Irrefutable Proof That Light Moves at c+v.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

Paul and a light source have absolutely synched clocks.
The linear distance between the two is reducing by v m/s.

1)
In the source frame, Paul approaches at v.
S----------------------t>v-----------------v<P
The source sends a time signal at speed c and time t. It reaches Paul at t'.
The current distance between the two is c(t-t')

In Paul's frame, the time signal is sent from S at time t, moving at c+v.
S>v ------------------t>(c+v)-------------------P
When Paul receives the signal at t', the current distance between the
two is (c+v)(t'-t) MINUS the distance moved by the source during signal
travel, which = v(t'-t)
Therefore, the current distance at t' = c(t'-t), as before.
****************************************************************************

2) Paul and Marker M are on a road along which the source is moving at v.
In the source frame, the road and both M and P are moving at v.
S--v<M-------------------t>c-----------------------------v<P
When S is adjacent to M, it sends a signal, t, at speed c, which reaches
Paul at t'.
Paul is then c(t'-t) away from S and therefore (c+v)(t'-t) away from M.

In Paul's frame, the source is moving at v
When S passes M, it sends a time signal to Paul.
S>v-M-------------------t>(c+v)-----------------P
The signal moves at c+v and Paul receives it at t'.

The distance between Paul and M is (c+v)(t'-t), as before.

The consistency of these results proves conclusively that if light moves
at c in the source frame, it moves at c+v in the frame of a relatively
moving observer.
***************************************************************************

Warning to readers: because the above revelation is of such importance
to physics, it is likely to incite a violent reaction from the
dingleberry SciFi fringe. Readers will be bombarded with nonsensical
arguments such as "if the clocks are in synch in Paul's frame they are
not in synch in the source frame" and "the distance between the two
appears contracted in both frames" or "t' does not refer to the same
instant in the two frames". As the desperation level rises, you might
also be informed that the team of fairies which Einstein employed in
1905 is still very much alive and well in the minds of all true
believers.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 1:06:31 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>
> Paul and a light source have absolutely synched clocks.

Impossible, as demonstrated by experimental evidence.

> The linear distance between the two is reducing by v m/s.
>
> 1)
> In the source frame, Paul approaches at v.
> S----------------------t>v-----------------v<P
> The source sends a time signal at speed c and time t. It reaches Paul at t'.
> The current distance between the two is c(t-t')
>
> In Paul's frame, the time signal is sent from S at time t,

Nope. This is contrary to experimental evidence since non-simultaneity
is a verified phenomenon.

> moving at c+v.

Nope. This is contrary to experimental evidence. But let us go ahead
with Ralphie-boy's delusions.

> S>v ------------------t>(c+v)-------------------P
> When Paul receives the signal at t', the current distance between the
> two is (c+v)(t'-t) MINUS the distance moved by the source during signal
> travel, which = v(t'-t)
> Therefore, the current distance at t' = c(t'-t), as before.

Well of COURSE it agrees since Ralphie-boy ASSUMED Galilean operations.
Ralphie-boy confused himself with circular reasoning. Unfortunately for
mentally-deficient Ralphie-boy, the world isn't Galilean.

> ****************************************************************************
> [Second circular-reasoning example deleted for mental sanity]

> ***************************************************************************
>
> Warning to readers: because the above revelation is of such importance
> to physics, it is likely to incite a violent reaction from the
> dingleberry SciFi fringe. Readers will be bombarded with nonsensical
> arguments such as "if the clocks are in synch in Paul's frame they are
> not in synch in the source frame" and "the distance between the two
> appears contracted in both frames" or "t' does not refer to the same
> instant in the two frames". As the desperation level rises, you might
> also be informed that the team of fairies which Einstein employed in
> 1905 is still very much alive and well in the minds of all true
> believers.

More proof of Ralphie-boy's demented condition.

[Sylvia Else]

Internal consistency is a necessary condition for a theory to be
correct, but it is not a sufficient condition. Any number of mutually
contradictory theories can be internally consistent. To see which, if
any of them, is correct, you need to compare them with reality.

Your theory fails that test.

Sylvia.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu środa, 12 października 2016 05:04:18 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
>
> Well of COURSE it agrees since Ralphie-boy ASSUMED Galilean operations.
> Ralphie-boy confused himself with circular reasoning. Unfortunately for
> mentally-deficient Ralphie-boy, the world isn't Galilean.

Unfortunately for mentally-deficient Gary boy, REAL
clocks show it is (in opposition to "proper" clocks
he imagined).

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu środa, 12 października 2016 06:08:06 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:

> Internal consistency is a necessary condition for a theory to be
> correct

Illusion.
You're a physicist. You don't know much
about theories, as they are not physical
beings.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

Einstein's SR is a perfect example of that.

Any number of mutually
> contradictory theories can be internally consistent. To see which, if
> any of them, is correct, you need to compare them with reality.

> Your theory fails that test.

I don't know any reason why it should. Every known experiment supports
BaTh and refutes Einstein..

I you cannot find a flaw in what I posted, just accept that you have
taken for a sucker all your life.

> Sylvia.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 3:27:20 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>
> On 12/10/16 15:08, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >
> > On 12/10/2016 6:06 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> > >

> > > [Delusional ravings deleted]

> >
> > Internal consistency is a necessary condition for a theory to be
> > correct, but it is not a sufficient condition.
>
> Einstein's SR is a perfect example of that.

Actually, SR is a perfect example of internal consistency and DirtyBaThWater
is a perfect example of a complete disconnect from reality.

> > Any number of mutually
> > contradictory theories can be internally consistent. To see which, if
> > any of them, is correct, you need to compare them with reality.
> >
> > Your theory fails that test.
>
> I don't know any reason why it should.

All valid measurements are millions of reasons.

> Every known experiment supports BaTh and refutes Einstein..

Q: What do you call a congenital liar? A: Ralphie-boy.

> I you cannot find a flaw in what I posted, just accept that you have
> taken for a sucker all your life.

She found the flaw and so did I, but keep posting your delusions: the
psychiatric community uses them as horrible examples.

[David (Time Lord) Fuller]

c = c

c is the "speed of causality"
Time travel not possible because c is c

The Whole System must "RESET" back to a common Template point.

If one particle time travels, All particles will time travel.

Electron positron pair creation is as close to time travel as anything can get.
One particle continues into the future one is sent into the past. But the "original" is destroyed, erasing the original information bit it was carrying. Time travel is impossible because both the forward and reverse time lines are already coexisting commingled in the same "space"

A positive and negative time line is created.
86.6 % the speed of light = electron positron creation, preventing time travel.

c is maintained at c by Total system Tension

The Whole System will "reset" to a previous total system Tension, Erasing accumulated information back to the original starting Template.

Exploitation of oscillating back & forth through the original starting template might be possible by the greedy New World Order types.
Like a Driver knowing or not knowing the upcoming curves of a road giving an evolutionary advantage to some.

Have a Bunch of Decieved Slaves Workers Create a "Leisure World Disneyland" One Time, then Leisurely effortlessly Oscillate back & forth while the System oscillates.
You know, what we have now....

[David (Time Lord) Fuller]

If an Electron is time traveled a Muon is created.

If a Muon is Time traveled Tauon is created.


http://i57.tinypic.com/102v0gh.jpg

c = c

[David (Time Lord) Fuller]

50 * 2.75 = 137.5

376.73 / 2.75 = 136.992727273

1/(c*50) = G

(((4 * pi) - (1 - (1 / tau)))^2) / 137.5 = 0.99991236071

Higgs mass = proton mass/ alpha

1/G meters per second necessary to exceed causality.

[David (Time Lord) Fuller]

Gravity is "Imbalanced Time"

Gravity is Special Relativity

Gravity is a Vacuum impedance imbalance causing space time to have a Lower Kinetic energy with a 1/radius^2 relationship to the gravitating bodies.

The two bodies physically move (gravitate) toward each other to maintain their current (total Kinetic Energy). Gravity is Length Contraction

Relativistic Length Contraction. One of the peculiar aspects of Einstein's theory of special relativity is that the length of objects moving at relativistic speeds undergoes a contraction along the dimension of motion. ... The amount of contraction of the object is dependent upon the object's speed relative to the observer


1 / (376.730313461 / (((c^2) * (2 * G)) / (pi * 1e+4))) = 1.0136368

(0.0136368 / (0.5^0.5)) + 1 = 1.01928534751

http://vixra.org/pdf/1102.0032v8.pdf

[Michael Moroney]

"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

>On 12/10/16 15:08, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 12/10/2016 6:06 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:

>>>
>>> Warning to readers: because the above revelation is of such importance
>>> to physics, it is likely to incite a violent reaction from the
>>> dingleberry SciFi fringe. Readers will be bombarded with nonsensical
>>> arguments such as "if the clocks are in synch in Paul's frame they are
>>> not in synch in the source frame" and "the distance between the two
>>> appears contracted in both frames" or "t' does not refer to the same
>>> instant in the two frames". As the desperation level rises, you might
>>> also be informed that the team of fairies which Einstein employed in
>>> 1905 is still very much alive and well in the minds of all true
>>> believers.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Internal consistency is a necessary condition for a theory to be
>> correct, but it is not a sufficient condition.

