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 24 Jul 2005 06:53 On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 04:22:28 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:pgh5e1tas70fjeeai48ad0ql5nkk64ab0r(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:27:34 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>>news:casld1p3humorl9r8ufmnjevqr0mtm7a68(a)4ax.com... >... >>>> George, I think your ability to understand experimental physics > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>> is sadly lacking. >>> >>>ROFL! Henri, the reason I got this result is >>>because I did some research and found the >>>experimentally verified equation which is > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>applicable to the situation. >>> >>>If you want to try using some other >>>experimental formula, you are welcome. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >> It uses the wrong photon model. > >Which part of "experimentally verified" did you >fail to understand? George, "if you rfaith is strong enough, you will find evidence for it everywhere". __ Pope John 111. > >George > 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: msadkins04 on 24 Jul 2005 14:41 George Dishman wrote: <irrelevancies snipped> > Time dilation is directly measured in the Ives-Stilwell > experiment without any use of simultaneity. I suggest > you look it up. It isn't, because you can't "measure dilation" in SR without the use of synchronized clocks, and you can't synchronize clocks in SR without making assumptions about how far light travels in moving from the location of one clock to the location of the other, and those assumptions vary from frame to frame (depending upon whether the clocks are regarded as moving); and as previously noted, the dilations of SR vanish if the principle of the simultaneity of relativity is applied universally instead of treating the procedure of clock synchronization as a unique exception. > > > If it IS universally applied > > there is no longer any mathematical basis for them and they disappear > > from SR formulae results. > > > > Of course, even more fundamentally, the concepts of "at rest" and "at > > motion", much less the transition between the two, as well as those of > > "location in space" and "temporal coordinates", are all seen, upon > > rational scrutiny, to be something other than what they purport to be; > > and as what they purport to be, they are hopelessly inconsistent, > > vague, and ill-defined. > > Their meaning remains the same as in Newtonian physics. > > George Newtonian physics is no more sensible in that regard. I didn't mean to suggest that SR has transformed those concepts into something untenable, but rather that those concepts are intrinsically untenable as what they purport to be. Mark Adkins msadkins04(a)yahoo.com
From: George Dishman on 25 Jul 2005 17:39 <msadkins04(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1122230472.568432.280050(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > > George Dishman wrote: > > <irrelevancies snipped> > >> Time dilation is directly measured in the Ives-Stilwell >> experiment without any use of simultaneity. I suggest >> you look it up. > > It isn't, because you can't "measure dilation" in SR without the use of > synchronized clocks, ... I suggested you look up the experiment before commenting. George
From: George Dishman on 25 Jul 2005 17:51 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:mns6e19u5avng3hjrrl43kq3gtl20oqbqd(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 04:22:28 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:pgh5e1tas70fjeeai48ad0ql5nkk64ab0r(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 21:27:34 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >>> wrote: >>>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>>>news:casld1p3humorl9r8ufmnjevqr0mtm7a68(a)4ax.com... >>... >>>>> George, I think your ability to understand experimental physics >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>>> is sadly lacking. >>>> >>>>ROFL! Henri, the reason I got this result is >>>>because I did some research and found the >>>>experimentally verified equation which is >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>>applicable to the situation. >>>> >>>>If you want to try using some other >>>>experimental formula, you are welcome. >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> >>> It uses the wrong photon model. >> >>Which part of "experimentally verified" did you >>fail to understand? > > George, "if you rfaith is strong enough, you will find evidence for it > everywhere". > __ Pope John 111. Indeed, like pretending single variable stars are binaries with invisible companions to fit your philosophy while ignoring the unarguable evidence from Sagnac that your model for the propagation of light is wrong. The people who build radiological equipment don't give a toss about photon models, all they want is an equation that fits the data. That is what experimental physics is about, it is confirmed by reality regardless of belief. George
From: George Dishman on 25 Jul 2005 17:54
"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:i4p6e1pfpcj7sd9devjs260sjv3c7r8e72(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 04:41:05 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: <snip uncommented sections> >>Henri, whatever either of us says will not >>change the fact that the Sagnac experiment >>falsifies your Ritzian ballistic light model. >>That's why science is objective. > > George, in a four mirror sagnac, the source velocity is > not in the beam direction. Nobody has suggested it is. In BaT the velocity at launch would be the vector sum of the velocity of the source and a vector of magnitude c. The resulting path must be the one that ends on the detector. The output from a Sagnac setup gives a direct measure of the effect of the speed of the source on that of the light and the answer. George |