EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 19 Aug 2008 14:27 On Aug 19, 12:52 pm, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > PD wrote: > > Frankly, I'm thrilled that Spaceman, NoEinstein, and Henri Wilson have > > discovered each other. They can play their little game of "Physics > > House" together, and drink "Quark Kool-Aid" and eat "Fig Newton > > Mechanics" cookies, and argue with each other about how the universe > > works, and no one else is invited to the club. > > No arguments really going on here PD, except of course the arguments > we agree prove that SR has problems that can not be fixed without > a repair to SR itself. > It is called communication and understanding. > Something you never learned when you were brainwashed. > :) Ah, good, then it's a FRIENDLY tea party. Glad to see it. Carry on. I'll step away from the clubhouse door where you guys are chatting. PD
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 19 Aug 2008 18:44 On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:27:36 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Aug 19, 12:52�pm, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> >wrote: >> PD wrote: >> > Frankly, I'm thrilled that Spaceman, NoEinstein, and Henri Wilson have >> > discovered each other. They can play their little game of "Physics >> > House" together, and drink "Quark Kool-Aid" and eat "Fig Newton >> > Mechanics" cookies, and argue with each other about how the universe >> > works, and no one else is invited to the club. >> >> No arguments really going on here PD, except of course the arguments >> we agree prove that SR has problems that can not be fixed without >> a repair to SR itself. >> It is called communication and understanding. >> Something you never learned when you were brainwashed. >> :) > >Ah, good, then it's a FRIENDLY tea party. Glad to see it. Carry on. >I'll step away from the clubhouse door where you guys are chatting. Diaper, we're not hopelessly indoctrinated like you are. We have free minds and can openly discuss all possibilities. >PD Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm All religion involves selling a nonexistant concept to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
From: PD on 19 Aug 2008 18:51 On Aug 19, 5:44 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:27:36 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Aug 19, 12:52 pm, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > >wrote: > >> PD wrote: > >> > Frankly, I'm thrilled that Spaceman, NoEinstein, and Henri Wilson have > >> > discovered each other. They can play their little game of "Physics > >> > House" together, and drink "Quark Kool-Aid" and eat "Fig Newton > >> > Mechanics" cookies, and argue with each other about how the universe > >> > works, and no one else is invited to the club. > > >> No arguments really going on here PD, except of course the arguments > >> we agree prove that SR has problems that can not be fixed without > >> a repair to SR itself. > >> It is called communication and understanding. > >> Something you never learned when you were brainwashed. > >> :) > > >Ah, good, then it's a FRIENDLY tea party. Glad to see it. Carry on. > >I'll step away from the clubhouse door where you guys are chatting. > > Diaper, we're not hopelessly indoctrinated like you are. We have free minds and > can openly discuss all possibilities. > Yes, of course you can. Do discuss all possibilities with each other with your free minds. It's charming. PD
From: NoEinstein on 19 Aug 2008 22:39 On Aug 18, 12:43 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 18, 10:31 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 17, 4:13 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > On Aug 17, 12:56 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 15, 6:34 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > I can't find a link to any such post, either. Methinks NoEinstein > > > > > is imagining things. To the best of my knowledge, (Now, I -could- > > > > > be wrong... Maybe NoEinstein has inside knowledge that I don't > > > > > have?) Jerry has the highest respect for you. > > > > > > > As for Spaceman, I KNOW Spaceman thinks I'm clueless. He also thinks > > > > > > that (-2)*(-2)=(-4), so his appraisal doesn't surprise me a bit. You > > > > > > might look around to see what people think of Spaceman. > > > > > > Jerry > > > > > Dear Jerry: You know a bit about the 'accuracy' issues with > > > > interferometers. Those were probably written in an article that you > > > > read someplace. When you side with PD on anything, you show yourself > > > > to be shallower than I gave you credit for. NoEinstein > > > > When I was a teen, I built interferometers and used them for > > > practical applications. I know a bit about their requirements. > > > > Until you upgrade your interferometer base so that it is > > > uncoupled from distortions transmitted from the Lazy Susan that > > > you use for rotation, and until you align the rotational axis > > > so that it is strictly vertical, there is no reason to believe > > > any of your results. > > > > Jerry- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Dear Jerry: Until you develop a quantitative reasoning ability, you > > don't have the gray matter to tell what aspects of an interferometer > > are contributing to the observed fringe shifts. I seriously doubt > > that you were designing interferometers as a teen. But if so, please > > describe the why and the what. What I can tell is that you are a nit > > picker. > > :>) > The devil is in the details with experimental physics, NoEinstein. > But I know you HATE details. Simpler is better in your book. > > > > > You see rocks stuck in a rolling snow ball, and conclude that > > those rocks are influencing the rolling speed and distance. But when > > you get bowled-over by the snowball you should realize that in many > > cases the quantitative is more important than the qualitative. > > NoEinstein - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear PD: You are a persona non grata. Examine your motives. Your closed mind disqualifies you as a scientist. NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 19 Aug 2008 22:40
