Why Are Direct OWLS Experiment Using a Moving Source Not Being Performed?

[Henry Wilson]

Such experiments are still difficult but are now possible, particularly
OWLS comparisons.
There can only be one answer. The whole physics establishment is involved
in a massive conspiracy to protect the name of the hoaxer Einstein.

[John Gogo]

I'm starting to wonder why myself.

[Sylvia Else]

You could do them yourself. No one's stopping you.

Sylvia.

[John Gogo]

I've already done them I'm my head. Nobody wants to follow the recipe.

[Sylvia Else]

In your head doesn't count.

Sylvia.

[John Gogo]

It a least has to be a duet; otherwise, it make no sense.

[John Gogo]

Thoughts and ideas are meant to be bounced off other minds. If nobody responds, it means there is no echo.

[John Gogo]

Henry, maybe you are my echo- maybe Sylvia too.

[John Gogo]

Maybe Tom too but he would never admit it.

[Sylvia Else]

Light emitted from a moving source either moves at speed c relative to
an observer, or it doesn't. Real experiments would indicate which.

To do an experiment in your head, you'd have to choose. The result would
tell you nothing about the real world.

Sylvia.

[Paul B. Andersen]

The nauseating evidence from the real world:

https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf

'Doctor' Ralph Malcom Rabbidge will kick and scream
and call the evidence stupid,
but that won't make the evidence go away.

Frustrating, isn't it? :-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[kenseto]

On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 5:30:49 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 28.01.2016 19:50, Henry Wilson wrote:
> > Such experiments are still difficult but are now possible, particularly
> > OWLS comparisons.
> > There can only be one answer. The whole physics establishment is involved
> > in a massive conspiracy to protect the name of the hoaxer Einstein.
> >
>
> The nauseating evidence from the real world:
>
> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf

This is not a direct OWLS measurement.....the value of k is derived by comparing c' with an assumed c.

[Henry Wilson]

On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 11:30:46 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> On 28.01.2016 19:50, Henry Wilson wrote:
>> Such experiments are still difficult but are now possible, particularly
>> OWLS comparisons.
>> There can only be one answer. The whole physics establishment is
>> involved in a massive conspiracy to protect the name of the hoaxer
>> Einstein.
>>
>>
> The nauseating evidence from the real world:
>
> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf

...now known as 'Paul Andersen's comedy show'. Direct OWLS experiments
were not possible when those papers were written.

> 'Doctor' Henry George Wilson will kick and scream and call the

> evidence stupid,
> but that won't make the evidence go away.
>
> Frustrating, isn't it? :-D

Not at all. None of the above is a direct experiment. They can all be
easily fiddled to produce any desired answer. Interference methods are
full of assumptions and cannot be called direct either.
Don't you know what direct means? It means sending light pulses from
differently moving sources and measuring their speeds with two clocks.
That can now be done...and in empty space.

To prove Einstein wrong, by DIRECT OWLS COMPARISON, the clocks do not
even have to be synched. In fact one doesn't even need a clock...just an
oscilloscope.

Of course the easiest way is refute Einstein's nonsensical P2 to use
orbiting stars as light sources and see how they appear to vary in
brightness as their photons bunch and separate during travel.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 12:48:33 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 11:30:46 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >
> > The nauseating evidence from the real world:
> >
> > https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
> > https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
> > https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
> > https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
>
> ...now known as 'Paul Andersen's comedy show'. Direct OWLS experiments
> were not possible when those papers were written.

They are still not because you have no way to synchronize the clocks
without making assumptions about the synchronization mechanism.

> > 'Doctor' Henry George Wilson will kick and scream and call the
> > evidence stupid,
> > but that won't make the evidence go away.
> >
> > Frustrating, isn't it? :-D
>
> Not at all. None of the above is a direct experiment. They can all be
> easily fiddled to produce any desired answer.

And that is exactly the case for "Henry's" variable star nonsense.

> Interference methods are full of assumptions and cannot be called direct
> either. Don't you know what direct means? It means sending light pulses
> from differently moving sources and measuring their speeds with two clocks.
> That can now be done...and in empty space.

SO how are the clocks synchronized?

> To prove Einstein wrong, by DIRECT OWLS COMPARISON, the clocks do not
> even have to be synched. In fact one doesn't even need a clock...just an
> oscilloscope.

Really? ONE oscilloscope? I don't think so!

> Of course the easiest way is refute Einstein's nonsensical P2 to use
> orbiting stars as light sources and see how they appear to vary in
> brightness as their photons bunch and separate during travel.

Variable star "methods" are full of assumptions and cannot be called
direct either. It amounts to looking for signs of an assumed theory
and throwing out everything that disagrees with that assumption.

[John Gogo]

I believe that light doesn't but EMR does. You believe that sight is part EMR. But sight, light does not contain a velocity. C, the speed of light, only comes into the scenario scientifically, when we are dealing with TWO-WAY measures. All of the literature says this. Modern science does not deal with sight/light. Instead, it primarily deals with light rays and mirrors which are "contained"- so that the distances inside these containers are capable of measuring a quantity- a limit. More importantly, man needed a measure which could be defined outside of nature- irregardless of nature..