>Einstein's SR is a perfect example of that.

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you are correct for once, Ralph. Ralph, Einstein's
SR is internally consistent as is necessary for it to be a valid theory,
Ralph Rabbidge.

>>Any number of mutually
>> contradictory theories can be internally consistent. To see which, if
>> any of them, is correct, you need to compare them with reality.

>> Your theory fails that test.

>I don't know any reason why it should. Every known experiment supports
>BaTh and refutes Einstein..

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you are definitely wrong, Ralph. Ralph Rabbidge,
you *know* of all the experiments that Paul Andersen and others have
posted here, Ralph. Ralph, you also know that the light curves of binary
stars disproves Dirty BaThwater, Ralph Rabbidge. Ralph Malcolm, I know
you refuse to actually look at Paul's experiment results, Ralph, but
you do know *of* them, Ralph, so your statement "every known experiment
supports BaTh and refutes Einstein" is a lie, Ralph.

>I you cannot find a flaw in what I posted, just accept that you have
>taken for a sucker all your life.

Ralph Malcolm, the flaw is that you refuse to look at experimental
results that disprove Dirty BaThwater and you lie that "every known
experiment disproves Einstein", Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Michael Moroney" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:ntljbj$q9g$1...@pcls7.std.com...

|posted here, Ralph. Ralph, you also know that the light curves of binary
|stars disproves Dirty BaThwater, Ralph Rabbidge.

It also disproves The Shit of Einstein, assuming the light path
in vacuum is a straight line.

[HGW]

Hey ratbrain, which is smarter, Einstein's fairies that adjust the
speeds of all photons in the universe so they move at exactly c relative
to little planet Earth or your god thing that made the whole unverse in
seven days?



--

[Gary Harnagel]

On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 1:34:16 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
>
> On 12/10/16 22:56, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 3:27:20 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> > >
> > Q: What do you call a congenital liar? A: Ralphie-boy.
> >
> > > I you cannot find a flaw in what I posted, just accept that you have
> > > taken for a sucker all your life.
> >
> > She found the flaw and so did I, but keep posting your delusions: the
> > psychiatric community uses them as horrible examples.
>
> Hey ratbrain,

Use of pejoratives doesn't advance your sad case.

> which is smarter, Einstein's fairies that adjust the
> speeds of all photons in the universe so they move at exactly c relative
> to little planet Earth

How droll. You keep appealing to this stupid fallacy about the speed of
light as if it means anything at all. It doesn't. You've had this
explained to you before, but you keep coming back to this hypocrisy like
a dog returning to its vomit. It's all about MEASUREMENT, not about
about "adjusting the speeds of all photons in the universe."

You just don't get it, or you are fundamentally dishonest. The only two
possibilities: (1) You are stupid or (2) You are a liar.

> or your god thing that made the whole unverse in seven days?

As I have told you before, you have NO idea what I believe. You just pull
out some old, ragged, trite stereotype from under your bed, throw it out
and hope it sticks to something. You missed. You ALWAYS do.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 13/10/16 23:28, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 1:34:16 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
>>
>> On 12/10/16 22:56, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 3:27:20 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>>>
>>> Q: What do you call a congenital liar? A: Ralphie-boy.
>>>
>>>> I you cannot find a flaw in what I posted, just accept that you have
>>>> taken for a sucker all your life.
>>>
>>> She found the flaw and so did I, but keep posting your delusions: the
>>> psychiatric community uses them as horrible examples.
>>
>> Hey ratbrain,
>
> Use of pejoratives doesn't advance your sad case.
>
>> which is smarter, Einstein's fairies that adjust the
>> speeds of all photons in the universe so they move at exactly c relative
>> to little planet Earth
>
> How droll. You keep appealing to this stupid fallacy about the speed of
> light as if it means anything at all. It doesn't. You've had this
> explained to you before, but you keep coming back to this hypocrisy like

> I do when I vomit. It's all about MEASUREMENT, not about

> about "adjusting the speeds of all photons in the universe."

...and who has measured the one way speed of starlight, idiot?

> You just don't get it, or you are fundamentally dishonest. The only two
> possibilities: (1) You are stupid or (2) You are a liar.

Do you always look in a mirror when you write?

>> or your god thing that made the whole unverse in seven days?
>
> As I have told you before, you have NO idea what I believe. You just pull
> out some old, ragged, trite stereotype from under your bed, throw it out
> and hope it sticks to something. You missed. You ALWAYS do.

..hey shithead, do you still look for atheists under your bed every night?

[Thomas]

On Tuesday, 11 October 2016 19:06:31 UTC, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> Paul and a light source have absolutely synched clocks.
> The linear distance between the two is reducing by v m/s.

> 1)
> In the source frame, Paul approaches at v.
> S----------------------t>v-----------------v<P
> The source sends a time signal at speed c and time t. It reaches Paul at t'.
> The current distance between the two is c(t-t')
>
> In Paul's frame, the time signal is sent from S at time t, moving at c+v.
> S>v ------------------t>(c+v)-------------------P
> When Paul receives the signal at t', the current distance between the
> two is (c+v)(t'-t) MINUS the distance moved by the source during signal
> travel, which = v(t'-t)
> Therefore, the current distance at t' = c(t'-t), as before.
> ****************************************************************************

This is inconsistent, as it would mean the speed of light is c(t'-t)/(t'-t)=c as well for Paul, in contradiction to your assumption that it is c+v.
The point is simply that the light signal should travel the overall distance (c+v)(t'-t) in Paul's frame not c(t'-t). The latter can only be true if c is invariant.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 1:55:45 PM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>
> On 13/10/16 23:28, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 1:34:16 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
> > >
> > > On 12/10/16 22:56, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 3:27:20 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > Q: What do you call a congenital liar? A: Ralphie-boy.
> > > >
> > > > > I you cannot find a flaw in what I posted, just accept that you have
> > > > > taken for a sucker all your life.
> > > >
> > > > She found the flaw and so did I, but keep posting your delusions: the
> > > > psychiatric community uses them as horrible examples.
> > >
> > > Hey ratbrain,
> >
> > Use of pejoratives doesn't advance your sad case.
> >
> > > which is smarter, Einstein's fairies that adjust the
> > > speeds of all photons in the universe so they move at exactly c relative
> > > to little planet Earth
> >
> > How droll. You keep appealing to this stupid fallacy about the speed of
> > light as if it means anything at all. It doesn't. You've had this
> > explained to you before, but you keep coming back to this hypocrisy like

> > a dog returning to its vomit. It's all about MEASUREMENT, not about

> > about "adjusting the speeds of all photons in the universe."
>
> ...and who has measured the one way speed of starlight, idiot?

Irrelevant, abysmally stupid fool. As has also been explained to you MANY
times, TWLS measurement can detect one-way variations. Unfortunately,
you are too stupidly ignorant to understand simple algebra.

> > You just don't get it, or you are fundamentally dishonest. The only two
> > possibilities: (1) You are stupid or (2) You are a liar.
>
> Do you always look in a mirror when you write?

Nope. I look at your stupidly idiotic messages.

> > > or your god thing that made the whole unverse in seven days?
> >
> > As I have told you before, you have NO idea what I believe. You just pull
> > out some old, ragged, trite stereotype from under your bed, throw it out
> > and hope it sticks to something. You missed. You ALWAYS do.
>
> ..hey shithead,

Hey, stp looking in a mirror when you write that.

> do you still look for atheists under your bed every night?

Nope. Atheists are irrelevant to reality.

[Sylvia Else]

In your theory, the two way speed of light is not the same for all
observers. Since experiments show that the two way light speed is the
same for all observers, your theory is falsified.

Sylvia.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

Poor girl...I can only feel sorry for her.
Get's everything back to front, wrong way up....totally confused..
...but then.... she is just a mere female...
....and you know what Donald Trump thinks about them.

>
> Sylvia.
>

[Sylvia Else]

That's an odd tack.

Do you claim that in your theory the two way light speed is the same for
all observers?

Sylvia.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu piątek, 14 października 2016 04:53:38 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:

> observers. Since experiments show that the two way light speed is the
> same for all observers, your theory is falsified.

