry...
>You are so funny when you try to explain why you weren't wrong. :-)
I wasn't wrong.
From the time difference it is possible to calculate the speed through the
'aether'. Someone as bright as you should have automatically known that D/c had
to be subtracted.
>
>To see if the OWLS is the same in both directions,
>we measure the TWLS and subtract the accepted value
>of the OWLS. If there is a difference, then the OWLS
>is greater - in which direction? - than it is in the other direction.
>Right? :-)
All you have to do is send a pulse from B to A, read the clocks (which are now
stopped) and subtract D/c. If the answer is not zero, then you have a problem.
So does SR.
>
>(I won't even try to figure out what weird reasoning
>there is behind your "ether model".
>That could be because I am brainwashed by knowledge.)
>
>> You should have realized that. Note I said, "...from the difference, if any,
>> Ken can calculate the absolute speed......".
>
>He should have realized that Henry Wilson never said what he said,
>and if he did, he didn't mean to say what he said.
>Right? :-)
Paul, as I just said, I would have expected that somebody as clever as you or
Tom would have known instinctively that D/c had to be subtracted from the
difference in order that the answer might be meaningful.
>
>> So, in future, please read what you write and think about it, Tom.
>
>Like you did when you were "explaining" Ken's experiment? :-)
My main point regarding Ken's experiment is that it is NOT in the same category
as one where the source and observer are moving wrt each other.
Somebody as clever as you should be able to appreciate the difference without
me having to teach you..
>
>
>You may think I am making fun or you, Henry.
>But I am not.
>I am only noticing how funny you actually are.
No Paul, SR and it followers are extremely funny.
>
>Paul
>
Henri Wilson.
See the funny side of relativity:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
HenriWilson
Ken, the difference between your approach and mine is that you are assuming
that light speed is c in both directions whereas I say it is different, for
instance c+v and c-v.
>
>With my procedure the clocks are running after the
>e-synch procedure and clock "A" is offset (advanced) by an amount of the
>flight time from A to B. At the start of the OWLS measurement from the B
>location a light signal is sent from B to A at time tB. When the light
>signal arrives at A the clock reading is tA.
>tA- tB=Flight time from A to B + Flight time from B to A.
OK I finally see your point - but it wouldn't necessarily work.
>
>I will now accept an apology from you.
It isn't a case of an apology Ken. You should thank me for enlightening you.
Your interpretation is wrong.
This experiment can actualy be performed.
It can test the validity of E-synching and, if there is a positive result, that
is, if the difference in clock readings is not D/c, then the physics world will
be much wiser. If there is no difference, nothing will have been gained.
You need to do an OWLS experiment where the source is moving relative to
observer.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The clocks are initially set at zero and are NOT running.
>> >> A sharp pulse of light is then emitted by S1. As it passes A, A starts
>> >running.
>> >> As it passes B, B starts.
>> >>
>> >> (Ken claims wrongly that the two clocks are now E-synched.)
>> >
>> >This is E-synched according to Alan Lightman's Book "Great Ideas In
>Physics"
>> >Page 120. So you are wrong again.
>>
>> That is NOT E-synching. E-synching is setting the clocks so that lights
>signal
>> sent in both directions will take the same time. Ta>b=Tb>a
>
>ROTFLOL....what you said is already assumed by Einstein. He assumed that the
>flight time is the same in all directions. E-synching is a way to offset two
>running and synchroneous clocks to make the measurement of the speed of
>light equal to c.
E-synching is a way of adjusting the two clocks so that T(a->b)=T(b->a). It is
a plain 'fiddle' designed to make his theory always work.
You should read about it.
>> >The isortopy speed of light is already assumed and supported by
>experiments
>> >such as the MMX and KTX. Your assumption that there will be a difference
>in
>> >the transit time from A to B than from B to A has no is refuted by
>> >experiment.
>>
>> Ken you really surprise me. I didn't know you had any faith in the MMX.
>
>The MMX null result shows that the speed of light is isotropic in the
>horizontal directions. So why is that surprised you that I agree with that??
Ah! but what IS the 'horizontal direction' Ken?
>>
>> >>
>> >> Being an aetherist, Ken expects that there might be a difference -
>> >
>> >You made this up. My aether theory supports the isotropy of the speed of
>> >light.
>>
>> Not wrt moving observers surely.
>
>Yes wrt to the observers. Why? The speed of light is a math ratio for all
>observers as follows:
>Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a
>clock second co-moving with the rod.
>>
>> Oh, OK. I get it.
>
>NO...you don't get it.
You claim that anything with dimension L/t (ie, velocity) remains constant in
all moving frames because both L and t contract by the same ratio.
>
>> You reckon they will still measure TWLS to be constantno matter how they
>move
>> through the 'aether'..
>
>They will measure TWLS or OWLS (using e-synched clocks) to be a constant c
>because the speed of light is a math ratio as I shown above.
While I disagree, I will say one thing in your favour. Although your ideas are
also those of SRians, at least 'contractions' are theoretically possible under
conditions of absolutivity.
>>
>> >
>> >>and from
>> >> this he can calculate the speed of the apparatus through absolute
>space,
>> >AS
>> >> LONG AS THE CLOCKS REMAINED IN ABSOLUTE SYNCH AFTER BEING SEPARATED.
>> >
>> >This is absurd. I assume isotropy of the speed of light and the proposed
>> >experiment will confirm that.
>>
>> Like all good aetherists, you should assume that the speed of lightis
>isotropic
>> wrt the absolute aether.
>
>NO....wrt all observers.
But we know that rods don't really shrink when we move them don't we Ken?
>
>>
>> >
>> >> (SRians say their synchronization cannot be verified but my 'moving
>rod'
>> >method
>> >> allows separated clocks to be absolutely synched at any time.)
>> >
>> >SR says that slow clock transport of two touching synchroneous clocks in
>the
>> >opposite directions.... the two clocks will remain synchronized. Your
>> >moving rod method is irrelevant. One can also synchronized two clocks
>> >without moving the rod.
>>
>> You cannot check the synch between two clocks that are separated.
>
>Why not? I can check if they are next to each other. So if I have a line of
>a series of clocks next to each other I can check if they are synched.
No you cannot. I'll let Paul explain why not.
>
>> One can only assume (rightly) that they stay in synch.
>>
>> My method allows this to be checked without reuniting the clocks..
>
>I don't have to reunite the clocks if they are in a line next to each other.
Oh?
>
>>
>> How can you say it is irrelevant?
>> I think it is one of the most important things ever to appear on this NG.
>It
>> ridicules the RoS.
>
>NO. It will not ridicule RoS and it is not the most important thing ever
>appear on this NG.
'Tis
>
>>
>> >>
>> >> If there is no difference, Ken MUST come to the conclusion that the
>> >apparatus
>> >> is at absolute rest.
>> >
>> >This is bull shit. If there is no difference I will assume that my
>initial
>> >assumption and Einstein's assumption is correct....that the speed of
>light
>> >is isotropic.
>>
>> Then why would you bother to do the experiment at all if you already know
>the
>> 'answer'.
>> Do you still have doubts?
>
>Silly...the experiment confirms the assumption.
So what if it doesn't.
This experiment does what the MMX was intended to do.
It simply attempts to measure the light travel time in the parallel arm, when
the apparatus's speed changes, using clocks rather than an interferometer.
HenriWilson
wrote:
Yes I suppose it could be done using a laser pointing back at the observer.
Presumably the laser beam would stop abruptly on impact. Some arrangement would
have to be incorporated whereby another detectable pulse of EM was emitted from
the target at the instant of impact.
HenriWilson
You don't have to actually DO it, Moron. You only have to think about it to see
why any experiment of this nature is plain BULL!!!. (unless, maybe, there is
an aether and an 'aether drag' around the Earth)
HenriWilson
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>In article <jligpv8kiben7508v...@4ax.com>,
>HenriWilson <He...@the.edge> wrote:
>
>>If someone will come up with the necessary few million dollars, we can arrange
>>for it to be performed and then put an end to all this arguing.
>
>It wouldn't work. If the experiment were done and relativity validated,
>arguments will continue unabated by those that demand another The One
>Experiment That Will End The Arguing, by those unaware of or not
>interested in experiments, and by those that are already saying the
>predictions of relativity are right but the theory is wrong because it
>gives the wrong reasons.
:) , yes I suppose arguing would still continue.
HenriWilson
wrote:
>
By now you will know the answer to that.
>
>Paul
Jim Greenfield
That two light sources are known to be moving at different velocities
relative to us (velocities don't have to be known)
That light pulses are emmitted simultaneously (in their locality)
Data on arrival time is collected on a COMPARITIVE BASIS (say on a
moving photographic plate). Clocks are NOT REQUIRED
If pulses could be generated at sufficient distance, and enough rocket
speed, even a slight distance differential of point of emmissions
could be ignored.
Jim g
HenriWilson
Well I showed you some calculations.
The experiment is not easy.
Like I said, two counter rotating orbiting sources around mars would be the
best proposition.
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:77olpvsrtaq2iumke...@4ax.com...
Quite.
We should of course have realised that Henry Wilson never
said what he said, and if he did, he didn't mean to say
what he actually said.
Give it up, Henry.
This is too stupid.
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> skrev i melding news:vplcgpe...@corp.supernews.com...
And that's why Ken Seto is so unique.
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:h5slpvgmbnok0771a...@4ax.com...
Indeed.
You were actually serious.
You didn't realize that Ken's experiment was a TWLS experiment.
The name of the thread is "A Note About OWLS Experiments"
And as an example of such, you present a TWLS experiment.
And you were serious!
Some blunder,eh? :-)
Paul, constantly amused
kenseto
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
news:bnglcv$rth$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
It is not a TWLS experiment. It's a 2 one-way experiment. A TWLS experiment
is performed with one clock. My experiment is performed with two clocks. My
e-synch procedure is a simplified version of Alan Lightman's procedure
outlined in his book "Great Ideas In Physics" page 120.
