info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Lack of Effect of Epsilon on the Relativity of Simultaneity Experiment
82 views
Skip to first unread message
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
Aug 13, 2016, 9:09:17 AM8/13/16
to
In a recent thread discussing Tom's proposed experiment to demonstrate RoS
effects, Dono insisted that any deviation in placement of the photodetector
from the exact center of the "rod", a value which we have designated by ɛ
(epsilon), would completely disrupt any attempted measurement of the
magnitude of the anticipated phase shifts.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/0as0wrF6E5w/8-3YnR0HAAAJ
The falsity of this argument was obvious to everybody except Dono. In a
(possibly vain) attempt to explain to Dono this fact, I have created an
animation.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcTjRKQ0xnV3VBelE
v = 0.05c
n = 1.55
Two rods are illustrated, one with the photodetector set in the exact
center of the rod, the other with the photodetector offset by a wavelength.
The only reason for choosing a whole wavelength is to make it easier to
visually compare phase shifts measured at the center of the rod, versus
phase shifts at the offset photodetector. The simulation takes into account
Fresnel/Fizeau dragging effects.
The top pair are motionless in the lab frame, while the bottom pair are
moving in the lab frame.
Except for an occasional round-off error resulting in discrepancies of
a single pixel, it should be apparent that the phase shifts measured in the
offset photodetector are equal to the phase shifts measured in the centered
photodetector.
effects, Dono insisted that any deviation in placement of the photodetector
from the exact center of the "rod", a value which we have designated by ɛ
(epsilon), would completely disrupt any attempted measurement of the
magnitude of the anticipated phase shifts.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/0as0wrF6E5w/8-3YnR0HAAAJ
The falsity of this argument was obvious to everybody except Dono. In a
(possibly vain) attempt to explain to Dono this fact, I have created an
animation.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcTjRKQ0xnV3VBelE
v = 0.05c
n = 1.55
Two rods are illustrated, one with the photodetector set in the exact
center of the rod, the other with the photodetector offset by a wavelength.
The only reason for choosing a whole wavelength is to make it easier to
visually compare phase shifts measured at the center of the rod, versus
phase shifts at the offset photodetector. The simulation takes into account
Fresnel/Fizeau dragging effects.
The top pair are motionless in the lab frame, while the bottom pair are
moving in the lab frame.
Except for an occasional round-off error resulting in discrepancies of
a single pixel, it should be apparent that the phase shifts measured in the
offset photodetector are equal to the phase shifts measured in the centered
photodetector.
rotchm
Aug 13, 2016, 11:22:14 AM8/13/16
to
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 9:09:17 AM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> In a recent thread discussing Tom's proposed experiment to demonstrate RoS
> effects, Dono insisted that any deviation in placement...
> In a recent thread discussing Tom's proposed experiment to demonstrate RoS
> The falsity of this argument was obvious to everybody except Dono. In a
> (possibly vain) attempt to explain to Dono this fact, I have created an
> animation...
> (possibly vain) attempt to explain to Dono this fact, I have created an
Since idiot dono has remained silent on the subject for the past few days, I guess that he has realized now that he was in error (or, many errorS) all along.
That said, maybe he will agree with your animation now.
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
Aug 14, 2016, 3:58:47 AM8/14/16
to
(I thickened the lines of the animation, by the way. From what I can see, the
graphics "Drawline" function provided by Microsoft Visual Studio appears to use
a simple implementation of Bresenham's algorithm, which was never designed to
handle the case where line endpoints do not lie exactly on integer points of the
pixel grid. This resulted in ragged lines when I set the line width to 1. Very
ugly.)
Dono,
Aug 21, 2016, 5:22:46 PM8/21/16
to
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 6:09:17 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> In a recent thread discussing Tom's proposed experiment to demonstrate RoS
> effects, Dono insisted that any deviation in placement of the photodetector
> from the exact center of the "rod", a value which we have designated by ɛ
> (epsilon), would completely disrupt any attempted measurement of the
> magnitude of the anticipated phase shifts.
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/0as0wrF6E5w/8-3YnR0HAAAJ
>
> The falsity of this argument was obvious to everybody except Dono.
Well. too bad that you are a cretin who cannot follow the math.
> In a recent thread discussing Tom's proposed experiment to demonstrate RoS
> effects, Dono insisted that any deviation in placement of the photodetector
> from the exact center of the "rod", a value which we have designated by ɛ
> (epsilon), would completely disrupt any attempted measurement of the
> magnitude of the anticipated phase shifts.
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/0as0wrF6E5w/8-3YnR0HAAAJ
>
> The falsity of this argument was obvious to everybody except Dono.
Dono,
Aug 21, 2016, 5:24:08 PM8/21/16
to
On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 8:22:14 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
>
> That said, maybe he will agree with your animation now.<
Rushing to suck ass to your buddy, Stephane.