When You believe it deeply, experiments will always
show it to You.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 14/10/16 22:30, Sylvia Else wrote:

>>>
>>> In your theory, the two way speed of light is not the same for all
>>> observers. Since experiments show that the two way light speed is
>>> the same for all observers, your theory is falsified.
>>
>> Poor girl...I can only feel sorry for her.
>> Get's everything back to front, wrong way up....totally confused..
>> ...but then.... she is just a mere female...
>> ....and you know what Donald Trump thinks about them.
>
> That's an odd tack.
>
> Do you claim that in your theory the two way light speed is the same for
> all observers?

Of course it is! That's one of the most important bits of proof that
BaTh is correct. According to BaTh, TWLS is always c. In Einstein's and
other 'aether theories' TWLS should be dependent on absolute speed. That
was the whole reason for the MMX...to look for differences in the TWLS
from source to mirror and back.

Note, in a TWLS experiment, we assume that the source and mirror are MAR
and there is perfect vacuum. In that case, TWLS = OWLS = c

> Sylvia.
>
>

[xxe...@att.net]

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 12:08:06 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 12/10/2016 6:06 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> > Paul and a light source have absolutely synched clocks.

>

> Internal consistency is a necessary condition for a theory to be
> correct, but it is not a sufficient condition. Any number of mutually
> contradictory theories can be internally consistent. To see which, if
> any of them, is correct, you need to compare them with reality.
>
> Your theory fails that test.
>
> Sylvia.

xxein: Yeah, Sylvia. Take 3 identical clocks that beat at the same rate. Make 2 of the clocks stationary and adjacent to one another a short distance above ground. One of the stationary clocks will be the observer clock and the other the test clock. Drop the 3rd clock (moving clock) in the Earth's gravity so it passes by the test clock. Let the observer clock compare the beat rates of the other two clocks as the dropped (moving) one passes by the stationary test clock. Which clock (test or moving) will be beating faster, according to the observer clock, when the moving clock passes by the stationary clock at the ~same height?

GR, Baez, Roberts, yourself and almost all physicists declare (predict) that the stationary clock will be observed by the observer clock to be beating faster than the dropped (moving) clock. When does this become a true fact?

According to you, "To see which, if any of them, is correct, you need to compare them with reality". Which comparative tests have been done 'qualitatively' like this to substantiate the predicted result for this scenario (experiment)?

Be very careful in your answer. A 'proxy by theory' test is not the same as a direct test. A direct test would count the beats or decays of each clock with the same observer clock and interval of time. Configurations of such a test may vary provided a direct test is performed.

But of course you'll say that this is all silly and would be a waste of time and money because this is all covered by GR - the most successful and substantiated theory of gravity known to date.

By all that is known, would you say that your predicted answer has a 1000:1 chance of proving out (repeatedly)? If so, then a 10:1 bet would be a safe bargain bet, wouldn't it? I, being poor but sane and honest, wouldn't bet more than I could lose - regardless of the odds. As such, I could wager my $50 to your $500. Wanna bet? If not, why not?

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Friday, October 14, 2016 at 5:07:42 PM UTC-5, xxe...@att.net wrote:

> By all that is known, would you say that your predicted answer has a 1000:1 chance of proving out (repeatedly)? If so, then a 10:1 bet would be a safe bargain bet, wouldn't it? I, being poor but sane and honest, wouldn't bet more than I could lose - regardless of the odds. As such, I could wager my $50 to your $500. Wanna bet? If not, why not?

Maybe because your experiment, as you have described it, is completely undoable?

In any event, the rates of "dropped clocks" (i.e. clocks in freefall) at various
altitudes are routinely observed and compared with that of ground clocks in the
US GPS, the Russian GLONASS system, the Indian IRNSS (NAVIC) system, the Chinese
Beidou system, and the eight fully operational satellites so far deployed of the
Galileo system. See their respective Interface Control Documents for a
description of the relativistic corrections that they employ.

Likewise, the rates of clocks at different altitudes are routinely observed
and compared. Over 70 recognized maintainers of atomic clocks throughout the
world contribute to UTC. These contributors to UTC are all at different
altitudes, and the effects of altitude must be factored into their weighted
average contributions to the global time system.
http://www.bipm.org/utils/en/pdf/time_ann_rep/Time_annual_report_2014/11_Table3_TAR14.pdf

[al...@interia.pl]

W dniu środa, 12 października 2016 11:27:20 UTC+2 użytkownik HGWilson, DSc.

> Einstein's SR is a perfect example of that.

The SR in not a theory,
so the math consistency condition doesn't apply.

Any theory must be consistent with the standard algebra and geometry...
c - v, etc.

[xxe...@att.net]

xxein: I am well aware of what you describe. That is not the test I have described. They are not qualitatively equivalent despite what you may have been taught.

If I would want to know the current population of Cleveland, I might find your reference useful.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 12:37:57 PM UTC-5, xxe...@att.net wrote:

> xxein: I am well aware of what you describe. That is not the test I have described. They are not qualitatively equivalent despite what you may have been taught.

As I stated, nobody will take you up on the bet, because the experiment that
you have described is completely unfeasible.

[xxe...@att.net]

xxein: Unfeasible? Why? Explain.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

You
>
really are naive. Clocks are just counters of periodic events.
The ORBIT itself can be used as a common time reference by all counters
everywhere.

A GPS clock emits the same number of ticks PER ORBIT no matter where
that number is counted.

That is how RATE SYNCHING can be achieved. The GR correction is
bullshit. Reading synchronization is another matter...but rate synching
is the prime requirement.

THE AIM IS TO ENSURE THAT ALL CLOCKS IN ORBIT AND ON GROUND EMIT THE
SAME NUMBER OF TICKS PER GPS ORBIT.

Ideally, every ORBIT itself would be standardized so that its clock
WOULD emit the same number of ticks PER ORBIT as every other clock.
For that reason, it is vital that all GPS orbit have the same period.

Errors are continually monitored and included in each clock's offset
message.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

There are lots of reasons why it is not feasible. Let me begin with ***one*** of
the reasons, this one in particular because it is related to other concepts that
you may have heard of, but perhaps have never understood.

There is an inverse relationship between the accuracy with which one can measure
a frequency, and the time one has to do the do the measurement. If one doesn't
have much time to do the measurement, one can't count more than a few cycles,
and if one can't count more than a few cycles, one can't get an accurate
frequency calculation.

This concept is closely related to another that you have undoubtedly heard of:
the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, one form of which states
ΔEΔt > ℏ/2
The mathematics governing the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is closely
analogous to what I have described above in regards to your falling clocks.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 2:04:07 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:

> A GPS clock emits the same number of ticks PER ORBIT no matter where
> that number is counted.
>
> That is how RATE SYNCHING can be achieved. The GR correction is
> bullshit. Reading synchronization is another matter...but rate synching
> is the prime requirement.
>
> THE AIM IS TO ENSURE THAT ALL CLOCKS IN ORBIT AND ON GROUND EMIT THE
> SAME NUMBER OF TICKS PER GPS ORBIT.
>
> Ideally, every ORBIT itself would be standardized so that its clock
> WOULD emit the same number of ticks PER ORBIT as every other clock.
> For that reason, it is vital that all GPS orbit have the same period.
>
> Errors are continually monitored and included in each clock's offset
> message.

Describe an operational procedure for counting the number of ticks per orbit.

How do you determine when a satellite has reached the same point in its orbit
as the last time that it came around?

[al...@interia.pl]

Indeed. You are still to stupid to count anything.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 2:16:56 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:

> There is an inverse relationship between the accuracy with which one can measure
> a frequency, and the time one has to do the do the measurement. If one doesn't
> have much time to do the measurement, one can't count more than a few cycles,
> and if one can't count more than a few cycles, one can't get an accurate
> frequency calculation.

Sorry, I was a unclear
...direct relationship between ACCURACY with which one can measure a frequency,
and the time one has to do the do the measurement...
or
...inverse relationship between ERROR in measurement of a frequency, and the
time one has to do the do the measurement...

[xxe...@att.net]

xxein: 9,192,631,770 Hz. ~1000 m/s drop speed. 1 meter trap length. Trap time is 1/1000 sec. 9192631.77 events per 1 meter trap (decay or otherwise). There is even a 100 billion frame/sec 2-d camera. Have you ever heard of a trap? There are decay traps wherein a count of decay events can be measured. The traps can be configured to operate on unbelievably short start/stop times. The boundary of a trap needs no time to operate - just the presence of events within the boundary which can be counted afterward. 1/1000th of a sec of presence within the trap.

I don't think Heisenberg applies for this gross measurement.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

I stated that the math is ANALOGOUS to the math of HUP, not that I was applying HUP.