Ken Seto
kenseto
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 10:46:05 -0400, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> >news:76ikpv02evgmcoltk...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:37:21 -0400, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com>
wrote:
>
> >
> >e-synch procedure and clock "A" is offset (advanced) by an amount of the
> >flight time from A to B. At the start of the OWLS measurement from the B
> >location a light signal is sent from B to A at time tB. When the light
> >signal arrives at A the clock reading is tA.
> >tA- tB=Flight time from A to B + Flight time from B to A.
>
> OK I finally see your point - but it wouldn't necessarily work.
Why Not?
>
> >
> >I will now accept an apology from you.
>
> It isn't a case of an apology Ken. You should thank me for enlightening
you.
> Your interpretation is wrong.
What is wrong with my interpretation? For that matter do you know what is my
interpretation??
>
> This experiment can actualy be performed.
> It can test the validity of E-synching and, if there is a positive result,
that
> is, if the difference in clock readings is not D/c,
This shows that you don't know what you are talking about. The difference in
clock reading is not D/c it is 2D/c.....in both my experiment and your
experiment..
> >>
> >> That is NOT E-synching. E-synching is setting the clocks so that lights
> >signal
> >> sent in both directions will take the same time. Ta>b=Tb>a
> >
> >ROTFLOL....what you said is already assumed by Einstein. He assumed that
the
> >flight time is the same in all directions. E-synching is a way to offset
two
> >running and synchroneous clocks to make the measurement of the speed of
> >light equal to c.
>
> E-synching is a way of adjusting the two clocks so that T(a->b)=T(b->a).
It is
> a plain 'fiddle' designed to make his theory always work.
> You should read about it.
NO...e-synching is a way to offset the distant clock to get the speed of
light equal to c.
> >
> >The MMX null result shows that the speed of light is isotropic in the
> >horizontal directions. So why is that surprised you that I agree with
that??
>
> Ah! but what IS the 'horizontal direction' Ken?
As defined by the direction of the horizontal light rays.
>
> >>
> >
> >Yes wrt to the observers. Why? The speed of light is a math ratio for all
> >observers as follows:
> >Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a
> >clock second co-moving with the rod.
> >>
> >> Oh, OK. I get it.
> >
> >NO...you don't get it.
>
> You claim that anything with dimension L/t (ie, velocity) remains constant
in
> all moving frames because both L and t contract by the same ratio.
>
> >
> >> You reckon they will still measure TWLS to be constantno matter how
they
> >move
> >> through the 'aether'..
> >
> >They will measure TWLS or OWLS (using e-synched clocks) to be a constant
c
> >because the speed of light is a math ratio as I shown above.
>
> While I disagree, I will say one thing in your favour. Although your ideas
are
> also those of SRians, at least 'contractions' are theoretically possible
under
> conditions of absolutivity.
You misinterpreted what I said. In my theory:
1. clock rate is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the clock. The
higher is the state of absolute motion the slower is the clock rate. OTOH,
the higher is the state of absolute motion the higher is the absolute time
content for a clock second.
2. The length of a rod will remain the same in all states of absolute
motion. However, the light path length of a rod will vary according to the
state of absolute motion. The higher is the state of absolute motion the
longer is the light path length....this is interpreted in SR as rod
contraction.
> >
> >NO....wrt all observers.
>
> But we know that rods don't really shrink when we move them don't we Ken?
I didn't say that they would shrink. I said that the physical length of a
rod remains the same as it moves. But the light path length of a rod varies
according to the state of absolute motion of the rod.
>
> >
> >I don't have to reunite the clocks if they are in a line next to each
other.
>
> Oh?
Yes.
>
> >
> >>
> >> How can you say it is irrelevant?
> >> I think it is one of the most important things ever to appear on this
NG.
> >It
> >> ridicules the RoS.
> >
> >NO. It will not ridicule RoS and it is not the most important thing ever
> >appear on this NG.
>
> 'Tis
'Tis not.
Ken Seto
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:76ikpv02evgmcoltk...@4ax.com...
>
> Well I could not understand your experiment.
> Mine is a lot better anyway - even though it doesn't work..
Who can make the best experiment that doesn't work?
Apparently a tough competition. :-)
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
kenseto
Yes quite and also it is done with two light pulses instead of one light
pulse reflected back to one clock as in the TWLS measurement. BTW what is
the correct SR procedure to e-synch. After you
e-synch how do you measure OWLS with these e-synch clocks to get the speed
of light equal to c?? Please don't ignore these questions. I don't know the
answer to them.
Ken Seto
HenriWilson
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>news:81qlpvkfuvlp1g4vk...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 10:46:05 -0400, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>> >news:76ikpv02evgmcoltk...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:37:21 -0400, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >With my procedure the clocks are running after the
>> >e-synch procedure and clock "A" is offset (advanced) by an amount of the
>> >flight time from A to B. At the start of the OWLS measurement from the B
>> >location a light signal is sent from B to A at time tB. When the light
>> >signal arrives at A the clock reading is tA.
>> >tA- tB=Flight time from A to B + Flight time from B to A.
>>
>> OK I finally see your point - but it wouldn't necessarily work.
>
>Why Not?
Because all you have proposed is a TWLS experiment.
>>
>> >
>> >I will now accept an apology from you.
>>
>> It isn't a case of an apology Ken. You should thank me for enlightening
>you.
>> Your interpretation is wrong.
>
>What is wrong with my interpretation? For that matter do you know what is my
>interpretation??
My interpretation is that you presume light speed to be c in both directions.
I say it is c+v and c-v. Which is also what Einstein believed when he concocted
his clock synch procedure to eliminate the difference and make the Aether
redundant..
>>
>> This experiment can actualy be performed.
>> It can test the validity of E-synching and, if there is a positive result,
>that
>> is, if the difference in clock readings is not D/c,
>
>This shows that you don't know what you are talking about. The difference in
>clock reading is not D/c it is 2D/c.....in both my experiment and your
>experiment..
Yes OK, 2D/c as I said originally.
Trouble is, the best known value of 'c' is probably not precise enough to
reveal any difference unless the experiment can be performed over very large
distances.
>
>> >>
>> >> That is NOT E-synching. E-synching is setting the clocks so that lights
>> >signal
>> >> sent in both directions will take the same time. Ta>b=Tb>a
>> >
>> >ROTFLOL....what you said is already assumed by Einstein. He assumed that
>the
>> >flight time is the same in all directions. E-synching is a way to offset
>two
>> >running and synchroneous clocks to make the measurement of the speed of
>> >light equal to c.
>>
>> E-synching is a way of adjusting the two clocks so that T(a->b)=T(b->a).
>It is
>> a plain 'fiddle' designed to make his theory always work.
>> You should read about it.
>
>NO...e-synching is a way to offset the distant clock to get the speed of
>light equal to c.
That is not what Einstein said. He was only interested in adjusting the clocks
so that T(a->b)=T(b->a).
He wasn't concerned that T(a->b->a) might not be D/2c because at that time
nobody had clocks that would even go close to measuring the difference.
>
>
>> >
>> >The MMX null result shows that the speed of light is isotropic in the
>> >horizontal directions. So why is that surprised you that I agree with
>that??
>>
>> Ah! but what IS the 'horizontal direction' Ken?
>
>As defined by the direction of the horizontal light rays.
Are they horizontal wrt the Earth's orbit?
Uhoh! I have a feeling Paul Anderson's famous 'tick fairies' might have
infiltrated your theory.
>2. The length of a rod will remain the same in all states of absolute
>motion. However, the light path length of a rod will vary according to the
>state of absolute motion. The higher is the state of absolute motion the
>longer is the light path length....this is interpreted in SR as rod
>contraction.
The light path length will surely depend on the direction of the light
propagation compared to that of the rod. Otherwise your theory doesn't make
sense.
>> >
>> >NO....wrt all observers.
>>
>> But we know that rods don't really shrink when we move them don't we Ken?
>
>I didn't say that they would shrink. I said that the physical length of a
>rod remains the same as it moves. But the light path length of a rod varies
>according to the state of absolute motion of the rod.
That's OK... but you added, "The higher is the state of absolute motion the
longer is the light path length".
What if the light is traveling (absolutely) in the opposite direction to the
rod? It would be shorter then.
>>
>
>> >
>> >I don't have to reunite the clocks if they are in a line next to each
>other.
>>
>> Oh?
>
>Yes.
>
You can believe that if you like Ken.
HenriWilson
wrote:
Paul, when did you ever propose any experiment?
HenriWilson
wrote:
>
>"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> skrev i melding news:vpnnjjb...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
>> > > By now you will know the answer to that.
>> >
>> > Indeed.
>> > You were actually serious.
>> > You didn't realize that Ken's experiment was a TWLS experiment.
>>
>> It is not a TWLS experiment. It's a 2 one-way experiment.
>
>Quite. :-)
>
>Paul
>
To a person completely lacking insight, Ken's suggestion might seem rather
amusing. However it is actually very clever and useful.
If this experiment is ever going to work, it must be carried out over
considerable distances, eg, the moon, planetary orbits.
To bounce a beam off a mirror on Mars is not feasible but to replace this
two-way procedure with two 'one-way' ones is very sensible. The return pulse
can be made powerful enough to be detected on Earth. The Mars' clock reading
can be relayed later.
If the first pulse starts the clocks and the second one stops them, then the
difference between the final value of (Ta-Tb) and (D/c) MIGHT reveal any OWLS
anisotropy. (c is our best known value, as determined by relatively short range
TWLS experiments or Maxwell's method)
I say "MIGHT" because this is basically an aether model.
HenriWilson
wrote:
Paul, I said something like, "from the difference in clock readings, the
absolute motion through the aether can be calculated."
Did I say ANYWHERE that the difference alone was the required answer?
