Speed of Light: A universal Constant?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Joan-Claude van Dirk Helps to Trivialize Special Relativity
Next: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds
From: Henri Wilson on 5 May 2005 03:17 On Wed, 4 May 2005 23:36:02 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+csm(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:8qei71lfgseh3fcdn2i7ultddn5v05glcf(a)4ax.com: > >>>news:hdrg719ufum44asb0c92h0g90moh4d8nb7(a)4ax.com: >>> >> >>> >>>> Mass doesn't change with >>>> speed. That is obvious...nor does anything else. >>> >>>Now THAT is demonstrably false. A few minutes with a particle >>>accelerator will show you are wrong. >> >> Particles BEHAVE as though their mass becomes larger. But it doesn't. > >Interesting. How do you tell the difference between 'behaves as if' and >'behaves as if'? Normally when something behaves as if, we say that it >does whatever it behaves as if. > >> Particles become more difficult to accelerate as their speed increases >> wrt the accelerating fields. That is because the particles themselves >> surround themselves with a 'reverse field bubble' which reduces the >> effective 'driving field'. > >Interesting idea. And when the reverse field bubble pops as the particle >collides with something, it acts exactly like there was extra mass, right? Something like that, yes. > >> Not only that, it is probably that fields take time to operate. > >Most things take time to operate. How much is the question. Are you saying >it would take more time to operate than if there was 'real mass'[whatever >that is]? Yes, we don't really know what mass is, do we. There is an accelerator analogy that you will hear from time to time. If you throw rocks with velocity v at a boat, what is the maximum speed the boat can attain? You see what happens. As the boat approaches v, more and more rocks have to be thrown to give it the same amount of acceleration. So, if we didn't know any better, it would apear that the boat is getting heavier. > >>>> Give a lump of rock a push and what happens? You increase its KE and >>>> its mass. >>>> SR claims it gets heavier in half the frames in the universe and >>>> lighter in the other half. >>> >>>No. SR says that if you accelerate it[enough] wrt your frame of >>>reference, from rest wrt your frame of reference, you will observe an >>>increase in mass. >> >> 'observe?' > >See, measure. Nobody has measured a fast moving mass. Its energy has been measured though. I say tat energy is bound in the reverse field bubble. It's a bit like the back emf in a choke or motor. > >>>SR says that if you (or the particle) are moving at high velocity wrt >>>each other and you match velocities, (slow the particle or speed >>>yourself up) then you will observe the particle has less mass. >> >> there you go. You prove my point. >> >> You agree that if I speed myself up the mass will appear to decrease. >> >> Obviously, my change in speed can have no effect on the mass itself. > >What makes that seem obvious. How do you measure mass? You compare the >force it exerts upon other masses to what a known mass would exert when >accelerated. Right? It isn't a question of measurement. A lump of matter doesn't change mass every time one of the infinite number of potential observers in the universe changes speed. > >> > >So, as you go faster, your mass and the mass of your test equipment all >increase. When you go to measure the mass of the mass itself, you will >measure a smaller value for its mass. That's aether theory. > >>>> So what is the obvious REAL answer. >>> >>>Reality is stranger than you think. >> >> SR is plain nonsense. > >Nonsense! Yes SR is. > >>>>>An optical illusion. >>>> >>>> More evidence of your indoctrination. >>> >>>I have an open mind. I do NOT have an emotional investment in SR. If it >>>falls, it falls. I will not be unhappy either way. That is not >>>indoctrination. >> >> You seem to have been blinded by the propaganda of hthe inbred physics >> establishment. > >Show me facts. Show me data. Show me something that SR does not explain. >Then show me a theory that does explain those facts and all other >observations and I will bow down before you and your theory. Variable star brightness curves. Look up the www.britastro.com website. See the 'long term pixel curves'. Many are just as the BaT predicts. ...and in case you don't know, I'm not the only person who has drawn attention to this fact. > >>>> They will try to wriggle out of anything that might disprove their >>>> 'religion'. >>> >>>There are times I wish I had faith in a theory. It would be so >>>comforting to live in a world of faith. >> >> Become a muslim then. > >But we were speaking of science and faith in theories. I have none. Yes you do. You are already seriously indoctrinated with Einsteiniana. Not as badly as people like Bilgey, mind you. I would even say there is hope for you because you have a mind that is capable of inquiry. SRians