EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: Spaceman on 19 Aug 2008 22:40 PD wrote: > 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. How can it be charming to you, you can not even understand half of it Mr 2D man.. LOL :) -- James M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman
From: PD on 20 Aug 2008 08:23 On Aug 19, 9:40 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 > > Dear PD: You are a persona non grata. Examine your motives. Your > closed mind disqualifies you as a scientist. NoEinstein Your being factually incorrect is an indication of my having a closed mind? Does my having an open mind mean indulging in your fantasy world where facts are irrelevant? As for being persona non grata, you've declared that twice before. You have neither the mental courage to plonk nor to ignore responses. You have a disabling compulsion, as your string of snit "non grata" posts clearly shows. PD
From: PD on 20 Aug 2008 08:25 On Aug 19, 9:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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. > > > Dear PD: You are a persona non grata. Examine your motives. Your > closed mind disqualifies you as a scientist. NoEinstein If you do not like the responses to posts you make an open and unfettered forum, examine your motives for posting here, knowing full well that you leave yourself open to all sorts of responses. It's been suggested to you before that you post to a blog where you can control the responses you receive. It is a fool's errand to attempt control where you don't have it. Examine your motives. PD
From: NoEinstein on 20 Aug 2008 11:59 On Aug 20, 8:23 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 19, 9:40 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > > Dear PD: You are a persona non grata. Examine your motives. Your > > closed mind disqualifies you as a scientist. NoEinstein > > Your being factually incorrect is an indication of my having a closed > mind? Does my having an open mind mean indulging in your fantasy world > where facts are irrelevant? > > As for being persona non grata, you've declared that twice before. You > have neither the mental courage to plonk nor to ignore responses. You > have a disabling compulsion, as your string of snit "non grata" posts > clearly shows. > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear PD: My interest in this newsgroup is about new truths in science, not about getting into strength of personality battles with you. In the nearly three years that you have replied to what I have done (never vice versa), you haven't once responded to reason. Your ego hinges on the "complexity" of the things you purport to understand. "Where there is complexity in science, errors likely loom." Your misplaced sense of superiority makes you just a parasite to true science. Having the last word, isn't the same as being right. I can't continue to spend hours a week of my time trying to banter with your "skirting" of science. So, please refrain from replying on my posts, again. NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 20 Aug 2008 12:00
On Aug 20, 8:25 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 19, 9:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > Dear PD: You are a persona non grata. Examine your motives. Your > > closed mind disqualifies you as a scientist. NoEinstein > > If you do not like the responses to posts you make an open and > unfettered forum, examine your motives for posting here, knowing full > well that you leave yourself open to all sorts of responses. It's been > suggested to you before that you post to a blog where you can control > the responses you receive. It is a fool's errand to attempt control > where you don't have it. Examine your motives. > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear PD: My interest in this newsgroup is about new truths in science, not about getting into strength of personality battles with you. In the nearly three years that you have replied to what I have done (never vice versa), you haven't once responded to reason. Your ego hinges on the "complexity" of the things you purport to understand. "Where there is complexity in science, errors likely loom." Your misplaced sense of superiority makes you just a parasite to true science. Having the last word, isn't the same as being right. I can't continue to spend hours a week of my time trying to banter with your "skirting" of science. So, please refrain from replying on my posts, again. NoEinstein |