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 29.01.2016 20:48, Henry Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 11:30:46 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>> On 28.01.2016 19:50, Henry Wilson wrote:
>>> Such experiments are still difficult but are now possible, particularly
>>> OWLS comparisons.
>>> There can only be one answer. The whole physics establishment is
>>> involved in a massive conspiracy to protect the name of the hoaxer
>>> Einstein.
>>>
>>>
>> The nauseating evidence from the real world:
>>
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
>
> ...now known as 'Paul Andersen's comedy show'. Direct OWLS experiments
> were not possible when those papers were written.

You can always trust Ralph to confirm my words:

>> 'Doctor' Ralph Malcom Rabbidge will kick and scream and call the

>> evidence stupid,
>> but that won't make the evidence go away.
>>
>> Frustrating, isn't it? :-D

See Ralph kicking:

>
> Not at all. None of the above is a direct experiment. They can all be
> easily fiddled to produce any desired answer. Interference methods are
> full of assumptions and cannot be called direct either.
> Don't you know what direct means? It means sending light pulses from
> differently moving sources and measuring their speeds with two clocks.
> That can now be done...and in empty space.
>
> To prove Einstein wrong, by DIRECT OWLS COMPARISON, the clocks do not
> even have to be synched. In fact one doesn't even need a clock...just an
> oscilloscope.
>
> Of course the easiest way is refute Einstein's nonsensical P2 to use
> orbiting stars as light sources and see how they appear to vary in
> brightness as their photons bunch and separate during travel.
>
>

[Sylvia Else]

All of which is entirely beside the point.

Sylvia.

[Henry Wilson]

You don't think...period...
You lack a required ingredient.

[Henry Wilson]

On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 10:17:16 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> On 29.01.2016 20:48, Henry Wilson wrote:

>>> The nauseating evidence from the real world:
>>>
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
>>
>> ...now known as 'Paul Andersen's comedy show'. Direct OWLS experiments
>> were not possible when those papers were written.
>

> You can always trust Henry to confirm my words:
>
>
> See Henry kicking:

He who kicks last, kicks longest

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 4:49:57 AM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 14:41:20 -0800, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 12:48:33 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > > Direct OWLS experiments were not possible when those papers were written.
> >
> > They are still not because you have no way to synchronize the clocks
> > without making assumptions about the synchronization mechanism.

No response from "Wilson" on this very critical point.

> > > Not at all. None of the above is a direct experiment. They can all be
> > > easily fiddled to produce any desired answer.
> >
> > And that is exactly the case for "Henry's" variable star nonsense.

No response from "Wilson" on this very critical point.

> > > Interference methods are full of assumptions and cannot be called
> > > direct either. Don't you know what direct means? It means sending
> > > light pulses from differently moving sources and measuring their speeds
> > > with two clocks.
> > > That can now be done...and in empty space.
> >
> > SO how are the clocks synchronized?

No response from "Wilson" on this very critical point.

> > > To prove Einstein wrong, by DIRECT OWLS COMPARISON, the clocks do not
> > > even have to be synched. In fact one doesn't even need a clock...just
> > > an oscilloscope.
> >
> > Really? ONE oscilloscope? I don't think so!
>
> You don't think...period...

This is obviously a typical "Wilson" ad hom which he uses in place of a
cogent argument. Obviously, I DO think, otherwise I wouldn't even be able
to post a message. Obviously, I DO think because I realize that a 'scope
is just like a clock and it can't communicate with the end point if it is
at the starting point without wires (or a wireless signal) running from said
end point to the oscilloscope, and that defeats the purpose for an OWLS
experiment (i.e., it is a TWLS measurement).

> You lack a required ingredient.

Yes, I lack the ability to think illogically.

[Polikwaptiwa]

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> You lack a required ingredient.
>
> Yes, I lack the ability to think illogically.

Then stop trying it all the time.

[Polikwaptiwa]

Henry Wilson wrote:

>>> ...now known as 'Paul Andersen's comedy show'. Direct OWLS experiments
>>> were not possible when those papers were written.
>>
>> You can always trust Henry to confirm my words: See Henry kicking:
>
> He who kicks last, kicks longest

I don't hate the Russians, nor the Americans, I just hate those shit chute
surfing, cock sucking, spineless politicians/liars that would drop a bomb
on Grandma's house to pay the bank. Greetings from the Netherlands.

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 30.01.2016 17:26, Polikwaptiwa wrote:
> []

It doesn't help to change your name,
the trolling idiot is recognized anyway.

plonk

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Tom Roberts]

[The subject question erroneously assumes such experiments are not, and have
not, been performed; they have been performed enough that there is no real need
for more.]

On 1/28/16 1/28/16 12:50 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
> Such experiments are still difficult but are now possible, particularly
> OWLS comparisons.

One of the best is (modeling the speed of light from a source moving with speed
v toward the observer as c+k*v and using observations to put limits on k):

A supernova explosion sends debris out in all directions with speeds of 10,000
km/s or more (known from Doppler broadening of spectral lines). If the speed of
light depended on the source velocity, its arrival at Earth would be spread out
in time due to the spread of source velocities. Such a time spread is not
observed, and observations of distant supernovae give k < 5×10^−9. These
observations could be subject to criticism due to Optical Extinction, but some
observations are for supernovas considerably closer than the extinction length
of the X-ray wavelengths used.

> There can only be one answer.

Yes -- that YOU have deluded yourself so much that you reject all experiments,
and are so ignorant and illiterate that you don't have a clue about what has
been done.

Hint: measuring the Doppler broadening of spectral lines,
and realizing that the light all arrived during one night's
exposure (not spread out over centuries as k=1 would imply),
does not "assume SR" in any way.


Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/29/16 1/29/16 4:41 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 12:48:33 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 11:30:46 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> The nauseating evidence from the real world:
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf

>> Direct OWLS experiments
>> were not possible when those papers were written.

SURE THEY WERE -- those experiments did so!

> They are still not because you have no way to synchronize the clocks
> without making assumptions about the synchronization mechanism.

OWLS experiments are possible and valid as long as the experimenters describe
how they synchronized their clocks. All the above did so (or it is obvious how
it was done so no explanation is needed).

>> Not at all. None of the above is a direct experiment. They can all be
>> easily fiddled to produce any desired answer.

Not true. The "fiddling" is all in YOUR mind.

> It means sending light pulses
> from differently moving sources and measuring their speeds with two clocks.
> That can now be done...and in empty space.

Obviously you have no idea what the errorbars would be. Ignoring issues of
synchronization, for every lab experiment of this type using macroscopic
objects, the errorbars in the measured velocity are larger than the velocity of
the source [#]. Of course there are many such measurements using particle beams
with sources traveling > 0.3 c wrt the lab; they all support SR and refute any
ballistic-light theory, including "BaTh".

[#] The estimate is simple: the best resolution of any clock
is about 10 ps. For a 10 meter flight path in a lab [@], the
flight time for light is ~ 33 ns, so ASSUMING NO OTHER
ERRORBARS the clock can measure the speed of light to
~ 3E-4. To distinguish c+v from c thus requires a source
moving faster than ~ 100 km/sec. Hopeless for a macroscopic
source. Easy for a particle beam.

[@] probably too long to be practical (intensity drops as
the square of this distance).

It's clear that "Henry Wilson" simply doesn't have a clue, and is incapable of
making such simple estimates.


Tom Roberts

[Harumi Kazuko]

Tom Roberts wrote:

>> It means sending light pulses from differently moving sources and
>> measuring their speeds with two clocks.
>> That can now be done...and in empty space.
>
> Obviously you have no idea what the errorbars would be. Ignoring issues
> of synchronization, for every lab experiment of this type using
> macroscopic objects, the errorbars in the measured velocity are larger
> than the velocity of the source [#]. Of course there are many such
> measurements using particle beams with sources traveling > 0.3 c wrt the
> lab; they all support SR and refute any ballistic-light theory,
> including "BaTh".
>
> [#] The estimate is simple: the best resolution of any clock is
about
> 10 ps. For a 10 meter flight path in a lab [@], the flight time for
> light is ~ 33 ns, so ASSUMING NO OTHER ERRORBARS the clock can
measure
> the speed of light to ~ 3E-4. To distinguish c+v from c thus
requires a
> source moving faster than ~ 100 km/sec. Hopeless for a macroscopic
> source. Easy for a particle beam.
>
> [@] probably too long to be practical (intensity drops as the
square of
> this distance).

Thank you to you very much.

[John Gogo]

Well, it would be the backdrop.

[John Gogo]

To separate the two terms such as one-way and two-way light measure is like arguing two different interpretations of a singular object or event. For instance, multiple interpretations of a single experiment occur all across the board. As scientists, we are all so fragmented in our thought processes. I wish there was a single invention or method that would unite us.

[John Gogo]

Tom says, "OWLS experiments are possible and valid as long as the experimenters describe

how they synchronized their clocks. All the above did so (or it is obvious how
it was done so no explanation is needed)."

Tom, if you would look up your history... you would find that there are no "one-way" measures that up to this point been validated. The implication that synchronized clocks will ensure that OWLS is part of the measure is only the tip of the ice burg.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 9:53:41 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote:
>
> Tom says, "OWLS experiments are possible and valid as long as the
> experimenters describe how they synchronized their clocks. All the
> above did so (or it is obvious how it was done so no explanation is
> needed)."
>
> Tom, if you would look up your history... you would find that there are
> no "one-way" measures that up to this point been validated.

The question is, what does "validation" mean? Those who understand science
have no problem with this, but those who don't (or can't think logically)
refuse to accept any kind of validation. The assumption in supernova data
is that matter blown out by the explosion is traveling in every direction,
some moving away from us and some toward us, and all of this matter is
emitting light that we see. We can determine the speed of the emitters by
the Doppler effect, and if ballistic theory were correct, the arrival time
of this light would be spread out in time much, much longer than is observed.

The extinction argument (that the speed of light assumes the speed c wrt
intervening matter) is valid if light is a wave phenomenon, but the
ballistic theory posits that light is NOT a wave, so this is an example of
ballistic proponents engaging in "double-think." They invalidate their
whole argument. Besides, double stars that emit X-rays exhibit a similar
phenomenon in that one star is moving away from us while the other is
approaching, and X-rays are not subject to extinction over the distances
involved. Such measurements are considered valid by rational people.