generally lack that quality. They merely 'quote', parrot fashion.. > >As for religions, Muslims don't have a monopoly on faith. They're not much worse that the opposition. > >>>Finding data that would disprove SR is their quest. Such would be >>>publishable and revolutionary. >>> >>>You seem to think they have a reason to REJECT such data because it >>>would challenge their faith in SR. >> >> You only have to read the typical replies from the SRian lackeys we have >> on this NG. > >I have read little for either side to be proud of. > >> Half the time they don't even read the article. They condemn it out of >> principle. Their ultimate debating 'weapon' is the claim that '"you >> don't understand relativity". > >Well, a good salesman can sell you his competitors product, explain all of >its benefits, get you enthusiastic about it, then turn around and show you >its flaws, and where his product is better. > >I don't see any good salemen around here. > >I think that if you stop running down SR and insulting those that believe >in it, show them its good points and bad points, you will have a much >better chance of getting someone to seriously consider your viewpoint. SR doesn't have any good points. Even if SDR DID predict any truths, this would merely indicate that there is a local aether. I have gone to a lot of trouble to write a program that calculates expected variable star brightness curves. These clearly show that the second postulate is wrong. Light travels across vast regions ogf space at c wrt its source. What would make it do otherwise? It also reveals that much of modern astronomy is also totally wrong. > >Those that call anyone that doesn't agree with them 'idiots and morons' >can NOT do a good idea of presenting their ideas in a logical manner. For every insult made by a non-Srian, you will see a hundred from the true believers. > >> I can honestly say th I have never seen one original contribution from >> an SRian supporter here. All the controlled discussion and creative >> stuff comes from those of us who can see what is wrong with the theory > >I have yet to see much constructive from EITHER side. What could be more constructive than the establishment of virtual proof that light travels through space at c wrt its source? there are plenty of other sound contributions here that make a mockery of SR. > >>>Perhaps that is the way you approach science, but that is not the way >>>scientists approach science. >> >> You are obviously just starting out. > >I will be 60 in a few more days. Just a boy! >I have been a scientist at heart since I >was about 9 years old. I have been at this university since 1981. I have >some idea how science works. You are getting there. Keep reading my messages and you will become an expert :) .. > >> You are in for a few rude shocks. >> Success in science depends on 1) who you know, 2) how good you are at >> writing up another person's ideas in a disguised way and 3) conforming >> to the views of the establishment. > >That doesn't sound like any of the scientist I have ever worked with. > >>>>>I can not assume WHAT? >>>>>That IF the concentration (mostly hydrogen in intersteller space) is 1 >>>>>molecule per cc, then the effect of traveling 1.4 million light years >>>>>would be the same as traveling through one meter of hydrogen at STP? >>>>> >>>>>On what basis do you challenge that assertion? Did I drop a decimal >>>>>place in my calculations? What is wrong with my 'IF...THEN'? >>>> >>>> Try doing the same with a cube of water molecules..... let the light >>>> arrive at an angle. >>> >>>A cube of water molecules [vapor]? >>>Why would I do that? The most common gas in interstellar space is >>>hydrogen, not water. >>> >>>Or do you mean a cube of liquid water? >>>Why would I do that? Water does not exist as a liquid in space. >>> >>>Your argument does not hold water. You are going to have to do better >>>than that if you want to challenge my 'IF...THEN'. >> >> I think my example showed perfectly well why you cannot make such >> assumptions. > >I don't see how you You have challenged my 'IF...THEN'. Please explain it >to me like you would to an 8th grader. To put it briefly, not everything in physics behaves linearly. In fact very few processes do. >>>> >>>> For instance it is pretty conclusively proved that lightning is caused >>>> by a flow of electric charge between clouds and the ground. >>> >>> >>>Scientists study lightning to understand it better. Your statement is >>>mostly observation, data, not a theory. >>> >>>However, the way you have stated it, it is wrong. Find the flaw in your >>>statement. >> >> I didn't go into details but the statement is basically correct. >> If charge DID NOT flow between clouds and ground there would be NO >> lightning. Agreed? > >There are may "IF ... didn't ... wouldn't" that apply to lightning. > >[quote from http://thunder.msfc.nasa.gov/primer/primer2.html] >With the initial breakdown of the air in a region of strong electric >fields, a streamer may begin to propagate downward toward the Earth. It >moves in discrete steps of about 50 meters each and is called a stepped >leader. As it grows, it creates an ionized path depositing charge along >the channel, and as the stepped leader nears the Earth, a large potential >difference is generated between the end of the leader and the Earth. >Typically, a streamer is launched from the Earth and intercepts the >descending stepped leader just before it reaches the ground. Once a >connecting path is achieved, a return stroke flies up the already ionized >path at close to the speed of light. This return stroke releases >tremendous energy, bright light and thunder. Occasionally, where a >thunderstorm grows over a tall Earth grounded object, such as a radio >antenna, an upward leader may propagate from the object toward the cloud. >This "ground-to-cloud" flash generally transfers a net positive charge to >Earth and is characterized by upward pointing branches. [unquote] Yes. I understand there is often a movement of negative ions upwards from the ground as the downward electrons approach. This exemplifies why my statement was correct. Lightning certainly involves te movement of electric charge between clouds and Earth. That is a truism. Proven to that level of definition. > >>>> The fact that we don't actually know what electricity is doesn't >>>> really matter. >>> >>>Oh it matters. We continue to try to find out what electricity is. >> >> that is an attempt to take the 'truth' to a higher level of 'proof'.. > >That is how science works. We might actually agree on that. >> >> bz, how many times do I have to inform you that nobody has ever measured >> the OWLS of ANY photon. >> >> Are you inherently stubborn or just plain dumb? > >Many people claim to have done so. You say that what they have measure >does not meet YOUR definition of OWLS. I believe that you believe you are >right. I believe that they believe they are right. > >You have not convinced me that you are right. All you have convinced me of >is that you believe you are right. The TWLS has been measured quite accurately with source at rest wrt the detector. It so happens that undr this condition TWLS = OWLS= c. That is a direct consequence of the BaT. Not SR. > >I don't consider myself inherently stubborn or just plain dumb and I don't >consider you as inherently stubborn or just plain dumb either. I think we >have a difference of opinion on many things. Well accept it. ONE WAY LIGHT SPEED HAS NEVER BEEN DIRECTLY MEASURED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. >>>> Nobody has ever measured it. >>> >>>No one has ever measured anything different. Lots of measurements have >>>been made. You claim that none count because they are not 'OWLS' >>>measurements. >> >> It tunrs out, according to the BaT, that for any TW light sl\peed >> experiment in which all components are at rest, OWLS = TWLS. >> >> TWLS is persistently measured via this type of experiment as having the >> value 'c' to high accuracy. That is even more evidence that the BaT is >> correct. >> > >When two theories are supported by the data, then the data does not >provide evidence for selecting either theory over the other. This is one >of those cases. > >You can't say that data which supports SR and BaT is evidence for BaT over >SR. You need an experiment where SR and BaT predict DIFFERENT results. The fact that OWLS=TWLS=c doesn't support SR at all. Einstein defined a new clock synching method specifically to correct for the difference he though existed between OWLS and TWLS in the aether (in which he still believed) Do you know anything about Einstein's clock synch definition. It is very important if you want to discover the true deviousness of his theory. Unwittingly however, he produced a way to absolutely synch clocks. > >>>> >>>> What makes the green photons move at a different speed from the purple >>>> laser ones. >>> >>>Your program. >> >> My program simlates what happens....plain and simple. > >Your program simulates what YOU think happens. The map is not the >territory. Your program is not reality. > >Now, if you explain exactly what your program does and how it does it and >why you think it models 'what happens' then I might be persuaded, but >lines on the screen don't convince me of anything without a lot more >explanation than your programs provide. You simply don't want the truth to weaken your faith. > >> SR is based on a quite obvious fallacy that stemmed directly from aether >> theory. > >Prove it. I have. I jsut told you. The infinitesimal elements of a vertical light beam in one frame folow diagonal trajectories ion another frame...but they do not constitute a light beam moving diagonally. Only one such element (infinitesimal) moves along each diagonal. Contrast this with the diagonally pointed laser beam in the moving frame. All the elements move along the one diagonal. > >>>> SR is nonsense. It is rehashed aether theory. >>> >>>Even