Just becasue I didn't say precisely how to perform the simple calculation
doesn't mean I was wrong. Just subtract 2D/c. Simple!
I AM supposed to be talking to people who have above average intelligence you
know... although sometimes I wonder.
HenriWilson
wrote:
No blunder Paul.
This experiment can detect OWLS anistropy. I stated that some experiments were
designed to do just that and not measure the actual value of OWLS. You missed
that bit didn't you.
>
>Paul, constantly amused
Henri, always amused by relativity.
Jim Greenfield
situation, even larger would help. But I would guess that pulse
generation would have to be nuclear bomb type energy, to have any
chance of the two pulses being seen here. At least you see what I was
getting at-- COMPARISON instead of those bloody clocks.
Cheers
Jim G
HenriWilson
Yes.
Actually, signals sent from Mars are detected quite easily.
There shouldn't be any problem with intensity.
>
>Cheers
>Jim G
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:80kopv06t9s949v7r...@4ax.com...
Indeed. :-)
The absolute motion through the ether can be calculated
by measuring the TWLS and subtract a previous measured TWLS.
Couldn't be simpler. :-)
> I AM supposed to be talking to people who have above average intelligence you
> know... although sometimes I wonder.
So do I - wonder who you think you are talking to, that is.
You appear to think you are talking to people with very
low intelligence, expecting them to buy your nonsense.
But I know of course why you are stating these stupidities.
Under the heading "A Note About OWLS Experiments"
you presented a method you belived was a OWLS measurement.
When you realized it was a TWLS measurement, you - as always -
found it impossible to admit having made the blunder you had done.
And then you will - as always - say anything however stupid rather
than admitting your blunder.
Which makes it worse, of course.
It IS funny, though! :-)
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:gdkopvkuqiqo935am...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:22:19 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> skrev i melding news:vpnnjjb...@corp.supernews.com...
> >>
> >> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
>
> >> > > By now you will know the answer to that.
> >> >
> >> > Indeed.
> >> > You were actually serious.
> >> > You didn't realize that Ken's experiment was a TWLS experiment.
> >>
> >> It is not a TWLS experiment. It's a 2 one-way experiment.
> >
> >Quite. :-)
> >
> >Paul
> >
>
> To a person completely lacking insight, Ken's suggestion might seem rather
> amusing. However it is actually very clever and useful.
>
> If this experiment is ever going to work, it must be carried out over
> considerable distances, eg, the moon, planetary orbits.
>
> To bounce a beam off a mirror on Mars is not feasible but to replace this
> two-way procedure with two 'one-way' ones is very sensible. The return pulse
> can be made powerful enough to be detected on Earth. The Mars' clock reading
> can be relayed later.
But it IS feasible to bounce a light beam off the mirror that is on the Moon.
This has been done more or less continuously by a number of observatories
dedicated to that very purpose for 30 years.
The orbit of the Moon is now determined with a precision in the cm range.
I can assure you that if the TWLS had deviated from "the accepted value",
it would have been very obvious in those experiments.
The TWLS is measured with extreme precision.
Your multi billion dollar experiment could only do the same
with less precision.
Forget it.
Paul
kenseto
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 10:24:49 -0500, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> >news:81qlpvkfuvlp1g4vk...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 10:46:05 -0400, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com>
wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> >> >news:76ikpv02evgmcoltk...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:37:21 -0400, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >With my procedure the clocks are running after the
> >> >e-synch procedure and clock "A" is offset (advanced) by an amount of
the
> >> >flight time from A to B. At the start of the OWLS measurement from the
B
> >> >location a light signal is sent from B to A at time tB. When the light
> >> >signal arrives at A the clock reading is tA.
> >> >tA- tB=Flight time from A to B + Flight time from B to A.
> >>
> >> OK I finally see your point - but it wouldn't necessarily work.
> >
> >Why Not?
>
> Because all you have proposed is a TWLS experiment.
NO...a TWLS experiment is done with one clock and one light pulse felected
back to the same clcok immediately.
My experiment is done with two clocks and two different light pulses. What I
have is a 2 one-way experiment.
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >I will now accept an apology from you.
> >>
> >> It isn't a case of an apology Ken. You should thank me for enlightening
> >you.
> >> Your interpretation is wrong.
> >
> >What is wrong with my interpretation? For that matter do you know what is
my
> >interpretation??
>
> My interpretation is that you presume light speed to be c in both
directions.
The speed of light is proven to be isotropic by experiments such as the MMX
and Will et al.
> I say it is c+v and c-v. Which is also what Einstein believed when he
concocted
> his clock synch procedure to eliminate the difference and make the Aether
> redundant..
NO...Einstein doesn't believe in c+v or c-v. His postulate says that the
speed of light is constant in all inertial frames and in all directions.
Your idea of c+v and c-v in an inertial frame is refuted by experiments such
as the MMX and Will et al.
>
> >>
> >> This experiment can actualy be performed.
> >> It can test the validity of E-synching and, if there is a positive
result,
> >that
> >> is, if the difference in clock readings is not D/c,
> >
> >This shows that you don't know what you are talking about. The difference
in
> >clock reading is not D/c it is 2D/c.....in both my experiment and your
> >experiment..
>
> Yes OK, 2D/c as I said originally.
>
> Trouble is, the best known value of 'c' is probably not precise enough to
> reveal any difference unless the experiment can be performed over very
large
> distances.
With my procedure you don't have to know the value of c before the
experiment.
>
> >
> >> >>
> >> >> That is NOT E-synching. E-synching is setting the clocks so that
lights
> >> >signal
> >> >> sent in both directions will take the same time. Ta>b=Tb>a
> >> >
> >> >ROTFLOL....what you said is already assumed by Einstein. He assumed
that
> >the
> >> >flight time is the same in all directions. E-synching is a way to
offset
> >two
> >> >running and synchroneous clocks to make the measurement of the speed
of
> >> >light equal to c.
> >>
> >> E-synching is a way of adjusting the two clocks so that
T(a->b)=T(b->a).
> >It is
> >> a plain 'fiddle' designed to make his theory always work.
> >> You should read about it.
> >
> >NO...e-synching is a way to offset the distant clock to get the speed of
> >light equal to c.
>
> That is not what Einstein said. He was only interested in adjusting the
clocks
> so that T(a->b)=T(b->a).
No...that's not e-synching. Einstein already assumed that the speed of light
is isotropic. That means that he assumed
T(a-->b)=T(b-->a).
Besides how do you adjust the clocks so that T(a->b)=T(b->a)??
>
> >> Ah! but what IS the 'horizontal direction' Ken?
> >
> >As defined by the direction of the horizontal light rays.
>
> Are they horizontal wrt the Earth's orbit?
Who care about the earth's orbit. The only relevant thing is how the
apparatus move wrt to the horizontal light rays.
>
> >
> >You misinterpreted what I said. In my theory:
> >1. clock rate is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the clock.
The
> >higher is the state of absolute motion the slower is the clock rate.
OTOH,
> >the higher is the state of absolute motion the higher is the absolute
time
> >content for a clock second.
>
> Uhoh! I have a feeling Paul Anderson's famous 'tick fairies' might have
> infiltrated your theory.
Idiot
>
> >2. The length of a rod will remain the same in all states of absolute
> >motion. However, the light path length of a rod will vary according to
the
> >state of absolute motion. The higher is the state of absolute motion the
> >longer is the light path length....this is interpreted in SR as rod
> >contraction.
>
> The light path length will surely depend on the direction of the light
> propagation compared to that of the rod. Otherwise your theory doesn't
make
> sense.
No it doesn't depend on the direction of the light propagation. The unique
structure of my aether posits that any movement in it can be represented as
vertical motion wrt the horizontal light rays.
>
>
> >> >
> >> >NO....wrt all observers.
> >>
> >> But we know that rods don't really shrink when we move them don't we
Ken?
> >
> >I didn't say that they would shrink. I said that the physical length of a
> >rod remains the same as it moves. But the light path length of a rod
varies
> >according to the state of absolute motion of the rod.
>
> That's OK... but you added, "The higher is the state of absolute motion
the
> longer is the light path length".
> What if the light is traveling (absolutely) in the opposite direction to
the
> rod? It would be shorter then.
No...if a light ray is moving in a plane parallel to the rod then all
motions of the rod is vertical wrt that plane. Again this is due to the
unique structure of the aether.
Ken Seto
Paul B. Andersen
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> skrev i melding news:vpokmmr...@corp.supernews.com...
And why do you think I would bother to answer the same
questions as others have answered a lot of times?
I don't!
Paul
kenseto
Ah...when there is no good answer Paul just ignore the questions. I didn't
see any SRians post the correct SR e-synch procedure and how to measure OWLS
with the e-synched clocks. Since you appear to be the chief of the SRians I
thought that you might give us the official version for the e-synch
procedure and how to measure OWLS using the e-synched clocks. This will end
all future arguments. Thanks.
Ken Seto.
HenriWilson
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>news:8liopv8m5oivbdvrs...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 10:24:49 -0500, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> OK I finally see your point - but it wouldn't necessarily work.
>> >
>> >Why Not?
>>
>> Because all you have proposed is a TWLS experiment.
>
>NO...a TWLS experiment is done with one clock and one light pulse felected
>back to the same clcok immediately.
>My experiment is done with two clocks and two different light pulses. What I
>have is a 2 one-way experiment.
A TWLS measurement. You can easily replace the second source with a mirror. But
as I said elsewhere, your setup is great because it enable a powerful return
signal to be sent rather than a weak reflection. That enables the experiment to
be done over very large distances, so that the term (v/c)^2 will be resolvable.
>>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >I will now accept an apology from you.
>> >>
>> >> It isn't a case of an apology Ken. You should thank me for enlightening
>> >you.
>> >> Your interpretation is wrong.
>> >
>> >What is wrong with my interpretation? For that matter do you know what is
>my
>> >interpretation??
>>
>> My interpretation is that you presume light speed to be c in both
>directions.
