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 25 Jul 2005 18:53 On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:51:10 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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> >>>Which part of "experimentally verified" did you >>>fail to understand? >> >> George, "if your faith 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. What happens near Earth and what happens in empty space are totally different topics. > >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. Funny how so many variable stars fit the BaT predictions, eh? I suppose that isn't experimental evidence though, eh George? > >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 27 Jul 2005 18:49 George Dishman wrote: > <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 I have. I suggest you try to grasp the basic requirements of measurement processes in SR. They may not always be stated explicitly but they are always implied. Mark Adkins msadkins04(a)yahoo.com
From: George Dishman on 29 Jul 2005 09:55 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:b6rae1lksg8anak0sftqi7ck0mfbgtuf8j(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:51:10 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"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> > >>>>Which part of "experimentally verified" did you >>>>fail to understand? >>> >>> George, "if your faith 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. > > What happens near Earth and what happens in empty space are totally > different > topics. The laws of nature are universal by definition so the way light interacts with particles can be determined. How it behaves at a macroscopic level can then be predicted by combining many such interactions. >>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. > > Funny how so many variable stars fit the BaT predictions, eh? None so far? You gave me one example but the distance was wrong and when I corrected that it didn't match at all. You also didn't have any scales on the axes so I couldn't confirm if you had matched the velocity curve before deriving the intensity curve. I haven't seen the results Paul mentioned for HD80715 but I pointed out to you many months ago that a non-eclipsing spectroscopic binary which was not variable was the correct test, matching variables proves nothing. Paul's comments suggest your result was what I expected, the star should be variable but isn't. > I suppose that isn't experimental evidence though, eh George? It is Henri, and what I have seen it again falsifies your theory. George
From: George Dishman on 29 Jul 2005 10:03 <msadkins04(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1122504552.598720.177880(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > George Dishman wrote: >> <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 > > I have. I suggest you try to grasp the basic requirements of > measurement processes in SR. The experiment requires measurement of the frequency emitted only, no clock synchronisation is involved. > They may not always be stated explicitly > but they are always implied. No clocks are used in the experiment, implied or otherwise, and there is no part of the experiment in which any attempt is made to synchronise anything. George
From: msadkins04 on 30 Jul 2005 17:20
George Dishman wrote: > <msadkins04(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1122504552.598720.177880(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > > George Dishman wrote: > >> <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 > > > > I have. I suggest you try to grasp the basic requirements of > > measurement processes in SR. > > The experiment requires measurement of > the frequency emitted only, no clock > synchronisation is involved. > > > They may not always be stated explicitly > > but they are always implied. > > No clocks are used in the experiment, > implied or otherwise, and there is no > part of the experiment in which any > attempt is made to synchronise anything. > > George Of course clocks are used in the experiment. What do you suppose "time dilation" refers to? That a clock moving at a velocity v with respect to a reference system S goes slow by a factor of gamma(SR) compared to clocks at rest in S. So, first of all, the moving light source is itself a clock. Second, the experiment concerns itself with transverse waves, which means that light is sent out from the source to the observer at a right angle to the direction of motion of the source. Effectively, this involves letting a light source at the origin in S' pass through the origin of S at time t'=t=0. (This is an ideal simplification, of course.) Without the use of synchronized clocks in each reference frame you cannot do this. Note that a signal sent out at a time t'<0 in S' while the source is approaching the observer at the spatial original of S will be received at a time t=pt' + (-upt')/c = (1 - u/c)pt'. In SR, the very *postulates* of "rest frame" and "moving frame" imply the existence of synchronized clocks throughout both. All measurement procedures in SR require the preparation of synchronized clocks. Experimental abstracts aren't explicit about such matters because they are fundamental. Mark Adkins msadkins04(a)yahoo.com |