> The implication that synchronized clocks will ensure that OWLS is part
> of the measure is only the tip of the ice burg.

Synchronization is MOST of the iceberg. What problem could one possibly have
about measuring off a distance? What problem could one possibly have about
creating a short pulse of light? What problem could one possibly have about
detecting a fraction of said pulse of light at two positions separated by
said distance? The problem is knowing the time the pulse passed each
position, which means synchronizing a clock at the end with a clock at the
starting point.

"Henry Wilson" isn't thinking logically. He denies SR while at the same
time claiming a synchronization problem. If SR were false, he could place
the two clocks side-by-side, synchronize them and then transport one of
them to the end point. Voila!

If SR were true, he could do the same except slow-transport one of them
to the end point and get a result that would be good enough to confirm or
refute ballistic light theory.

The only problem remaining is to cause the source of the light to move back
and forth at a high rate of speed. If the extinction effect is valid, then
one can pass the light pulse through moving glass plates in a vacuum. If
ballistic theory is correct, then one can reflect the light off a moving
mirror before the OWLS setup. IIRC, 4 km vacuum tubes exist in which such
an experiment could be performed. This would require mirror speeds of
about 0.25 km/sec, but why go to all the trouble of performing such an
experiment when copious conclusive evidence already exists that refutes
ballistic theory? In addition to that already mentioned, there's the
experience of LLREs and NASA's distance-measuring methods used for its
spacecraft. Distances are millions of km and sources are moving at tens
of km/sec and results refute ballistic theory and confirm invariant c.

[John Gogo]

This is a good post for a loyal relativist thru and thru. The trouble I have with "Super Nova data" is the fact that we have NO manmade clock stationed THERE. This all of a sudden becomes a measure which is non-local, one-way, and non-relativistic in regards to Einstein's clocks stationed at B.

[John Gogo]

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 7:22:20 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Maybe, the reason we keep measuring invariant c is that we are deaf, dumb, and blind to be able to see its' existence.

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 30.01.2016 12:52, Henry Wilson wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 10:17:16 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> On 29.01.2016 20:48, Henry Wilson wrote:
>> >
>>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 11:30:46 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>>> The nauseating evidence from the real world:
>>>>
>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
>>>
>>> ...now known as 'Paul Andersen's comedy show'. Direct OWLS experiments
>>> were not possible when those papers were written.
>>

>> You can always trust Ralph to confirm my words:
>>
>>> 'Doctor' Ralph Malcom Rabbidge will kick and
>>> scream and call the evidence stupid,
>>> but that won't make the evidence go away.
>>>
>>> Frustrating, isn't it?
>>

>> See Henry kicking:
>
> He who kicks last, kicks longest

Indeed.
Ralph is kicking and screaming first and last and all the time,
so he is definitely kicking longest.

But did the nauseating evidence go away? :-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Gary Harnagel]

> This is a good post for a loyal relativist thru and thru.

I am NOT a "loyal relativist": I am a loyal realist. I believe that QM
(i.e., QED) is more basic; that is, relativity is an emergent property of
QM.

> The trouble I have with "Super Nova data" is the fact that we have NO
> manmade clock stationed THERE. This all of a sudden becomes a measure
> which is non-local, one-way, and non-relativistic in regards to Einstein's
> clocks stationed at B.

What do you have against an explosion creating symmetric expansion of the
star's matter?

> Maybe, the reason we keep measuring invariant c is that we are deaf, dumb,
> and blind to be able to see its' existence.

Probably, but there is no other game in town. All we have is our intellect
and inspiration from Deity. If you reject those two, you might as well go
back to being a caveman.

[John Gogo]

On Sunday, January 31, 2016 at 7:22:20 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Very good post. I think what is most important here is perspective and where we are right now. Learned how to fly just over a hundred years. I think we have a lot to learn when it comes to science. Relativity will not be illegitimated by the logic of today. It will simply be made obsolete by the new theory of tomorrow.

[John Gogo]

What is to say that nature's explosions are symmetric? I've never seen an explosion locally ideally symmetric. They only contain symmetry from our POINT OF VIEW. Ultimately, we only have a VERY limited view of the universe.

[Gary Harnagel]

Actually, I misspoke. It doesn't have to be symmetric, it's various parts
just have to have sufficiently different velocities, which can be ascertained
by Doppler measurement.

[Henry Wilson]

On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 05:17:05 -0800, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 4:49:57 AM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 14:41:20 -0800, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> >
>> > On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 12:48:33 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Direct OWLS experiments were not possible when those papers were
>> > > written.
>> >
>> > They are still not because you have no way to synchronize the clocks
>> > without making assumptions about the synchronization mechanism.
>
> No response from "Wilson" on this very critical point.
>
>> > > Not at all. None of the above is a direct experiment. They can all
>> > > be easily fiddled to produce any desired answer.
>> >
>> > And that is exactly the case for "Henry's" variable star nonsense.
>
> No response from "Wilson" on this very critical point.
>
>> > > Interference methods are full of assumptions and cannot be called
>> > > direct either. Don't you know what direct means? It means sending
>> > > light pulses from differently moving sources and measuring their
>> > > speeds with two clocks.
>> > > That can now be done...and in empty space.
>> >
>> > SO how are the clocks synchronized?