On Aug 18, 1:12 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 18, 11:33 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 17, 6:59 pm, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: > > > > Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: > > > > On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 11:10:19 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein > > > > <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> > > > > wrote: > > > > >> On Aug 16, 6:24 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > > > >>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:03:11 -0700 (PDT), Jerry > > > > >>> <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > >>>> On Aug 16, 8:07 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > >>>>> You have a completely unbalanced, flimsy, tall and unbalanced > > > >>>>> contraption that will bend and sway under its own weight as it > > > >>>>> rotates. The assembly is mounted on a cheap Lazy Susan, and the > > > >>>>> three point suspension does nothing to isolate the assembly from > > > >>>>> mechanical distortions in the rotating base. > > > > >>>> Re "flimsiness"... > > > > >>>> What does your Rube Golberg XYZ interferometer offer that the > > > >>>> following vastly simpler, far easier-to-implement design does not? > > > > >>>>> ========== | | > > > >>>> laser | | | > > > > >>>> target beam splitter mirror > > > > >>>> Instead of your precarious vertical arrangement of components, > > > >>>> all of the components can be solidly mounted on a rigid optical > > > >>>> bench. > > > > >>>> All other considerations apply. The axis of rotation must be > > > >>>> as nearly perfectly vertical as possible, and the optical bench > > > >>>> must be mechanically isolated from the rotating base. > > > > >>> Why bother? > > > > >>> There is no aether. Light moves at c wrt the source and every > > > >>> component of the > > > >>> apparatus. There should always be a null result. Any fringe > > > >>> movement merely > > > >>> indicates that the apparatus is distorted. > > > > >>>> Jerry > > > > >>> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > > > >>> All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible > > > >>> fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second > > > >>> postulate.- Hide quoted text - > > > > >>> - Show quoted text - > > > > >> Dear Henri: Light always EMITS at 'c' relative to the light source > > > >> or reflection. But the effective velocity is: 'c' plus or minus v. > > > >> -- NoEinstein -- > > > > > I don't think we can be certain about the speed of reflected light. > > > > If a photon > > > > strikes a mirror at c+v wrt the mirror, it might be reflected at c+v, > > > > c or > > > > something in between. There is no experimental evidence either way. > > > > The problem is with the misconception that wavelength times frequency > > > equals speed. (but it only equals the speed of the wave wrt an "at rest" > > > plane > > > of travel.) > > > If it were truly the same speed to all, doppler would not occur. > > > The wavelengths would never be seen as smaller or longer.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Dear Spaceman: The very best "experimental evidence" for the velocity > > of reflected light is the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment. > > This is factually incorrect. There have been numerous experiments > since 1887 that have VASTLY improved on the result obtained by them. > You seem to be completely unaware of any experimental evidence over > the last 120 years. > > > > > I made > > the intuitive assumption that: "Light will speed up or slow down > > matching the velocity of the emitting source or reflection." I tested > > that assumption, mathematically, on M-M by using simple algebra to > > calculate the TIMES of travel of the light in both courses, from the > > source to the target, and for all azimuths of the apparatus rotation. > > What I learned is: The 45 degree beam splitter is acting to CORRECT > > the velocity changes happening in the light, so that the TIME of > > travel around the apparatus remains unchanged. And the reason that is > > so is because M-M lacks a CONTROL, or unchanging light course. Read > > the following links to understand why. NoEinstein > > > Replicating NoEinsteins Invalidation of M-Mhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/ac6fcd9b4e8112ed?hl=en > > Where Angels Fear to Fallhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e4...- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear PD: You are a persona non grata. Examine your motives. Your closed mind disqualifies you as a scientist. NoEinstein |