>
>The speed of light is proven to be isotropic by experiments such as the MMX
>and Will et al.
>
>> I say it is c+v and c-v. Which is also what Einstein believed when he
>concocted
>> his clock synch procedure to eliminate the difference and make the Aether
>> redundant..
>
>NO...Einstein doesn't believe in c+v or c-v. His postulate says that the
>speed of light is constant in all inertial frames and in all directions.
>Your idea of c+v and c-v in an inertial frame is refuted by experiments such
>as the MMX and Will et al.
I should have said "that is what he believed BEFORE he concocted his theory".
The MMX simply proves local source dependency.
>>
>> >>
>> >> This experiment can actualy be performed.
>> >> It can test the validity of E-synching and, if there is a positive
>result,
>> >that
>> >> is, if the difference in clock readings is not D/c,
>> >
>> >This shows that you don't know what you are talking about. The difference
>in
>> >clock reading is not D/c it is 2D/c.....in both my experiment and your
>> >experiment..
>>
>> Yes OK, 2D/c as I said originally.
D/c is subtracted if the clocks are synched absolutely.
>>
>> Trouble is, the best known value of 'c' is probably not precise enough to
>> reveal any difference unless the experiment can be performed over very
>large
>> distances.
>
>With my procedure you don't have to know the value of c before the
>experiment.
Your experiement will measure TWLS.
Easy. Since the two travel times are D/(c+v) and D/(c-v), the total travel time
is 2D/c[1/(1-(v/c)^2]. The average one-way time is half that = Dc/[c^2-v^2].
You adjust clock B by half the difference between this and D/(c-v), which is
just 1/2.Dv/[c^2-v^2]
>
>>
>> >> Ah! but what IS the 'horizontal direction' Ken?
>> >
>> >As defined by the direction of the horizontal light rays.
>>
>> Are they horizontal wrt the Earth's orbit?
>
>Who care about the earth's orbit. The only relevant thing is how the
>apparatus move wrt to the horizontal light rays.
You might know what you mean here - but nobody else does.
>
>>
>> >
>> >You misinterpreted what I said. In my theory:
>> >1. clock rate is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the clock.
>The
>> >higher is the state of absolute motion the slower is the clock rate.
>OTOH,
>> >the higher is the state of absolute motion the higher is the absolute
>time
>> >content for a clock second.
>>
>> Uhoh! I have a feeling Paul Anderson's famous 'tick fairies' might have
>> infiltrated your theory.
>
>Idiot
From you, Ken, that's a compliment.
>>
>> >2. The length of a rod will remain the same in all states of absolute
>> >motion. However, the light path length of a rod will vary according to
>the
>> >state of absolute motion. The higher is the state of absolute motion the
>> >longer is the light path length....this is interpreted in SR as rod
>> >contraction.
>>
>> The light path length will surely depend on the direction of the light
>> propagation compared to that of the rod. Otherwise your theory doesn't
>make
>> sense.
>
>No it doesn't depend on the direction of the light propagation. The unique
>structure of my aether posits that any movement in it can be represented as
>vertical motion wrt the horizontal light rays.
Sorry. I cannot understand that.
>>
>>
>> >> >
>> >> >NO....wrt all observers.
>> >>
>> >> But we know that rods don't really shrink when we move them don't we
>Ken?
>> >
>> >I didn't say that they would shrink. I said that the physical length of a
>> >rod remains the same as it moves. But the light path length of a rod
>varies
>> >according to the state of absolute motion of the rod.
>>
>> That's OK... but you added, "The higher is the state of absolute motion
>the
>> longer is the light path length".
>> What if the light is traveling (absolutely) in the opposite direction to
>the
>> rod? It would be shorter then.
>
>No...if a light ray is moving in a plane parallel to the rod then all
>motions of the rod is vertical wrt that plane. Again this is due to the
>unique structure of the aether.
This is far beyond my meagre intelligence.
HenriWilson
wrote:
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:80kopv06t9s949v7r...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 11:44:28 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
>> wrote:
>> >Quite.
>> >We should of course have realised that Henry Wilson never
>> >said what he said, and if he did, he didn't mean to say
>> >what he actually said.
>> >
>> >Give it up, Henry.
>> >This is too stupid.
>> >
>>
>> Paul, I said something like, "from the difference in clock readings, the
>> absolute motion through the aether can be calculated."
>>
>> Did I say ANYWHERE that the difference alone was the required answer?
>>
>> Just becasue I didn't say precisely how to perform the simple calculation
>> doesn't mean I was wrong. Just subtract 2D/c. Simple!
>
>Indeed. :-)
>The absolute motion through the ether can be calculated
>by measuring the TWLS and subtract a previous measured TWLS.
>Couldn't be simpler. :-)
You use Maxwell's value of c.
The good thing about this method is that it can be performed over very long
distances. That enables the term (v/c)^2 to be resolved with far greater
accuracy that previously.
>
>> I AM supposed to be talking to people who have above average intelligence you
>> know... although sometimes I wonder.
>
>So do I - wonder who you think you are talking to, that is.
>You appear to think you are talking to people with very
>low intelligence, expecting them to buy your nonsense.
>
>But I know of course why you are stating these stupidities.
>Under the heading "A Note About OWLS Experiments"
>you presented a method you belived was a OWLS measurement.
>When you realized it was a TWLS measurement, you - as always -
>found it impossible to admit having made the blunder you had done.
>And then you will - as always - say anything however stupid rather
>than admitting your blunder.
This is an OWLS isotropy experiment. So what?
Read my reply to Ken. (please explain his statements, too, if you can)
>
>Which makes it worse, of course.
>
>It IS funny, though! :-)
You just don't get it Paul.
HenriWilson
wrote:
No it wouldn't Paul.
Even at 390000 kms, the value of (v/c)^2 is still likely to be very small. It
would correspond to distances of 1E-10 kms or so. So it still would not be
resolved.
If it was done from Mars, however, the term should be resolvable.
>
>The TWLS is measured with extreme precision.
>
>Your multi billion dollar experiment could only do the same
>with less precision.
>Forget it.
It will be done eventually. From Mars. Actually it is not very difficult.
>
>Paul
Tom Roberts
> Did you ever consider some logical objections to relativity and actually
> think? Objections such as I presented in
> http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Fundamental.htm
> which I'm prepared to uphold.
v is a quantity with a sign. Your "argument" is useless -- moving to the
right is DIFFERENT from moving to the left, so the equations can be
different, too.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Jim Greenfield
> In article <jligpv8kiben7508v...@4ax.com>,
> HenriWilson <He...@the.edge> wrote:
>
> >If someone will come up with the necessary few million dollars, we can arrange
> >for it to be performed and then put an end to all this arguing.
>
> It wouldn't work. If the experiment were done and relativity validated,
> arguments will continue unabated by those that demand another The One
> Experiment That Will End The Arguing, by those unaware of or not
> interested in experiments, and by those that are already saying the
> predictions of relativity are right but the theory is wrong because it
> gives the wrong reasons.
On the contrary:
If (when) relativity is shown to be a sham, DHR's to a man (and woman)
would jump behind some fall-back position, such as "we are observing
from the wrong frame of reference".
What DHR's don't, won't (and in some cases never will) "get", is that
light speed 'experiments' and predictions of Relativity, are
self-fulfilling. If COMPARISONS are used for light experiments, sans
clocks, and performed to a rigour expected of unbiased experts
(technicians), and confirm light source independence, then I will post
my conversion here, as daily pennance, for a year
Jim G
HenriWilson
Why would a relativist worry about 'v' having a sign when it appears in
quadratic form in all their equations?
You are really funny Tom!
>
>
>Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Dirk Van de moortel
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:417spv8o3urh3q577...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:52:47 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjro...@Lucent.com> wrote:
>
> >On 10/24/2003 1:38 PM, Androcles wrote:
> >> Did you ever consider some logical objections to relativity and actually
> >> think? Objections such as I presented in
> >> http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Fundamental.htm
> >> which I'm prepared to uphold.
> >
> >v is a quantity with a sign. Your "argument" is useless -- moving to the
> >right is DIFFERENT from moving to the left, so the equations can be
> >different, too.
>
> Why would a relativist worry about 'v' having a sign when it appears in
> quadratic form in all their equations?
x' = gamma ( x - v*t )
t' = gamma ( t - v*x/c^2)
In *all* their equations?
Dirk Vdm
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:417spv8o3urh3q577...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:52:47 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjro...@Lucent.com> wrote:
>
> >On 10/24/2003 1:38 PM, Androcles wrote:
> >> Did you ever consider some logical objections to relativity and actually
> >> think? Objections such as I presented in
> >> http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Fundamental.htm
> >> which I'm prepared to uphold.
> >
> >v is a quantity with a sign. Your "argument" is useless -- moving to the
> >right is DIFFERENT from moving to the left, so the equations can be
> >different, too.
>
> Why would a relativist worry about 'v' having a sign when it appears in
> quadratic form in all their equations?
>
> You are really funny Tom!
Another Henry Wilson stupidity! :-)
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:lm0rpvogn3c0robqc...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:14:55 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:gdkopvkuqiqo935am...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> amusing. However it is actually very clever and useful.
> >>
> >> If this experiment is ever going to work, it must be carried out over
> >> considerable distances, eg, the moon, planetary orbits.
> >>
> >> To bounce a beam off a mirror on Mars is not feasible but to replace this
> >> two-way procedure with two 'one-way' ones is very sensible. The return pulse
> >> can be made powerful enough to be detected on Earth. The Mars' clock reading
> >> can be relayed later.
> >
> >But it IS feasible to bounce a light beam off the mirror that is on the Moon.
> >This has been done more or less continuously by a number of observatories
> >dedicated to that very purpose for 30 years.
> >The orbit of the Moon is now determined with a precision in the cm range.
> >I can assure you that if the TWLS had deviated from "the accepted value",
> >it would have been very obvious in those experiments.
>
> No it wouldn't Paul.
>
> Even at 390000 kms, the value of (v/c)^2 is still likely to be very small. It
> would correspond to distances of 1E-10 kms or so. So it still would not be
> resolved.
>
> If it was done from Mars, however, the term should be resolvable.
Since the distance to Mars (near opposition) is in the order
of 100 times the distance to the Moon, you would have to know
the distance to Mars with one meter precision to make a TWLS
measurement with the _same_ precision as the LLR measurements.
You don't. Not by far.
Your experiment done from Mars would measure the speed
of light with very much less precision than is done in LLR.
Why is it that you cranks always insist on doing infeasible experiment
to measure what already is measured in experiments already made?
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:jc0rpvgfqg3165kl6...@4ax.com...
I get that calling a TWLS measurement
"an OWLS isotropy experiment" is plain idiocy.
Paul
kenseto
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:19:56 -0500, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> >news:8liopv8m5oivbdvrs...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 10:24:49 -0500, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com>
wrote:
> >>
>
> >> >> OK I finally see your point - but it wouldn't necessarily work.
> >> >
> >> >Why Not?
> >>
> >> Because all you have proposed is a TWLS experiment.
> >
> >NO...a TWLS experiment is done with one clock and one light pulse
felected
> >back to the same clcok immediately.
> >My experiment is done with two clocks and two different light pulses.
What I
> >have is a 2 one-way experiment.
>
> A TWLS measurement. You can easily replace the second source with a
mirror.
But what about clock B. What are you replacing it with?
>But
> as I said elsewhere, your setup is great because it enable a powerful
return
> signal to be sent rather than a weak reflection. That enables the
experiment to
> be done over very large distances, so that the term (v/c)^2 will be
resolvable.
You are proposing a TWLS. How do you measure the large distance with any
accuracy? My procedure is to measure OWLS within the same frame of the
observer.
>
>
> >> My interpretation is that you presume light speed to be c in both
> >directions.
> >
> >The speed of light is proven to be isotropic by experiments such as the
MMX
> >and Will et al.
> >
> >> I say it is c+v and c-v. Which is also what Einstein believed when he
> >concocted
> >> his clock synch procedure to eliminate the difference and make the
Aether
> >> redundant..
> >
> >NO...Einstein doesn't believe in c+v or c-v. His postulate says that the
> >speed of light is constant in all inertial frames and in all directions.
> >Your idea of c+v and c-v in an inertial frame is refuted by experiments
such
> >as the MMX and Will et al.
>
> I should have said "that is what he believed BEFORE he concocted his
theory".
>
> The MMX simply proves local source dependency.
NO...it prove sourcew independency. The mirrors at the ends of the arms
acted as sources. The speed of light is independent of the motion of the
source and thus the null result.
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> This experiment can actualy be performed.
> >> >> It can test the validity of E-synching and, if there is a positive
> >result,
> >> >that
> >> >> is, if the difference in clock readings is not D/c,
> >> >
> >> >This shows that you don't know what you are talking about. The
difference
> >in
> >> >clock reading is not D/c it is 2D/c.....in both my experiment and your
> >> >experiment..
> >>
> >> Yes OK, 2D/c as I said originally.
>
> D/c is subtracted if the clocks are synched absolutely.
This proves that you don't know what you are talking about. You don't
subtract anything. D/c does not come into play at all. The speed of light is
determined as follows:
c=2AB/(tA-tB)
>
> >>
> >> Trouble is, the best known value of 'c' is probably not precise enough
to
> >> reveal any difference unless the experiment can be performed over very
> >large
> >> distances.
> >
> >With my procedure you don't have to know the value of c before the
> >experiment.
>
> Your experiement will measure TWLS.
Idiot.
>
> >> >>
> >> >> E-synching is a way of adjusting the two clocks so that
> >T(a->b)=T(b->a).
> >> >It is
> >> >> a plain 'fiddle' designed to make his theory always work.
> >> >> You should read about it.
> >> >
> >> >NO...e-synching is a way to offset the distant clock to get the speed
of
> >> >light equal to c.
> >>
> >> That is not what Einstein said. He was only interested in adjusting the
> >clocks
> >> so that T(a->b)=T(b->a).
> >
> >No...that's not e-synching. Einstein already assumed that the speed of
light
> >is isotropic. That means that he assumed
> >T(a-->b)=T(b-->a).
> >Besides how do you adjust the clocks so that T(a->b)=T(b->a)??
>
> Easy. Since the two travel times are D/(c+v) and D/(c-v), the total travel
time
> is 2D/c[1/(1-(v/c)^2]. The average one-way time is half that =
Dc/[c^2-v^2].
ROTFLOL....you are trying to measure the value of c and you are assuming a
value for c to adjust the clocks?
>
> You adjust clock B by half the difference between this and D/(c-v), which
is
> just 1/2.Dv/[c^2-v^2]
This is stupid.
> >
> >>
> >> >> Ah! but what IS the 'horizontal direction' Ken?
> >> >
> >> >As defined by the direction of the horizontal light rays.
> >>
> >> Are they horizontal wrt the Earth's orbit?
> >
> >Who care about the earth's orbit. The only relevant thing is how the
> >apparatus move wrt to the horizontal light rays.
>
> You might know what you mean here - but nobody else does.
Then you are dense. On earth the absolute motion of the MMX apparatus is
vertical wrt the hroizontal light rays in all locations.
Ken Seto
Dirk Van de moortel
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:vpsqslt...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> news:93vqpvko9jl2jmp8r...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> > You might know what you mean here - but nobody else does.
>
> Then you are dense.
See Wilson, even Seto says so.
> On earth the absolute motion of the MMX apparatus is
> vertical wrt the hroizontal light rays in all locations.
Tsk. Didn't you know about the Isotropy Of Verticality?
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IsoVert.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Vertical2.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MMXVertical.html
Dirk Vdm
Randy Poe
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:52:47 -0600, Tom Roberts <tjro...@Lucent.com> wrote:
>
> >On 10/24/2003 1:38 PM, Androcles wrote:
> >> Did you ever consider some logical objections to relativity and actually
> >> think? Objections such as I presented in
> >> http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Fundamental.htm
> >> which I'm prepared to uphold.
> >
> >v is a quantity with a sign. Your "argument" is useless -- moving to the
> >right is DIFFERENT from moving to the left, so the equations can be
> >different, too.
>
> Why would a relativist worry about 'v' having a sign when it appears in
> quadratic form in all their equations?
Please review the expressions for Doppler shift and
velocity transformation before declaring your expert
opinion about "all relativistic equations".
- Randy
Gregory L. Hansen
Jim Greenfield <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
>news:<bndmp1$rff$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
>> In article <jligpv8kiben7508v...@4ax.com>,
>> HenriWilson <He...@the.edge> wrote:
>>
>> >If someone will come up with the necessary few million dollars, we
>can arrange
>> >for it to be performed and then put an end to all this arguing.
>>
>> It wouldn't work. If the experiment were done and relativity validated,
>> arguments will continue unabated by those that demand another The One
>> Experiment That Will End The Arguing, by those unaware of or not
>> interested in experiments, and by those that are already saying the
>> predictions of relativity are right but the theory is wrong because it
>> gives the wrong reasons.
>
>On the contrary:
>If (when) relativity is shown to be a sham, DHR's to a man (and woman)
>would jump behind some fall-back position, such as "we are observing
>from the wrong frame of reference".
Whatever a DHR is, you seem to assume that supporters of relativity will
support it unreasonably just because they continue to support it in the
face of the sloppy and contradictory arguments against it that appear on
Usenet. When some actual, physical evidence appears on the issue, see if
it takes them longer to drop relativity for a new theory than it did a
hundred years ago for them to drop Newton in favor of relativity in the
first place.
>What DHR's don't, won't (and in some cases never will) "get", is that
>light speed 'experiments' and predictions of Relativity, are
>self-fulfilling. If COMPARISONS are used for light experiments, sans
>clocks, and performed to a rigour expected of unbiased experts
>(technicians), and confirm light source independence, then I will post
>my conversion here, as daily pennance, for a year
Yeah, yeah. If the physical evidence doesn't go the way you think nature
should work, it's obviously flawed because you *know* you're right. So
the problem must be psychological flaws in the world-wide scientific
community, there can be no other explanation. The usual high quality of
argument I've come to expect on Usenet.
--
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé
The Ghost In The Machine
<glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu>
wrote
on Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:22:45 +0000 (UTC)
<bnlu3k$nv9$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu>:
> In article <3c4afb26.0310...@posting.google.com>,
> Jim Greenfield <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
>>news:<bndmp1$rff$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
>>> In article <jligpv8kiben7508v...@4ax.com>,
>>> HenriWilson <He...@the.edge> wrote:
>>>
>>> >If someone will come up with the necessary few million dollars, we
>>can arrange
>>> >for it to be performed and then put an end to all this arguing.
>>>
>>> It wouldn't work. If the experiment were done and relativity validated,
>>> arguments will continue unabated by those that demand another The One
>>> Experiment That Will End The Arguing, by those unaware of or not
>>> interested in experiments, and by those that are already saying the
>>> predictions of relativity are right but the theory is wrong because it
>>> gives the wrong reasons.
>>
>>On the contrary:
>>If (when) relativity is shown to be a sham, DHR's to a man (and woman)
>>would jump behind some fall-back position, such as "we are observing
>>from the wrong frame of reference".
>
> Whatever a DHR
Presumably it's a "die-hard relativist".
> is, you seem to assume that supporters of relativity will
> support it unreasonably just because they continue to support it in the
> face of the sloppy and contradictory arguments against it that appear on
> Usenet. When some actual, physical evidence appears on the issue, see if
> it takes them longer to drop relativity for a new theory than it did a
> hundred years ago for them to drop Newton in favor of relativity in the
> first place.