>
> That said, maybe he will agree with your animation now.<
RichD
Aug 22, 2016, 3:22:40 PM8/22/16
to
On August 13, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> In a recent thread discussing Tom's proposed experiment to
> demonstrate RoS effects, Dono insisted that any deviation in
> placement of the photodetector from the exact center of the "rod",
> a value which we have designated by ɛ, would completely disrupt
> In a recent thread discussing Tom's proposed experiment to
> demonstrate RoS effects, Dono insisted that any deviation in
> placement of the photodetector from the exact center of the "rod",
> any attempted measurement of the
> magnitude of the anticipated phase shifts.
> magnitude of the anticipated phase shifts.
> The falsity of this argument was obvious to everybody except Dono. In a
> (possibly vain) attempt to explain to Dono this fact, I have created an
> animation.
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcTjRKQ0xnV3VBelE
>
> v = 0.05c
> n = 1.55
>
> Two rods are illustrated, one with the photodetector set in the exact
> center of the rod, the other offset by a wavelength.
> (possibly vain) attempt to explain to Dono this fact, I have created an
> animation.
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8XIf0XcrpOcTjRKQ0xnV3VBelE
>
> v = 0.05c
> n = 1.55
>
> Two rods are illustrated, one with the photodetector set in the exact
> The only reason for choosing a whole wavelength is to make it easier to
> visually compare phase shifts measured at the center of the rod, versus
> phase shifts at the offset photodetector. The simulation takes into account
> Fresnel/Fizeau dragging effects.
> The top pair are motionless in the lab frame, while the bottom pair are
> moving in the lab frame.
Thanks. Your animations are insightful, a real public service.
> visually compare phase shifts measured at the center of the rod, versus
> phase shifts at the offset photodetector. The simulation takes into account
> Fresnel/Fizeau dragging effects.
> The top pair are motionless in the lab frame, while the bottom pair are
> moving in the lab frame.
What tools do you use? I'd like to try something
similar - create .gif files from plotted data, then
display them in sequence. But I need some advice on
software utilities.
--
Rich
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
Aug 22, 2016, 3:40:13 PM8/22/16
to
On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 2:22:40 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
> Thanks. Your animations are insightful, a real public service.
>
> What tools do you use? I'd like to try something
> similar - create .gif files from plotted data, then
> display them in sequence. But I need some advice on
> software utilities.
For assembling sequential gif files into an animation, I use GIMP
> Thanks. Your animations are insightful, a real public service.
>
> What tools do you use? I'd like to try something
> similar - create .gif files from plotted data, then
> display them in sequence. But I need some advice on
> software utilities.
https://www.gimp.org/
I create the gif files using any of a number of programming languages, depending
on my mood. Lately, I've mostly used C# in Visual Studio 2015, but in the past I've also used Java, C++ and MatLab.
You can get free downloads of most languages. If you are new to programming,
I recommend Python for its ease of use and its compact, intuitive syntax.
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog
Aug 22, 2016, 7:23:27 PM8/22/16
to
prone to following flawed mathematical arguments to nonsensical conclusions.
Do you still maintain that t_1 = t_2 despite the evidence of this simulation?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/0as0wrF6E5w/8-3YnR0HAAAJ
Do you need the source code to try to poke holes in my visual argument?
Do you realize that not one single mainstream physicist on these newsgroups has
offered you support? Not even Danco. You have *completely* misinterpreted his
critique of Tom's experiment.
The different views that Tom, Jan, Danco, Paul etc. have exchanged in these
discussions are, in my view, mostly semantic differences, i.e. differences in
terminology. Danco considers Tom's experiment to be merely an expression of the
Sagnac effect and hence a waste of time. Jan carefully distinguishes the Sagnac
effect from the effect exhibited by the fiber conveyor and the effect being
measured in Tom's proposed experiment. I fall somewhere in the middle, and
consider Tom's experiment to be worth doing because, in my opinion, it
represents a technological tour de force, with which opinion Danco disagrees.
But regardless in our differences in terminology and our widely divergent
opinions on the significance of Tom's proposed experiment, we all agree on the
math, and we all agree that the experimental arrangement is eminently doable.
You appear to stand with Ken Seto. Congratulations.
Dono,
Aug 22, 2016, 7:33:17 PM8/22/16
to
On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 4:23:27 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 4:22:46 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 6:09:17 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>
> > > The falsity of this argument was obvious to everybody except Dono.
> >
> > Well. too bad that you are a cretin who cannot follow the math.
>
> Your problem is that you cannot grasp the physics behind the math,
Actually, you are the one who is incapable. You are treating "epsilon" and "n" as they would be time invariant and this produces a huge source of measurement noise, much larger than the signal (due to the multiplication by "c") . They aren't , so Tom's experiment is doomed to failure. I explained that to you but you are too much of an autistic imbecile to get it.
> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 4:22:46 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 6:09:17 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>
> > > The falsity of this argument was obvious to everybody except Dono.
> >
> > Well. too bad that you are a cretin who cannot follow the math.