You synch them when they are together then move them into position. Their
synch can be verified any time by sending light signals between them in
opposite directions, using sources at rest with them.

> No response from "Wilson" on this very critical point.
>
>> > > To prove Einstein wrong, by DIRECT OWLS COMPARISON, the clocks do
>> > > not even have to be synched. In fact one doesn't even need a
>> > > clock...just an oscilloscope.
>> >
>> > Really? ONE oscilloscope? I don't think so!
>>
>> You don't think...period...
>
> This is obviously a typical "Wilson" ad hom which he uses in place of a
> cogent argument. Obviously, I DO think, otherwise I wouldn't even be
> able to post a message. Obviously, I DO think because I realize that a
> 'scope is just like a clock and it can't communicate with the end point
> if it is at the starting point without wires (or a wireless signal)
> running from said end point to the oscilloscope, and that defeats the
> purpose for an OWLS experiment (i.e., it is a TWLS measurement).

Poor fool! Do you really think that the only way to determine who wins a
race is to measure the speed of every participant?

[Gary Harnagel]

On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 9:52:14 AM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 05:17:05 -0800, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 4:49:57 AM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 14:41:20 -0800, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 12:48:33 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Direct OWLS experiments were not possible when those papers were
> > > > > written.
> > > >
> > > > They are still not because you have no way to synchronize the clocks
> > > > without making assumptions about the synchronization mechanism.
> >
> > No response from "Wilson" on this very critical point.
> >
> > > > > Not at all. None of the above is a direct experiment. They can all
> > > > > be easily fiddled to produce any desired answer.
> > > >
> > > > And that is exactly the case for "Henry's" variable star nonsense.
> >
> > No response from "Wilson" on this very critical point.
> >
> > > > > Interference methods are full of assumptions and cannot be called
> > > > > direct either. Don't you know what direct means? It means sending
> > > > > light pulses from differently moving sources and measuring their
> > > > > speeds with two clocks.
> > > > > That can now be done...and in empty space.
> > > >
> > > > SO how are the clocks synchronized?
>
> You synch them when they are together then move them into position. Their
> synch can be verified any time by sending light signals between them in
> opposite directions, using sources at rest with them.

You're making TWO assumptions there. (1) moving them doesn't cause them
to become unsynchronized and (2) There is nothing in the intervening space
that is moving and affects the speed of the signals. After all, YOU are
the one that claims light approaches a speed of c wrt some mysterious
medium.

> > > > > To prove Einstein wrong, by DIRECT OWLS COMPARISON, the clocks do
> > > > > not even have to be synched. In fact one doesn't even need a
> > > > > clock...just an oscilloscope.
> > > >
> > > > Really? ONE oscilloscope? I don't think so!
> > >
> > > You don't think...period...
> >
> > This is obviously a typical "Wilson" ad hom which he uses in place of a
> > cogent argument. Obviously, I DO think, otherwise I wouldn't even be
> > able to post a message. Obviously, I DO think because I realize that a
> > 'scope is just like a clock and it can't communicate with the end point
> > if it is at the starting point without wires (or a wireless signal)
> > running from said end point to the oscilloscope, and that defeats the
> > purpose for an OWLS experiment (i.e., it is a TWLS measurement).
>
> Poor fool!

Don't be an ass, "Henry"

> Do you really think that the only way to determine who wins a
> race is to measure the speed of every participant?

Do you always ask asinine questions? We're talking about physics here,
actual measurement, not some silly race.

[Henry Wilson]

WE are talking physics. YOU are talking the usual crap.

If two light pulses depart from the same point at the same instant and
arrive at another point at different instants then the Einstein hoax is
revealed. No clocks are needed. One oscilloscope will suffice.

This is probably far too hard for you.

[Tom Roberts]

On 2/7/16 2/7/16 9:41 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:
> If two light pulses depart from the same point at the same instant and
> arrive at another point at different instants then the Einstein hoax is
> revealed. No clocks are needed. One oscilloscope will suffice.

Such fantasies you indulge in!

Doing such a race in the lab with macroscopic objects (as you seem to fantasize)
is infeasible by several orders of magnitude.

Doing such a race in the lab using particle beams has been done, and shows your
fantasies to be wrong.

Doing such a race on astronomical scales has been done, and shows your fantasies
to be wrong. In particular:

A supernova explosion sends debris out in all directions with
speeds of 10,000 km/s or more (known from Doppler broadening of
spectral lines). If the speed of light depended on the source
velocity, its arrival at Earth would be spread out in time due
to the spread of source velocities. Such a time spread is not
observed, and observations of distant supernovae give

k < 5×10^−9 (modeling the speed of light as c+k*v).

For k=1, such light would be spread out over centuries, not
observable in a single night as is actually done. So this is
not a subtle effect, and k=1 is GROSSLY WRONG.