It's worth noting that relativity took several years to accept
in any event, even when data came in, IIRC.
>
>>What DHR's don't, won't (and in some cases never will) "get", is that
>>light speed 'experiments' and predictions of Relativity, are
>>self-fulfilling. If COMPARISONS are used for light experiments, sans
>>clocks, and performed to a rigour expected of unbiased experts
>>(technicians), and confirm light source independence, then I will post
>>my conversion here, as daily pennance, for a year
>
> Yeah, yeah. If the physical evidence doesn't go the way you think nature
> should work, it's obviously flawed because you *know* you're right. So
> the problem must be psychological flaws in the world-wide scientific
> community, there can be no other explanation. The usual high quality of
> argument I've come to expect on Usenet.
As always, the best support or refutation of a theory comes from
good, high-quality data. SR and GR have currently passed most
tests that I know of offhand (not being an expert I can't say "all",
although others have and I have no reason right now to doubt them :-) ).
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
HenriWilson
Distance measurement is ideed a problem. In the case of Mars, it could be
calculated pretty accurately from astronomical data.
>>
>>
>> >> My interpretation is that you presume light speed to be c in both
>> >directions.
>> >
>> >The speed of light is proven to be isotropic by experiments such as the
>MMX
>> >and Will et al.
>> >
>> >> I say it is c+v and c-v. Which is also what Einstein believed when he
>> >concocted
>> >> his clock synch procedure to eliminate the difference and make the
>Aether
>> >> redundant..
>> >
>> >NO...Einstein doesn't believe in c+v or c-v. His postulate says that the
>> >speed of light is constant in all inertial frames and in all directions.
>> >Your idea of c+v and c-v in an inertial frame is refuted by experiments
>such
>> >as the MMX and Will et al.
>>
>> I should have said "that is what he believed BEFORE he concocted his
>theory".
>>
>> The MMX simply proves local source dependency.
>
>NO...it prove sourcew independency. The mirrors at the ends of the arms
>acted as sources. The speed of light is independent of the motion of the
>source and thus the null result.
Ken we all know your explanation.
Even my animation is more believable than that.
>>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This experiment can actualy be performed.
>> >> >> It can test the validity of E-synching and, if there is a positive
>> >result,
>> >> >that
>> >> >> is, if the difference in clock readings is not D/c,
>> >> >
>> >> >This shows that you don't know what you are talking about. The
>difference
>> >in
>> >> >clock reading is not D/c it is 2D/c.....in both my experiment and your
>> >> >experiment..
>> >>
>> >> Yes OK, 2D/c as I said originally.
>>
>> D/c is subtracted if the clocks are synched absolutely.
>
>This proves that you don't know what you are talking about. You don't
>subtract anything. D/c does not come into play at all. The speed of light is
>determined as follows:
>c=2AB/(tA-tB)
That's a straightforward TWLS measurement, accurate to within (v/c)^2, which is
a pretty small number, around 10^-10
>>
>> >>
>> >> Trouble is, the best known value of 'c' is probably not precise enough
>to
>> >> reveal any difference unless the experiment can be performed over very
>> >large
>> >> distances.
>> >
>> >With my procedure you don't have to know the value of c before the
>> >experiment.
>>
>> Your experiement will measure TWLS.
>
>Idiot.
For once even the SRian 'experts' agree with me on this.
>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> E-synching is a way of adjusting the two clocks so that
>> >T(a->b)=T(b->a).
>> >> >It is
>> >> >> a plain 'fiddle' designed to make his theory always work.
>> >> >> You should read about it.
>> >> >
>> >> >NO...e-synching is a way to offset the distant clock to get the speed
>of
>> >> >light equal to c.
>> >>
>> >> That is not what Einstein said. He was only interested in adjusting the
>> >clocks
>> >> so that T(a->b)=T(b->a).
>> >
>> >No...that's not e-synching. Einstein already assumed that the speed of
>light
>> >is isotropic. That means that he assumed
>> >T(a-->b)=T(b-->a).
>> >Besides how do you adjust the clocks so that T(a->b)=T(b->a)??
>>
>> Easy. Since the two travel times are D/(c+v) and D/(c-v), the total travel
>time
>> is 2D/c[1/(1-(v/c)^2]. The average one-way time is half that =
>Dc/[c^2-v^2].
>
>ROTFLOL....you are trying to measure the value of c and you are assuming a
>value for c to adjust the clocks?
That's what Einstein did. He assumed the OWLS was 2D/(Ta'-Ta). Then he adjusted
clock B so that T(a->b)=T(b->a). Why don't you read his paper?
>>
>> You adjust clock B by half the difference between this and D/(c-v), which
>is
>> just 1/2.Dv/[c^2-v^2]
>
>This is stupid.
Of course. But it didn't stop Einstein from doing it.
>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >> Ah! but what IS the 'horizontal direction' Ken?
>> >> >
>> >> >As defined by the direction of the horizontal light rays.
>> >>
>> >> Are they horizontal wrt the Earth's orbit?
>> >
>> >Who care about the earth's orbit. The only relevant thing is how the
>> >apparatus move wrt to the horizontal light rays.
>>
>> You might know what you mean here - but nobody else does.
>
>Then you are dense. On earth the absolute motion of the MMX apparatus is
>vertical wrt the hroizontal light rays in all locations.
You are assuming that simply to explain the null result.
Why should any horizontal ray on the Earth's surface be related to the MMX's
movement through absolute space?
You says some funny things Ken.
If you are correct, this certainly needs more explaining.
HenriWilson
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:vpsqslt...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>> news:93vqpvko9jl2jmp8r...@4ax.com...
>
>[snip]
>
>> > You might know what you mean here - but nobody else does.
>>
>> Then you are dense.
>
>See Wilson, even Seto says so.
That is indeed an honour!
>
>> On earth the absolute motion of the MMX apparatus is
>> vertical wrt the hroizontal light rays in all locations.
>
>Tsk. Didn't you know about the Isotropy Of Verticality?
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IsoVert.html
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Vertical2.html
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MMXVertical.html
>
>Dirk Vdm
>
HenriWilson
wrote:
You still don't get it Paul.
Not all TWLS measurements will produce the same answer.
TWLS is NOT constant.
Remember we are talking basically about aether models here.
Measured TWLS is (2D/c)/[1-(v/c)^2], where c is true OWLS (in an aether).
Please don't take this to mean I am an aetherist.
HenriWilson
wrote:
And this from someone who believe the precession of Mercury can be measured to
within 4 inches per year!
Beautiful!
Dirk Van de moortel
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:9pk271-...@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
[snip]
> > Yeah, yeah. If the physical evidence doesn't go the way you think nature
> > should work, it's obviously flawed because you *know* you're right. So
> > the problem must be psychological flaws in the world-wide scientific
> > community, there can be no other explanation. The usual high quality of
> > argument I've come to expect on Usenet.
>
> As always, the best support or refutation of a theory comes from
> good, high-quality data. SR and GR have currently passed most
> tests that I know of offhand (not being an expert I can't say "all",
> although others have and I have no reason right now to doubt them :-) ).
Ha, but you probably are not aware of The Giant Die-Hard
Relativity Conspiracy? Last thing I heard, there were some
very suspect links with Al Qaeda, so better be careful not to
have too many close friends in these circles. BBB is watching
you!
Dirk Vdm
Jim Greenfield
And this "physical evidence" you have "observed"--- does that include
shrunken sticks (SR), and that you will live forever, if you can just
get the gravity right?(GR)????? Nature can do that for you?? So the
explanation is an inability in "the world-wide scientific community"
to accept that Relativity is fatally flawed, and a psychological
addiction amongst its adherents which prevents them living in a vacuum
(of having no good present replacement theory)
Jim G
Gregory L. Hansen
The Ghost In The Machine <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>As always, the best support or refutation of a theory comes from
>good, high-quality data. SR and GR have currently passed most
>tests that I know of offhand (not being an expert I can't say "all",
>although others have and I have no reason right now to doubt them :-) ).
General relativity seems a bit strained to me, with dark matter and now
dark energy. It seems too much like making arbitrary additions to the
physical model to make up for inadequacies of the basic theory. Then
there's the Pioneer 10 data. I think eventually more data like that will
come in and point to the Next Best Thing.
But suspecting that doesn't mean the theory has been disproven, and a
disproven general relativity doesn't mean we'll lag backwards a hundred
years to the nostalgic theories of yestercentury. No, whatever comes next
is going to bug folks on sci.physics at least as much as general
relativity does now, and an understanding of GR will most likely form a
jumping point to get into the new theory.
So far as I know, within its realm of validity (e.g. no gravity), special
relativity remains inviolate.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:bnn8d3$6gc$2...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
> In article <9pk271-...@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>,
> The Ghost In The Machine <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>
> >As always, the best support or refutation of a theory comes from
> >good, high-quality data. SR and GR have currently passed most
> >tests that I know of offhand (not being an expert I can't say "all",
> >although others have and I have no reason right now to doubt them :-) ).
>
> General relativity seems a bit strained to me, with dark matter and now
> dark energy. It seems too much like making arbitrary additions to the
> physical model to make up for inadequacies of the basic theory. Then
> there's the Pioneer 10 data. I think eventually more data like that will
> come in and point to the Next Best Thing.
>
> But suspecting that doesn't mean the theory has been disproven, and a
> disproven general relativity doesn't mean we'll lag backwards a hundred
> years to the nostalgic theories of yestercentury. No, whatever comes
next
> is going to bug folks on sci.physics at least as much as general
> relativity does now, and an understanding of GR will most likely form a
> jumping point to get into the new theory.
You've heard of MOND, right? Not that it doesn't also have problems...
> So far as I know, within its realm of validity (e.g. no gravity), special
> relativity remains inviolate.
I think back at how cosmologists believe that the various forces "gelled"
out after the Big Bang. Maybe Dark Matter and Dark Energy are a single
"new" force, that is attractive at one scale (or situation), but repulsive
for larger scales.