1 km/s = 0.0000033 c
You can measure the frequency to at best maybe 1 part in ten million.
It ain't gonna work.

You are dropping an expensive cesium clock which will be destroyed when it
hits the bottom of the drop tower. Couldn't you substitute a relatively
inexpensive rubidium clock?

[xxe...@att.net]

[xxe...@att.net]

xxein: You can cushion the end of a fall, but do I sense you seem to be accepting, now, that such an experiment is feasible? And it need not be a clock at all. A known standard of decay while passing through a boundary defined trap will do. Scintillation. Count later.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

Absolutely ***not*** with clocks as you described.

> And it need not be a clock at all. A known standard of decay while passing through a boundary defined trap will do. Scintillation. Count later.

Absolutely ***not*** with radioactive decay.

Look, what you are doing is trying to develop incredibly ***KLUTZY*** ways of
measuring the transverse Doppler shift.

Educate yourself first before proposing nonfeasible experiments.

[SPQR]

If c denotes the speed at which light moves,
how can it move at any other speed?

[xxe...@att.net]

xxein: Can you provide a feasible way to compare the two clock rates?
We already know what GR says but is it true? Is it of no consequence in gravitational physics to have a direct proof?

We know the parameters of circular orbits tell us whether orbiting clocks are faster or slower than Earth's surface clocks. I have rates for clocks depending upon their speed of rising or falling in gravity. Don't you think the GR prediction should be verified as a fact?

[xxe...@att.net]

On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 7:33:20 PM UTC-4, SPQR wrote:
> If c denotes the speed at which light moves,
> how can it move at any other speed?

xxein: Did you ever hear of the Shapiro light delay? Light grazing by the Sun has a longer path but its speed is also slowed along the light path. Whether I'm right or not, I calculate that light travels 636 m/s slower at the tangent point of the path.

[Michael Moroney]

Well, you could define an orbit as going from perigee to perigee.

Take Mercury, for example, we could define its orbit as perihelion to
perihelion.

Or we can take the observation of it relative to the distant stars and
define the orbit as going from the same place to the same place.

Again, take Mercury orbiting the sun again as an example.

The two will obviously be the same.

Take Mercury again, .... err,...ummm, ...

[Sylvia Else]

How do mirrors behave in your theory?

Sylvia.

[xxe...@att.net]

On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 9:52:46 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> How do mirrors behave in your theory?
>
> Sylvia.

xxein: Who are you addressing?

[David (Time Lord) Fuller]

50 * 2.75 = 137.5

376.73 / 2.75 = 136.992727273

1/(c*50) = G

(((4 * pi) - (1 - (1 / tau)))^2) / 137.5 = 0.99991236071

Higgs mass = proton mass/ alpha

1/G meters per second necessary to exceed causality.

pi^2/6

((pi^2) / (6^2)) * 10 = 2.74155677808

(((pi^2) / (6^2)) * 10) * 50 = 137.077838904

(pi^2) / 6 = 1.64493406685

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 8:14:08 PM UTC-5, xxe...@att.net wrote:
> On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 7:25:06 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 6:13:48 PM UTC-5, xxe...@att.net wrote:

> > > xxein: You can cushion the end of a fall, but do I sense you seem to be accepting, now, that such an experiment is feasible?
> >
> > Absolutely ***not*** with clocks as you described.
> >
> > > And it need not be a clock at all. A known standard of decay while passing through a boundary defined trap will do. Scintillation. Count later.
> >
> > Absolutely ***not*** with radioactive decay.
> >
> > Look, what you are doing is trying to develop incredibly ***KLUTZY*** ways of
> > measuring the transverse Doppler shift.
> >
> > Educate yourself first before proposing nonfeasible experiments.
>
> xxein: Can you provide a feasible way to compare the two clock rates?
> We already know what GR says but is it true? Is it of no consequence in gravitational physics to have a direct proof?

It is not at all clear what you are trying to measure. I haven't the foggiest
idea what you are trying to prove. I seriously doubt you know, either.

> We know the parameters of circular orbits tell us whether orbiting clocks are faster or slower than Earth's surface clocks. I have rates for clocks depending upon their speed of rising or falling in gravity. Don't you think the GR prediction should be verified as a fact?

GR predictions must be tested, but the tests should use feasible means of
measurement, and they should be developed with understanding of the theory
that they are intended to test and with understanding of the types of errors
that may interfere with the measurements and their analysis.

Your initial proposal exhibited great naivete and a lack of understanding of
error in frequency measurement.

[Virgil]

In article <f7c3c166-b1bc-4035...@googlegroups.com>,

At which of the uncountably many DIFFERENT tangents to that path
will it have been slowed by that amount?
Or any other measurable amount?
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)

[Virgil]

In my world, where c standardly represents the speed of light, the speed
of light is denoted by c rather than c+v or anything other than c
itself.

[Sylvia Else]

The OP.

Sylvia.

[xxe...@att.net]

xxein: What part of comparing two clock rates to/against each other don't you understand? I am not an experiment designer - you got that part right.

To hear you say it, we can't measure anything.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:abd2e74a-2c7f-4a75...@googlegroups.com...

|GR predictions must be tested, but the tests should use feasible means of
|measurement, and they should be developed with understanding of the theory

In other words, The Shit allows only its own minions to test itself.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

To compare two clock rates accurately, you need sufficient time to accumulate
a sufficient number of counts for comparison.

Your initial setup didn't provide enough time, and your radioactive decay
proposal most certainly did not, either.

You need to read and study. I recommend that you begin with textbooks to provide
yourself with a good systematic background knowledge not just of theory, but of
experimental technique and of data analysis.

Obviously, however, you have spent years attempting to understand the original
literature. If you are trying to study by reading original papers,

*** PAY ATTENTION TO THE SECTIONS ***
*** DESCRIBING EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUE AND DATA ANALYSIS ***

rather than just skimming the conclusions. In other words, you need to study
the boring stuff. Look up what you don't understand. Ask questions.

There are *reasons* why experiments are designed the way that they are.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 16/10/16 15:05, Virgil wrote:
> In my world, where c standardly represents the speed of light, the speed
> of light is denoted by c rather than c+v or anything other than c
> itself.

For reasons unknown, the speed of EM is c in its source frame, at least
initially. It is c+v relative to a moving observer.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

Not easily... I'm sure this kind of information is highly classified....
but one thing is certain. If it cannot be done then all those wild
dingleberry claims about the necessity for and testing of the infamous
'GR correction' are rendered null and void.

The actual details of how orbits are set and monitored are obviously
very complicated because they involve a lot of delicate empirical
observations and adjustments using readings from known base
locations....but we know with certainty that it IS achieved by the
operators to very close tolerances. All GPS clock orbits must have the
same periods to within nanoseconds for the system to work.

There might be a bit of a problem preventing satellites from running
into each other. The phasing at the poles must be kept different, which
is relatively easy, and their orbits can be very slightly elliptical to
reduce the risks. One can only assume that the Russian, European and
Chinese systems were designed to fit in with GPS.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

Idiot! Only a real idiot would claim that something which IS done CANNOT
BE done.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

Then I assume that is I.

I don't see a connection between your question and the OP.
However, there is good reason to believe that light reflects from a
mirror at c relative to the mirror, irrespective of incident speed.
Since nobody has measured OWLS from a moving mirror, there is no way to
prove that. In fact, not a great deal is known at all about the actual
physics behind the process of reflection.

Sylvia.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 10:24:50 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>
> For reasons unknown, the speed of EM is c in its source frame,

As well as in every inertial frame. This is confirmed by EVERY valid
experiment, and indirectly confirmed by myriad observations that assume
such.

> at least initially. It is c+v relative to a moving observer.

Dead wrong, of course. BSThWater is refuted by myriad direct and indirect
observations. The only support it has is a dubious assertion by a dishonest
crackpot that arcane mathematical machinations on variable star spectra
somehow magically contorts c + v when all other analyses disagree with it.

[Michael Moroney]

"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

>Idiot! Only a real idiot would claim that something which IS done CANNOT
>BE done.

So Ralph, you just admitted that you are a "real idiot", Ralph, since you
repeatedly claim that measuring the speed of light from a moving object
CANNOT BE measured as being c when it always IS measured as speed c.

Great job, Real Idiot Ralph!

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:d577ebce-c166-4b61...@googlegroups.com...

|As well as in every inertial frame. This is confirmed by EVERY valid
|experiment, and indirectly confirmed by myriad observations that assume
|such.

Communism was the best - and it was confirmed by miriad observations
that assumed such.

