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: curiousjohn4 on 24 Jun 2005 19:41 Sam Wormley wrote: > The speed of light is so well tested that it has become > a *defined* constant of nature! "Speed of light may have changed recently" http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6092
From: Jerry on 25 Jun 2005 00:49 Henri Wilson wrote: > You are very confused. Henri, The cesium atoms in a fountain clock are in free fall. The cesium atoms in a GPS satellite are in free fall. The cesium atoms in a GLONASS satellite are in free fall. The rubidium atoms in a ground-based glass cell oscillator are -not- in free fall. The rubidium atoms in a GPS satellite -are- in free fall. Yet the cesium atoms in a ground-based fountain clock, a GPS clock, and a GLONASS clock all "tick" at different rates precisely as predicted by GR. Yet the rubidium atoms in a ground-based glass cell oscillator and a GPS clock all "tick" at different rates precisely as predicted by GR. You claim that the GR prediction is sheer coincidence, that the reason for their different rates is that the free-fall cesium atoms in a fountain clock, the non-free-fall rubidium atoms in a glass cell oscillator, the free fall cesium or rubidium atoms in a GPS satellite, and the free- fall cesium atoms in a GLONASS satellite cut through Earth's magnetic fields at different rates. So let me reiterate: GPS satellites orbit in six orbital planes, and cross Earth's magnetic fields at different angles. YET ALL GPS CLOCKS ARE CONSISTENT WITH EACH OTHER. Hence, cesium beam clocks and rubidium glass cell oscillators are insensitive to variations in the rate at which they are "cutting the Earth's fields." GLONASS satellites orbit in three orbital planes, and cross Earth's magnetic fields at different angles. YET ALL GLONASS CLOCKS ARE CONSISTENT WITH EACH OTHER. Hence, cesium beam clocks are insensitive to variations in the rate at which they are "cutting the Earth's fields." Your argument is is totally bogus. Jerry
From: George Dishman on 25 Jun 2005 03:34 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:p36pb1pd728qc5vdmv55ge0i4nsp0r5sbm(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 20:05:24 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:ja5lb1lnt5h52n0vtl14n0rrfd815d9of3(a)4ax.com... >> >>> These are all either TWLS experiments or OWLS isotropy experiments with >>> all >>> parts mutually at rest. >>> In that latter case the BaT expects OWLS to be isotropic. >>> >>> No experiment has directly measured the speed of light from a moving >>> source. >> >>Sagnac measures the anisotropy of light from a >>moving source. >> >>> Until recently, the means were not available to do so. >> >>It was done in 1913. > > PLease enlarge.. IIRC, Ritz published his theory in 1908, Sagnac performed his experiment in 1913. Our real discussion is in another reply but each time you say it hasn't been done, I'll point out it has. I can understand if you don't have time to address the result, at least stop pretending it doesn't exist. George
From: George Dishman on 25 Jun 2005 05:07 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:ag5pb1p7a4e8u29ohb7naivkad0g7co5nn(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:18:24 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:rnleb15u44ktsf854icb6g6egpkrpaa1e2(a)4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:24:29 +0100, "George Dishman" > >> >>The corners can be very curved. The worst I had >>was documenting a thryristor close to trigerring >>due to thermal drift. It was almost identical to >>your curve for RT Aur. >> >>However, both an RO and your program fail in one >>point, if you checked the Hip. curve I mentioned, >>there is a clear kink in the 'straight' part. > > see http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html http://www.rssd.esa.int/Hipparcos/curvespdf/A/30827.pdf I'm not going to spend any more time on your cepheid claims though, I want to see what changes Anderson et al have in the 2005 version of their paper. I'd missed that revision. <snip cepeids> >>> There is no reason to believe that all starlight is specifically >>> designed >>> to >>> leave its source at exactly c relative to little planet Earth. >> >>Of course not, and neither of us think that. > > You say one thing and mean another. > What do you really think? Apart from the odd joke now and then, I mean _exactly_ what I say. My thinking is based on the physics of Newton, LET, Ritz, or SR as appropriate, I have no problem keeping them separate. I don't think Newton wasn't explicit about light but none of other three suggests the model you state. My view is that GR and QM will both turn out to be subsets of something deeper but I have some doubts that we will find out what that is in my lifetime. >>> Only a person who still clings to the religious notion that the Earth is >>> the >>> centre of the universe would want to believe that. >> >>I completely agree, it would be nonsensical. > > and that is WHY SR is nonsensical. If you are serious, that would be why your strawman alternative to SR is nonsensical. >>> The same applies to the BB. >> >>Nope, it is based on the Cosmological >>Principle which eliminates there being >>any preferred location. > > It is nonsense. The Cosmological Principle says the universe is homogenous and isotropic at large scales. What is nonsensical about that? > Light smply loses energy as it travels. Tired light doesn't produce a workable model. The SNe Ia data for example rules it out. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm > there are otehr reasons for the galactic redshift. Its main cause is that > we > lie on the outskirts of our galaxy and most light reaching us is more than > proportionally redshifted while escaping from the centres of other > galaxies. That would produce a shift which was independent of distance. The observed shift is proportional. >>> It is purely a creationist theory. >> >>True, but it is a scientific theory, not a >>matter of faith. It is the only scientific >>model we have that fits the observations >>and makes quantitative predictions, though >>I think there is a lot more to learn yet. > > I doubt if the majority of scientists now supports the BB concept. You have some bizarre ideas. The only group I know of is Narlikar and a few others and even they have given up on a truly steady state model and gone over to quasi-steady state in which the universe shrinks to a small size then rebounds pretty much as in the BB. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0211036 but their work has significant errors http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm George
From: curiousjohn4 on 25 Jun 2005 11:34
I believe Nasa JPL will do just fine -> http://horology.jpl.nasa.gov/quantum/pub/newphysicswithaclock.pdf It's on Nasa's JPL Horology area. ho·rol·o·gy n. 1. The science of measuring time. If you do a more strict google search on -> "Speed of light" changed billion years you'll get nearly 53,000 search results. |