David A. Smith
Randy Poe
>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:00:45 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
>wrote:
>And this from someone who believe the precession of Mercury can be measured to
>within 4 inches per year!
>
>Beautiful!
Precession is measured in arc-seconds, you loon. It's an angle.
Beautiful.
Why is it that for your theories it is necessary to believe that no
advance has been made in experimental precision in the last 150 years
or so?
- Randy
The Ghost In The Machine
<bnn8d3$6gc$2...@hood.uits.indiana.edu>:
> In article <9pk271-...@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>,
> The Ghost In The Machine <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>
>>As always, the best support or refutation of a theory comes from
>>good, high-quality data. SR and GR have currently passed most
>>tests that I know of offhand (not being an expert I can't say "all",
>>although others have and I have no reason right now to doubt them :-) ).
>
> General relativity seems a bit strained to me, with dark matter and now
> dark energy. It seems too much like making arbitrary additions to the
> physical model to make up for inadequacies of the basic theory. Then
> there's the Pioneer 10 data. I think eventually more data like that will
> come in and point to the Next Best Thing.
I would hope that we can find this Next Best Thing as I
have to agree to some extent with you. I can't say I've
a better theory, myself. :-)
Although I am curious as to how the space-time metric
varies with the general mass-density of the immediate area
(and how wide that area need be), and whether gravity has
a range dependent on the mass or something.
(This violates one of the principles of GR: the invariance of
"laws" of physics. However, one might quibble here: are
we violating the "law" or merely tweaking certain constants?)
>
> But suspecting that doesn't mean the theory has been disproven, and a
> disproven general relativity doesn't mean we'll lag backwards a hundred
> years to the nostalgic theories of yestercentury. No, whatever comes next
> is going to bug folks on sci.physics at least as much as general
> relativity does now, and an understanding of GR will most likely form a
> jumping point to get into the new theory.
>
> So far as I know, within its realm of validity (e.g. no gravity), special
> relativity remains inviolate.
>
Special relativity is, if you'll pardon the pun, relatively simple. :-)
AFAIK, it's not been disproven, either. GR has yet to be disproven
as well although again there may be a case of local constant tweaking,
or something.
I frankly wish I knew.
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:9nrtpv845ujtpb7d7...@4ax.com...
Do I believe that?
Since the precession of Mercury is almost zero, I suppose you are referring
to the precession of Mercury's orbit - the advance of the perihelion.
As far as I know, the precision of this measurement is ca. 0.5 arcsec
per century, which is equivalent to ca. 0.5*10^-7 rad per year.
That would mean an uncertainty in the advance of the perihelion
of ca. 3 km per year.
Are you telling me that the advance of the perihelion now are measured
hundred of times more precisely than this?
In that case, I would be very interested in a reference.
But this is irrelevant to the issue.
You obviously don't understand the complexity of your experiment.
The Earth and Mars are moving relative to each other.
The relative speed is in the order of 10^4 m/s.
The distance Earth - Mars is in the order of 10^11 m.
You are sending a pulse to Mars, which is sending a pulse back some
time later. The distance Earth - Mars will change in the order of 10^6m,
- a thousand kilometres - while the light pulse is a route.
So how exact do you think you will know the length of the path
the light pulse has travelled ?
> Beautiful!
Exactly!
Your experiment would measure the TWLS with a precision
which is many order of magnitudes less than what's done before.
What would be the point with that?
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:hertpvsm1ch0fnsnh...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:09:21 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:jc0rpvgfqg3165kl6...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:57:58 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >But I know of course why you are stating these stupidities.
> >> >Under the heading "A Note About OWLS Experiments"
> >> >you presented a method you belived was a OWLS measurement.
> >> >When you realized it was a TWLS measurement, you - as always -
> >> >found it impossible to admit having made the blunder you had done.
> >> >And then you will - as always - say anything however stupid rather
> >> >than admitting your blunder.
> >>
> >> This is an OWLS isotropy experiment. So what?
> >> Read my reply to Ken. (please explain his statements, too, if you can)
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Which makes it worse, of course.
> >> >
> >> >It IS funny, though! :-)
> >>
> >> You just don't get it Paul.
> >
> >I get that calling a TWLS measurement
> >"an OWLS isotropy experiment" is plain idiocy.
>
> You still don't get it Paul.
> Not all TWLS measurements will produce the same answer.
> TWLS is NOT constant.
This is an assertion.
How do you know it is true?
All TWLS done to date have given the same results
within the precision of the measurements.
So you obviously don't know your assertion it is true,
all the experimental evidence indicates that the TWLS
is both isotropic and invariant.
The only way a TWLS measurement can say anything
about isotropy is of course if you repeat it in different
directions. An then the precision of those measurements
must obviously be better than the measured anisotropy,
if one is detected.
This is done with very high precisions in interferometic
measurements.
Your "Mars experiment" could obviously be done
when the line Mars - Earth was in different directions,
but its precision would be many orders of magnitude
less than the anisotropy that could be hidden in the error
bar of experiments already done.
The experiment that is quite analogous to your "Mars experiment",
is the LLR measurements that have been going on for 30 years.
If there had been a tiny anisotropy in the TWLS, this would
have shown up as an anomaly in the calculation of the orbit
of the Moon, which now is determined to a precision better
than a cm. There is no such anomaly. The orbit is exactly
as predicted by GR. (And most of the competing theories
of gravity are ruled out, Newton's amongst them.)
>
> Remember we are talking basically about aether models here.
>
> Measured TWLS is (2D/c)/[1-(v/c)^2], where c is true OWLS (in an aether).
>
> Please don't take this to mean I am an aetherist.
This is mumbo jumbo.
You do not need a theory to ask the question:
"Is the TWLS isotropic?".
You just measure it.
When that's done, you can see which theories are
falsified by the experiment.
That's how Michelson's ether theory was falsified, you know.
Paul
kenseto
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
Gregory L. Hansen
>
>>
>> Remember we are talking basically about aether models here.
>>
>> Measured TWLS is (2D/c)/[1-(v/c)^2], where c is true OWLS (in an aether).
>>
>> Please don't take this to mean I am an aetherist.
>
>This is mumbo jumbo.
>You do not need a theory to ask the question:
>"Is the TWLS isotropic?".
>You just measure it.
>When that's done, you can see which theories are
>falsified by the experiment.
>
>That's how Michelson's ether theory was falsified, you know.
But you need a theory to interpret the results of a measurement. If,
e.g., delta c/c < 2.3e-7 for linear dependence and < 2e-8 for quadratic
dependence [of Earth with respect to a preferred frame fixed on the
microwave background, taken from Phys Rev D 42, 731 (1990)], what does
that mean? What theories does it rule out? What constraints can be put
on "I know my theory is right, measurements just aren't precise enough
yet to prove it"?
E.g. how large a difference does Henri Wilson think there should be such
that whatever he has in mind will be either disproven or validated?
HenriWilson
You didn't write anything.
HenriWilson
(v/c)^2
HenriWilson
wrote:
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:hertpvsm1ch0fnsnh...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:09:21 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I get that calling a TWLS measurement
>> >"an OWLS isotropy experiment" is plain idiocy.
>>
>> You still don't get it Paul.
>> Not all TWLS measurements will produce the same answer.
>> TWLS is NOT constant.
>
>This is an assertion.
>How do you know it is true?
>All TWLS done to date have given the same results
>within the precision of the measurements.
>So you obviously don't know your assertion it is true,
>all the experimental evidence indicates that the TWLS
>is both isotropic and invariant.
>
>The only way a TWLS measurement can say anything
>about isotropy is of course if you repeat it in different
>directions. An then the precision of those measurements
>must obviously be better than the measured anisotropy,
>if one is detected.
>This is done with very high precisions in interferometic
>measurements.
Not precise enough. (v/c)^2 is generally too small to be resolved.
>Your "Mars experiment" could obviously be done
>when the line Mars - Earth was in different directions,
>but its precision would be many orders of magnitude
>less than the anisotropy that could be hidden in the error
>bar of experiments already done.
Not necessarily.
>
>The experiment that is quite analogous to your "Mars experiment",
>is the LLR measurements that have been going on for 30 years.
>If there had been a tiny anisotropy in the TWLS, this would
>have shown up as an anomaly in the calculation of the orbit
>of the Moon, which now is determined to a precision better
>than a cm. There is no such anomaly. The orbit is exactly
>as predicted by GR. (And most of the competing theories
>of gravity are ruled out, Newton's amongst them.)
Who are you trying to kid?
Naturally if you use the principles of GR (namely that TWLS=OWLS= constant) to
establish the position of the moon, the results will support the theory.
That kind of technique is called circularity.
>
>>
>> Remember we are talking basically about aether models here.
>>
>> Measured TWLS is (2D/c)/[1-(v/c)^2], where c is true OWLS (in an aether).
>>
>> Please don't take this to mean I am an aetherist.
>
>This is mumbo jumbo.
>You do not need a theory to ask the question:
>"Is the TWLS isotropic?".
>You just measure it.
>When that's done, you can see which theories are
>falsified by the experiment.
Boyle's Law was thought to be accurate too, till they discovered the
Joule-Thomson effect.
My point being that the minute variations in TWLS are far more significant than
its seemingly constant value.
>
>That's how Michelson's ether theory was falsified, you know.
It didn't refute my H-aether theory though.
Light speed is obviously locally source dependent.
HenriWilson
wrote:
Don't make desperate statements Paul.
Mars
------------------------Sun-----------Earth
How fast are the two planets moving towards or away from each other in this
position, Paul?
>
>> Beautiful!
>
>Exactly!
>
>Your experiment would measure the TWLS with a precision
>which is many order of magnitudes less than what's done before.
>What would be the point with that?