[Alan Folmsbee]

The c+v I call "the flat velocity". It was derived using an independent method here:
http://fcgravity.blogspot.com/p/the-primitive-force-of-gravity.html

The c+v is perceived from an observer on Earth to be due to the rocket velocity v and the speed of reality, c. That c+v is common to both observers, so the c+v cancels out. That is spelled out in the linked derivation of Lorentz gamma.

[Sylvia Else]

If we suppose that there is a source of light at a point, and a mirror
moving towards that point at speed v, and further that when a pulse of
light from the source reaches the mirror it is at a distance d from the
source, then we have that the time for the pulse to reach the mirror
from the source is d / c, and time for the reflected pulse to reach the
source is d / (c + v). The total time is then d /c + d / (c + v), which
is not 2d/c, thus contradicting your claim that the two way light speed
would be c.

Indeed, the only way for the two way light speed to be measured as c is
if the reflected pulse returns to the source at speed c relative to the
source, regardless of the speed of the mirror.

Sylvia.

[Tom Roberts]

On 10/15/16 10/15/16 6:13 PM, xxe...@att.net wrote:
> xxein: You can cushion the end of a fall, but do I sense you seem to be
> accepting, now, that such an experiment is feasible? And it need not be a
> clock at all. A known standard of decay while passing through a boundary
> defined trap will do. Scintillation. Count later.

How about this: in vacuum, arrange for an atomic beam to move upward in freefall
a few meters per second, and follow it as it goes up, stops, and comes down
again. Don't worry about what happens to the atoms when they crash into the
bottom of the vacuum chamber (well, make sure they don't interfere with the
measurement). Do this with an unstable species so you can measure its "ticking".

This has already been done using the hyperfine transition of Cs133 ground state
as the "unstable species" -- it is called a cesium fountain clock, which is the
most accurate cesium clock known. It of course gives a rate of 9,192,631,770 Hz.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

Yes. This is a situation in which gravitation is important, so one must apply
GR, not SR. In GR the LOCAL vacuum speed of light is always c, but over
non-local paths, such as grazing the sun, other values are possible.
Measurements of the Shapiro time delay [#] are accurately in agreement with the
predictions of GR.

[#] That is what it is called, because what is measured is the
time delay as the path approaches the edge of the sun, relative
to distance/c for the orbits of source and earth. The ephemeris
for both source and earth are important and ultimately a limit
to the achievable accuracy.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 10/15/16 10/15/16 10:58 PM, Virgil wrote:
> In article <f7c3c166-b1bc-4035...@googlegroups.com>,
> xxe...@att.net wrote:
>> xxein: Did you ever hear of the Shapiro light delay? Light grazing by the
>> Sun has a longer path but its speed is also slowed along the light path.
>> Whether I'm right or not, I calculate that light travels 636 m/s slower at
>> the tangent point of the path.
>
> At which of the uncountably many DIFFERENT tangents to that path
> will it have been slowed by that amount?
> Or any other measurable amount?

I have no idea what xxein1 is thinking about.

But this does apply in GR: In GR one computes the effect by integrating over the
null geodesic that connect the source and the detector on earth. There is no
specific place along that path that one can point to and say "it slowed down
here", because the LOCAL speed of light is c everywhere along that geodesic
path. The time delay depends on the entire path. Actual measurements are in
excellent agreement with the predictions of GR, computed as I said.

Real experiments are messy, and one must account for the sun's
and earth's atmospheres....

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 10/15/16 10/15/16 8:37 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Well, you could define an orbit as going from perigee to perigee.

Hopeless. The GPS satellites are in very nearly circular orbits, and have no
perigee.

No matter how you specify the endpoints of an orbit, to do what Wilson wants
would require determining them to better than a micron. HOPELESS.

That's based on 14,000 km/hr orbital speed and an accuracy
of 1 count of a cesium oscillator (~9 GHz).


Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 10/16/16 10/16/16 11:53 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 16/10/16 06:25, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>> How do you determine when a satellite has reached the same point in its orbit
>> as the last time that it came around?
>
> Not easily... I'm sure this kind of information is highly classified....

Today, nothing about the GPS is classified except the cryptography involved in
military applications.

> but one thing is certain. If it cannot be done then all those wild dingleberry
> claims about the necessity for and testing of the infamous 'GR correction' are
> rendered null and void.

NONSENSE. There is NOTHING in the GPS that is specified "per orbit", except in
your personal fantasy land.


Tom Roberts

[Michael Moroney]

My real motive was to show that the definition of an orbit when GR is
involved is ambiguous, by bringing up Mercury. How do you define
Mercury's orbit? From perihelion to perihelion? Or from a certain point
in the sky (as seen from the sun) to the same point? Mercury's "orbit"
does not repeat. The same is true for the GPS to a much smaller extent,
even if its perigee is unmeasurable or nonexistent.

[Tom Roberts]

On 10/16/16 10/16/16 9:01 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> My real motive was to show that the definition of an orbit when GR is
> involved is ambiguous, by bringing up Mercury. How do you define
> Mercury's orbit? From perihelion to perihelion? Or from a certain point
> in the sky (as seen from the sun) to the same point? Mercury's "orbit"
> does not repeat. The same is true for the GPS to a much smaller extent,
> even if its perigee is unmeasurable or nonexistent.

The basic problem is that the concept "orbit" PRESUPPOSES that the motion of the
planet is periodic, EXACTLY. After all, the orbit of a planet is a line drawn in
3-space, with no time dependence at all. If the motion were exactly periodic
there would be no problem of principle, just the practical difficulty of
determining when the planet is located at whatever endpoint you chose.

But in the real world, the path is NOT periodic, and the whole concept "orbit"
does not really apply -- one simply cannot draw ANY path in 3-space and expect
the planet to remain on it. IOW: "orbit" applies only approximately; one can
draw an "orbit" in 3-space that the planet follows reasonably closely (but not
exactly) for a few circuits. This discussion is attempting to push that
approximation beyond where it makes sense.

This holds for all "orbits", including those of GPS satellites.

Tom Roberts

[ScottPN]

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 10:24:50 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>
>> For reasons unknown, the speed of EM is c in its source frame,
>
> As well as in every inertial frame. This is confirmed by EVERY valid
> experiment, and indirectly confirmed by myriad observations that assume
> such.

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/hillary-polls-fraud/ri17051

[HGW]

Hey shitfeatures, how did jesus christ get his Y chromosome?



--

[HGW]

On 17/10/16 12:16, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 10/15/16 10/15/16 8:37 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Well, you could define an orbit as going from perigee to perigee.
>
> Hopeless. The GPS satellites are in very nearly circular orbits, and
> have no perigee.
>
> No matter how you specify the endpoints of an orbit, to do what Wilson
> wants would require determining them to better than a micron. HOPELESS.

Nothing has to actually be DONE. Theoretically speaking, GPS orbits can
all have identical periods of precisely 12 hours and each can be
precisely determined on both the satellite and the ground..
In that case, the number of chips emitted and received per ORBIT must be
the same for all observers.

> That's based on 14,000 km/hr orbital speed and an accuracy
> of 1 count of a cesium oscillator (~9 GHz).

If the number of ticks PER ORBIT is different after launch, then quite
obviously the clock has physically changed because of the experience.

> Tom Roberts


--

[HGW]

I have pointed that out many times. All proper TWLS experiments must use
a mirror at rest with the source and lie in flat gravity. 'MAR' means
'Mutually At Rest'.

As you should realize from your figures above, the difference in total
travel time for a mirror at rest or one moving is far too small to be
measured in the lab.
In aether theory, the time is L/(c+v) + L/(c-v) where v is the Earth's
wrongly presumed absolute speed and when no such differences showed up
in Fizeau/Focault type experiments, Michelson and Moreley devised what
they believed was a method that was capable of doing it.

> Sylvia.


--

[HGW]

If the orbit 'start and end' cannot be determined, there is no accurate
way to check whether or not the GR correction did what you people claim
it was supposed to do...even after 20 days.

Before launch, if it emitted N-n ticks per orbit, your theory reckoned
it would then emit N ticks per orbit AFTER launch....and the same number
would be RECEIVED on the ground PER ORBIT. So in effect, you
dingleberries can say anything you like and not be proved wrong.

> Tom Roberts


--

[Michael Moroney]

HGW <hw@....> writes:

>On 17/10/16 11:12, Sylvia Else wrote:

>> Indeed, the only way for the two way light speed to be measured as c is
>> if the reflected pulse returns to the source at speed c relative to the
>> source, regardless of the speed of the mirror.

>In aether theory, the time is L/(c+v) + L/(c-v) where v is the Earth's
>wrongly presumed absolute speed and when no such differences showed up
>in Fizeau/Focault type experiments, Michelson and Moreley devised what
>they believed was a method that was capable of doing it.