if it were, that is not the insult that you seem to think it is. >>> >>>> It claims that a vertical beam in one frame appears diagonal in >>>> another that is moving. However when you point a laser at that same >>>> angle in the moving frame, its photons clearly don't move at the same >>>> speed. >>> >>>I doubt that you have been able to make such an observation in reality. >> >> I don't have to. The stupidity of SR's very foundations are obvious. > >If it were obvious, then everyone would see it. Just because it seems >obvious to you does not imply it is obvious. Nobody who beleives it is nonsense and wants a career in science would dare say it is nonsense. They would fail their exams and be kicked out. > >You have failed to make it obvious to many others. Does that mean they are >stupid or does it mean you are not as good at conveying 'what is obvious >to you' to others. It is well nigh impossible to change a person's faith. Ask any suicide bombers. Relativity is a true religion. It will remain in existence until some Chinese researcher performs a direct OWLS comparison experiment like the (moon relay) one I suggested. > >>>Your program does what you tell it to do. The photons don't care about >>>your program. >> >> So all the simulations used to desing engineering marvels don't work, >> either? > >I use simulations frequently. Our department uses many different kinds of >simulations every day. To use a simulation I must know what they are based >upon and their limitations. > >I have NO idea what your 'simulation' is based on nor what its limitations >are. It is based on the simple fact that light travels across space at c+v wrt it source. There is absolutely nothing sinister about it. Others have done exactly the same before. My program simply enables many calclations to be performed in a very short time. >>>> >>>> Just an illustration....not a quantitative example at all. >>> >>>I suspect that a photon is only one cycle. >> >> You suspect..... > >That's right. That is my private, unsupported by any evidence 'theory' >that is consistent with all I know but subject to revision as soon as I >get data that contradicts it. You could be right. I think it is a pair of spinning +/- quarks. 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: Sue... on 5 May 2005 03:25 My Dear friend Henri, It is the electon that couples it all together. The Electron knows the speed of light. And it know how much energy separatated it from it's sister Positron. Electron-positron Annihilation and Pair Creation. Compton Scattering http://teachers.web.cern.ch/teachers/archiv/HST2002/Bubblech/mbitu/electron-positron.htm Kind regards, Sue...
From: G on 5 May 2005 08:32 Henri Why don't you specifically list verifiable contradictions - logical contradictions and experimental disproofs? I think it is insructive to discuss each one in turn and bring some other dark grey matter into the picture BTW the evidence on Cephids does not seem as strongly in favour of SRT as I thought. G
From: bz on 5 May 2005 08:20 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:4pej71lcp6r8tqrijcc05ibi6rv3b7dure(a)4ax.com: > On Wed, 4 May 2005 23:36:02 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+csm(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:8qei71lfgseh3fcdn2i7ultddn5v05glcf(a)4ax.com: >> > >>>>news:hdrg719ufum44asb0c92h0g90moh4d8nb7(a)4ax.com: ..... >>> Particles become more difficult to accelerate as their speed increases >>> wrt the accelerating fields. That is because the particles themselves >>> surround themselves with a 'reverse field bubble' which reduces the >>> effective 'driving field'. >> >>Interesting idea. And when the reverse field bubble pops as the particle >>collides with something, it acts exactly like there was extra mass, >>right? > > Something like that, yes. If it is exactly like, then how do we tell the difference? >>> Not only that, it is probably that fields take time to operate. >> >>Most things take time to operate. How much is the question. Are you >>saying it would take more time to operate than if there was 'real >>mass'[whatever that is]? > > Yes, we don't really know what mass is, do we. No, we don't know. ..... > You see what happens. As the boat approaches v, more and more rocks have > to be thrown to give it the same amount of acceleration. > So, if we didn't know any better, it would apear that the boat is > getting heavier. Exactly like it is getting heavier (even though we have thrown away mass). BTW we don't know any better. ..... >>>>No. SR says that if you accelerate it[enough] wrt your frame of >>>>reference, from rest wrt your frame of reference, you will observe an >>>>increase in mass. >>> >>> 'observe?' >> >>See, measure. > > Nobody has measured a fast moving mass. Its energy has been measured > though. I say tat energy is bound in the reverse field bubble. It's a > bit like the back emf in a choke or motor. Does it act differently than Einstein's relativistic