Prev: Brendan Behan (Captains and the Kings); James Joyce (Ulysses)
Next: A puzzle for the SRians
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 1 Aug 2010 18:34
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 18:44:31 -0700 (PDT), "nuny(a)bid.nes" <alien8752(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Jul 31, 3:36�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 02:36:51 -0700 (PDT), "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 26, 5:28�am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> If an infinitely long object can be trapped inside an infinitely short
>> >> container, and if an Einsteinian travelling with the rivet sees the
>> >> bug squashed while the bug sees itself alive and kicking, then the
>> >> Michelson-Morley experiment confirms Einstein's relativity and refutes
>> >> Newton's emission theory of light:
>>
>> > �If as you say the speed of light is not constant, let's posit
>> >dropping a battery-powered radio transmitter straight down along its
>> >antenna's line-of-sight toward a convenient plane reflector
>>
>> > �Pulse it one time while it's falling at some fraction of c, let's
>> >call it dv. Afterward the antenna is basically just a mirror.
>>
>> > �There's a clock midway up that releases the transmitter and later
>> >tells it to pulse, and also tells us at the bottom when all this
>> >happens.
>>
>> > �When do we first see photons arrive at the reflector?
>>
>> > �If velocities add the way you say they do...
>>
>> > �The first pulse of photons travels downward at c +dv, hits the plane
>> >reflector and returns upward still at c+dv. It hits the transmitter
>> >antenna *and bounces off*, adding the now-greater transmitter's
>> >velocity to its own, heading down faster than the original photons.
>> >For a smaller distance. This repeats until the many-times-reflected
>> >photons have (as far as we can measure) infinite speed.
>>
>> > �That a problem for you?
>>
>> No problem.
>> That's exactly what would happen....but if you do the sums you will see the
>> practical limitations.
>
> Handwaving. What sums, what limitations?
>
> RADAR works as if lightspeed were finite and fixed. If lightspeed
>were variable it would work differently.

It wouldn't. It normally operates in air, which fixes the speed of the signals.

Anyway, even in a vacuum, radar reflections from, say, an aeroplane would be
traveling at so close to c that only an insignificant positioning error would
ensue....and how would that error be determined?

>
> Mark L. Fergerson


Henry Wilson...

........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: nuny on 2 Aug 2010 00:02
On Aug 1, 3:34 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 18:44:31 -0700 (PDT), "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail..com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Jul 31, 3:36 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 02:36:51 -0700 (PDT), "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Jul 26, 5:28 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> If an infinitely long object can be trapped inside an infinitely short
> >> >> container, and if an Einsteinian travelling with the rivet sees the
> >> >> bug squashed while the bug sees itself alive and kicking, then the
> >> >> Michelson-Morley experiment confirms Einstein's relativity and refutes
> >> >> Newton's emission theory of light:
>
> >> >  If as you say the speed of light is not constant, let's posit
> >> >dropping a battery-powered radio transmitter straight down along its
> >> >antenna's line-of-sight toward a convenient plane reflector
>
> >> >  Pulse it one time while it's falling at some fraction of c, let's
> >> >call it dv. Afterward the antenna is basically just a mirror.
>
> >> >  There's a clock midway up that releases the transmitter and later
> >> >tells it to pulse, and also tells us at the bottom when all this
> >> >happens.
>
> >> >  When do we first see photons arrive at the reflector?
>
> >> >  If velocities add the way you say they do...
>
> >> >  The first pulse of photons travels downward at c +dv, hits the plane
> >> >reflector and returns upward still at c+dv. It hits the transmitter
> >> >antenna *and bounces off*, adding the now-greater transmitter's
> >> >velocity to its own, heading down faster than the original photons.
> >> >For a smaller distance. This repeats until the many-times-reflected
> >> >photons have (as far as we can measure) infinite speed.
>
> >> >  That a problem for you?
>
> >> No problem.
> >> That's exactly what would happen....but if you do the sums you will see the
> >> practical limitations.

I suggest you get some fellow variable-c "believers" to put some
money into finding out.

> >  Handwaving. What sums, what limitations?

I note no response.

> >  RADAR works as if lightspeed were finite and fixed. If lightspeed
> >were variable it would work differently.
>
> It wouldn't. It normally operates in air, which fixes the speed of the signals.

Very silly. How about RADAR returns from other planets or the Moon?
Why do we not see velocity changes in the RADAR returns due to the
velocities of the target bodies?

For that matter, if the drop experiment I described is done in a
vacuum, you expect to see the infinite-signal result?

> Anyway, even in a vacuum, radar reflections from, say, an aeroplane would be
> traveling at so close to c that only an insignificant positioning error would
> ensue....

Spacecraft and planets travel at large enough fractions of c that
the difference should be easily visible with even WWII-grade RADAR
gear.

> ensue....and how would that error be determined?

Because the object would not be where the RADAR operator saw it to
be, compared to what the onboard instrumentation (or observer) saw.