Bull. We can even use my previously suggested source dependency experiment to
check. (the one involving two strong emitters orbiting Mars in opposite
directions)
>
>Paul
The Ghost In The Machine
<He...@the.edge>
wrote
on Wed, 29 Oct 2003 21:03:28 GMT
<moa0qv4gjm48oej2q...@4ax.com>:
Which for the Earth is just shy of 1e-8.
>
> Henri Wilson.
>
> See the funny side of relativity:
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
kenseto
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:18:06 -0500, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> >news:93vqpvko9jl2jmp8r...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:19:56 -0500, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com>
wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> >> >news:8liopv8m5oivbdvrs...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 10:24:49 -0500, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >You are proposing a TWLS. How do you measure the large distance with any
> >accuracy? My procedure is to measure OWLS within the same frame of the
> >observer.
>
> Distance measurement is ideed a problem. In the case of Mars, it could be
> calculated pretty accurately from astronomical data.
No.
> >> >
> >> >NO...Einstein doesn't believe in c+v or c-v. His postulate says that
the
> >> >speed of light is constant in all inertial frames and in all
directions.
> >> >Your idea of c+v and c-v in an inertial frame is refuted by
experiments
> >such
> >> >as the MMX and Will et al.
> >>
> >> I should have said "that is what he believed BEFORE he concocted his
> >theory".
> >>
> >> The MMX simply proves local source dependency.
> >
> >NO...it prove source independency. The mirrors at the ends of the arms
> >acted as sources. The speed of light is independent of the motion of the
> >source and thus the null result.
>
> Ken we all know your explanation.
No...you don't know my explanation. Using source independency to explain the
MMX null result in published in the journal Galilean Electrodynamics.
> Even my animation is more believable than that.
ROTFLOL.
>
> >>
> >> D/c is subtracted if the clocks are synched absolutely.
> >
> >This proves that you don't know what you are talking about. You don't
> >subtract anything. D/c does not come into play at all. The speed of light
is
> >determined as follows:
> >c=2AB/(tA-tB)
>
> That's a straightforward TWLS measurement, accurate to within (v/c)^2,
which is
> a pretty small number, around 10^-10
It is not TWLS measurement. It is a 2 one-way meaurement.
>
> >>
> >> Your experiement will measure TWLS.
> >
> >Idiot.
>
> For once even the SRian 'experts' agree with me on this.
Yeah they agree that you are an idiot.:-)
>
> >> Easy. Since the two travel times are D/(c+v) and D/(c-v), the total
travel
> >time
> >> is 2D/c[1/(1-(v/c)^2]. The average one-way time is half that =
> >Dc/[c^2-v^2].
> >
> >ROTFLOL....you are trying to measure the value of c and you are assuming
a
> >value for c to adjust the clocks?
>
> That's what Einstein did. He assumed the OWLS was 2D/(Ta'-Ta). Then he
adjusted
> clock B so that T(a->b)=T(b->a). Why don't you read his paper?
No he didn't do that. He adjust clock B by advancing it by an amount of AB/c
when the first light pulse from A arrive at the B location. This procedure
requires A and B to be spatially separated and synchroneous to start out.
Then he send a light pulse from A (at time tA) to B again and the time of
arrival at B is tB. He calculated OWLS using the following formula:
c=2AB/(tB-tA)
Notice that my procedure eliminates the step of advancing clock B manually
by an amount of AB/c and it calculates the OWLS using the same formula:
c=2AB/(tA-tB)
e difference between this and D/(c-v), which
> >is
> >> just 1/2.Dv/[c^2-v^2]
> >
> >This is stupid.
>
> Of course. But it didn't stop Einstein from doing it.
He didn't do that. You made this up. You don't understand the e-synch
procedure.
>
> >
> >Then you are dense. On earth the absolute motion of the MMX apparatus is
> >vertical wrt the hroizontal light rays in all locations.
>
> You are assuming that simply to explain the null result.
> Why should any horizontal ray on the Earth's surface be related to the
MMX's
> movement through absolute space?
Because that's what the MMX is trying to measure. It assumes that the
apparatus is moving in the same horizontal plane as the light rays and thus
there should be fringe shift at different orietations of the arms. The null
result of the MMX refuted that claim. The only direction of motion that will
give the null result for all the orientations of the arms is the vertical
direction wrt to the horizontal plane of the arms.
>
> You says some funny things Ken.
>
> If you are correct, this certainly needs more explaining.
No it doen't.
Ken Seto
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:o8a0qvg9f38e7d45r...@4ax.com...
You have got it backwards.
If there is an anisotropy hidden in the error bars,
it must be very small.
This constitutes an upper limit on the (v/c)^2.
Zero is in consistent with the data, though.
The upper limit of (v/c)^2 is of course always
too small to be resolved by definition!
> >Your "Mars experiment" could obviously be done
> >when the line Mars - Earth was in different directions,
> >but its precision would be many orders of magnitude
> >less than the anisotropy that could be hidden in the error
> >bar of experiments already done.
>
> Not necessarily.
Yes, necessarily.
You are forgetting one important point.
We have good estimates of the distance to Mars, especially when
it is in opposition, because the distance is measured with radar!
Do you understand the implication of that?
It means that your experiment is actually done - EM waves
are bounced off Mars, and the round trip time is measured.
But this was never considered to be a measurement of the TWLS,
it is the _distance_ that is measured and the TWLS was _assumed_
to be its "standard value" (actually its defined value).
If your Mars experiment should be possible, we would have to know
the distance precisely _determined in another way than by a radar measurement_,
and we simply don't know that.
Did you mention a circularity, Henry? :-)
> >The experiment that is quite analogous to your "Mars experiment",
> >is the LLR measurements that have been going on for 30 years.
> >If there had been a tiny anisotropy in the TWLS, this would
> >have shown up as an anomaly in the calculation of the orbit
> >of the Moon, which now is determined to a precision better
> >than a cm. There is no such anomaly. The orbit is exactly
> >as predicted by GR. (And most of the competing theories
> >of gravity are ruled out, Newton's amongst them.)
>
> Who are you trying to kid?
> Naturally if you use the principles of GR (namely that TWLS=OWLS= constant) to
> establish the position of the moon, the results will support the theory.
>
> That kind of technique is called circularity.
Henry, this is too stupid even for you.
You are actually stating that a theory cannot be falsified
by measurements because the measurements are bound to
confirm the theory. That is of course nonsense.
Consider this:
A circular orbit is a possible solution of GR.
(If the planet is spherical, and no other bodies than
the planet and orbiting moon is in the vicinity - no sun!
This is a thought experiment.)
So let's assume that orbit really is exactly circular.
Let us also assume that the TWLS really is anisotropic.
If LLR techniques are used to determine the orbit
of the moon, and it in these distance measurements
are assumed that the speed of light is isotropic and
equal to its SI defined value, then this would lead to
that the orbit was measured NOT to be circular.
The measured orbit would NOT be an orbit which
would be a possible solution of GR.
Think about it _before_ you utter nonsensicalities,
and you will see I am right.
And that is the case in the real LLR as well.
It is assumed that the speed of light is isotropic
"standard c", and the distance is calculated according
to that. The resulting measured orbit would NOT be
a solution of GR, but would be anomalous if
the assumption about the speed of light were wrong.
The measured orbit would simply not be the real one,
and would be physically impossible.
I will still claim that the LLR measurements is a much better
test of the isotropy of the TWLS than your Mars experiment
could ever hope to be.
I am not sure if these measurment are able to push the upper
limit of (v/c)^2 to smaller values than the interferometer
measurements that are done, though.
Paul
HenriWilson
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>news:ugqtpvk40dbjf8thr...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:18:06 -0500, "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >ROTFLOL....you are trying to measure the value of c and you are assuming
>a
>> >value for c to adjust the clocks?
>>
>> That's what Einstein did. He assumed the OWLS was 2D/(Ta'-Ta). Then he
>adjusted
>> clock B so that T(a->b)=T(b->a). Why don't you read his paper?
>
>No he didn't do that. He adjust clock B by advancing it by an amount of AB/c
>when the first light pulse from A arrive at the B location. This procedure
>requires A and B to be spatially separated and synchroneous to start out.
>Then he send a light pulse from A (at time tA) to B again and the time of
>arrival at B is tB. He calculated OWLS using the following formula:
> c=2AB/(tB-tA)
NO, Ken.
He used c=2AB/(tA'-tA)
>Notice that my procedure eliminates the step of advancing clock B manually
>by an amount of AB/c and it calculates the OWLS using the same formula:
> c=2AB/(tA-tB)
Your method is no different from any other TWLS experiment.
However I have explained to the world why it is superior.
>
>
>e difference between this and D/(c-v), which
>> >is
>> >> just 1/2.Dv/[c^2-v^2]
>> >
>> >This is stupid.
>>
>> Of course. But it didn't stop Einstein from doing it.
>
>He didn't do that. You made this up. You don't understand the e-synch
>procedure.
Read his paper! It couldn't be more explicit.
The clocks are defined as being in synch when Ta>b=Tb>a
One of the clocks is adjusted so that this will be true.
This makes an Aether redundant. It also makes his theory consistent but
circular.
>>
>> >
>> >Then you are dense. On earth the absolute motion of the MMX apparatus is
>> >vertical wrt the hroizontal light rays in all locations.
>>
>> You are assuming that simply to explain the null result.
>> Why should any horizontal ray on the Earth's surface be related to the
>MMX's
>> movement through absolute space?
>
>Because that's what the MMX is trying to measure. It assumes that the
>apparatus is moving in the same horizontal plane as the light rays and thus
>there should be fringe shift at different orietations of the arms. The null
>result of the MMX refuted that claim. The only direction of motion that will
>give the null result for all the orientations of the arms is the vertical
>direction wrt to the horizontal plane of the arms.
>>
>> You says some funny things Ken.
>>
>> If you are correct, this certainly needs more explaining.
>
>No it doen't.
You can't do it can you.
HenriWilson
Which is pretty small and around the precision of the best TWLS measurements..