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: Paul B. Andersen on 26 May 2005 04:14 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 25 May 2005 13:18:53 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 24 May 2005 16:48:37 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Mon, 23 May 2005 02:00:06 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine >>>>><ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) >>>>>><H@> >>>>>>wrote >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>Emissive theory drops postulate [1], and substitutes for [2] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>[2'] Lightspeed c is relative to the source. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>SR uses >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>[2"] Lightspeed is c everywhere. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>and modifies [3], twisting space and time to make [2"] fit. While >>>>>>>>SR is bizarre, the Universe so far has validated it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>so far....but it hasn't really been tested directly. >>>>>> >>>>>>And BaT has? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Yes Ghost. >>>>> >>>>>Using variable stars. >>>> >>>>Henri Wilson has shown that the BaT predicts that >>>>the binary HD80715 should be variable. >>>>It isn't. >>> >>> >>>You are raving lunatic. >>>I told you why it is NOT a variable. >> >>A comment which illustrates my words: >>"He has ever since desperately tried to explain why >> the BaT doesn't predict what his program says it predicts." >> >> >>>>So for once Henri is right. >>>>The BaT is tested quite directly. >>>>It failed the test and is thus falsified. >>> >>> >>>You are a raving lunatic. >> >>A comment which illustrates my words: >>"he is of course regretting bitterly that he >> ever tested the BaT using real, measured data." >> >> >>>>Henri Wilson has also tested the BaT on Algol. >>>>The result was that he proved that the parameters >>>>for the variable had to be wildly different from >>>>their real values if the BaT should correctly predict >>>>the light curve. >>>>So Algol is another binary known to falsify the BaT. >>>> >>>>The fact is that the BaT does not predict the light >>>>curve of a single binary correctly. >>>>Henri has realized this, that's why he doesn't dare >>>>to enter the data for any of the thousands of known >>>>binaries into his program. >>>> >>>>And he is of course regretting bitterly that he >>>>ever tested the BaT using real, measured data. >>>>He has ever since desperately tried to explain why >>>>the BaT doesn't predict what his program says it predicts. >>>> >>>>Those "explanations" are however quite entertaining. :-) >>> >>> >>>You are stubburn raving lunatic. >>>You know I am correct but wont admit to the fact. >> >>I hit a nerve, didn't I. :-) >> >>BTW, what is it you want me to admit that you are right about? >> >>Is it that your program works and show >>what the ballistic theory predicts? >> >>Or is it that your program doesn't work >>and doesn't show what the ballistic theory predicts? >> >>Paul > > > Paul, I know your faith has been waning for several years now. > > Why don't you stop fighting and accept the truth. But you didn't answer what the truth you want me to stop fighting is. Is it that your program works and show what the ballistic theory predicts? Or is it that your program doesn't work and doesn't show what the ballistic theory predicts? > Light travels across space at c wrt its original source. > Variable star light curves prove this to be true. Quite. The fact that the BaT predicts HD80715 to be a variable, which it isn't, is a very convincing proof indeed. Or do you rather mean something like this: So many weird things happen to the light on its way from the binary to the observer, that it is impossible to calculate what the ballistic theory predicts. We have to observe the light curve first, and then we can be sure that whatever it looks like, it is as predicted by the BaT. So any light curve of any star confirms BaT. Right? > That aspect of Einsteiniana is definitely wrong. Astronomers have been baffled > for years because of the red herring they have been chasing. You mean that the the Astronomers have been baffled by why binaries like HD80715 are not variables as SR does not predict they should be? Or did you think of another aspect of SR? > Since SR is an aether theory and there might be 'a local aether' around the > Earth, it is not completely impossible that some of his theory is partly > correct. At this stage, I don't know of any aspect that is. Of course you don't know of any aspect of SR that is correct, Henri. That every experiment ever done has proven the predictions of SR correct, and no experiment has ever falsified SR, is of course only a coincidence. It doesn't mean anything at all. Henri Wilson don't understand SR. So how can it be correct? THAT is the lethal argument killing SR. Paul
From: G on 26 May 2005 04:29 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 25 May 2005 13:18:53 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On Tue, 24 May 2005 16:48:37 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Henri Wilson wrote: > >>> > >>>>On Mon, 23 May 2005 02:00:06 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine > >>>><ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>In sci.physics.relativity, H@..(Henri Wilson) > >>>>><H@> > >>>>>wrote > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>Emissive theory drops postulate [1], and substitutes for [2] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>[2'] Lightspeed c is relative to the source. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>SR uses > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>[2"] Lightspeed is c everywhere. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>and modifies [3], twisting space and time to make [2"] fit. While > >>>>>>>SR is bizarre, the Universe so far has validated it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>so far....but it hasn't really been tested directly. > >>>>> > >>>>>And BaT has? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Yes Ghost. > >>>> > >>>>Using variable stars. > >>> > >>>Henri Wilson has shown that the BaT predicts that > >>>the binary HD80715 should be variable. > >>>It isn't. > >> > >> > >> You are raving lunatic. > >> I told you why it is NOT a variable. > > > >A comment which illustrates my words: > >"He has ever since desperately tried to explain why > > the BaT doesn't predict what his program says it predicts." > > > >>>So for once Henri is right. > >>>The BaT is tested quite directly. > >>>It failed the test and is thus falsified. > >> > >> > >> You are a raving lunatic. > > > >A comment which illustrates my words: > >"he is of course regretting bitterly that he > > ever tested the BaT using real, measured data." > > > >>>Henri Wilson has also tested the BaT on Algol. > >>>The result was that he proved that the parameters > >>>for the variable had to be wildly different from > >>>their real values if the BaT should correctly predict > >>>the light curve. > >>>So Algol is another binary known to falsify the BaT. > >>> > >>>The fact is that the BaT does not predict the light > >>>curve of a single binary correctly. > >>>Henri has realized this, that's why he doesn't dare > >>>to enter the data for any of the thousands of known > >>>binaries into his program. > >>> > >>>And he is of course regretting bitterly that he > >>>ever tested the BaT using real, measured data. > >>>He has ever since desperately tried to explain why > >>>the BaT doesn't predict what his program says it predicts. > >>> > >>>Those "explanations" are however quite entertaining. :-) > >> > >> > >> You are stubburn raving lunatic. > >> You know I am correct but wont admit to the fact. > > > >I hit a nerve, didn't I. :-) > > > >BTW, what is it you want me to admit that you are right about? > > > >Is it that your program works and show > >what the ballistic theory predicts? > > > >Or is it that your program doesn't work > >and doesn't show what the ballistic theory predicts? > > > >Paul > > Paul, I know your faith has been waning for several years now. > > Why don't you stop fighting and accept the truth. > Light travels across space at c wrt its original source. > Variable star light curves prove this to be true. > > That aspect of Einsteiniana is definitely wrong. Astronomers have been baffled > for years because of the red herring they have been chasing. > > Since SR is an aether theory and there might be 'a local aether' around the > Earth, it is not completely impossible that some of his theory is partly > correct. At this stage, I don't know of any aspect that is. > > > > HW. Henri also from the same Wikiepedia article "But the Michelson-Morley experiment, arguably the most famous and useful failed experiment in the history of physics, could not find this aether, suggesting instead that the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference." The MMX only proved that light moves at constant speed within a reference frame. Don't you agree? It disproved the ether, that's all. But note carefully : the speed of light WHOSE SOURCE AND TARGET BOTH ARE IN THE SAME REFERENCE FRAME. The MMX says nothing about source moving wrt to target I believe this is where the critical error was made, equating the failed MMX to a blanket assumption that light from any source will be measured as c in any other reference frame. A sort of a ballistic theory of light (since a photon is a particle) seems a bit more realistic G > 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 26 May 2005 08:11 "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote in news:1117096173.149592.210660 @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > I believe this is where the critical error was made, equating the > failed MMX > to a blanket assumption that light from any source will be measured as > c > in any other reference frame. > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html -- 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: bz on 26 May 2005 08:29 bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in news:Xns9662C2117CF6WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139: > "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote in news:1117096173.149592.210660 > @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > >> I believe this is where the critical error was made, equating the >> failed MMX >> to a blanket assumption that light from any source will be measured as >> c >> in any other reference frame. >> > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html [quote] 3.3 Tests of Light Speed from Moving Sources If the light emitted from a source moving with velocity v toward the observer has a speed c+kv in the observer's frame, then these experiments place a limit on k. Experiments Using Cosmological Sources Comstock, Phys. Rev. 10 (1910), p267. DeSitter, Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol 15, part 2, pg 1297- 1298 (1913); DeSitter, Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol 16, part 1, pg 395-- 396 (1913). Zurhellen, Astr. Nachr. 198 (1914), p1. Observations of binary stars. k < 10-6. K. Brecher, "Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the Source?", Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 1051-1054, 1236(E) (1977). Uses observations of binary pulsars to put a limit on the source- velocity dependence of the speed of light. k < 2*10-9. Heckmann, Ann. D'. Astrophys. 23 (1960), p410. Differential aberration, galaxies versus stars. These experiments are all subject to criticism due to extinction effects in the interstellar gas; see for instance J.G. Fox Am. J. Phys. 30, p297 (1962); AJP 33, 1 (1964). The standard reference for optical extinction is Born and Wolf, Principles of Optics. Experiments Using Terrestrial Sources Beckmann and Mandies, Radio. Sci. 69D (1965), p623. A moving mirror experiment. Alvaeger F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964). Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast pi0 (~0.99975 c) to be c with a resolution of 400 parts per million. Sadeh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 no. 7 (1963), p271. Measured the speed of the gammas emitted from e+e- annihilation (with center-of-mass v/c ~ 0.5) to be c within 10%. Babcock and Bergmann, Journal Opt. Soc. Amer. Vol. 54, pg 147 (1964). - Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), p B1071. Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast pi0 (~0.2 c) in an experiment specifically designed to avoid extinction effects. Their results are in complete disagreement with the assumption c + v, and are consistent with SR. Because of the high energies of the gammas in Alvaeger, extinction is not a problem for it; Filipas and Fox specifically designed their experiment to avoid extinction. [unquote] -- 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: Paul B. Andersen on 26 May 2005 09:49
G wrote: > > also from the same Wikiepedia article > > "But the Michelson-Morley experiment, arguably the most famous and > useful failed experiment in the history of physics, could not find this > aether, suggesting instead that the speed of light is constant in all > frames of reference." > > The MMX only proved that light moves at constant speed within a > reference frame. > Don't you agree? It disproved the ether, that's all. The MMX proved that the speed of light was isotropic. Since it was repeated at different times of the year (when the Earth is not stationary in the same inertial frame), it showed that the speed of light is isotropic in all inertial frames of reference, which falsifies Michelson's ether. The MMX does however NOT show that the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference, that is, it doesn't show that the speed of light is invariant. That was why the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment was done in 1932. This esperiment showed that the speed of light was the same in all inertial frames. > But note carefully : the speed of light WHOSE SOURCE AND TARGET BOTH > ARE IN THE > SAME REFERENCE FRAME. The MMX says nothing about source moving wrt to > target Right, but not news. > I believe this is where the critical error was made, equating the > failed MMX > to a blanket assumption that light from any source will be measured as > c > in any other reference frame. Neither the MMX nor the KTX falsify the ballistic theory. It is your delusion that anybody has considered the MMX to be a falsification of the ballistic theory. > > A sort of a ballistic theory of light (since a photon is a particle) > seems a bit more realistic Quite. But the ballistic theory is falsified by other experiments than the MMX. I see you have got the references fron bz. Paul |