Also:
Observations of binary pulsars put a limit k < 2×10−9.
K. Brecher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 1051–1054, 1236(E) (1977).


Simply ignoring facts and indulging in fantasies is not physics.


Tom Roberts

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 8:41:18 AM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> On Sat, 06 Feb 2016 09:53:47 -0800, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 9:52:14 AM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > > Poor fool!
> >
> > Don't be an ass, "Henry"
> >
> > > Do you really think that the only way to determine who wins a race is
> > > to measure the speed of every participant?
> >
> > Do you always ask asinine questions? We're talking about physics here,
> > actual measurement, not some silly race.
>
> WE are talking physics. YOU are talking the usual crap.

Nope, you're trying to obfuscate, as is your usual tactic.

> If two light pulses depart from the same point at the same instant and
> arrive at another point at different instants then the Einstein hoax is
> revealed. No clocks are needed. One oscilloscope will suffice.

An oscilloscope IS a clock, bumble-brain.

> This is probably far too hard for you.

As usual, you explain nothing at all, so let me fill in the 99% that you
didn't discuss. First of all, to meet your ridiculous requirements, the
experiment would have to be performed in vacuum because you falsely claim
that light quickly assumes the speed of c wrt the medium even though
it was launched at c wrt the source initially (how convenient). Of course,
you wouldn't bring this up until after the experiment was performed and
there was shown to be no difference between the arrival times of the two
pulses. And then there would be insults and recriminations emanating
from your dishonest mind.

Second, there would have to be a way to ensure that the two sources were
fired at the same instant when they were side by side. Third, the speed
of the moving source would have to be high enough to provide a detectable
difference in arrival times, which means that a sufficiently long vacuum
chamber must be available. I can do all the calculations necessary to
provide specifications for an actual experiment. The question is, can you?

It seems that providing the details for a valid experiment is too hard for
YOU :-)

[ˌsōlər ˈpleksəs]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> Doing such a race in the lab using particle beams has been done, and
> shows your fantasies to be wrong.
> Doing such a race on astronomical scales has been done, and shows your
> fantasies to be wrong. In particular:

You might not realise, but you are calling these things fantasies.
Where you are getting it apparently wrong is not knowing that space and
spacetime has no milestones embedded, nor any other structure. Hence, the
appearance of different path must be illusory.

[HGW]

On 08/02/16 03:40, Gary Harnagel wrote:

>
>> If two light pulses depart from the same point at the same instant and
>> arrive at another point at different instants then the Einstein hoax is
>> revealed. No clocks are needed. One oscilloscope will suffice.
>
> An oscilloscope IS a clock, bumble-brain.
>
>> This is probably far too hard for you.
>
> As usual, you explain nothing at all, so let me fill in the 99% that you
> didn't discuss. First of all, to meet your ridiculous requirements, the
> experiment would have to be performed in vacuum because you falsely claim
> that light quickly assumes the speed of c wrt the medium even though
> it was launched at c wrt the source initially (how convenient). Of course,
> you wouldn't bring this up until after the experiment was performed and
> there was shown to be no difference between the arrival times of the two
> pulses. And then there would be insults and recriminations emanating
> from your dishonest mind.
>
> Second, there would have to be a way to ensure that the two sources were
> fired at the same instant when they were side by side. Third, the speed
> of the moving source would have to be high enough to provide a detectable
> difference in arrival times, which means that a sufficiently long vacuum
> chamber must be available. I can do all the calculations necessary to
> provide specifications for an actual experiment. The question is, can you?
>
> It seems that providing the details for a valid experiment is too hard for
> YOU :-)

It is not easy...but it is easier than measuring OWLS directly.
This is the kind of experiment that might do it:
http://www.scisite.info/moonrelay.jpg

[HGW]

On 08/02/16 03:26, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 2/7/16 2/7/16 9:41 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>> If two light pulses depart from the same point at the same instant and
>> arrive at another point at different instants then the Einstein hoax is
>> revealed. No clocks are needed. One oscilloscope will suffice.
>
> Such fantasies you indulge in!
>
> Doing such a race in the lab with macroscopic objects (as you seem to
> fantasize) is infeasible by several orders of magnitude.

Correct. That is one reason why Einstein has survived for so long.

>
> Doing such a race in the lab using particle beams has been done, and
> shows your fantasies to be wrong.

It has not been done convincingly. the claimed experiments are a joke

> Doing such a race on astronomical scales has been done, and shows your
> fantasies to be wrong. In particular:
>
> A supernova explosion sends debris out in all directions with
> speeds of 10,000 km/s or more (known from Doppler broadening of
> spectral lines). If the speed of light depended on the source
> velocity, its arrival at Earth would be spread out in time due
> to the spread of source velocities. Such a time spread is not
> observed, and observations of distant supernovae give
> k < 5×10^−9 (modeling the speed of light as c+k*v).

BaTh accepts that light moving in any particular direction tends toward
a common speed. Much of that happens in the near vicinity of the source
star or galaxy.