mass? ..... >>> Obviously, my change in speed can have no effect on the mass itself. >> >>What makes that seem obvious? How do you measure mass? You compare the >>force it exerts upon other masses to what a known mass would exert when >>accelerated. Right? > > It isn't a question of measurement. > A lump of matter doesn't change mass every time one of the infinite > number of potential observers in the universe changes speed. It only 'changes mass' when it is observed by one of the observers. The potential observers have to stop being 'potential' and become actual. >>So, as you go faster, your mass and the mass of your test equipment all >>increase. When you go to measure the mass of the mass itself, you will >>measure a smaller value for its mass. > > That's aether theory. SR/GR, not aether. ..... >>>>>>An optical illusion. >>>>> >>>>> More evidence of your indoctrination. >>>> >>>>I have an open mind. I do NOT have an emotional investment in SR. If >>>>it falls, it falls. I will not be unhappy either way. That is not >>>>indoctrination. >>> >>> You seem to have been blinded by the propaganda of hthe inbred physics >>> establishment. >> >>Show me facts. Show me data. Show me something that SR does not explain. >>Then show me a theory that does explain those facts and all other >>observations and I will bow down before you and your theory. > > Variable star brightness curves. > Look up the www.britastro.com website. > See the 'long term pixel curves'. No such link on that website. I eventually found http://www.britastro.org/vss/baalc.html but not sure if that is what you are talking about. I don't see any of those 'curves' that PROVE anything about BaT vs SR. > Many are just as the BaT predicts. Which ones? Does BaT predict based on known orbital parameters of the star in question or do you mean that BaT can generate similar looking curves? If the latter, do you know for a fact that SR models can NOT generate similar curves? > ..and in case you don't know, I'm not the only person who has drawn > attention to this fact. I am not surprised. ..... >>But we were speaking of science and faith in theories. I have none. > > Yes you do. You are already seriously indoctrinated with Einsteiniana. > Not as badly as people like Bilgey, mind you. I would even say there is > hope for you because you have a mind that is capable of inquiry. > SRians generally lack that quality. They merely 'quote', parrot > fashion.. The manner in which you make your approach may have something to do with how your argument is received. ..... >>a good salesman can sell you his competitors product, explain all >>of its benefits, get you enthusiastic about it, then turn around and >>show you its flaws, and where his product is better. >> >>I don't see any good salemen around here. >> >>I think that if you stop running down SR and insulting those that >>believe in it, show them its good points and bad points, you will have a >>much better chance of getting someone to seriously consider your >>viewpoint. > > SR doesn't have any good points. Then you don't know your competition well enough. And you seem to have a 'bad attitude' toward it. A really good salesman doesn't run down the competition, he can explain it and make it sound good. He can make that his product it better. When you say SR doesn't have any good points, you make a serious error. If SR didn't have any good points, it would never have been accepted by anyone. You must understand it better than they did if you are going to convince them that yours is better. > Even if SDR DID predict any truths, > this would merely indicate that there is a local aether. I think you make an overgeneralization. > I have gone to a lot of trouble to write a program that calculates > expected variable star brightness curves. I have seen your program and played with it a little. Generate SR curves for comparison and I may believe it a bit better. > These clearly show that the > second postulate is wrong. No. It shows you can generate curves but it doesn't make clear how they are generated and it doesn't give a comparison to SR curves. > Light travels across vast regions ogf space > at c wrt its source. What would make it do otherwise? And at c wrt every bit of matter in those vast regions of space. > It also reveals that much of modern astronomy is also totally wrong. Show me. >>Those that call anyone that doesn't agree with them 'idiots and morons' >>can NOT do a good idea of presenting their ideas in a logical manner. > > For every insult made by a non-Srian, you will see a hundred from the > true believers. I don't care who started the name calling. It reflects poorly on both. >>> I can honestly say th I have never seen one original contribution from >>> an SRian supporter here. All the controlled discussion and creative >>> stuff comes from those of us who can see what is wrong with the theory >> >>I have yet to see much constructive from EITHER side. > > What could be more constructive than the