OWLS is not equal to c
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus?
Next: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
From: Henri Wilson on 6 Jun 2005 06:46 On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 03:00:23 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >In sci.physics, Sam Wormley ><swormley1(a)mchsi.com> > wrote >on Fri, 03 Jun 2005 15:16:11 GMT ><%u_ne.9801$_o.6035(a)attbi_s71>: >> kenseto wrote: >>> "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote in message >>> news:reZne.9383$x96.8840(a)attbi_s72... >>> >>>> >>>> Known xyzt coordinates of GPS satellites. >>>> Known xyzt coordinates of GPS Receiver. >>>> One can figure (measure) the one way speed of light 24/7. >>> >>> >>> That's the reason I call you a runt of the SRians. In order to >>> know the xyzt coordinates you need to use an assumed one-way >>> speed of light. >>> >>> Ken Seto >>> >>> >> >> Wrong again Seto--Satellite xyzt coordinates are determined >> from ephemeris data and Receiver xyzt coordinates can be >> had from previous survey data. >> > >All meter definitions are currently based on lightspeed. >There is, of course, a good reason for this, but it does >make the above somewhat self-defeating. (The previous >definition, based on wavelengths of Kr-86, had more error >than the deltas seen by earth observers of GPS satellites.) > >A better experiment, should it ever come to fruition, is >along the lines of H. Wilson's. Launch three satellites. >Two land on the moon, for calibration. The nearer one will >serve as a relay, with known delay characteristics; the farther >one as a pulse generator to test the relay. > >The third satellite continues on and is another pulse generator. >Earthbased observers can directly observe all three satellites. > >The experiment will, of course, show nothing, ideally to a high >degree of precision. > >In a pinch, the third satellite is largely unnecessary; >neutron stars moving relative to the Earth make dandy >clocks. In certain relativistic star pairs they make even >better confirmers of various GR elements, as well. > >Gravity Probe B is continuing. I'll admit I'm not sure how >BaT or KensetoTheory will interpret its results. For >its part GR predicts a torque, AIUI; this torque has already >been confirmed, although with lower accuracy, by observing >the orbits of existing satellites. > >And then there's H. Wilson's claims that, somehow, all >Cepheid variables must be eclipsing binaries with a large, >cool star and a hot star co-orbiting, despite the fact >that in order to explain the periods we're seeing they'd >have to be nearly touching -- if not outright swallowing >each other. Ghost, you are misquoting me. I said nothing of the sort. I will sue you. I said very few would be eclipsing even though they would on average be much closer than most binary pairs. > >*cough* > >As for KensetoTheory, I'd have to study it. I'm not really >sure it would be all that fruitful. :-) Seto follows the aetherist line. The truth is, there is no aether adn OLWS=TWLS=c if all compoonents are at rest. Also, E-synching IS ABSOLUTE SYNCHING. According to the BaT, light will move at c wrt every component in the apparatus and therefore the travel time in both directions will be the same. All TWLS and OWLS isotropy experiments agree with this. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Henri Wilson on 6 Jun 2005 06:55 On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 01:00:07 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >In sci.physics, Sam Wormley ><swormley1(a)mchsi.com> > wrote >on Sat, 04 Jun 2005 03:39:14 GMT >>> >>> All meter definitions are currently based on lightspeed. >>> There is, of course, a good reason for this, but it does >>> make the above somewhat self-defeating. >> >> Since distance is defined by light speed... you are essentially >> condemning *all* measurements of the speed of light as self- >> defeating? > >It's a bit problematic to measure lightspeed by defining the meter >in terms of lightspeed. This is quite funny really. Which light speed are you referring to? You cannot use OWLS because it has no particular value. Distance can be meaured with TWLS because it IS effectively constant in most practical situations. If that were not true, surveying would be in chaos. >Of course, like I said -- the Kr-86 >definition did not have sufficient accuracy and all measurements >of lightspeed, before or since, are consistent with an exact >definition of lightspeed as 299792458 m/s -- so why not use it? >However, this does leave an opening for