>
> For k=1, such light would be spread out over centuries, not
> observable in a single night as is actually done. So this is
> not a subtle effect, and k=1 is GROSSLY WRONG.
>
> Also:
> Observations of binary pulsars put a limit k < 2×10−9.
> K. Brecher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 1051–1054, 1236(E) (1977).

THere are many simple explanations for these effects. You are too blind
to want to know about that.

[Tom Roberts]

On 2/7/16 2/7/16 10:40 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> you falsely claim
> that light quickly assumes the speed of c wrt the medium even though
> it was launched at c wrt the source initially (how convenient).

Actually it's not false: in both classical electrodynamics and QED, light that
enters a refractive medium quickly becomes moving with speed c/n relative to the
medium. This is known as "extinction length" and was discussed in papers by
Ewald and Oseen a century ago. For visible light in glass the extinction length
is less than a micron; in air it is about a millimeter.

This is observed every day: if this were not so, optical lenses would not work.

In intergalactic space, the extinction length for visible light is a few
light-years; for X-rays it is enormously larger.


Tom Roberts

[Gary Harnagel]

But for a moving medium, it doesn't reach a speed c wrt the medium, it's
c' = (v + c/n)/(1 + v/nc), which is pretty darn close to c in most cases.
I calculated the extinction length for the solar wind once, but I forget
the number, but n would be almost unity and v would be on the order of
600 km/sec -- OUTWARD bound.

Gary

[Tom Roberts]

On 2/7/16 2/7/16 - 7:41 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 5:49:14 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:

>>[... extinction length]

>
> But for a moving medium, it doesn't reach a speed c wrt the medium, it's
> c' = (v + c/n)/(1 + v/nc),

It moves at c/n wrt the medium. Then relative to a frame in which the medium
moves with speed v (in the same direction as the light), it moves with your c'
(which is the Lorentz addition of velocities applied to v and c/n).

> which is pretty darn close to c in most cases.

Not really. Consider glass (n ~ 1.5) moving with the speed of a rifle bullet (~
1 km/s) or less. c' ~ c/n = 200000000 m/s, much less than c.


> I calculated the extinction length for the solar wind once, [...]

Hmmm. The solar wind is mostly protons, and they behave completely differently.


Tom Roberts

[Καλυψώ]

Tom Roberts :

>> which is pretty darn close to c in most cases.
>
> Not really. Consider glass (n ~ 1.5) moving with the speed of a rifle
> bullet (~ 1 km/s) or less. c' ~ c/n = 200000000 m/s, much less than c.

You both need correction, it must be c'= (c-Vb)/n; Vb: speed of the bullet.

>> I calculated the extinction length for the solar wind once, [...]
>
> Hmmm. The solar wind is mostly protons, and they behave completely
> differently.

What atoms are those protons taken from? What accelerated them to begin
with?

[Gary Harnagel]

On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 8:02:57 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> On 2/7/16 2/7/16 - 7:41 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 5:49:14 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> > >
> > >[... extinction length]
> >
> > But for a moving medium, it doesn't reach a speed c wrt the medium, it's
> > c' = (v + c/n)/(1 + v/nc),
>
> It moves at c/n wrt the medium. Then relative to a frame in which the medium
> moves with speed v (in the same direction as the light), it moves with your
> c'
> (which is the Lorentz addition of velocities applied to v and c/n).
>
> > which is pretty darn close to c in most cases.
>
> Not really. Consider glass (n ~ 1.5) moving with the speed of a rifle
> bullet (~ 1 km/s) or less. c' ~ c/n = 200000000 m/s, much less than c.

Umm, yeah, I meant c/n :-(

> > I calculated the extinction length for the solar wind once, [...]
>
> Hmmm. The solar wind is mostly protons, and they behave completely
> differently.
>
> Tom Roberts

Yeah, like a plasma. I can't find the equations I used, but it wasn't
that one. It looks like either a proton of electron plasma would have a
really low plasma frequency so its index of refraction would be very
close to unity. Wish I could find the reference I used for the extinction
calcs.

Gary

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:kcSdnWc2roqi7SrL...@giganews.com...

|Simply ignoring facts and indulging in fantasies is not physics.

Wrong, poor idiot. That's exactly, what your physics is.

[HGW]

That is pretty well what my variable star research has revealed. I have
been informing this NG about the apparent 'unification' of light speed
for years. It is a pity you are too disinterested in truth to look into
this yourself.

All light moving in a particular direction tends toward a common speed
over time. It never actually reaches a common speed and that speed has
little to do with the universal constant c. However in the absence of
dispersion, light moving along the same line must have come
predominantly from one particular local star or distant galaxy..and so
the average final speed will be around c relative to that star or galaxy
and c+v relative to the observer. Since relative speeds between all
major objects in the universe never seem to approach anything like c, it
follows that at any point in the universe, light passing through in any
direction will also have a relative speeds that are never very different
from c.

>
> Tom Roberts

[John Gogo]

You realize that this is mechanically unexplainable...

[Tom Roberts]

On 2/9/16 2/9/16 6:49 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> in both classical electrodynamics and QED, light that
>> enters a refractive medium quickly becomes moving with speed c/n relative to the
>> medium. This is known as "extinction length" and was discussed in papers by
>> Ewald and Oseen a century ago. For visible light in glass the extinction length
>> is less than a micron; in air it is about a millimeter.
>>
>> This is observed every day: if this were not so, optical lenses would not work.
>>
>> In intergalactic space, the extinction length for visible light is a few
>> light-years; for X-rays it is enormously larger.
>

> You realize that this is mechanically unexplainable...