>
> Your problem is that you cannot grasp the physics behind the math,
Dono,
Aug 22, 2016, 7:39:44 PM8/22/16
to
Actually, you are the one who is incapable. You are treating "epsilon" and "n" as they would be time invariant. They aren't ,and this produces a huge source of measurement noise, much larger than the signal (due to the multiplication by "c") , so Tom's experiment is doomed to failure. I explained that to you but you are too much of an autistic imbecile to get it.
I don't mind that you are a cretin. you were born this way, what is very annoying is that you are a conceited cretin (in the style of "rotchm") and this makes you despicable.
Dono,
Aug 22, 2016, 7:45:25 PM8/22/16
to
On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 4:23:27 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>
> The different views that Tom, Jan, Danco, Paul etc. have exchanged in these
> discussions are, in my view, mostly semantic differences, i.e. differences in
> terminology. Danco considers Tom's experiment to be merely an expression of the Sagnac effect and hence a waste of time.
Kissing ass to the ones that are more knowledgeable than you (in the style of your buddy. "rotchm") doesn't make you their peer.
>
> The different views that Tom, Jan, Danco, Paul etc. have exchanged in these
> discussions are, in my view, mostly semantic differences, i.e. differences in
> terminology. Danco considers Tom's experiment to be merely an expression of the Sagnac effect and hence a waste of time.
Now , as I explained to you earlier, Tom's experiment is closely related to KTX. It is a very poorly thought KTX. Kennedy and Thorndike were much smarter than Tom. so their experiment was a success. Tom will NEVER be able to run his successfully.
As an aside, Danco's disagreement with Tom is much more profound but you are too much of a conceited imbecile to get it.
Python
Aug 22, 2016, 9:32:05 PM8/22/16
to
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> Do you realize that not one single mainstream physicist on these newsgroups has
> offered you support? Not even Danco. You have *completely* misinterpreted his
> critique of Tom's experiment.
You'd better don't give a shit, Mr. Caspace. "Dono" aka "Andrew George"
> Do you realize that not one single mainstream physicist on these newsgroups has
> offered you support? Not even Danco. You have *completely* misinterpreted his
> critique of Tom's experiment.
is acting that way here for *years*. Pretending to support SR, but
denying every of its consequences, being nailed by basic math but
just rolling and the floor crying and shoooting. He is a kind of
mistery, irrelevant to physicists, quite the contrary to psychologists.
He is not funny anymore, by the way, just pathetic.
rotchm
Aug 22, 2016, 9:33:16 PM8/22/16
to
On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 7:23:27 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 4:22:46 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
> You appear to stand with Ken Seto. Congratulations.
We knew that for a long time. Idiot dono is incapable of understanding the physics and he totally muffles up the math. And as we know, he prefers to hide his mistakes by making bigger mistakes...which makes him look even more ridiculous, but he is blind to that! He hasn't advanced for the past few years, just like idiot ken. In a recent thread, he *still* maintains that two simul events are simul in another frame if the events are causally related (horizontal falling rod example). Idiot dono, as idiot ken, is hopeless.
> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 4:22:46 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
> You appear to stand with Ken Seto. Congratulations.
Dono,
Aug 22, 2016, 9:45:26 PM8/22/16
to
On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 6:33:16 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> snip imbecilities<
I did not expect you to understand the scientific argument. All you are good at is sucking dick to whoever seems smarter than you. This means a lot of dick sucking, Stephane.
> snip imbecilities<
I did not expect you to understand the scientific argument. All you are good at is sucking dick to whoever seems smarter than you. This means a lot of dick sucking, Stephane.
Dono,
Aug 22, 2016, 9:48:35 PM8/22/16
to
On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 6:32:05 PM UTC-7, Python wrote:
> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > Do you realize that not one single mainstream physicist on these newsgroups has
> > offered you support? Not even Danco. You have *completely* misinterpreted his
> > critique of Tom's experiment.
<snip>
> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > Do you realize that not one single mainstream physicist on these newsgroups has
> > offered you support? Not even Danco. You have *completely* misinterpreted his
> > critique of Tom's experiment.
I am glad to see that the nim-shifting troll rushes to suck up to the imbeciles, I would have been worried to have you on my side :-)
rotchm
Aug 22, 2016, 10:13:16 PM8/22/16
to
rotchm
Aug 22, 2016, 10:18:18 PM8/22/16
to
Dono,
Aug 22, 2016, 10:55:01 PM8/22/16
to
On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 7:18:18 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 9:45:26 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote:
> > On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 6:33:16 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> > > snip imbecilities<
> >
> > I did not expect you to understand the scientific argument. All you are good at is sucking dick to whoever seems smarter than you. This means a lot of dick sucking, Stephane.
>
> Yesterday I was David.
Liar, you have always been Stephane, the Stephane Baune asshole. Do your "students" know what a piece of shit you are?
> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 9:45:26 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote:
> > On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 6:33:16 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> > > snip imbecilities<
> >
> > I did not expect you to understand the scientific argument. All you are good at is sucking dick to whoever seems smarter than you. This means a lot of dick sucking, Stephane.
>
> Yesterday I was David.
0 new messages