Ralph, what speed does Dirty Bathwater predict for light reflecting from
a mirror moving at v relative to the light source?

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:45:21 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

> Ralph, what speed does Dirty Bathwater predict for light reflecting from
> a mirror moving at v relative to the light source?

I've asked him this before, and Ralph has never given me a straight answer.

[HGW]

On 18/10/16 09:45, Michael Moroney wrote:
> HGW <hw@....> writes:
>
>> On 17/10/16 11:12, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>>> Indeed, the only way for the two way light speed to be measured as c is
>>> if the reflected pulse returns to the source at speed c relative to the
>>> source, regardless of the speed of the mirror.
>
>> In aether theory, the time is L/(c+v) + L/(c-v) where v is the Earth's
>> wrongly presumed absolute speed and when no such differences showed up
>> in Fizeau/Focault type experiments, Michelson and Moreley devised what
>> they believed was a method that was capable of doing it.
>

> Doctor, what speed does Dirty Bathwater predict for light reflecting from

> a mirror moving at v relative to the light source?

Unlike the aether theory of Einstein, BaTh does not rely entirely on
fairies, gremlins or leprechauns.

In the absence of relevant data, BaTh has no firm theory. It is not
clear whether light reflects at c or c+v relative to the mirror. It is
also likely that a time interval is involved in the actual reflection,
which although minuscule, could be of the same order as the travel time
differences involved.






--

[Michael Moroney]

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> writes:

I know. I expect an insult, not an answer from him.

[Gary Harnagel]

Talking about yourself again, I see.

> how did jesus christ get his Y chromosome?

From God, of course, but you don't have to be a shithead about it.

> All proper TWLS experiments must use a mirror at rest with the source
> and lie in flat gravity. 'MAR' means 'Mutually At Rest'.

And just WHY would that be necessary? Are you finally realizing that
you have been fooling yourself all these years? You certainly haven't
fooled anyone else with your stupid DirtyBaThWater.

> the difference in total travel time for a mirror at rest or one moving
> is far too small to be measured in the lab.

Said the mathematically-incompetent fool.

[Michael Moroney]

HGW <hw@....> writes:

>On 18/10/16 09:45, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> HGW <hw@....> writes:
>>
>>> On 17/10/16 11:12, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>>> Indeed, the only way for the two way light speed to be measured as c is
>>>> if the reflected pulse returns to the source at speed c relative to the
>>>> source, regardless of the speed of the mirror.
>>
>>> In aether theory, the time is L/(c+v) + L/(c-v) where v is the Earth's
>>> wrongly presumed absolute speed and when no such differences showed up
>>> in Fizeau/Focault type experiments, Michelson and Moreley devised what
>>> they believed was a method that was capable of doing it.
>>
>> Doctor,

No, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, there is no doctor here, Ralph.

>> what speed does Dirty Bathwater predict for light reflecting from
>> a mirror moving at v relative to the light source?

>In the absence of relevant data, BaTh has no firm theory.

Ralph, so you admit that Dirty BaThwater is a failure, Ralph. Ralph
Rabbidge, you do know that science can measure the speed of light to the
single digit meter per second range, Ralph M. Rabbidge. Ralph, the whole
idea behind police and military speed radsr and lidar depends on the
timing of the radar pulse, Ralph, which depends on the return speed,
Ralph. Ralph Rabbidge, you cannot give an answer because you know, Ralph,
that the return speed is always c with respect to the receiver (and
everything else, Mr. Rabbidge), and you know that disproves Dirty
BaThwater, Ralph.

> It is not
>clear whether light reflects at c or c+v relative to the mirror.

Ralph Rabbidge, this could easily be MEASURED in an experiment, Ralph
Malcolm Rabbidge! Ralph M. Rabbidge, in fact it IS measured every day,
Ralph, by military radars everywhere, Ralph!

> It is
>also likely that a time interval is involved in the actual reflection,
>which although minuscule, could be of the same order as the travel time
>differences involved.

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, now all you are doing is making up excuses, Ralph
Rabbidge. Ralph, that, too, can be easily measured, Ralph, and I believe
that that time is extremely close to zero, Ralph.

[Michael Moroney]

HGW <hw@....> writes:

>On 17/10/16 12:19, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 10/16/16 10/16/16 11:53 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>> On 16/10/16 06:25, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>>> How do you determine when a satellite has reached the same point
>>>> in its orbit as the last time that it came around?
>>>
>>> Not easily... I'm sure this kind of information is highly
>>> classified....
>>
>> Today, nothing about the GPS is classified except the cryptography
>> involved in military applications.
>>
>>> but one thing is certain. If it cannot be done then all those wild
>>> dingleberry claims about the necessity for and testing of the
>>> infamous 'GR correction' are rendered null and void.
>>
>> NONSENSE. There is NOTHING in the GPS that is specified "per orbit",
>> except in your personal fantasy land.

>If the orbit 'start and end' cannot be determined, there is no accurate
>way to check whether or not the GR correction did what you people claim
>it was supposed to do...even after 20 days.

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, it is easily checked, simply by counting the
pulses from one of the signals from the satellite, Ralph Rabbidge, and
compare them with a similarly derived signal from a local cesium clock,
Ralph. Ralph, of course you have to take into account the Doppler effect,
Ralph. For example, Ralph, if we could monitor the Cesium atomic signal
at 9,192,631,770 per second directly, Ralph, we on earth would see the GPS
signal register 9,192,631,774+ ticks every time our local Cs clock
registered 9,192,631,770 ticks, Ralph Rabbidge.

>Before launch, if it emitted N-n ticks per orbit, your theory reckoned
>it would then emit N ticks per orbit AFTER launch....and the same number
>would be RECEIVED on the ground PER ORBIT.

Ralph Malcolm, as you were already informed, Ralph, nothing is defined
PER ORBIT. Ralph, everything is specified per second or whatever, Ralph.

> So in effect, you
>dingleberries can say anything you like and not be proved wrong.

Ralph Malcolm, why would the followers of Herbert Dingle want to say
anything they like, Ralph, even though they have long been proved
wrong, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.

[HGW]

...have you ever wondered why, in a moment of insanity, your god thing
decided to create an incurable looney like you?


--

[HGW]

On 18/10/16 14:18, Michael Moroney admitted he is incapable of
understanding any aspect of physics.....

--

[HGW]

On 18/10/16 15:03, Michael Moroney produced the output of a computer
program that strings together lots of scientific expressions in random
order....:

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 6:18:51 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote:

> It is
> also likely that a time interval is involved in the actual reflection,
> which although minuscule, could be of the same order as the travel time
> differences involved.

What makes you think that phenomena such as you have described have not already
been well studied?

Reflected waves off a surface of higher refractive index than the medium are
phase inverted. Metallic reflection is "complex" in the mathematical sense of
the word. The "why" of this has been well understood for over half a century.

Depending on the topic, you are decades to *centuries* behind in your knowledge.

You deliberately keep yourself ignorant of most of the last century of physics
progress, since to learn it would endanger your idée fixe.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 2:55:32 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
>
> On 18/10/16 14:04, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 3:38:22 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
> > >
> > > All proper TWLS experiments must use a mirror at rest with the source
> > > and lie in flat gravity. 'MAR' means 'Mutually At Rest'.
> >
> > And just WHY would that be necessary? Are you finally realizing that
> > you have been fooling yourself all these years? You certainly haven't
> > fooled anyone else with your stupid DirtyBaThWater.

[No response from Ralphie-boy, only sounds of crickets chirping]

> > > the difference in total travel time for a mirror at rest or one moving
> > > is far too small to be measured in the lab.
> >
> > Said the mathematically-incompetent fool.
>
> ...have you ever wondered why, in a moment of insanity, your god thing
> decided to create an incurable looney like you?

Typical response from a dishonest atheist: try to change the subject from
the FACT that he is a mathematically-incompetent fool, as proven by his
stupid assertion that a "c + v" term in the denominator of an equation
means that light travels at c + v.

And it is a total misdirection that the difference in light's total travel
time from a moving mirror is too small to measure "in a lab." Why put
such a silly restriction on such an experiment? Obviously, because
Ralphie-boy is dishonest. Michelson used a mile-long vacuum chamber in
one of his experiments to measure the speed of light. THAT was his lab.
And the space program has probes hundreds of millions of miles away that
routinely send back e/m pulses upon receipt of an interrogating code to
determine distance (proving that mirrors are not at all necessary as
claimed by dishonest Ralphie-boy).

And the internal delay between receipt and transmission is well known so
there is no "likely" about it.

