Compelling evidence for in vacuo light speed anisotrophy
in [Relativity]
|
From: Eric Gisse on 8 Apr 2008 18:45 On Apr 8, 8:36 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...(a)ThankS-NO- SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: > Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote in message > > 70eae33b-3be2-453b-89b1-cf97970f1...(a)a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com > > > On Apr 8, 9:07 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: > > >> If the data is correct and his predictions match the data, how could > >> he be wrong? > > > As a proposition in logic, that is false: in general we can be wrong > > even if we sometimes predict things that are right. > > I predicted once that Reg Cahill, when he was exposed as posting > with the name "Peter", would soon return with another alias. > He did. You are talking to the embodiment of my prediction. > > Dirk Vdm You think that's Cahill? One of the previous anti-troll incarnations of some goddamn person thought he was the chick Cahill married. I don't really know either way, but it is obviously someone close to Cahill. Either one is ripe for mockery though.
From: Surfer on 10 Apr 2008 10:19 On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 09:36:01 -0700 (PDT), Edward Green <spamspamspam3(a)netzero.com> wrote: > >A key point would be whether the "prediction" of the anomalies was >inevitable in detail from the new theory, or left room for tweaking. > That is a good point, but in this case I think there is little room for tweaking, for the following reasons. The magnitude of the anomaly is given by equation (7). Here: v is the speed of 3-space in the earth frame of reference. V is an average of the asymptotic hyperbolic speeds of the space craft in the earth frame of reference. theta_i is the initial angle between the velocity of the craft and 3-space (before the flyby) theta-f is the final angle between the velocity of the craft and 3-space (after the flyby) If only one spacecraft was involved, it would be possible to tweak the putative velocity of 3-space so as retrospectively predict a known anomaly. However, once the value was chosen, it would not be possible to change it for the other spacecraft. So for subsequent predictions there would be no room for tweaking. However, Table 1 shows results for six craft with considerable variation in theta_i, theta_f and speed. So even though retrospective, I think the correct prediction of anomalies for all six craft is compelling evidence that equation (7) is correctly modelling the phenomenon that it was designed to model. What is also very interesting is that the author knew in advance what values to plug in for the speed and direction of dynamical 3-space. That suggests he correctly interpreted earlier experiments.
From: Dono on 10 Apr 2008 10:42 On Apr 10, 7:19 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: > So even though retrospective, I think the correct prediction of > anomalies for all six craft is compelling evidence that equation (7) > is correctly modelling the phenomenon that it was designed to model. > > What is also very interesting is that the author knew in advance what > values to plug in for the speed and direction of dynamical 3-space. > > That suggests he correctly interpreted earlier experiments. This suggests that Reg Cahill is a crook (we have known that for a long time) and that you suck up to him (we have known that as well). His "equation 7" is nothing but ballistic theory as applied to the Ives-Stilwell experiment (neither you nor Cahill knows that). Go tell him and suck somewhere else.
From: Surfer on 10 Apr 2008 12:21 On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:49:17 +0930, Surfer <no(a)spam.please.net> wrote: >On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 09:36:01 -0700 (PDT), Edward Green ><spamspamspam3(a)netzero.com> wrote: > >> >>A key point would be whether the "prediction" of the anomalies was >>inevitable in detail from the new theory, or left room for tweaking. >> >That is a good point, but in this case I think there is little room >for tweaking, for the following reasons. > Actually, I just noticed that the alpha_v line of Table 1 contains a list of varying right ascension values for the 3-space flow velocity. So although the same value has been used for the speed of the 3-space, different values have been used for direction. This clearly allows "predicted" values to be closer to observed values than they would otherwise be. So I would say this theory will predict anomalies, but when it comes to predicting values, the degree of uncertainty would be quite large.
From: bz on 10 Apr 2008 12:05
Surfer <no(a)spam.please.net> wrote in news:2s7sv31q5u8piqk7kb60v2t54c7lck7rp1(a)4ax.com: .... > That is a good point, but in this case I think there is little room > for tweaking, for the following reasons. > > The magnitude of the anomaly is given by equation (7). > ..... > > > So even though retrospective, I think the correct prediction of > anomalies for all six craft is compelling evidence that equation (7) > is correctly modelling the phenomenon that it was designed to model. > > What is also very interesting is that the author knew in advance what > values to plug in for the speed and direction of dynamical 3-space. > > That suggests he correctly interpreted earlier experiments. It seems strange to me that he totally neglects to mention the 'gravity boost' and 'slingshot effect', assuming that the inbound speed should equal the outbound speed. He also neglects to mention the fact that the energy transfer from planet to flyby craft is effected by the direction of rotation of the planet. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/gravity_assist.html http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Gravitational-slingshot It seems strange for someone "expert in the field" to neglect such factors. On the other hand, the success of several missions which depended upon the gravity boost and slingshot effect being correctly predicted in order to vector the spacecraft toward the next target is an indicator that any real anomalies are very small. Perhaps the failure to take the slingshot effects into consideration is the cause of his 'anomalies'. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap |