How can the MMx math be corrected?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
Next: Dark Matter hipotessis
From: eric gisse on 30 May 2010 00:59 Paul Stowe wrote: [....] > > No, since we're talking about OWLS. Go to Google Scholar and search > for, > > "Combining NASA/JPL One-Way Optical-Fiber Light-Speed Data with > Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Doppler-Shift Data to Characterise 3-Space > Flow" YOU ARE CITING CAHILL? AHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAH AHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAH HAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAH AHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHA HAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAH AAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHA HAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAA > > since it appears the author got his hands on the total Krisher raw > data... > >> [..] >> >> > > The transit time to traverse any given distance is in SRT >> > > operationally defined, and depends on the synchronization which is a >> > > function of velocity; it is not defined by nature but by convention. >> > > Depending on our synchronization setting, we also "set" the transfer >> > > time that we "measure" (we can even do that after the actual >> > > measurement!). >> >> > Again, so what? Nature cares not what we 'define' >> >> We have no alternative for what we cannot measure; and even if we >> could, there may be practical arguments to keep it. The definition of >> "simultaneity" started in a pragmatic way, just like that of the >> direction of current in a wire (except that we now do know that real >> current goes from minus to plus, although we still define it from plus >> to minus). > > It is very important to proper understanding... > >> Regards, >> Harald
From: Paul Stowe on 30 May 2010 01:47 On May 29, 9:59 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PaulStowewrote: > > [....] > > > > > No, since we're talking about OWLS. Go to Google Scholar and search > > for, > > > "Combining NASA/JPL One-Way Optical-Fiber Light-Speed Data with > > Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Doppler-Shift Data to Characterise 3-Space > > Flow" > > YOU ARE CITING CAHILL? > > AHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHH AHAH > AHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHA HAAH > HAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAH AHAH > AHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHA AHHA > HAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAH AHAH > AAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAH HAHA > HAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAH AHAA > > > > > > > since it appears the author got his hands on the total Krisher raw > > data... > > >> [..] > > >> > > The transit time to traverse any given distance is in SRT > >> > > operationally defined, and depends on the synchronization which is a > >> > > function of velocity; it is not defined by nature but by convention. > >> > > Depending on our synchronization setting, we also "set" the transfer > >> > > time that we "measure" (we can even do that after the actual > >> > > measurement!). > > >> > Again, so what? Nature cares not what we 'define' > > >> We have no alternative for what we cannot measure; and even if we > >> could, there may be practical arguments to keep it. The definition of > >> "simultaneity" started in a pragmatic way, just like that of the > >> direction of current in a wire (except that we now do know that real > >> current goes from minus to plus, although we still define it from plus > >> to minus). > > > It is very important to proper understanding... > > >> Regards, > >> Harald Yet, somehow, he keeps being able to publish his work. Are you claiming that his articles don't get reviewed before publishing? Let's see, http://pipl.com/directory/people/Reginald/Cahill And, appears to be a professor of physics no less and, appears to be in good standing at Finders University. http://www.expertguide.com.au/!ProfessorReginaldCahill!_7530.aspx And Flinders University does not appear to be a fringe organization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flinders_University And slandering Cahill just because you don't like the message is petty, and doesn't seem to be reflect his standing with the people he works for, and with. Don't like what he publishes then do the proper thing, write the editor with specific criticisms and go through the proper channels. It easy to sling slanderous accusations and quite another to actually back them up. But given your demeanor has exhibited here you appear to be immature and shallow enough to act out in such a fashion. That's your problem, not his. As I said, it appears that he still holds his position, title, and continues to get his works published by others. IOW you credibility is not worth a plug nickel. Paul Stowe
From: Surfer on 30 May 2010 12:12 On Sun, 30 May 2010 02:22:59 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > "A proper calibration of the Michelson-Morley apparatus gives a > light speed anisotropy of at least 300km/s." > >Oh, not _just_ because of the giggletastic implication that a 300km/s signal >was missed by every competently performed experiment designed to look for it >(Mueller et. al., Brillet & Hall, Hills & Hall), > No surprise there. Those experiments weren't competently designed to detect light speed anisotropy. If you read Cahill you'd know why.