And as to wondering about God's creations, I have often wondered why he
created such a dishonest fool as YOU :-)

The difference between you and me is that I KNOW the answer. It's because
God didn't create our fundamental essences, he only housed them in flesh.
It's not His fault that you are stupid. It's your OWN fault.

“Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.” – Friedrich Schiller

[Odd Bodkin]

On 10/17/2016 6:18 PM, HGW wrote:
>
> Unlike the aether theory of Einstein, BaTh does not rely entirely on
> fairies, gremlins or leprechauns.
>
> In the absence of relevant data, BaTh has no firm theory.

Ah, well, that's much better then.

--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[HGW]

On 18/10/16 23:04, Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> ...have you ever wondered why, in a moment of insanity, your god thing
>> decided to create an incurable looney like you?
>
> Typical response from a dishonest atheist: try to change the subject from
> the FACT that he is a mathematically-incompetent fool, as proven by his
> stupid assertion that a "c + v" term in the denominator of an equation
> means that light travels at c + v.

I know you can't do maths but this should shut you up:

The following explains to Paul how the radial speed component of a GPS
clock adds to the speed of its signals:

Paul and a light source have absolutely synched clocks.

Paul and Marker M are on a road along which the source is moving at v.
In the source frame, the road and both M and P are moving at v.
S--v<M-------------------t>c-----------------------------v<P
When M is adjacent to S, it sends a signal, t, at speed c, which reaches
Paul at t'.
Paul is then c(t'-t) away from S and therefore (c+v)(t'-t) away from M.

In Paul's frame, the source is moving at v
When S passes M, it sends a time signal to Paul.
S>v-M-------------------t>(c+v)-----------------P
The signal moves at c+v and Paul receives it at t'.

The distance between Paul and M is (c+v)(t'-t), as before.

When a signal leaves a GPS satellite, it knows nothing about the Earth's
ECI frame. It moves at c relative to the satellite.
The consistency of these results in both frames proves conclusively that
if light moves at c in the source frame, it moves at c+v in the frame of
a relatively moving observer.

In GPS, c+v must be used to avoid significant errors.

> And it is a total misdirection that the difference in light's total travel
> time from a moving mirror is too small to measure "in a lab." Why put
> such a silly restriction on such an experiment? Obviously, because

> Henrie-boy is dishonest. Michelson used a mile-long vacuum chamber in

> one of his experiments to measure the speed of light. THAT was his lab.

He didn't use a moving mirror because he would not have been able to
detect any difference.....Do the sums and see for yourself.

> And the space program has probes hundreds of millions of miles away that
> routinely send back e/m pulses upon receipt of an interrogating code to
> determine distance (proving that mirrors are not at all necessary as

> claimed by dishonest(Henrie-boy).

>
> And the internal delay between receipt and transmission is well known so
> there is no "likely" about it.
>
> And as to wondering about God's creations, I have often wondered why he
> created such a dishonest fool as YOU :-)
>
> The difference between you and me is that I KNOW the answer. It's because
> God didn't create our fundamental essences, he only housed them in flesh.
> It's not His fault that you are stupid. It's your OWN fault.
> “Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.” – Friedrich Schiller

Those four lines epitomize your insanity.



--

[Gary Harnagel]

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 2:57:36 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
>
> On 18/10/16 23:04, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > > ...have you ever wondered why, in a moment of insanity, your god thing
> > > decided to create an incurable looney like you?
> >
> > Typical response from a dishonest atheist: try to change the subject from
> > the FACT that he is a mathematically-incompetent fool, as proven by his
> > stupid assertion that a "c + v" term in the denominator of an equation
> > means that light travels at c + v.
>
> I know you can't do maths but this should shut you up:
>
> The following explains to Paul how the radial speed component of a GPS
> clock adds to the speed of its signals:

We were discussing SPECIAL relativity, doctor of spin.

> Paul and a light source have absolutely synched clocks.

And that stupid comment destroys your credibility since there is no such
thing as "absolute sync." SO you and your garbage are flushed down the drain.

> > And it is a total misdirection that the difference in light's total travel
> > time from a moving mirror is too small to measure "in a lab." Why put
> > such a silly restriction on such an experiment? Obviously, because

> > Ralphie-boy is dishonest. Michelson used a mile-long vacuum chamber in

> > one of his experiments to measure the speed of light. THAT was his lab.
>
> He didn't use a moving mirror because he would not have been able to
> detect any difference.....Do the sums and see for yourself.

I have, you incompetent fool. Anyone who has a smattering of algebra knows
that any change in the speed of light could indeed be detected.

> > And the space program has probes hundreds of millions of miles away that
> > routinely send back e/m pulses upon receipt of an interrogating code to
> > determine distance (proving that mirrors are not at all necessary as

> > claimed by dishonest(Ralphie-boy).

> >
> > And the internal delay between receipt and transmission is well known so
> > there is no "likely" about it.
> >
> > And as to wondering about God's creations, I have often wondered why he
> > created such a dishonest fool as YOU :-)
> >
> > The difference between you and me is that I KNOW the answer. It's because
> > God didn't create our fundamental essences, he only housed them in flesh.
> > It's not His fault that you are stupid. It's your OWN fault.
> >
> > “Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.” – Friedrich
> > Schiller
>
> Those four lines epitomize your insanity.

How laughable! Ralphie-boy thinks he has a doctorate in psychiatry, too :-))
His delusions are getting grander :-)

[Tom Roberts]

On 10/11/16 10/11/16 - 2:06 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> Paul and a light source have absolutely synched clocks. [...]

When you start out by assuming something that is impossible in the world we
inhabit, all your "conclusions" are wrong.

We _KNOW_ that "absolutely synched clocks" are impossible, from the myriad
measurements of "time dilation" -- relatively moving clocks simply do not remain
in sync with each other (except in certain specific, highly-symmetric
situations, and even then one must be VERY careful to specify what "in sync"
means, as the usual definition does not apply).

Sync two modern atomic clocks, leave one in the lab and
put the other in a car and drive around for a few hours
at highway speeds and constant elevation; when you return
they are no longer in sync, by an amount much larger than
the clocks' accuracy (which you can measure by leaving
both in the lab for the same time period).

You keep discussing your personal FANTASY WORLD as if it were real. That is
hopeless.

Tom Roberts

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 19/10/16 11:32, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 2:57:36 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote:

>> I know you can't do maths but this should shut you up:
>>
>> The following explains to Paul how the radial speed component of a GPS
>> clock adds to the speed of its signals:
>
> We were discussing SPECIAL relativity, doctor of spin.
>
>> Paul and a light source have absolutely synched clocks.
>
> And that stupid comment destroys your credibility since there is no such
> thing as "absolute sync." SO you and your garbage are flushed down the drain.

Don't quote your religious doctrine to me please. I am not interested.

>>> And it is a total misdirection that the difference in light's total travel
>>> time from a moving mirror is too small to measure "in a lab." Why put
>>> such a silly restriction on such an experiment? Obviously, because
>>> Ralphie-boy is dishonest. Michelson used a mile-long vacuum chamber in

>>> one of his experiments to measure the speed of light. THAT was his lab..

>>
>> He didn't use a moving mirror because he would not have been able to
>> detect any difference.....Do the sums and see for yourself.
>
> I have, you incompetent fool. Anyone who has a smattering of algebra knows
> that any change in the speed of light could indeed be detected.

You obviously haven't....and you wouldn't know how to do it anyway.
Maybe you can ask your little god thingy to help you.

>>> The difference between you and me is that I KNOW the answer. It's because
>>> God didn't create our fundamental essences, he only housed them in flesh.
>>> It's not His fault that you are stupid. It's your OWN fault.
>>>
>>> “Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.” – Friedrich
>>> Schiller
>>
>> Those four lines epitomize your insanity.
>

> How laughable! Henrie-boy thinks he has a doctorate in psychiatry, too :-))

> His delusions are getting grander :-)

I am not a psychiatrist but having a degree in psychology has taught me
that psychiatrists regularly treat people just like you.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 20/10/16 02:40, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 10/11/16 10/11/16 - 2:06 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>> Paul and a light source have absolutely synched clocks. [...]
>
> When you start out by assuming something that is impossible in the world
> we inhabit, all your "conclusions" are wrong.

......'We' meaning the few deluded idiots who still worship Einstein.

> We _KNOW_ that "absolutely synched clocks" are impossible, from the
> myriad measurements of "time dilation" --

Time dilation does not exist. TIME cannot be a function of speed because
speed has dimensions L/T....but I know how much dingleberies rely on
circular logic to support their faith....

> relatively moving clocks
> simply do not remain in sync with each other (except in certain
> specific, highly-symmetric situations, and even then one must be VERY
> careful to specify what "in sync" means, as the usual definition does
> not apply).

