Young/Forbes toothed-wheel experiment 1891
GogoJF
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/gogo5.pdf
Androcles
"GogoJF" <jfgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:87288949-3a57-4e3b...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...Does "fuckin' ignorant rubbish" count as a comment?
Uncle Al
>
> Does anyone have a comment on my latest paper ?
> http://www.wbabin.net/physics/gogo5.pdf
"Since, the author supports the theory of instantaneous light, every
effort will be made to demonstrate its viability."
1) Microwave ovens.
2) idiot
3) Radar.
4) idiot
5) Maxwell's equations, General Relativity.
6) idiot
7) Communicating with the Mars rovers.
8) idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Dono.
> Does anyone have a comment on my latest paper ?http://www.wbabin.net/physics/gogo5.pdf
IDIOT.
GogoJF
> GogoJF wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have a comment on my latest paper ?
> >http://www.wbabin.net/physics/gogo5.pdf
>
> "Since, the author supports the theory of instantaneous light, every
> effort will be made to demonstrate its viability."
>
> 1) Microwave ovens.
> 2) idiot
> 3) Radar.
> 4) idiot
> 5) Maxwell's equations, General Relativity.
> 6) idiot
> 7) Communicating with the Mars rovers.
> 8) idiot
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
If your standing at the location of distant reflectors A and B, in the
Young/Forbes experiment, you can literally "see" the image of the
light source that has been propagated onto its surface.
If you are standing on the moon where the mirrors were placed, you
would "see" no such image. The radar system, although a two-way
system like the Young/ Forbes, operates like a relay system, not an
optical system. Radio waves have to be collected over seconds,
minutes, and hours to develop a pin point image on a photographic
plate.
The GPS is the same relay system. Communicating with Mars rovers is
the same system.
Toothed-wheel experiments which sustain the image do not operate in
the same way
eric gisse
I love it when people whose knowledge of physics doesn't extend past the
19th century see fit to comment on the field as if they were an expert.
GogoJF
Well, you know, I prescribe to the idea of schools of thought. Which
school of thought are you? I can tell you easily, that personally, I
am of the school of P.W. Bridgman, and his thought process concerning
the concept of the "operational point of view". You have to
understand that I am "stuck" with this way of thinking.
GogoJF
>
> > Does anyone have a comment on my latest paper ?
> >http://www.wbabin.net/physics/gogo5.pdf
>
> "Since, the author supports the theory of instantaneous light, every
> effort will be made to demonstrate its viability."
>
> 1) Microwave ovens.
> 2) idiot
> 3) Radar.
> 4) idiot
> 5) Maxwell's equations, General Relativity.
> 6) idiot
> 7) Communicating with the Mars rovers.
> 8) idiot
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
The whole point of this paper was to point out, the fact that, the
DISTANCE of these toothed-wheel experiments- and for that matter the
rotating mirror experiments, such as Michelson's- are meaningless. If
variable distant receptors are simultaneous, with respect to the
observer's measure (as in Young/Forbes 1891) - then they have to be
instant. This means that even though we think that the Fizeau
experiment is dependent on distance and is a two-way experiment- it is
actually, to the observer, a one-way experiment which is not only
simultaneous, but also instantaneous- because even the delayed
distance in the Young/Forbes experiment from A to B- would have shown
some sort of a synchronicity. But, this is not the case. Variable
light sources from the observer will not only maintain their
synchronicity, but, at the same time will show their
instantaneousness.
Helmut Wabnig
wrote:
Why, then, is there that annoying time delay in overseas telephone
communications, which makes me nervous, you know.
A and B both listen, start to speak, notice too late that the other
one also started to speak, stop, listen, start again.
Hell, can you explain to General Telephone how to allow for instant
communications without time delays?
w.
GogoJF
> Does anyone have a comment on my latest paper ?http://www.wbabin.net/physics/gogo5.pdf
GogoJF
Re: Power Promotes Hypocrisy
January 1 2010, 12:46 PM
Anonymous said, on General Science Journal Forum:
Thus we see things "happen" all at once, that in reality are stretched
over time. Thus events we see locally do happen pretty much
"instantaneously," whereas events we see concurrently in the distance,
(as sun spots, for instance) already happened about eight minutes ago.