From: Androcles on 30 May 2010 12:29 "Surfer" <no(a)spam.net> wrote in message news:sb3506pa6ratlr5et7n347khffrc858t8a(a)4ax.com... | On Sun, 30 May 2010 02:22:59 -0700, eric gisse | <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: | | > | > "A proper calibration of the Michelson-Morley apparatus gives a | > light speed anisotropy of at least 300km/s." | > | >Oh, not _just_ because of the giggletastic implication that a 300km/s signal | >was missed by every competently performed experiment designed to look for it | >(Mueller et. al., Brillet & Hall, Hills & Hall), | > | No surprise there. Those experiments weren't competently designed to | detect light speed anisotropy. If you read Cahill you'd know why. | "Competent" and "eric gisse" in the same post is mixing chalk and cheese with water and oil.
From: harald on 30 May 2010 14:39
On May 30, 5:59 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 29, 3:56 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > On May 29, 8:13 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [..] > > I suppose that you meant OWLT = TWLT/2. However, the > > experiment is *not* at rest in an inertial frame! > > > And yes, really: such one-way experiments illustrate perhaps better > > than clock retardation experiments that a change of state corresponds > > to a real and permanent physical change. In order to "make" > > again OWLS=TWLS, clocks would need to be re-adjusted. [..] > > > > > In theory that still doesn't permit the measurement of > > > > *absolute speed*. > > > > In fact, it does. The actual asymmetry of OWLS should be > > > based upon the total speed, not just the delta, > > > ?? This is the point where math is essential. Do you have a problem > > with either Einstein's or Lorentz's-Poincare's derivation of the LT? > > > > Further, Krisher et al probably > > > saw this. When they analyzed their complete data set they found what > > > they described in the paper as "unwanted higher frequency > > > oscillations". To remove these they removed 99% of the > > > data collected. > > > Wasn't that about a 2-way MMX experiment? If so, that brings us back > > to the topic of this thread, although not exactly... > > No... See: > > http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Krisher_et_al_199... Thanks for the link. Looking at it quickly, the paper tests SRT for velocity relative to the CBR "frame". And it seems that the speed as measured in the ECI frame is constant. If so, ideally the phase difference should remain constant according to SRT, for the same reason as with MMX (note that in addition it has the Fresnel/Fizeau effect which you had not mentioned). > > > This is completely descibed in their paper. What they > > > didn't show is the scatter plot of the data either. Given that the > > > wavelength of their signal was such, and the 21 km path long enough > > > that, the phases would have mutiple overlapses within the time frame > > > of 24 hours (given Earth speed wrt the CMBR @ ~660 KPS). This indeed > > > would have resulted in "higher frequency oscillations" > > > than a simpe 12/24 cycle. > > > Sorry, you completely lost me here. I don't even recall that > > experiment - different topic again! > > No, since we're talking about OWLS. Go to Google Scholar and > search for, > > "Combining NASA/JPL One-Way Optical-Fiber Light-Speed Data with > Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Doppler-Shift Data to Characterise > 3-Space Flow" > > since it appears the author got his hands on the total > Krisher raw data... I could not find any Krisher raw data there... > > [..] > > > > > The transit time to traverse any given distance is in > > > > SRT operationally defined, and depends on the synchronization which is a > > > > function of velocity; it is not defined by nature but by convention.. > > > > Depending on our synchronization setting, we also "set" the transfer > > > > time that we "measure" (we can even do that after the > > > > actual measurement!). > > > > Again, so what? Nature cares not what we 'define' > > > We have no alternative for what we cannot measure; and even if we > > could, there may be practical arguments to keep it. The definition of > > "simultaneity" started in a pragmatic way, just like that of the > > direction of current in a wire (except that we now do know that real > > current goes from minus to plus, although we still define > > it from plus to minus). > > It is very important to proper understanding... Yes it is. Harald |