Synched clocks will remain in synch no matter how they are moved.
In the real world, clocks are in synch when they measure OWLS from a
moving source to be c+v.
Real Physicists don't set their clocks to lie, like Einstein did.

> Sync two modern atomic clocks, leave one in the lab and
> put the other in a car and drive around for a few hours
> at highway speeds and constant elevation; when you return
> they are no longer in sync, by an amount much larger than
> the clocks' accuracy (which you can measure by leaving
> both in the lab for the same time period).

Hahahhahha! Hardly a controlled experiment.....

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

Many controlled experiments have been performed that are equivalent to the
above. You just don't believe that the experiments are real, but instead have
all been performed as part of a massive, century-old conspiracy to suppress
the truth. That places you along with the tin foil hat crowd. Sorry, Ralph.

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 18.10.2016 22:57, HGW wrote:
>
> The following explains to Paul how the radial speed component of a GPS
> clock adds to the speed of its signals:
>
> Paul and a light source have absolutely synched clocks.
>
> Paul and Marker M are on a road along which the source is moving at v.
> In the source frame, the road and both M and P are moving at v.
> S--v<M-------------------t>c-----------------------------v<P
> When M is adjacent to S, it sends a signal, t, at speed c, which reaches
> Paul at t'.
> Paul is then c(t'-t) away from S and therefore (c+v)(t'-t) away from M.
>
> In Paul's frame, the source is moving at v
> When S passes M, it sends a time signal to Paul.
> S>v-M-------------------t>(c+v)-----------------P
> The signal moves at c+v and Paul receives it at t'.
>
> The distance between Paul and M is (c+v)(t'-t), as before.
>
> When a signal leaves a GPS satellite, it knows nothing about the Earth's
> ECI frame. It moves at c relative to the satellite.

Note this remarkable claim:

> The consistency of these results in both frames proves conclusively that
> if light moves at c in the source frame, it moves at c+v in the frame of
> a relatively moving observer.

The emission theory is a consistent theory (not self contradictory),
so it will obviously give the same result in both frames!

I note with amazement that Ralph Malcom Rabbidge thinks
that if a theory is consistent , it must be 'correct'
as 'in accordance with reality'.
How incredibly naive! :-D

Since the GPS prove that the correct equation for
the distance between M and P above is c(t'-t),
Ralph Malcom Rabbidge has now falsified the "BaTh"
by pointing out that the prediction of the "BaTh"
is wrong by the distance v(t'-t)

See quantitative calculation of the error here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/jeHu2-GGrWc/xu0cU-u0BAAJ
or:
http://tinyurl.com/hzofrk2


--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Odd Bodkin]

On 10/19/2016 11:39 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> Time dilation does not exist. TIME cannot be a function of speed because
> speed has dimensions L/T....but I know how much dingleberies rely on
> circular logic to support their faith....

I greatly enjoy your claims that observed phenomena cannot possibly
happen because of thinking about dimensional analysis and about
dependent and independent variables. Reminds me of John Sefton's claim
that there can be no smallest anything because of the word "smaller".

[xxe...@att.net]

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 8:54:48 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 10/15/16 10/15/16 6:13 PM, xxe...@att.net wrote:
> > xxein: You can cushion the end of a fall, but do I sense you seem to be
> > accepting, now, that such an experiment is feasible? And it need not be a
> > clock at all. A known standard of decay while passing through a boundary
> > defined trap will do. Scintillation. Count later.
>
> How about this: in vacuum, arrange for an atomic beam to move upward in freefall
> a few meters per second, and follow it as it goes up, stops, and comes down
> again. Don't worry about what happens to the atoms when they crash into the
> bottom of the vacuum chamber (well, make sure they don't interfere with the
> measurement). Do this with an unstable species so you can measure its "ticking".
>
> This has already been done using the hyperfine transition of Cs133 ground state
> as the "unstable species" -- it is called a cesium fountain clock, which is the
> most accurate cesium clock known. It of course gives a rate of 9,192,631,770 Hz.
>
> Tom Roberts

xxein: I am looking to get a falling clock's rate measured 'while it is falling' (moving) past a specified height. Not just 'at' a specified height. That is why I thought of a trap that can be triggered by the falling clock whereby one can count later. There will be a known duration of time that the clock will be passing through the length of the trap so one can count decay events per unit of time. It can be compared to a standard rate of decay for a clock stationary at the midpoint of the length of the trap - later.

For a 1 meter trap and a clock falling at 1000 m/s the duration is only 1/1000 of a sec but is also around 9,192,631 transitions if that record can be read later for a stationary clock for the same duration. The falling clock will barely have a change in speed/velocity that would affect it over the 1 meter range. Stationary clocks 1 meter in height apart (near ground) would differ by only 1e-15 sec/sec in rate. The difference in rate between the falling and stationary clocks would be about 1.18899E-10 sec/sec or about 1.1 transitions for a full second of count.

Oh well. I guess we can measure to 1e-18 sec/sec only if both clocks are stationary. 1.18899E-10 sec/sec difference in rate just looks so easy. At any rate, I predict that the falling clock will be faster by that amount. I just need a feasible experiment to prove it.

Thanks for the trying, Tom.

[Sylvia Else]

I don't know whether you remember, or watched, or indeed were in a
position to watch, the series "Dinosaurs", way back when. In one episode
the school question arose of whether a species could become extinct. The
correct answer was "No, there will always be more, because that's what
more means."

Sylvia.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu środa, 19 października 2016 17:40:39 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> On 10/11/16 10/11/16 - 2:06 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> > Paul and a light source have absolutely synched clocks. [...]
>
> When you start out by assuming something that is impossible in the world we
> inhabit, all your "conclusions" are wrong.
>
> We _KNOW_ that "absolutely synched clocks" are impossible, from the myriad
> measurements of "time dilation" -- relatively moving clocks simply do not remain
> in sync with each other

And heavier-than-air planes can never fly. From
the myriad of experiments we know that heavier
than air things always fall down.
How fortunate GPS engineers didn't know their
goal is impossible to reach.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 20/10/16 05:41, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 18.10.2016 22:57, HGW wrote:
>>
>> The following explains to Paul how the radial speed component of a GPS
>> clock adds to the speed of its signals:
>>
>> Paul and a light source have absolutely synched clocks.
>>
>> Paul and Marker M are on a road along which the source is moving at v.
>> In the source frame, the road and both M and P are moving at v.
>> S--v<M-------------------t>c-----------------------------v<P
>> When M is adjacent to S, it sends a signal, t, at speed c, which reaches
>> Paul at t'.
>> Paul is then c(t'-t) away from S and therefore (c+v)(t'-t) away from M.
>>
>> In Paul's frame, the source is moving at v
>> When S passes M, it sends a time signal to Paul.
>> S>v-M-------------------t>(c+v)-----------------P
>> The signal moves at c+v and Paul receives it at t'.
>>
>> The distance between Paul and M is (c+v)(t'-t), as before.
>>
>> When a signal leaves a GPS satellite, it knows nothing about the Earth's
>> ECI frame. It moves at c relative to the satellite.
>
> Note this remarkable claim:
>
>> The consistency of these results in both frames proves conclusively that
>> if light moves at c in the source frame, it moves at c+v in the frame of
>> a relatively moving observer.
>
> The emission theory is a consistent theory (not self contradictory),
> so it will obviously give the same result in both frames!

Then what would you say about a silly theory that gives DIFFERENT
results in every frame? Inconsistent? Contradictory?...Plainly wrong?

> I note with amazement that Dr Wilson thinks

> that if a theory is consistent , it must be 'correct'
> as 'in accordance with reality'.
> How incredibly naive! :-D

That is a silly thing to say. I have pointed out many times that SR is
consistent with its postulates....which of course are wrong.

> Since the GPS prove that the correct equation for
> the distance between M and P above is c(t'-t),

> Dr. Wilson has now falsified the "BaTh"

> by pointing out that the prediction of the "BaTh"
> is wrong by the distance v(t'-t)

GPS avoids using satellites of low angle. The average radial speed of 45
degree satellites is more likely only about 100 m/s and the error
resulting from the use of c instead of c+v is much reduced through the
use of four clocks.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu środa, 19 października 2016 20:41:21 UTC+2 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał:
> Since the GPS prove that the correct equation for
> the distance between M and P above is c(t'-t),
> Ralph Malcom Rabbidge has now falsified the "BaTh"
> by pointing out that the prediction of the "BaTh"
> is wrong by the distance v(t'-t)

And since the GPS prove that correct equation
describing the indications of clocks is: t=t' -
good bye, The Shit of great Einstein.