Hmmm. This is not "mechanics", this is electrodynamics. And it is directly
"explainable" -- the incoming wave excites the dielectric of the medium to
generate a new wave traveling at speed c/n relative to the medium, parallel to
and overlapping with the incoming wave, with the same frequency. The energy of
the incoming wave is transferred to this new wave with a characteristic length
known as the "extinction length" (i.e. the incoming wave decreases exponentially
over that length).

The standard reference for this is: Born and Wolf, _Principles_of_Optics_.

This means that any measurement of the speed of a light ray over a distance
longer than the extinction length will obtain c/n regardless of how the light
ray was generated.

Note, however, that this is a theorem in CLASSICAL ELECTRODYNAMICS,
in which the vacuum speed of light is c relative to ANY inertial
frame. For ballistic or aether theories in which that is not true,
it is not at all clear whether it applies.


Tom Roberts

[John Gogo]

Wow Tom Roberts, you are all Eagle eyed and never come far from the truth. I am thankful for your presence. I have a problem with such supernova that explode and are "observed by us"- the theory that we would see the expulsion of matter (light/matter) traveling in the opposite direction of matter coming toward us- and in the fact that the only difference is that it would come in the form of color. First off, can light reach us going in the opposite direction?

[John Gogo]

Don't tell me- the expulsions are so massive that even the expulsion traveling in the opposite direction toward Earth is seen red?

[Gary Harnagel]

The LIGHT is not going in the opposite direction, the SOURCE of the light is.

> Don't tell me- the expulsions are so massive that even the expulsion
> traveling in the opposite direction toward Earth is seen red?

Haven't you ever heard a train whistle from a train going away from you?

[HGW]

On 07/02/16 04:53, Gary Harnagel wrote:

"Sorry, I cannot help being a fool, I was born like it. I will never
understand even basic physics and my only ambition is to be recognized
as the world's biggest idiot"

[HGW]

On 08/02/16 03:26, Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 2/7/16 2/7/16 9:41 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>> If two light pulses depart from the same point at the same instant and
>> arrive at another point at different instants then the Einstein hoax is
>> revealed. No clocks are needed. One oscilloscope will suffice.
>
> Such fantasies you indulge in!
>
> Doing such a race in the lab with macroscopic objects (as you seem to
> fantasize) is infeasible by several orders of magnitude.
>
> Doing such a race in the lab using particle beams has been done, and
> shows your fantasies to be wrong.
>
> Doing such a race on astronomical scales has been done, and shows your
> fantasies to be wrong. In particular:
>
> A supernova explosion sends debris out in all directions with
> speeds of 10,000 km/s or more (known from Doppler broadening of
> spectral lines). If the speed of light depended on the source
> velocity, its arrival at Earth would be spread out in time due
> to the spread of source velocities. Such a time spread is not
> observed, and observations of distant supernovae give
> k < 5×10^−9 (modeling the speed of light as c+k*v).

That is where unification comes into the picture. Movement between
photons decreases with time traveled. That should apply equally to light
and gammas. So only a small spread will be observed. I tried to explain
this to Androcles but he was too mathematically illiterate to understand
what I was talking about.

> For k=1, such light would be spread out over centuries, not
> observable in a single night as is actually done. So this is
> not a subtle effect, and k=1 is GROSSLY WRONG.
>
> Also:
> Observations of binary pulsars put a limit k < 2×10−9.
> K. Brecher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 1051–1054, 1236(E) (1977).
>
>
> Simply ignoring facts and indulging in fantasies is not physics.

There is no point in trying to refute a theory if you don't know what
that theory says. One of the main errors being made by astronomers is in
the estimation of relative source speed by using the conventional
Doppler shift of its light. As I have tried to explain many times, there
is another source of wavelength shift that is due to source ACCELERATION
at time of emission.

As for binary star studies, I'm sure the ones I have done are much more
comprehensive than anything Brecher did. He didn't even have a computer.
..so there is no way he could have done much at all.

>
> Tom Roberts
>

[Gary Harnagel]

Sorry, you already have that position.

[John Gogo]

Yes, but the train whistle is in respect to the observer at ground zero and is observed as either one or the other as it travels. Supernovae at stationed millions or billions of light years away, and the to/fro travel is observed simultaneously in such an extrapolated state.

[Gary Harnagel]

And your point is?

[John Gogo]

Well, if you make a stick figure math diagram- you will find that they are not the same.

[John Gogo]

The meter sticks and clocks are not operationally identical- when we compare local Doppler vs. Supernovae.

[John Gogo]

[John Gogo]

o-------> eye -------> vs. eye <-------o------->

[Gary Harnagel]

Has anyone ever told you that you make no sense at all?

[John Gogo]

It is simply pure logic.

[John Gogo]

I am simply trying to make sense of the world.

[Gary Harnagel]

I don't think you're going about it the right way.