die-hard non-SRians to >assert that there is a conspiracy out there. (Of course, there >isn't anyway, but facts never got in the way of a good rant. :-) ) OWLS=TWLS=C, if everything is mutually at rest. > >Personally, I'm not sure how to prove all of this, but >it's clear that there's quite different results predicted >from (my interpretation of) BaT and (my hopefully correct >interpretation of) SR, when it comes to moving objects. > >I'll admit I'd like to see an experiment where a satellite >enters Earth's orbit going at 30 km/s in the direction >*opposite* (retrograde) to Earth. Every six months or >so one could measure the delta-frequency shift as the >satellite passes by; for a reference signal of 100 MHz >one should get a SR-consistent shift of about 8 Hz, if my >computations are correct. BaT (I think) predicts about >40 kHz. > >Extremely definitive; in fact, so much so that this >experiment needn't require a retrograde satellite; a >satellite otherwise destined to escape the Solar System >would be more than enough. Such a satellite would have >a velocity of about 12 km/s (4 * 10^-5 c) with respect to >the Earth. BaT predicts a 4 kHz adjustment to a 100 MHz >reference signal. SR predicts 0.16 Hz -- if I'm doing this >all correctly. > >No doubt such considerations are routine for such missions >as the ones to Mars, and the recent Cassini/Huyguens affair. > >And then there's the LHC specifications. I wonder why they >assume protons moving at lightspeed (or so close to lightspeed >that it makes no difference to the pulse frequency)? > >Obduh: Duh. :-) HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Jerry on 6 Jun 2005 07:29 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 1 Jun 2005 14:57:25 -0700, "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" > <sbharris(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >We've had some people arguing that one way speed of light velocities > >from stars are dithered by the extinction and re-radiation effects of > >passage through atmospheres. This turns out to be an OLD argument that > >goes all the way back to Ritz in about 1913. Experiments in the 1960's > >disproved it finally by using gamma rays, which are not absorbed > >re-radiated, and thus retain their initial speed, whatever that is. And > >that turns out to be c, even if the gammas come from very fast objects. > >Conclusion: Einstein was right. > > You Silly twisted boy! (sigh) Download Filipas and Fox and -read- it. All of your objections are answered. You have nothing to stand on. http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/Filippas_Fox_1964.pdf > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. You ARE a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. Jerry
From: bz on 6 Jun 2005 07:44 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:30a8a11lhguqj8peohbfp0c25auhismk4r(a)4ax.com: > According to the BaT, light will move at c wrt every component in the > apparatus and therefore the travel time in both directions will be the > same. > how can it do so when different components are traveling at different velocities wrt the apparatus. For example, in a paricle accelerator. I thought BaT said light will move at c wrt the emitting body irrespective of the motions of anything else in the universe. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: kenseto on 6 Jun 2005 09:07
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:ka98a1501qj0a0fj4tbrst10mojilnk2b8(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 14:36:08 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > >The one-way speed of light is not c if the distance of separation between > >the two synchronized (using slow transport of the clocks in the opposite > >directions) clocks is measured using a physical ruler instead of using a > >light second to measure length. Why? Using light-second to measure length is > >the same as defining the speed of light equal to c as follows: > >The definition for a meter=1/299,792,458 light-second > >Therefore 1 light-second=299,792,458m > >Therefore the speed of light is by definition =1 light-second/1 second > > = > >299,792,458m/1 second > > Ken, OWLS can theoretically be anything from + infintiy to - infinity. > > But it is never likely to be very different from c because the RMS velocity at > 3K is pretty small. > Very few objects in the whole universe are moving at anywhere near c wrt > anything else. > > In a TW light speed experiment in which the components are mutually at rest, > OWLS=TWLS=c (in a vacuum). Assertion is not an arguement. Ken Seto |