GogoJF says:
This is the exact opposite of what I believe. Events that happen
locally mimic special relativity because of the inherent delays in our
machinery. Seeing the sun has the same delay, but, since the distance
is so great, we can consider this observation to be almost
instantaneously.
In reference to the observer, it is nearly impossible to tell the
difference between instant and delay because seeing the object with
the eyes and measuring the object with our devices are always mixed
together. There are only very subtle hints or evidences which reveal
instantaneous light.
The best example, to show that light is instantaneous is the Young/
Forbes 1891 toothed-wheel experiment; except, that we need to extend
the baseline of this experiment even further, to show this difference.
toothed-wheel------------------------------reflector 1--------
reflector2
16,835 feet 18,212.2
feet
These are dimensions of the Young/Forbes 1891 experiment. The two
images formed were observed simultaneously. This experiment was
severely criticized because of the short baseline. So, now we need to
not only extend the baseline between the wheel and the reflectors, but
also between the reflectors themselves.
An acceptable baseline would be 22,910 meters used by Cornu/Helmert in
their 1874 toothed-wheel experiment. Now, we must apply these
distances to the original Young/Forbes 1891 experiment. It is
important to note that Young/Forbes 1891 experiment is the only
toothed-wheel experiment which varies the distance of the reflectors.
So, the final experiment will look something like this:
toothed-wheel---------------------reflector 1---------------------
reflector2
22,910 meters 22,910 meters
So, reflector 1 is located 22,910 meters from the toothed-wheel and
reflector 2 is 45,820 meters from the toothed-wheel. According to the
conventional theory, since the baseline is now acceptable, there will
be a measurable delay between reflector 1 and reflector 2, by the
order of the speed of light. My theory says that the two reflectors
will still maintain their simultaneity, which not only violates the
speed of light, but also demonstrates that light must be observed
instantly- that DISTANCE has nothing whatsoever to do with measuring
the reflectors- that these delays are mechanically inherited.
Why isn't anyone bothered by the simultaneous result of the Young/
Forbes 1891 toothed-wheel experiment. Why isn't anyone interested in
extending the baseline to make it a legitimate measure? Is it just
too difficult to perform?
Greg Neill
> Why isn't anyone bothered by the simultaneous result of the Young/
> Forbes 1891 toothed-wheel experiment. Why isn't anyone interested in
> extending the baseline to make it a legitimate measure? Is it just
> too difficult to perform?
Things have progressed markedly since the early days of
toothed wheel experiments. College students in physics labs
run experiments every year that measure the speed of light
using far superior (and compact) equipment.
Besides, what is there left to argue with after observing the
communications delays using satellites, delays between Earth
and space probes, Mars rovers, etc., and especialy lunar laser
ranging? It all works to spec.
GogoJF
Yes, but there is one major flaw here, we have discarded the visual
way of doing things with respect to the image, haven't we?
GogoJF
I would think, as scientists, we would want to clear things up no
matter how old they are. Just because we have more precise
instruments is not justification enough to disqualify toothed-wheel
measures. Are not toothed-wheel measures accurate enough? I realize
that they are not as precise as today's measures- but accurate, that
is a different story?
Why can't we just perform this one experiment and see what we would
find- what harm can it do?
Greg Neill
Why is that a flaw? Do you still eat stew with yours fingers?
Send messengers with hand-written letters to talk to your
neighbors? Crap in an open cess-pit?
Is there something special about using the unspecialized
sensors that evolution has cobbled together for us for
hunting and gathering versus purpose-built precision
instruments?
GogoJF
You still haven't answered the question about performing a new Young/
Forbes 1891 experiment using a longer baseline. Can't we just perform
the experiment, to finally legitimatize variable reflector distances?
Greg Neill
You're free to pursue any experimental avenues you wish.
Others may have better uses for their time and efforts.
Before you go out and start replicating 19th century
devices though, you might consider whether radar reflection
by the planets is not a suitable standin. It's old news:
GogoJF
There is something about a mirror (set of) and a lens (set of) that
defies cause and effect- finite measure. Truth of the matter- toothed-
wheel experiments are not two-way one-clock measures- they are, in
actuality, one-way, one-clock measures- the Young/Forbes 1891
experiment confirms this.
GogoJF
In fact, the Young/Forbes 1891 experiment, or any other toothed-wheel,
or multi-sided mirrored experiment resembles, in many respects, a very
large telescope/microscope?