establishment of virtual proof > that light travels through space at c wrt its source? A clear comparison. Take some of the data like http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00058-di.gif and show the orbital parameters of the stars needed to fit the curve. Do this under SR and under BaT. Show why BaT gives a more likely set of stars. > there are plenty of other sound contributions here that make a mockery > of SR. Mocking something is not the point. It proves nothing. ..... >>>>>>I can not assume WHAT? >>>>>>That IF the concentration (mostly hydrogen in intersteller space) is >>>>>>1 molecule per cc, then the effect of traveling 1.4 million light >>>>>>years would be the same as traveling through one meter of hydrogen >>>>>>at STP? >>>>>> >>>>>>On what basis do you challenge that assertion? Did I drop a decimal >>>>>>place in my calculations? What is wrong with my 'IF...THEN'? >>>>> >>>>> Try doing the same with a cube of water molecules..... let the light >>>>> arrive at an angle. >>>> >>>>A cube of water molecules [vapor]? >>>>Why would I do that? The most common gas in interstellar space is >>>>hydrogen, not water. >>>> >>>>Or do you mean a cube of liquid water? >>>>Why would I do that? Water does not exist as a liquid in space. >>>> >>>>Your argument does not hold water. You are going to have to do better >>>>than that if you want to challenge my 'IF...THEN'. >>> >>> I think my example showed perfectly well why you cannot make such >>> assumptions. >> >>I don't see how you You have challenged my 'IF...THEN'. Please explain >>it to me like you would to an 8th grader. > > To put it briefly, not everything in physics behaves linearly. > In fact very few processes do. That is how you would explain it to an 8th grader? Absorbtion is linear for most compounds at low concentrations. The absorbtion of light by hydrogen gas and by water vapor are linear at low concentrations up to and including 1 atm. It is called the Beer-Lambert law. http://elchem.kaist.ac.kr/vt/chem-ed/spec/beerslaw.htm ...... > > Yes. I understand there is often a movement of negative ions upwards > from the ground as the downward electrons approach. One of those needs to be positive. Like charges repel. > This exemplifies why my statement was correct. > Lightning certainly involves te movement of electric charge between > clouds and Earth. That is a truism. Proven to that level of definition. Definitions need no proof. They must be accepted for communication to take place. >>>>> The fact that we don't actually know what electricity is doesn't >>>>> really matter. >>>> >>>>Oh it matters. We continue to try to find out what electricity is. >>> >>> that is an attempt to take the 'truth' to a higher level of 'proof'.. >> >>That is how science works. > > We might actually agree on that. Probably not. Higher level of proof means it has withstood attacks longer, not that it has been proven. >>> bz, how many times do I have to inform you that nobody has ever >>> measured the OWLS of ANY photon. >>> >>> Are you inherently stubborn or just plain dumb? >> >>Many people claim to have done so. You say that what they have measure >>does not meet YOUR definition of OWLS. I believe that you believe you >>are right. I believe that they believe they are right. >> >>You have not convinced me that you are right. All you have convinced me >>of is that you believe you are right. > > The TWLS has been measured quite accurately with source at rest wrt the > detector. It so happens that undr this condition TWLS = OWLS= c. > That is a direct consequence of the BaT. Not SR. You say that by SR, TWLS =/= OWLS???? >>I don't consider myself inherently stubborn or just plain dumb and I >>don't consider you as inherently stubborn or just plain dumb either. I >>think we have a difference of opinion on many things. > > Well accept it. > ONE WAY LIGHT SPEED HAS NEVER BEEN DIRECTLY MEASURED UNDER ANY > CIRCUMSTANCE. Oh, now that you type it in all caps, I MUST accept it? Come on, "you argue but you do not peruade." >>>>> Nobody has ever measured it. >>>>No one has ever measured anything different. Lots of measurements have >>>>been made. You claim that none count because they are not 'OWLS' >>>>measurements. >>> It tunrs out, according to the BaT, that for any TW light sl\peed >>> experiment in which all components are at rest, OWLS = TWLS. >>> TWLS is persistently measured via this type of experiment as having >>> the value 'c' to high accuracy. That is even more evidence that the >>> BaT is correct. >>When two theories are supported by the data, then the data does not >>provide evidence for selecting either theory over the other. This is one >>of those cases. >>You can't say that data which supports SR and BaT is evidence for BaT >>over SR. You need an experiment where SR and BaT predict DIFFERENT >>results. > > The fact that OWLS=TWLS=c doesn't support SR at all. It doesn't? > Einstein defined a new clock synching method specifically to correct for > the