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 16 Jun 2005 02:51 On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 13:10:05 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:202va1lrs7ndollrk8u7lrpdmuue4okd63(a)4ax.com: > >> No, quite logical really. >> I certainly wouldn't expect anything to traverse 1 billion LYs without >> something happening to its speed. > >You would expect subluminal BaT particles to GAIN speed????? It IS possible. It would depend on what they came in contact with I suppose. It light ws moving at c wrt its source and it came to a gas cloud that was moving away from the source at v, I would expect its speed to increase wrt the source, as it passed through. I wouldn't bet my house on it though.. >>> >>>Relative does not say OW or TW. >> >> OW is implied. >> Let's try a TW experiment. >> >> Consider a mirror approaching me at 0.5c. > >149,000 km/s > >> >> The experiment involves sending a light pulse towards it so that the >> pulse will strike it when it is a) 30000 m away, and b) when it is 3000 >> m away. In both cases, the pulse returns to me at 2c. > >I disagree on the 2c! > >Even if BaT were true it could only return at 1.5c, where do you get 2c? The light reflects from the mirror at the incident speed ...which is 1.5 c wrt the mirror. So the return speed is 1.5 + the mirror speed, or 2c. Get it? > >> >> In the first instance, the pulse takes time = 0.0001 secs + 0.00005 >> secs to return to me. >> The TW speed is 30000/0.00015 = 2E8 m/sec. > >200 micro seconds for the two way trip at c both ways. > >> >> For the second the pulse takes time 0.00001 + 0.000005 secs >> The TW speed is again 2E8 m/s. > >20 micro seconds for the two way trip at c both ways. > >> So one can perform a TWLS experiment using a moving reflector....but it >> doesn't tell you much unless you know the speed very precisely.. > >You can know its speed very precisely. DHR's can accept a postulated value. > >We can't move a mirror at .5 c, but a bunch of atoms could move that fast >and we can bounce a laser beam off of it and measure the time it takes for >the photons to get back to us. Too many other factors are involved. .. > >> True. A TW experiment involving relatively moving sources is perfectly >> valid. > >Finally! I still reckon it would be a waste of time. > >>>> Einstein postulated that it does...then he concocted a method of >>>> synching clocks so that the two times MUST be the same, by definition. >>>> He used circular logic to try to prove his own postulate. >>> >>>No. He started with data that showed they were the same. >> >> Einstein had NO DATA. > >He had MMX's results. the general feeling is that Einstein was not aware of the MMX result...or at least he was not particularly interested in the null result. That isn't surprising. Null resuilts usually mean the experiment or the theory behind it was flawed.. > > >>>He said 'let us postulate that light moves at c wrt all observers', what >>>would the implications be. He worked out the math and found set out ways >>>to sync clocks. He isn't using circular logic to PROVE his postulates. >>>He is using the results of his postulates to predict things. >> >> He used the clock synch definition to make the aether an unnecessary >> complication. > >Right. > >> He thought he succeeded. >> But SR breaks down completely when it tries to explain how and why light >> from differently moving source SHOULD end up traveling across space at >> the same rate. > >Wrong. S1->v____________________O v<-S2 Only a property of space could cause light pulses from differently moving sources to travel together towards observer O. > >>>Scientist set out to check his predictions. So far none have failed. >.... >> >> Well. OK, I should have said SR claims that no experiment can measure >> OWLS because such would involve two separated clocks, the synching of >> which can only be carried out using light traveling the opposite way to >> that being measured. That constitutes a TWLS experiment. > >TWLS experiments are valid for comparison of speeds. > >> SR postulates that OWLS and TWLS are always the same. > >That is SR per Henri. SR says nothing about OWLS vs TWLS. > >> ..but just to make >> sure, Einstein decided to synch his clocks so that tAB=tBA by >> definition. > >Einstein said 'clocks moving in different directions will not stay in >sync.' the clocks defining E-synch were mutually at rest. > >> If you can't se the funny side to that then YOU don't understand SR. >> >> In actual fact, Einstein did the right thing. According to the BaT, >> E-synching IS absolute synching...adn OWLS does =TWLS in any single >> frame experiment > >Within any single frame, all clocks run at the same speed. Once sync'd, >they stay in sync. InterFrame time keeping is where things start to get >interesting. I'll let you into a secret. They stay in synch even if you move them. > >.... > >>>MMX and every other experment, so far, are consistent with SR/GR. >> >> SR's explanation amount to saying "there is no fringe shift becasue >> there is no fringe shift". >> At least LET has a case. > >There is no fringe shift. The aether crutch can be thrown away. It does us >no good because it is not testable. SR opened up many fields of research, >allowing scientists to look for experiments to test its conclusions. SR completely derailed physics. > >LET was and is a dead end. Probably...although many still don't think so. > >>>> I feel a great sense of satisfaction in having straightened out >>>> Einstein's misconception. >>> >>>Your faith is strong. >>>You labor under a misconception and you don't see it. >> >> Einsein was probably on the verge of getting it right before Walter Ritz >> died suddenly. After that, the momentum of his bandwagon swept him off >> his feet. > >Your faith is strong. You labor under a misconception and you do not see >it. Apparently Ritz and Einstein were in close contact. 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: bz on 16 Jun 2005 04:20 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:0552b19m9kdh6u22bp0j9isvgf89va14gt(a)4ax.com: > (incidentally, do you have a program that saves any screen? I don't seem > to be able to find a way to do it using winf\dows) > hit your print screen button this puts a copy of the screen onto the clipboard it can then be pasted into a graphics program and trimmed, etc and saved as a file. -- 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: David Evens on 16 Jun 2005 05:36 On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 06:33:11 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: >On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 01:06:29 -0400, David Evens <devens(a)technologist.com> >wrote: >>On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 11:17:48 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: >>>On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 09:00:04 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine >>> >>>Eclipsing binaries are a separate entity. >>> >>>Don't lie about me again please Ghost. >> >>seo you claim that your previous claims that Cepheids are >>multi-stellar objects, which contain elements that are never >>observered to occur in isolation, were never made. > >that sentence contains too many negatives for me to understand. Of course such a simple sentence is beyond your understanding. It demonstrates you to be stupidly wrong. >>>>(There's a fair number of others but those two will do for a start.) >>> >>> >>>HW. >>>www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >>> >>>Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. >>>The most useful thing I have never done is prove Einstein wrong. > > >HW. >www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. >The most useful thing I have never done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: David Evens on 16 Jun 2005 05:38 On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 06:34:55 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: >On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 01:06:31 -0400, David Evens <devens(a)technologist.com> >wrote: >>On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 11:19:42 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: >>>On 11 Jun 2005 13:40:05 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>>Henri Wilson wrote: > >>>No believable has conflicted with the BaT. >>> >>>All known evidence strongly supports it. >> >>You would make that mistake, having defined 'believable' as something >>very close to "is not understood by me to demonstrate my religion to >>be mule muffins". > >Evens, my time is valuable. I am not going to waste any more trying to implant >facts into your thick skull. How valuable IS the time of a panhandler, anyway? >HW. >www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > >Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. >The most useful thing I have never done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Jerry on 16 Jun 2005 06:26
bz wrote: > H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > news:0552b19m9kdh6u22bp0j9isvgf89va14gt(a)4ax.com: > > > (incidentally, do you have a program that saves any screen? I don't seem > > to be able to find a way to do it using winf\dows) > > > > hit your print screen button > this puts a copy of the screen onto the clipboard > it can then be pasted into a graphics program and trimmed, etc and saved as > a file. Focus on a pane, press down Alt-Print Screen to get a copy of the specific pane in the clipboard. Jerry |