Mark L. Fergerson
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 2 Aug 2010 17:51
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 21:02:03 -0700 (PDT), "nuny(a)bid.nes" <alien8752(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Aug 1, 3:34�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 18:44:31 -0700 (PDT), "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>

>> >> > �The first pulse of photons travels downward at c +dv, hits the plane
>> >> >reflector and returns upward still at c+dv. It hits the transmitter
>> >> >antenna *and bounces off*, adding the now-greater transmitter's
>> >> >velocity to its own, heading down faster than the original photons.
>> >> >For a smaller distance. This repeats until the many-times-reflected
>> >> >photons have (as far as we can measure) infinite speed.
>>
>> >> > �That a problem for you?
>>
>> >> No problem.
>> >> That's exactly what would happen....but if you do the sums you will see the
>> >> practical limitations.
>
> I suggest you get some fellow variable-c "believers" to put some
>money into finding out.

'c' is not variable, you dope. It is a fundamental constant that Maxwell
measured. It is also the speed of light wrt its source.

>> > �Handwaving. What sums, what limitations?
>
> I note no response.
>
>> > �RADAR works as if lightspeed were finite and fixed. If lightspeed
>> >were variable it would work differently.
>>
>> It wouldn't. It normally operates in air, which fixes the speed of the signals.
>
> Very silly. How about RADAR returns from other planets or the Moon?
>Why do we not see velocity changes in the RADAR returns due to the
>velocities of the target bodies?

We do....but they are ignored because Einstein said they are impossible.

> For that matter, if the drop experiment I described is done in a
>vacuum, you expect to see the infinite-signal result?

The signal is attenuated too much at each reflection for the experiment to be
practical.

>> Anyway, even in a vacuum, radar reflections from, say, an aeroplane would be
>> traveling at so close to c that only an insignificant positioning error would
>> ensue....
>
> Spacecraft and planets travel at large enough fractions of c that
>the difference should be easily visible with even WWII-grade RADAR
>gear.

They ARE observed but there is no other way of checking where the object should
be or how fast it is actually going. The pioneer redshift is one example...but
it is ignored.

>> ensue....and how would that error be determined?
>
> Because the object would not be where the RADAR operator saw it to
>be, compared to what the onboard instrumentation (or observer) saw.

Why do you think those two Mars probes crashed? Why do you think the pioneer
anomaly exists?

> Mark L. Fergerson


Henry Wilson...

........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
From: alien8er on 4 Aug 2010 08:21
On Aug 2, 2:51 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 21:02:03 -0700 (PDT), "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Aug 1, 3:34 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 18:44:31 -0700 (PDT), "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >  The first pulse of photons travels downward at c +dv, hits the plane
> >> >> >reflector and returns upward still at c+dv. It hits the transmitter
> >> >> >antenna *and bounces off*, adding the now-greater transmitter's
> >> >> >velocity to its own, heading down faster than the original photons..
> >> >> >For a smaller distance. This repeats until the many-times-reflected
> >> >> >photons have (as far as we can measure) infinite speed.
>
> >> >> >  That a problem for you?
>
> >> >> No problem.
> >> >> That's exactly what would happen....but if you do the sums you will see the
> >> >> practical limitations.
>
> >  I suggest you get some fellow variable-c "believers" to put some
> >money into finding out.
>
> 'c' is not variable, you dope. It is a fundamental constant that Maxwell
> measured. It is also the speed of light wrt its source.

Source velocity is irrelevant. Signal propagation time between
source and destination is relevant.

> >> >  Handwaving. What sums, what limitations?
>
> >  I note no response.

Still no response.

> >> >  RADAR works as if lightspeed were finite and fixed. If lightspeed
> >> >were variable it would work differently.
>
> >> It wouldn't. It normally operates in air, which fixes the speed of the signals.

Oh, now you claim that the speed of light is *not* source-dependent
within the Earth's atmosphere?

> >  Very silly. How about RADAR returns from other planets or the Moon?
> >Why do we not see velocity changes in the RADAR returns due to the
> >velocities of the target bodies?
>
> We do....but they are ignored because Einstein said they are impossible.

Bullshit. Cite examples or retract.

> >  For that matter, if the drop experiment I described is done in a
> >vacuum, you expect to see the infinite-signal result?
>
> The signal is attenuated too much at each reflection for the experiment to be
> practical.

How do you know? What sums did you do? What's the microwave
reflectivity of polished aluminum?

> >> Anyway, even in a vacuum, radar reflections from, say, an aeroplane would be
> >> traveling at so close to c that only an insignificant positioning error would
> >> ensue....
>
> >  Spacecraft and planets travel at large enough fractions of c that
> >the difference should be easily visible with even WWII-grade RADAR
> >gear.
>
> They ARE observed but there is no other way of checking where the object should
> be or how fast it is actually going. The pioneer redshift is one example....but
> it is ignored.

That actually works against your c+v model.

> >> ensue....and how would that error be determined?
>
> >  Because the object would not be where the RADAR operator saw it to
> >be, compared to what the onboard instrumentation (or observer) saw.
>
> Why do you think those two Mars probes crashed?

Because stupid NASA and ESA couldn't agree on systems of units.

Go ahead, tell me "that's the *official* story".


Mark L. Fergerson
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Brendan Behan (Captains and the Kings); James Joyce (Ulysses)
Next: A puzzle for the SRians