difference he though existed between OWLS and TWLS in the aether (in > which he still believed) > Do you know anything about Einstein's clock synch definition. It is very > important if you want to discover the true deviousness of his theory. I am familiar with his thought experiment. > Unwittingly however, he produced a way to absolutely synch clocks. unwittingly? ..... >>>>> What makes the green photons move at a different speed from the >>>>> purple laser ones. >>>>Your program. >>> My program simlates what happens....plain and simple. >>Your program simulates what YOU think happens. The map is not the >>territory. Your program is not reality. >> >>Now, if you explain exactly what your program does and how it does it >>and why you think it models 'what happens' then I might be persuaded, >>but lines on the screen don't convince me of anything without a lot more >>explanation than your programs provide. > > You simply don't want the truth to weaken your faith. I want the truth. Provide facts rather than assertions. Data rather than claims. The details of the calculations made in your programs? Posting the source code for the programs would help, but an explanation of why you do the calculations you do would also be desirable. >>> SR is based on a quite obvious fallacy that stemmed directly from >>> aether theory. >> >>Prove it. > > I have. I jsut told you. The infinitesimal elements of a vertical light > beam in one frame folow diagonal trajectories ion another frame...but > they do not constitute a light beam moving diagonally. > Only one such element (infinitesimal) moves along each diagonal. > Contrast this with the diagonally pointed laser beam in the moving > frame. All the elements move along the one diagonal. How can anyone tell the difference when they intercept the two beams? >>>>> SR is nonsense. It is rehashed aether theory. >>>> >>>>Even if it were, that is not the insult that you seem to think it is. >>>> >>>>> It claims that a vertical beam in one frame appears diagonal in >>>>> another that is moving. However when you point a laser at that same >>>>> angle in the moving frame, its photons clearly don't move at the >>>>> same speed. >>>> >>>>I doubt that you have been able to make such an observation in >>>>reality. >>> >>> I don't have to. The stupidity of SR's very foundations are obvious. >> >>If it were obvious, then everyone would see it. Just because it seems >>obvious to you does not imply it is obvious. > > Nobody who beleives it is nonsense and wants a career in science would > dare say it is nonsense. > They would fail their exams and be kicked out. No. If they had experimental data to support their claim, they would get their PhD and a nobel prize. >>You have failed to make it obvious to many others. Does that mean they >>are stupid or does it mean you are not as good at conveying 'what is >>obvious to you' to others. > > It is well nigh impossible to change a person's faith. > Ask any suicide bombers. > Relativity is a true religion. Not among true scientists. > > It will remain in existence until some Chinese researcher performs a > direct OWLS comparison experiment like the (moon relay) one I suggested. My moving source experiment would be a lot cheaper. Besides if your H-aether exists around the moon, and your other suppositions are correct, moon relay would fail to show a difference. >>>>Your program does what you tell it to do. The photons don't care about >>>>your program. >>> So all the simulations used to desing engineering marvels don't work, >>> either? >>I use simulations frequently. Our department uses many different kinds >>of simulations every day. To use a simulation I must know what they are >>based upon and their limitations. >>I have NO idea what your 'simulation' is based on nor what its >>limitations are. > > It is based on the simple fact that light travels across space at c+v > wrt it source. There is absolutely nothing sinister about it. > Others have done exactly the same before. My program simply enables many > calclations to be performed in a very short time. You don't show how your results differ from those predicted by SR. >>>>> Just an illustration....not a quantitative example at all. >>>>I suspect that a photon is only one cycle. >>> You suspect..... >>That's right. That is my private, unsupported by any evidence 'theory' >>that is consistent with all I know but subject to revision as soon as I >>get data that contradicts it. > You could be right. > I think it is a pair of spinning +/- quarks. You could be right and left. -- 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: Henri Wilson on 5 May 2005 17:43
On 4 May 2005 23:31:52 -0700, "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > >Henir, >Study some Weber. >Coulomb... the comb attracts the pith balls. >That is light. >Sue... Oh Thanks! I was under the impression it was considerably more complicated. How silly of me. 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. |